Transcript Slide 1

Cultural Considerations with
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Models
and
Literacy Instruction
Janette Klingner
Michael Orosco
University of Colorado at Boulder
Margarita Bianco
Colorado State University
1
From:
• Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. (in press). Cultural
considerations with response-to-intervention
models. Reading Research Quarterly.
• Klingner, J.K., & Bianco, M. (in press). What is
special about special education for culturally and
linguistically diverse students with disabilities? In
B. Cook & B. Schirmer (Eds.), What is special
about special education? Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
2
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Overview of popular RTI Model
What do we mean by “research based”?
Revised Culturally Responsive RTI Model
Culturally Responsive Literacy Instruction
Closing Thoughts
3
Response to Intervention
Models
• In the newly reauthorized IDEA, eligibility and
identification criteria for LD have changed
[614(b)(6)(A)-(B)]:
– When determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability
• The LEA is not required to consider a severe
discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability.
• The LEA may use a process that determines if
a child responds to scientific, research-based
intervention as part of the evaluation.
4
Response to Intervention Models
• Some critical issues we will be discussing today –
• What should this “scientific, research-based
intervention” look like?
• We need to find out what works with whom, by
whom, and in what contexts.
• How can we facilitate culturally responsive
practices at each “tier”? What can you do in your
role to make sure this happens?
5
Response to Intervention:
A Three-tiered Model
Intensive assistance,
as part of
general education
support system
Special
Education
3rd
Tier
2nd Tier
1st Tier
Research-based
instruction
in general education
classroom
6
Tier 1
1st Tier
• Research-based instruction at the first tier
is for all students and consists of explicit
instruction in:
– phonological awareness,
– the alphabetic principle (letter-sound
correspondence),
– fluency with connected texts,
– vocabulary development, and
– comprehension.
7
Tier 2
2nd Tier
• The second tier is only for those students who do not
reach expected benchmarks using a curriculum-based
progress-monitoring assessment instrument such as
the DIBELS—the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early
Literacy Skills.
• Students receive additional intensive support in small
groups or individually.
• This support is provided within general education.
• Students may receive this additional support in their
classrooms or in a different setting.
8
Tier 3
3rd
Tier
• Students who continue to struggle are then
provided with a third tier or level of assistance
that is more intensive. It is this third tier many
would consider to be special education.
9
Critical Issues
• The RTI model presumes that if a child does not
make adequate progress with intensive researchbased instruction, he or she must have an internal
deficit of some kind.
– How do we ensure that the child has in fact
received culturally responsive, appropriate,
quality instruction?
– As with earlier identification criteria, this model
must be based on students having received an
adequate “opportunity to learn.”
10
What Do We Mean by “Researchbased”?
• Fundamental to the notion
of the RTI model is that
instructional practices or
interventions at each level
should be based on
scientific research evidence
about “what works.”
• However, it is essential to
find out what works with
whom, by whom, and in
what contexts—
11
What Do We Mean by “Researchbased”?
1. Group Work
1. What do we mean by “research-based”?
2. How do we account for language and culture when
designing interventions, conducting research, and
generalizing findings?
3. What kinds of questions do we need to ask as researchers
and / or “consumers” of research?
12
Research-based Interventions: What
Counts as Research?
• What does it mean when we say a
practice is research-based?
• Much can and should be learned
through qualitative and mixed methods
approaches that are better able to
answer questions about complex
phenomena and help us:
– understand essential contextual
variables that contribute to the
effectiveness of an approach, or
– increase our awareness of
implementation challenges, or
provide information about the
circumstances under which and
with whom a practice is most
likely to be successful.
13
Research-based Interventions: What
Counts as Research?
• We promote “a broader view of both what constitutes
empirical research and what sorts of empirical evidence
are relevant to complex issues that integrally involve
culture, social interaction, institutions, and cognition”
(Gee, 2001, p. 126). This is particularly important as we
move to RTI models.
14
Research-based Interventions: What
Counts as Research?
• For example, much can be learned by observing
in schools and classrooms where culturally and
linguistically diverse students excel as readers.
15
Research-based Interventions: What
Counts as Research?
• Example: In their observations
of exemplary first-grade
classrooms, Pressley and
colleagues found that:
– Teachers ensured students
were involved in tasks
matched to their competency
level.
– Teachers accelerated
demands as students’
competencies improved.
– Teachers also encouraged
students to regulate and
monitor their own learning.
16
Example: In first grade classrooms that
included English language learners…..
THE MOST EFFECTIVE
TEACHERS:
• had sophisticated
knowledge of reading
instruction as well as
second language
instruction.
• were able to draw on the
prior knowledge of
struggling readers and
make connections with
what they already knew.
Graves, Gersten, and Haager (2004)
17
Example: In first grade classrooms that
included English language learners…..
• emphasized explicit
instruction in word
identification, phonological
awareness, and vocabulary
instruction.
• provided structured
opportunities to practice
English.
• provided supportive
learning environments in
which students were highly
engaged.
Graves, Gersten, and Haager (2004)
18
Research-based Interventions:
What Works With Whom, By Whom, and in What
Contexts
• It is essential to find out what works with
whom, by whom, and in what contexts.
• These issues of population validity and
ecological validity are essential if research
results are to be generalized - yet seem to
be ignored.
19
With Whom?
• When deciding if a practice is
appropriate for implementation as part
of an RTI model, it should have been
validated with students like those with
whom it will be applied.
• “Experiments should include students
who are the intended targets of the
instruction being evaluated” (Pressley,
2003, p. 68).
• Although the National Reading Panel
report “did not address issues relevant
to second language learning” (2000,
p. 3), the report’s conclusions are
commonly cited as support for
Reading First initiatives for all
students.
20
With Whom?
• Research reports should
include information about:
– the language proficiency,
ethnicity, life experiences
(e.g., socio-economic,
specific family background,
immigration status)
– Data should be
disaggregated to show
how interventions
respectively might
differentially affect students
from diverse backgrounds.
21
With Whom?
• When research studies do not include culturally and
linguistically diverse student populations, or
disaggregate data based on important variables,
what does this say regarding the researcher’s
assumptions about what matters, who counts, and
what works?
– English language learners are often omitted from participant
samples because of their limited English proficiency.
– Yet language dominance and proficiency are important research
variables and can affect treatment outcomes.
– Leaving students out of studies limits the external validity and
applicability of such studies, especially for teachers who have
culturally and linguistically diverse students in their classes.
22
By Whom?
• On-going analyses of general
education classrooms should
be an essential component
of RTI models.
• School personnel should first
consider the possibility that
students are not receiving
adequate instruction before it
is assumed they are not
responding because they
have deficits of some kind
(Harry & Klingner, in press).
23
By Whom?
In their investigation of the
special education referral
process in high need schools,
Harry and Klingner (in press)
found that the classroom
context was rarely considered
when making referral or
eligibility decisions. Rather,
school personnel seemed quick
to attribute a child’s struggles to
internal deficits or the home
environment.
24
As the field considers how RTI
models should be implemented…
• Not enough attention
has focused on the
central role of
classroom teachers
• We must observe in
classrooms and note the:
– Quality of instruction
– The relationship between a
teacher and students
– How students are supported
– How the teacher promotes
interest and motivation
25
In What Contexts?
• It is essential to examine school contexts
when implementing RTI models.
– A student's school failure is quite fluid, meaning
that a student can be considered at-risk at one
time and not at another, in one class but not in
another, and in one school but not in another
(Richardson & Colfer, 1990).
– Are there culturally diverse children in some
schools who respond favorably to an intervention
and comparable culturally diverse children in
another school who do not respond as well?
26
In What Contexts?
– Variations in program implementation and
effectiveness across schools and classrooms are
common (see the First Grade Studies for a classic
example, Bond & Dykstra, 1967).
• What is occurring when this happens?
• Is it the program, the teachers’ implementation, or the
school context?
• What is it about the system that facilitates or impedes
learning?
• Schools are dependent on larger societal influences
that should not be ignored.
27
In What Contexts?
• To conclude that failure
resides within students
when they do not progress
with a certain intervention,
and then move them onto
the second or third tier in
an RTI model or decide
they belong in special
education without
considering other
factors is problematic.
28
Issues of Fidelity and
Generalizability:
• When results do not transfer, the assumption by
some is that those implementing the model did not
use it correctly. Or the gap between research and
practice is lamented.
– When a teacher does not implement an instructional
practice with fidelity, what does that really mean?
• To what extent is the teacher’s reluctance, resistance, or
inability to implement a practice in a certain way due to
differences between his/her students and the students for
whom the practice was originally developed, or perhaps to
variations in the school context?
• When teachers struggle with implementation, this is an
indication we need to look more closely at what is occurring.
29
Differences exist between laboratory or
controlled studies and the world of practice,
especially in high-need urban schools.
• When considering the extent to which a practice
was implemented with fidelity, it is important to
examine the constraints under which those who
implemented the model were operating.
• For example, the creators of Success for All offer
the caveat that their program is effective only
when fully implemented. Yet implementation
challenges can be frequent.
30
Looking More Closely at “NonResponders”
• When examining RTI
research, we would like to
understand more about the
“non-responders”, and what
happened in their
classrooms.
• Did these students not
respond because they may
have disabilities, or for
other reasons?
• What are the variables to
consider?
31
Are we truly doing all we can to improve
outcomes for culturally and linguistically
diverse students who do not respond?
• Current policies emphasize finding what works. But, again,
we ask, “What works with whom?”
• If Intervention A is found to be better than Intervention B (or
no intervention), we must not assume that Intervention A is
the best we can do for all students. What happens when
we disaggregate the data by ethnicity, language
proficiency, or SES?
• WHAT IF …..?
– 60% of the sample (the majority of the middle-class white
students) did better with Intervention A, because, after all,
school instruction tends to be compatible with white, middle
class culture? And what if 40% of the sample (many of the
culturally and linguistically diverse students) did better with
B?
32
Are we truly doing all we can to improve
outcomes for culturally and linguistically
diverse students who do not respond?
• WHAT IF …..?..
– It turns out that Intervention A focused on
explicit instruction in phonological awareness
and the alphabetic principle, and that
Intervention B did precisely the same, but with
the addition of components considered
culturally responsive?
– What would we then conclude? Is A really
“what works” best for all students?
33
Are we truly doing all we can to improve
outcomes for culturally and linguistically
diverse students who do not respond?
• This view does not mean that we should abandon
evidence-based interventions and give up trying to
figure out what works.
• But there is limited evidence they will work well with
everyone, or lead to maximum growth for a particular
subset of students.
• We suggest that additional research is needed in
which mixed-methods approaches are used to
investigate culturally responsive practices singularly
and in combination with other approaches.
34
Are we truly doing all we can to improve
outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse
students who do not respond?
• In the end, the best
instructional practice is based
on sound pedagogical
principles implemented
thoughtfully and sensitively by
a knowledgeable and
reflective teacher who adapts
instruction to students’ needs
and even may act in ways
inconsistent with some
research findings.
35
Revised Response to Intervention Model
Intensive assistance,
as part of
general education
support system
4th
Tier
Special
Education
3rd Tier
2nd Tier
1st Tier
Culturally responsive
instruction
in general education
classroom
Referral
to a Child
Study Team or
Teacher Assistance
Team
36
Tier 1
1st Tier
• The foundation of the first tier should be
culturally responsive, quality instruction with
on-going progress monitoring within the
general education classroom.
• We see this first tier as including two essential
components:
– (a) research-based interventions, and
– (b) instruction by teachers who have developed
culturally responsive attributes
37
Tier 1
1st Tier
2. Group Work
1.
2.
3.
What is meant by culturally responsive policy & practices?
–
State level?
–
District level?
–
School level?
–
Classroom level?
What should the first tier look like for culturally and linguistically diverse
students?
–
For English language learners?
–
For students living in high poverty areas?
Specifically, what can you do in your role to make sure Tier 1 includes
culturally responsive practices?
38
Research-based Interventions in a
Culturally Responsive RTI Model
• In their teacher education programs as well as
through ongoing professional development, teachers
should become familiar with instructional strategies
linked to academic growth for their population of
students as well as assessment procedures that can
be used to monitor progress, particularly in language
and literacy.
• Teachers need to know if their interventions are
effective and how to adjust instruction for students
who do not seem to be responding.
39
40
Culturally Responsive Literacy
Instruction
• What does it mean to provide culturally
responsive literacy instruction?
• All practice is culturally responsive—but to
which culture(s) is it responsive?
• Culture is involved in all learning.
• Culture is not a static set of characteristics
located within individuals, but is fluid and
complex.
41
Culturally responsive literacy
instruction should:
• Include explicit instruction in
phonological awareness, the
alphabetic code, language
and vocabulary development,
and reading for meaning
• Emphasize cultural relevance
and build on students’ prior
knowledge, interests,
motivation, and home
language
• Include frequent
opportunities to practice
reading with a variety of
rich materials in meaningful
contexts; and take into
account the socio-cultural
contexts within which
students learn.
42
Conceptualizing culturally
responsive literacy instruction
• But, it goes beyond these basic
components. In conceptualizing culturally
responsive literacy instruction, we draw
upon Wiley’s (1996) framework for
working with diverse students and
families:
– accommodation,
– incorporation, and
– adaptation.
43
Accommodation requires teachers and others to have a
better understanding of the communicative styles and
literacy practices among their students and to account for
these in their instruction.
• “Literacy learning begins in the
home, not the school … instruction
should build on the foundation for
literacy learning established in the
home” (Au, 1993, p. 35).
• Several qualitative studies have
shown that, even in conditions of
substantial poverty, homes can be
rich in print and family members
engage in literacy activities of
many kinds on a daily basis.
44
Incorporation requires studying community practices that
have not been valued previously and incorporating them
into the curriculum.
• It means surrendering a privileged
position and acknowledging that much
can be learned from others.
– “We must not assume that we can only
teach the families how to do school, but that
we can learn valuable lessons by coming to
know the families, and by taking the time to
establish the social relationships necessary
to create personal links between
households and classrooms” (Moll, 1999, p.
xiii).
– “Teachers and parents need to understand
the way each defines, values, and uses
literacy as part of cultural practices--such
mutual understanding offers the potential for
schooling to be adjusted to meet the needs
of families” (Cairney, 1997, p. 70).
45
Adaptation involves the expectation that children and adults
must acculturate or learn the norms of those who control
the schools, institutions, and workplace (Wiley, 1996).
• Culturally and linguistically diverse
parents, parents living in poverty, and
immigrant parents want to give their
children linguistic, social, and cultural
capital to deal in the marketplace of
schools, but are unsure how to go
about doing this.
• “When schools fail to provide parents
with factual, empowering information
and strategies for supporting their
child’s learning, parents are even more
likely to feel ambivalence as educators
[of their own children]” (Clark, 1988, p.
95).
46
Framework for moving closer to leveling the
educational playing field
• We believe these three courses of
action can be used as a backdrop
for helping us think about culturally
responsive literacy instruction.
– It is not enough to implement
isolated evidence-based
interventions. Instructional methods
do not work or fail as
decontextualized generic practices,
but only in relation to the sociocultural contexts in which they are
implemented.
– These perspectives form the
foundation for how we are thinking
about culturally responsive RTI
models.
47
The Culturally Responsive Literacy
Teacher in the RTI Model: Developing the
Affective Domain
• Culturally Responsive Literacy teachers value the
presence and participation of their culturally linguistically
diverse students and realize the need for these students to
make connections between their own learning styles and
the literacy goals and objectives that the literacy
curriculum asks of them.
• These teachers are able to conduct self-assessments,
provide a range of culturally sensitive instructional
methods and materials, develop proactive culturally
responsive classrooms, foster collaborative learning
environments, develop and utilize culturally aware
assessments, and collaborate with other professionals and
families.
48
Culturally Responsive Literacy
Teachers Conduct Self Assessments
• Many times teachers are afraid to confront their
limited understanding of cultures other then their
own and the possibility that this lack of
understanding will negatively affect their students’
abilities to become successful readers.
• Therefore, teachers must critically assess their
relationships with their students and their
understanding of students’ cultures (Patton, 1998)
49
Culturally Responsive Instructional
Methods and Materials
• Teachers need to use instructional methods and
materials that are evidence based and that have
been developed to work with their given school
setting, the population, and their literacy needs.
• Examples of this are:
– Explicit Reading Instruction
– Interdisciplinary Literacy Units
– Literacy Scaffolding
50
Proactive Culturally Responsive
Classrooms
• The Culturally Responsive Literacy Teacher
develops proactive Reading Environment by:
– Establishing a Classroom Atmosphere that respects
each student and their cultures by going beyond wall
decorations (pseudo-literacy) by developing a cross
cultural literacy atmosphere.
Examples of this are:
– Libraries that have a variety and wide range of culturally
diverse literature.
51
Fostering Collaborative Learning
Environments
• Cooperative learning:
– Cooperative Learning groups brings together
students with diverse backgrounds so that they
may approach a variety of supportive and
collaborative literacy activities.
– Cooperative learning allows students to use their
speaking, reading, and writing skills so that they
may achieve literacy goals and objectives, which
not only furthers their reading development but also
their self esteem.
52
Culturally Aware Assessments
• The culturally responsive literacy teacher employs
ongoing and systematic assessment of their
students’ reading abilities.
• The research continues to show that ongoing
assessment provides a strong basis for
instructional decision-making and that it can offer
the teacher insights into what to teach and how to
teach.
53
Collaboration
• The culturally responsive literacy teacher:
– collaborates and communicates with culturally diverse
families: Families are the key to a strong literacy
program and should be continuously informed of their
student’s progress and encourage to participate in
classroom activities (Moll et al., 2005).
– collaborates and communicates with other
professionals who may help to improve their students
literacy needs.
54
Attributes of Culturally Responsive
Teachers
• Researchers have conducted
in depth qualitative studies on
the dispositions and practices
of teachers whose culturally
and linguistically diverse
students excel.
• Pre-service and in-service
teachers should learn what it
means to be culturally
responsive and should
participate in experiences
designed to prepare them to
teach in diverse settings
• These dispositions and
practices should be
incorporated into further
research on culturally
55
responsive teaching.
Attributes of Culturally Responsive
Teachers
• What do we know about teacher
expectations and perceptions of
culturally and linguistically diverse
students – or students with
disabilities?
• Do teachers view diverse
students from a deficit based
perspective? How can we change
that?
• How do teachers’ expectations
influence students?
• Years of research demonstrate
how teachers differentially
interact with students based on
lowered expectations of students’
abilities.
56
Tier 2
2nd Tier
When culturally and linguistically diverse
students have not made adequate progress
when taught using appropriate, culturally
responsive methods implemented with fidelity,
a second tier of intervention is warranted.
• This tier is characterized as providing a level
of intensive support that supplements the core
curriculum and is based on student needs as
identified by ongoing progress monitoring.
• For now, we do not know a great deal about
what this intensive support should look like for
culturally and linguistically diverse students, or
the extent to which it should differ from the
second tier of support provided to all students
identified as at risk.
57
Tier 2
2nd Tier
3. Group Work
1. What should Tier 2 look like for culturally and
linguistically diverse students?
2. What is the role of:
• classroom teacher?
• special education teacher?
• ESL specialist?
• Parent?
3. Should Tier 2 interventions be individualized? Same for
ALL learners at the Tier 2 level?
4. Who should be providing Tier 2 interventions?
5. What funds should be used to provide these services? 58
Tier 3
3rd Tier
• This phase starts with a
referral to a Teacher
Assistance Team or a Child
Study Team.
• This step can overlap with
the second tier (i.e., the
provision of intensive
support does not need to
stop for a referral to begin).
59
Tier 3
3rd Tier
4. Group Work
1. What aspects of the traditional referral process should be
kept?
What needs to be changed?
2. Who should be on the TAT team? Their roles?
3. What further assessments should be done at this level?
4. What is the role of the school psychologist?
60
Tier 3
3rd Tier
• The make-up of the team
should be diverse and include
multiple members with
expertise in culturally
responsive pedagogy.
• There should be a team member
who can offer guidance with
culturally sensitive on-going
assessment.
• A bilingual or English as a second
language (ESL) specialist should
also be involved when the student
is an English language learner.
61
Tier 3
3rd Tier
• Teams should have a wide range
of meaningful intervention
strategies available to them.
• Using a problem-solving
approach, they should determine
how to alter the support a student
has been receiving and develop
specific instructional objectives
based on student performance
data.
• An important role for the team
should be observing the student
in her classroom as well as in
other settings.
62
What should the RTI process look
like for culturally and linguistically
diverse students?
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
63
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
S tep 1
Is the student
exp eriencing
academic difficulty ?
NO
No
p roblem.
Process
ends.
Yes
S tep 2
Is the curriculum
known t o be
effective for
culturally and
linguistically diverse
students?
NO
Adapt
Sup plement
Develop
64
S tep 3
Has the student's
problem been
validated?
NO
Inter and intra- setting
intra-individual
inter-individual
inter-teacher
p ercep tions
p arental p erceptions
analysis of behaviors
and work samp les
YES
S tep 4
Is there evidence of
systematic efforts to identify
the source of difficulty and
take corrective action?
Adapted from
Garcia and Ortiz,
1988
NO
TEACHER
Qualifications
Experience
Track re cord
Teaching style
Expectati ons
Perceptions
Instructional management
Behavior management
INS TRUCTION
Motivate
sequence
Teach - reteach using diffe rent
approach
Teach pre requisite skills
Language of instruction
Effective teaching behaviors
Coordination with other programs
S TUDENTS
Experiential
background
Language
proficiency
Cultural
characteristics
S ES
Locus of control /
attribution
Modes of
communication
EVALUATION OF
INS TRUCTION
Standards
On-going data collection
M odificat ion based on
evaluation
Staff develop ment
65
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
Step 5
Do
student's
difficulties
persist?
NO
Problem
solving was
successful.
Process
ends.
YES
Step 6
Have other
programming
alternative
been tried?
NO
Determine
program/
placement
alternatives.
e.g, Chapter
1, tutorial
services
66
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
S tep 7
Do
difficulties
continue in
spite of
alternatives?
NO
Student
remains in
alternative
p rogram as
app ropriate
S tep 8
YES
Referral
to sp ecial
education
67
Tier 4
4th
Tier
• In the model we propose,
this tier would be special
education.
• The hallmark of instruction
at this level is that it is
tailored to the individual
needs of the student, and
is even more intensive
than at previous tiers.
• Unlike the second or third
tiers, this assistance is not
limited to a set number of
weeks.
68
RTI models represent a new
beginning
• We are encouraged by the
potential of RTI models to
improve educational
opportunities for culturally
and linguistically diverse
students and to reduce their
disproportionate
representation in special
education.
• RTI models represent a
new beginning and a novel
way of conceptualizing how
we support student
learning.
69
Need for Ongoing Dialogue about
Critical Issues ……
• At the same time, we are
concerned that if we do
not engage in dialogue
about critical issues, RTI
models will simply be like
old wine in a new bottle, in
other words, just another
deficit-based approach to
sorting children.
• It is our responsibility to
make sure this does NOT
happen.
70
CONCLUSION
• We believe that ultimately
the most effective
interventions for culturally
and linguistically diverse
students will come from
bringing together diverse
perspectives, and from
careful examination of
notions about disability
and cultural diversity
within their full sociocultural and historical
contexts.
71
Closing thoughts…
• What would an effective RTI model for
culturally and linguistically diverse
students look like?
• How will we know when we have
succeeded?
72
RESOURCES
– National Association for Bilingual
Education & Local Implementation
by Local Administrators (ILIAD)
Project, 2002
– National Alliance of Black School
Educators & ILIAD Project, 2002.
– National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems
(NCCRESt), 2005.
.
73
For more information…
Janette Klingner
University of Colorado at
Boulder
School of Education
249 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0249
Phone: 303-492-0773
E-mail:
Margarita Bianco
Colorado State University
School of Education, 103
Fort Collins, CO
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
74
Thank you
75