Transcript Document

Culturally Competent
Psychological Practice Part 4:
Culturally Responsive RTI—School
Psychologists as Cultural Interventionists.
Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D.
St. Johns University
Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Ed.D.
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
Culturally Responsive Intervention

What constitutes sufficient “opportunity to learn?”

What works, and with whom?


What makes an intervention culturally or linguistically
appropriate?
How will ELLs “catch up” on experiential vs. discrete
skills and abilities?

What research guides intervention programs?

How does RTI measure up to the “Standards?”
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs with RTI

Baker & Good (1995) investigated the reliability,
validity, and sensitivity of English CBM passages
with bilingual Hispanic students and concluded
that it was as reliable and valid for them as for
native English speakers despite the presence of
differential growth rates.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs with RTI

Gersten & Woodward (1994) suggested that
CBM could be used to develop growth rates
for ELL students, but erroneously concluded
that ELL students generally continue to make
academic progress toward grade-level norms
whereas ELL students with LD do not.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs with RTI
In describing a basic three-tier RTI model, one of
the stated potential benefits included:
“Increased fairness in the assessment process,
particularly for minority students”
Kovaleski & Prasse, 2004
Although it has long been assumed that RTI will benefit
ELLs by avoiding the types of biases associated with
standardized testing, this premise does not appear to be
wholly supported by research.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 1 Issues
Tier 1 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:
Determine whether effective instruction is in place
for groups of students
“Teaching ELLs to read in their first language and then in their second language,
or in their first and second languages simultaneously (at different times during the
day), compared with teaching them to read in their second language only, boosts
their reading achievement in the second language” (emphasis in original).
“The NLP was the latest of five meta-analyses that reached the same conclusion:
learning to read in the home language promotes reading achievement in the
second language.”
Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 1 Issues


How can RTI-based evaluation be fair when the
instructional programs most often used to instruct groups
of ELL students (i.e., ESL, English immersion) have been
demonstrated empirically to be ineffective in promoting
grade level achievement or academic success?
Well designed and effective interventions cannot make up
for deficiencies in educational pedagogy or artifactual
developmental delays that result from the unenlightened
use of “intuitive science” (i.e., common sense) or
application of misguided political ideology.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 2 Issues
Tier 2 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:
Provide effective instruction to the target student
and measure its effect on performance
“Making an assumption that what works with native English speakers will work
with students from diverse language backgrounds may be inaccurate
(McLaughlin, 1992). Although substantial empirical support exists for the use of
a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach to address literacy problems with
native English speakers (e.g., Burns, Appleton, and Stehouwer, 2005; Mathes et
al., 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, and Tanzman, 1998), very little data exist about the
effectiveness of this approach with EL learners (Vaughn et al., 2006).”
Source: Vanderwood, M. L. & Nam, J. E. (2007). Response to Intervention for English Language Learners: Current developments and future
directions. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns and A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of
Assessment and Intervention (pp. 408-417).
What Works Clearinghouse Looks at
Reading Recovery® for English
Language Learners
The WWC examined the research conducted in English on
Reading Recovery® and identified 13 studies that were
published or released between 1997 and 2008 that looked at
the effectiveness of this short-term tutoring intervention on
English language learners' literacy skills. None of these studies
meet WWC evidence standards. Therefore, conclusions may
not be drawn based on studies conducted in English about the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Reading Recovery® for
English Language Learners.
December 15, 2009
Full report available at:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/read_recov/
What Works Clearinghouse Looks at
“Accelerated Reader” for English
Language Learners
The WWC examined the research on "Accelerated Reader" and
identified 13 studies that were published or released between
1983 and 2008 that looked at the effectiveness of this
curriculum on English language learners’ reading and math
skills. None of these studies meet WWC evidence
standards. Therefore, conclusions may not be drawn based on
research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of
"Accelerated Reader" on English Language Learners.
December 22, 2009
Full report available at:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/accreader/
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 2 Issues


How can RTI-based evaluation be fair to the individual
student if the program used to instruct that student (i.e.,
ESL, English immersion) has been demonstrated
empirically to be ineffective in promoting grade level
achievement or academic success?
Even after an ELL has been exited from or deemed to no
longer need or require bilingual education or ESL services
(un-LEP’d), it cannot be assumed that he/she is
comparable to age or grade matched monolingual English
speaking peers, or that interventions that “work” for native
English speakers will now suddenly “work” just as well for
non-native English speakers.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 2 Issues
What do, “scientifically validated,” “empirically validated,” and
“evidence-based” all mean anyway?
– In general, an intervention/teaching strategy meets the definition of
these terms when, through experimental investigation, one group of
children were able to learn more than another group. That means, if
you teach it, they should learn it.
– However, it does not mean that ALL children will learn by that
technique and it does not mean that is even the best technique. For
ELLs, it also means that no matter how well it works, it will not
lessen the achievement gap or help them to fully “catch up” to their
native English speaking peers.
– Interventions can be shown to be evidence-based in that they
“work” for ELLs, but it does not mean they will then begin to reach
classroom, school, or district-wide aimlines or expectations.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 3 Issues
Tier 3 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:
Refer students whose RTI warrants additional or
intensive continuing interventions
What exactly will evaluation look like beyond progress monitoring and curriculum
based assessment of current academic skills?
How will these procedures systematically evaluate the influence of cultural and
linguistic differences and the extent to which they are primarily responsible for
lack of progress as compared to lack of progress due to a learning disability,
particularly when RTI has not ensured that evidence-based instruction (i.e., in
the native language) has been provided?
Source: Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C. & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of Response to Intervention and Norm-Referenced Tests in
Learning Disability Identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43(7), 807-825.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 3 Issues



Once an ELL has been exited from or deemed to no longer need or
require bilingual education or ESL services (i.e., they have been
FLEP’d, or un-LEP’d), it cannot be assumed that they are
comparable in terms of their academic achievement to their
monolingual English speaking peers.
ELLs will invariably continue to have increasingly less foundation
and life-long experiences in English language development and in
then acquisition of the acculturative knowledge that is embedded
within and underlies the subject matter of all curricula and for
which mastery remains a critical requirement for success in school.
“Once a bilingual, always a bilingual.” ELLs do not suddenly cease
to be bilingual simply because they have become proficient and
dominant in English.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Tier 3 Issues


The most common type of instruction given in schools
today, ESL, creates an artifactual linguistic “handicap” that
puts otherwise capable children at levels far below their
age and grade related peers in school achievement. What is
“effective instruction” for the average 3rd grader may be
totally inappropriate for the average ELL who, nonetheless
is in 3rd grade.
ELLs are clearly able to make progress comparable to
English speaking peers on discrete types of skills (e.g.,
phonological processing or phonemic awareness).
However, progress on other abilities that develop as a
function of age and experience (e.g., vocabulary), is likely
to remain behind that of peers.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs: Summary
For the purpose of identifying SLD in ELLs, RTI will pose significant
limitations and obstacles including the fact that:
– ELLs in English-only or ESL programs, by definition, do not meet the
fundamental principle of RTI regarding the provision of empirically
validated intervention.
– The reasons why an ELL is not learning or responding to intervention as
may be expected, in particular those related to cultural or linguistic
differences, are not likely to be revealed via RTI alone.
– RTI is not designed to identify or accommodate the developmentally
based differences in academic skill acquisition needed to distinguish
specific learning differences from specific learning disabilities.
Comprehensive evaluation of a broad range of cognitive abilities and
processes in ELLs suspected of SLD via norm-referenced standards will
be necessary to help determine whether learning problems are the result
of “difference vs. disorder.” The issue cannot be resolved by RTI alone.
Cultural Issues and Low SES



1 in 5 children in America grow up in
conditions of chronic poverty and social
disadvantage
Over 12 million children currently
Poverty rates among minority children nearly
double that of Anglo--30% of African American
and Hispanic American children.
Reasons for Low SES Children Scoring Lower on
Cognitive and Neuropsychological tests















Poor prenatal care
Birth injuries
Malnutrition
Reduced access to long-term, ongoing, preventative health care
Increased dependency on ERs (Asthma example)
Less treatment adherence with low SES groups (medication example)
Toxin exposure: lead, pesticides
Parasitic infections: neurocysticercosis, toxocariasis
Health issues such as otitis media-(linked to reading)
Low SES school district’s quality of education
Less emphasis on education in the home
Less verbal interactions between low SES mothers and babies
Double-jeopardy--comorbidity
Would any of these conditions have an affect on who is identified
for RTI?
Would any of these conditions have an influence on differential
diagnosis?
Reasons for Low SES Children Scoring Lower on
Cognitive and Neuropsychological tests
KABC-II Global Scale Mean Scores by
Mother's Education: Norm Sample
Global Scale Scores
120
100
80
All (N=2175)
FCI
MPI
60
40
20
0
>12
12
13-15
Mother's Education Level
16+
NCCRESt: Intervention Should be
Based on a Theory of Culture in
Learning



RTI should be based on a theory of how
culture mediates learning
Culture is not a set of characteristics but is
activity indexed in practice
Appropriate for research
NCCRESt: RTI-Culture Theory
Design Considerations


Consider changes in the sampling of situations
and tasks
Consider situations where others are not
physically present but are an anticipated
audience


Consider not only what each person
contributes but also what is expected for each
Look for ways of combining an interest in
shared tasks and in everyday situations
NCCRESt: Research Must Account for How
Contextual Contingencies and
Irregularities Across Context Challenge
Ecological Validity.




Evidence-based--but in what context?
Experimental conditions may differ
Variation across schools, developmental
levels
Promotion of a systems approach to
evaluate potential effectiveness
NCCRESt: Three Conditions for
Ecological Validity

“(Research) must maintain the integrity of the reallife situations it is designed to investigate. Second, it
must be faithful to the larger social and cultural
contexts from which the subjects come. Third, the
analysis must be consistent with the participants’
definition of the situation, (i.e.,) the experimental
manipulations and outcomes must be shown to be
“perceived by the participants in a manner
consistent with the conceptual definitions explicit
and implicit in the research design.” (p.4)
NCCRESt: RTI-Ecological
Validity Considerations

When we observe in classrooms…
– What do we notice about the nature of the
relationship between a teacher and students?
– How are students supported?
– How does the teacher promote interest and
motivation?
– What can we conclude about the culture(s) of the
classroom?
– What can we conclude about the student’s
opportunities to learn?
NCCRESt: RTI Research Must
Have Population Validity




What works with whom
Interventions should be evidenced-based on
intended targets (e.g. ELL)
What do the “tiers” look like for different
groups of students?
If population validity is violated--what does
that say about the study’s assumptions about
what matters and who counts?
NCCRESt: RTI Guidelines
About Sampling




Why this group rather than another? Look
carefully
What is the nature of your link to this group?
Look for within-group differences
Could the question be answered by looking
within my own culture?