Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English [PDF]

Nancy E. Marchand-Martella, Ph.D., Janette K. Klingner, Ph.D., and Ronald C. Martella, Ph.D.

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

SUMMARY In the U.S. today, we are faced with an increasingly diverse student population. ELLs make up a growing majority of these students. A disproportionate number of these students struggle to learn to read and qualify for special education. Best practices for ELLs are sought. Teachers who incorporate culturally responsive teaching with an emphasis on explicit instruction typically see major improvements in reading performance. When this type of reading instruction is provided, it should focus on the elements of effective reading instruction known to have strong evidence of success. These elements include (a) screening for reading problems and monitoring progress (strong); (b) providing intensive small-group reading interventions (strong); (c) providing extensive and varied vocabulary instruction (strong); and (d) scheduling regular peer-assisted learning opportunities (strong). Other recommendations to improve reading performance for ELLs include an emphasis on comprehension strategies before, during, and after reading, with rich discussion and collaboration evident. Vocabulary instruction, provided in an explicit fashion and often with the use of technology, can prove helpful for this population. Content-rich reading that challenges ELLs to do more is also advocated, again with explicitly taught strategies on how to best handle this type of text. Among the most promising interventions reviewed by Cheung and Slavin (2012) in their synthesis of research for Spanishdominant ELLs, a common theme emerged—interventions that included extensive use of cooperative learning were found to impact reading acquisition in a positive manner. This finding was noted by Cheung and Slavin (2005) in a previous review of effective reading programs for ELLs. Finally, reading interventions must include an emphasis on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension to make a difference in reading performance.

2

SRA FLEX Literacy™

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to describe how educators can best meet the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs) who require strategic or intensive intervention in English-based reading. An overview of ELLs is provided along with a discussion of culturally responsive instruction and explicit instruction. Further, use of culturally responsive, explicit instruction within a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework is highlighted along with the elements of effective reading interventions for this population. How best to teach ELLs to read (native language first, then in English; the two in combination; or English only) is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we focus on best practices in strategic and intensive reading interventions for these students.

WHO ARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS? The term English language learner (ELL) is defined as “an active learner of the English language who may benefit from various types of language support programs. This term is used mainly in the U.S. to describe K–12 students” (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2008, p. 2). The number of ELLs who enter school speaking a primary language other than English is increasing. In fact, this number is accelerating at a much more rapid pace than the overall preK–grade 12 student population (Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, 2011). Educators are increasingly “challenged to help these children reach the level of proficiency required for learning sophisticated academic content through English” (Dixon et al., 2012, p. 6). Of all ELLs, Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011); they total about 16.5% of our population, about 50 million people (Fry & Lopez, 2012). Roughly 25% of the public elementary school population and about 21% of the high school population is Hispanic (Fry & Lopez, 2012). Rotherham (2011) notes that the Census Bureau estimates that the percentage of Hispanics will be 30 or more by 2050. Further, some states, such as Texas (Smith, 2012) and California (Kane, 2010), at this time have a majority of Hispanic students in their state’s public schools. Research shows that Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking homes disproportionally live in poverty, drop out of school, and perform more poorly on measures of reading comprehension (see Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 and 2011, for details). For example, roughly 76% and 73% of fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic public school students, respectively, qualify for free or reduced price school lunch. The figures for White public school students show that 29% and 24% in fourth and eighth grade, respectively, qualify (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). Hispanic students were less likely to graduate from high school than Whites in all but two states (Maine and Hawaii) in the 2010–2011 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Consider the following from the Alliance for Excellent Education (2012):

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

3

Nationally, millions of students in grades 7–12 are at risk of dropping out of high school because of low literacy skills, poor attendance, and class failure. Unfortunately, many of these students come from groups that are underserved and underrepresented: students of color, high-mobility students (including foster, migrant, and homeless students), English language learners, students with disabilities, and low-income students. (p. 1) Hispanic students are considered to be underachievers, not achieving up to their potential. For example, there appears to be a 25-point discrepancy between Whites and Hispanics in fourth-grade reading achievement scores, with Whites scoring significantly higher; the gap at eighth grade is 24, again favoring Whites (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011), fourth graders who scored below the 25th percentile include 33% Whites, 35% Hispanics, 74% qualified for free or reduced price lunch, and 24% ELL; conversely, above the 75th percentile, 71% were White, 11% were Hispanic, 23% were qualified for free or reduced price lunch, and 2% were ELL. Similar findings were noted at the eighth grade. A recent analysis of vocabulary performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012) revealed that 24% of ELLs scored below the 25th percentile at fourth grade, with only 2% scoring above the 75th percentile. Vocabulary instruction is touted as one of the most important elements of teaching all students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds who experience slow vocabulary development (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Blachowicz, Fisher, & Watts-Taffe, 2005; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007). Finally, in many states and districts, ELLs disproportionally qualify for special education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Klingner & Artiles, 2006; Sullivan, 2011). When examining national means, there is little overrepresentation; yet there is a great deal of variation across and within states and districts. Artiles et al. emphasized that it is important to look at subpopulations of ELLs. They did not find overrepresentation among younger students across several school districts in southern California, but they did find disproportionality among older students (from fifth grade through high school). They also found that ELLs in English immersion classrooms were more likely to receive special education than their peers in modified English immersion or bilingual programs. In an examination of special education placement rates in Arizona since the passage of an English-only bill, Sullivan found that ELLs were increasingly likely to be identified as having LD or intellectual disabilities and less likely to be served in the least restrictive educational environment relative to their White peers. Multiple issues surround the labeling of ELLs for special education services, including the appropriateness of the diagnosis given identification, assessment, language, and instructional factors (Klingner, Artiles, & Méndez Barletta, 2006; McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & Leos, 2005; Skiba et al., 2008). These factors and the issues they raise are beyond the scope of this paper. The underachievement of ELLs is due in part to inappropriate, ineffective instruction that is developed and/or implemented without keeping in mind the specific language and learning needs of these students. Clearly, solid instructional

4

SRA FLEX Literacy™

programs designed to help all students who struggle in reading are needed. In particular, effective reading instruction targeted to meet the needs of struggling ELLs is warranted given that these students drop out of school at higher rates than their peers and score significantly lower on standardized reading assessments.

WHAT IS CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTION? “I want the same thing for everyone else’s children as I want for mine” (Delpit, 2006, p. 28). Most educators would probably agree with this statement. However, many of these educators are ill prepared to deal with the unique needs of students from culturally diverse backgrounds and ELLs. According to Gay (2010), “You can’t teach what and who you don’t know” (p. 1). Gay advocates that teachers must be aware of student backgrounds in order to enhance student learning experiences. She uses the term culturally responsive teaching to describe best practices—teachers create a classroom culture that facilitates and supports the achievement of all students, including those from diverse backgrounds. This type of pedagogy uses knowledge of culture, past experiences, and frames of reference to make learning more relevant and effective; it validates and affirms students, is comprehensive and multidimensional, is empowering and transformative, and is emancipatory (Gay, 2010). Culturally responsive teachers have high expectations for their students, value diverse perspectives, and build close relationships with their students, students’ families, and the communities in which they teach. They are experts at making sure new learning is relevant and meaningful for students and connects with their prior knowledge. (For more information on culturally responsive teaching, see Bakken & Smith, 2011; Barnes, 2006; Brown, 2007; Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Cheesman & DePry, 2010; Delpit, 1988; Ford & Kea, 2009; Gay, 2002a/2002b; Gonzalez, Pagan, Wendell, & Love, 2011; Huerta, 2011; Kea, Campbell-Whatley, & Richards, 2006; Montgomery, 2001; Richards, Brown, & Forde, 2007; Shevalier & McKenzie, 2012; Terry & Irving, 2010; Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008; Villegas & Lucas, 2007; White, Zion, Kozleski, & Fulton, 2005.) Many of the research studies that support culturally responsive teaching have been qualitative studies conducted by observing in effective teachers’ classrooms (see Huerta, 2011, for examples with ELLs, and Ladson-Billings, 1994, for examples with African American students), and in effective schools. For two studies on successful schools for ELLs, see Lockwood & Secada, 1999, and Lucas, Henz, & Donato, 1990.

Best Practices in Culturally Diverse Classrooms Best practices for culturally diverse classrooms include the following: (a) differentiated intensive instruction on the most critical skills to teach (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008); (b) modeling and dialogue, such as in literature circles (Shevalier & McKenzie, 2012; Vialpando, Yedlin, Linse, Harrington, & Cannon, 2005); (c) technology-based learning in a universal design format (Bakken & Smith, 2011; Curry, 2003) as well as visual supports such as videos to engage learning (Gonzalez et al., 2011); Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

5

(d) reflective thinking, making connections, and writing activities and projects (Kea et al., 2006; Meltzer & Hamann, 2004; Montgomery, 2001; Richards et al., 2007; Vialpando et al., 2005); (e) instructional formats that include ample academic responding opportunities, brisk pacing, positive reinforcement, and corrective feedback (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008); (f) peer-mediated learning, cooperative learning, and pair-shares (Au, 2009/2010; Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Vialpando et al., 2005); (g) progress monitoring on a frequent basis (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008) and cloze procedure assessments (Vialpando et al., 2005); (h) high expectations and affirmation of students as capable learners (Brown, 2007; Callins, 2006; Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Cheesman & DePry, 2010; Pitts, 2012; Villegas & Lucas, 2007); (i)

focus on teach, model, practice, and apply (explicit instruction) along with think-alouds and carefully constructed scaffolding, feedback, and repetition (Brown, 2007; Gonzalez et al., 2011; Handsfield & Jiménez, 2008; Montgomery, 2001);

(j)

focus on what students can do versus a deficit model (Terry & Irving, 2010);

(k) collaboration with families (Harry, 2008), capitalizing on funds of knowledge within families and the community (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992); (l)

rich, culturally diverse literature and materials (Barnes, 2006; Gay, 2002a, 2002b, 2010; Richards et al., 2007); and

(m) graphic organizers (Vialpando et al., 2005). Although not all of these practices have been researched with ELLs, many have been.

WHAT IS LINGUISTICALLY RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTION? Teachers who work with ELLs should be responsive to their students’ linguistic needs as well as their cultural needs. They should understand and be knowledgeable about: (a) the second-language acquisition process, (b) how learning to read in a second or additional language is similar to and different from learning to read in a first language, (c) how to make sure instruction is comprehensible for their ELLs, (d) how to differentiate instruction to meet diverse students’ needs, and (e) how to use assessment procedures that are sensitive to cultural differences and provide an accurate portrayal of students’ strengths as well as their learning needs. Although teachers may not need to develop all of the competencies required to be an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, as described by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL, 2008), the TESOL Teacher Education Standards can provide a framework for thinking about the different dimensions of expertise that are important and what it means to be culturally and linguistically responsive. TESOL describes five essential domains of expertise: (a) language and knowledge of the second-language acquisition process; (b) culture and an understanding of how culture affects learning; (c) instruction and how to plan 6

SRA FLEX Literacy™

for ESL and content learning; (d) assessment and knowledge of issues concerning assessment in a second or additional language, language proficiency assessments, and classroom-based assessments; and, last but not least, (e) professionalism and the importance of understanding the history of ESL and of being an advocate for one’s students. Typical literacy instruction does not include enough support in oral language, vocabulary, or comprehension for ELLs (August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). In multiple studies, ELLs have benefitted from targeted vocabulary instruction (Gersten & Baker, 2000; Goldenberg, 2008; Lesaux, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2006) and frequent opportunities to engage in academic language (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006; Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009). Effective vocabulary instruction should be intensive, systematic, explicit, and direct in nature (Green, 2004; Kurjakovic, 2008). Technology that supports the direct teaching of word meaning shows promise for increasing vocabulary (Dalton & Grisham, 2011; McCardle et al., 2005). Vocabulary instruction should also include strategies to help students learn words independently by monitoring their understanding and taking steps to figure out unknown words. One way to do this is by building on ELLs’ native language through cognates (August, Carlo, & Snow, 2005). Another way is by teaching morphological awareness (Keiffer & Lesaux, 2008). Francis et al. (2006) emphasized that ELLs must be give ample opportunities to develop more sophisticated vocabulary backgrounds and strategies to handle challenging narrative and expository text. These strategies include: (a) making predictions, (b) monitoring understanding and asking questions during reading, (c) summarizing after reading, (d) reading with fluency, (e) significant opportunities to engage in academic talk, and (f) focused independent reading opportunities. ELLs also need supports to help them understand new words and make connections with prior learning, such as realia (real objects), pictures, diagrams, and semantic webs (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008). Further, a focus should be placed on reading and comprehending challenging text. For example, Perez and Holmes (2010) emphasized teaching content-area strategies to ensure students’ success in content-rich classes such as science and social studies. These strategies include learning to access textbooks and other informational materials, to take notes from teacher lectures and textbooks, and to study more effectively. (See Marchand-Martella, Martella, Modderman, Latterell, & Pan, 2013 for recommendations on best practices in adolescent literacy instruction.) Motivation is a key component of consideration for these learners. Meltzer and Hamann (2004) describe the importance of making connections, collaborative learning, and in-depth discussions when accessing content-area classes and materials. Having students interact with text and with one another is a key component to success for ELLs (Meltzer & Hamann, 2004). One way to support ELLs’ comprehension is through Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), a procedure designed to improve reading comprehension through explicitly taught before-, during-, and after-reading comprehension strategies. In CSR, ELLs benefit from rich language exposure with peers through fostered cooperation and engagement with the teacher and other students (Boardman, Klingner, Boele,

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

7

& Swanson, 2010; Klingner & Vaughn, 2000; Klingner, Vaughn, Arguëlles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004; Vaughn et al., 2011). Teachers should include a minimum of 90 minutes per week on activities in which students of varying skill levels are grouped or paired for instruction. Partner or small-group work is advocated for this population. Getting students to read short passages, to practice summarizing/developing a gist, to answer questions, and to make predictions are key aspects of peer-assisted learning opportunities and should be included for ELLs.

WHAT IS EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION? Teachers have a profound impact on how much their students learn. “Although it seems simplistic and obvious, teachers of reading ‘teach’; that is, students do not become independent learners through maturation” (Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009, p. 126). Students do not learn simply by the passage of time—they must receive instruction. Teaching requires carefully planned teacher and student interactions. The most effective and efficient way of shortening the learning time for all students, including ELLs, is through the direct and explicit teaching of skills. It is a key component of quality instruction for ELLs (Calderón, 2006) and for students with learning disabilities (Ritchey, 2011). Interestingly, reading interventions delivered in either English or Spanish produced significant changes in reading skills when explicit instructional principles were evident (Vaughn et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, LinanThompson, & Francis, 2005). Consider the following: As educators, we all have the same goal: to help our students make the maximum possible academic gains in a positive, respectful environment that promotes their success and nurtures their desire to learn. One of the greatest tools available to us in this pursuitis explicit instruction—instruction that is systematic, direct, engaging, and success oriented… explicit instruction is helpful not only when discovery is impossible, but when discovery may be inaccurate, inadequate, incomplete, or inefficient (Archer & Hughes 2011, p. vii). In explicit instruction, teachers are fully responsible for student learning but gradually relinquish this responsibility to students as the students become successful (Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2013; Ritchey, 2011). Teachers program for student success and are intentional with their instruction rather than leaving students to discover what to do on their own. Thus, instruction “moves from teacher modeling, through guided practice using prompts and cues, to independent and fluent performance by the learner” (Rosenshine, 1986, p. 69). Explicit instruction is “a systematic method of teaching with emphasis on proceeding in small steps, checking for student understanding, and achieving active and successful participation by all students” (Rosenshine, 1987, p. 34). Systematic instruction is a key aspect of explicit instruction. It refers to a plan or logical sequence of teaching used to decrease student confusion and errors. For example, teaching letter sounds in a specified and logical order (e.g., separating the teaching of b and d and focusing on high-utility sounds such as a and s among those taught first) is 8

SRA FLEX Literacy™

a hallmark of effective phonics instruction. When a curricular program includes a detailed scope and sequence showing a logical order of skills, systematic instruction is evident. That is, prerequisite skills are taught in a step-wise fashion before more complex skills and strategies are taught. Throughout this process, it is important to connect new learning with old in ways that are meaningful for students. Tasks should never feel abstract or disconnected for students. For example, when learning the sound b, students should connect the new sound with objects or names they already know, perhaps from home or community. This approach helps students build schema and be active participants in the learning process. Systematic phonics instruction can help ELLs learn decoding skills (Slavin & Cheung, 2004). Even when the focus is on decoding, students should learn the meanings of words. They also should apply what they have learned by reading connected text. It is important for ELLs to learn to read and understand multisyllabic words (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011; Carlo et al., 2004; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). Calderón et al. (2011) noted that equal coverage should be provided for decoding and comprehension skills for ELLs. Word-reading fluency and decoding skills are known to be significant predictors of text-reading fluency, and text-reading fluency can explain unique variance in reading comprehension. It is important to keep in mind, however, that ELLs do not demonstrate the same relationship between fluency and comprehension as fluent English speakers (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010). ELLs can become fluent word callers but slow down when they focus on comprehension. Explicit, or direct, instruction can also be referred to as “demonstration-promptpractice” (Stevens & Rosenshine, 1981), “antecedent prompt and test” (Martella, Nelson, Marchand-Martella, & O’Reilly, 2012) or “I do, we do, you do” (Archer & Hughes, 2011). In this type of instruction, students are shown how to perform a task before being expected to do it on their own. “High-quality instruction is the single most important factor in improving student achievement for English Learners” (Calderón, 2006, p. 1). This high-quality instruction should be explicit in nature to ensure the needs of ELLs are being met in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

HOW CAN CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY RESPONSIVE, EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION BE INFUSED INTO A RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK? When explicit culturally and linguistically responsive reading instruction is delivered, it should be provided within a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework (see Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, & Francis, 2008 for specific information on RTI and ELLs). RTI includes progressively intensive instruction with careful progress monitoring (Davis Bianco, 2010; Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007; Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer, 2010). RTI was developed as an alternative to the achievementdiscrepancy formula (sometimes referred to as the “wait-to-fail” model) used to qualify students as having a learning disability. However, RTI should be used to help all students, not just those with learning disabilities. The National Association for State Directors of Special Education (2006) identified eight core principles of RTI. These include the following:

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

9

• We can effectively teach all children. • Intervene early. • Use a multi-tier model of service delivery. • Use a problem-solving method to make decisions within a multi-tier model. • Use research-based, scientifically validated interventions/ instruction to the extent available. • Monitor student progress to inform instruction. • Use data to make decisions. (This is a central concept of RTI.) • Use assessment for three different purposes: screening, diagnostics, and progress monitoring. RTI rests on the assumption that if effective instruction is provided to all students and support services are provided if needed (based on assessment information), students will be less likely to need special education services. Many students, including a preponderance of ELLs, do not receive effective instruction until after they have experienced reading failure. The hope with RTI is that this initiative will “reduce the misidentification of English learners as having learning disabilities” (Echevarria & Hasbrouck, 2009, p. 1). Further, RTI provides “a way to support English language learners when they first show signs of struggling with reading” (Orosco & Klingner, 2010, p. 270). RTI usually includes three (or four) tiers or levels of instruction (see Echevarria & Hasbrouck, 2009; Esparza Brown & Doolittle, 2008; Esparza Brown & Sanford, 2011; DePry & Cheesman, 2010; Foorman, 2007; D. Fuchs & L. Fuchs, 2005, 2006, 2009; L. Fuchs & D. Fuchs, 2006, 2007; Haager et al., 2007; Klingner & Edwards, 2006; National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010; National Education Association, 2010; Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Sun, Nam, & Vanderwood, 2010; and Vaughn & Roberts, 2007 for details on RTI implementations).

Tier 1 Tier 1 (comprehensive core/primary level) is focused on general education and the universal core instructional program that is in place in a school. Core reading curricula, programs, and strategies should be based on scientifically-based reading research about what works with ELLs. Teachers should use instructional practices that have been validated with similar students in similar contexts. A generic “onesize-fits-all” approach to using research-based practices is insufficient and can lead to underachievement by ELLs and misunderstandings by teachers as to why their ELLs are struggling (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). In many ways, learning to read in English as one’s second or an additional language is similar to learning to reading in English as one’s first language (Gersten et al., 2007). Yet there also are important differences when learning how to read in a second or additional language, and there is essential information teachers should understand about the process of second-language acquisition and how that comes into play when teaching ELLs to read in English (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2009; Klingner, SolteroGonzalez, & Lesaux, 2010). 10

SRA FLEX Literacy™

Research-based instruction for ELLs includes an emphasis on the five elements of effective reading instruction that benefit other students, with the added element of oral language (August & Shanahan, 2006; Linan-Thompson & Vaughn, 2007): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The focus shifts in grades 4–12, with emphasis placed on word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and motivation (Boardman et al., 2008). Daily reading instruction for ninety minutes, delivered by the general education teacher, is recommended. Assessment is a key aspect of this tier of instruction; benchmark assessments are usually conducted in fall, winter, and spring. Universal screening using schoolwide curriculum-based measures pinpoints those students who may be at risk. Students who perform below a norm-referenced cut-off point (e.g., below the 25th percentile) and continue to show little to no progress across five to eight weeks of effective instruction with weekly progress monitoring probes are deemed in need of Tier 2 services. It is important when determining which students should receive Tier 2 interventions to make sure that Tier 1 instruction is appropriate for meeting students’ language and learning needs and that most “true peers” (i.e., other ELLs with similar backgrounds) are thriving. When most ELLs fail to show progress, the focus should be on improving core instruction.

Tier 2 Tier 2 (secondary intervention/secondary level) instruction focuses on small groups of students who have not responded to Tier 1 efforts that have been effective with most of their peers. Additional attention, focus, and support are placed on key aspects of the core program to ensure student success. Thus, educators often use double dosing (i.e., conducting each lesson twice) or pinpointed explicit instruction (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2003) to provide alternative instructional formats and additional opportunities for students to practice the skills they are learning in Tier 1. Again, research-based interventions are key to successful program implementation. According to Gersten et al. (2009) in a recent meta-analysis of RTI practices, intensive Tier 2 instruction has strong evidence (consistent and generalizable) for success. Effective Tier 2 instruction includes homogeneous, smallgroup instruction, typically with groups of 3 to 5 students. Instruction occurs for 20 to 30 minutes each day, 5 days per week, or 45 minutes each day for 3 or 4 days per week. Twice-per-month progress monitoring probes are used to assess student progress. Implementations may last 8 to 20 weeks, depending upon the instructional needs of the learners. Students continue to receive instruction in their core program during Tier 2 instruction. “The goal is that students will ‘catch up’ with their peers after secondary intervention” (Vaughn & Roberts, 2007, p. 42). Rivera et al. (2008) emphasized, “Regardless of the type of skills an intervention targets, the focus on explicit instruction and appropriately scaffolded development of reading skills is essential in supporting ELLs who are at risk for reading difficulties” (p. 20); Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and colleagues provided intensive, small-group interventions in either Spanish or English to first-grade ELLs considered to be at risk for reading difficulties. The language of instruction of the supplemental interventions matched the language of classroom reading instruction. The intervention programs were specifically designed for ELLs who struggled with reading (Vaughn, Cirino et Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

11

al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005; Vaughn, Mathes et al., 2006). Lessons included best practices in ESL instruction: • Explicit instruction in oral language and listening comprehension • Explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies • A read-aloud routine with explicit vocabulary instruction and scaffolded story retelling • Word study and phonics strategies • Word reading and reading connected texts • Repeated reading for speed, accuracy, fluency, and prosody • Frequent progress monitoring If ELLs continue to struggle at the Tier 2 level and/or are not making adequate progress that would allow them to exit the Tier 2 program, they should receive Tier 3 services. Klingner and Harry (2006) caution, however, “we must ensure that children have received culturally responsive, appropriate, quality instruction within the first and second tiers before a special education referral or placement is made” (p. 2249).

Tier 3 Tier 3 (intensive intervention/tertiary level) is considered to be the most sustained and intensive of all the levels and is focused on individual student need (Stecker, 2007; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). In this level, instructional sessions are often lengthier than those provided in Tier 2. Instruction is often delivered one on one or with very small homogeneous groups of students (1 to 3). Some view this level as special education; thus, those students who do not show progress in Tier 2 are referred to and often qualify for special education services. Still other implementations provide focused instruction after Tier 2 but before special education services are provided (thus, a fourth tier of instruction becomes special education, while the third tier is intensive intervention efforts). Tier 3 instruction may include 50-minute or longer sessions delivered on a daily basis, depending upon the appropriateness of the core reading program. Some implementations remove students from the core program, choosing instead to provide an alternative core program uniquely designed to meet the students’ skill-level needs. An alternative core does not negate core reading participation; everything depends on the needs of the students. According to Kamil et al. (2008), Some adolescents need more support to increase literacy skills than regular classroom teachers can provide. Students who are unable to meet grade-level standards in literacy often require supplemental, intensive, and individualized reading intervention to improve their skills. Such interventions are most often provided by reading specialists or teachers who have undergone thorough training to help them understand the program or approach they will use and to deepen their understanding of adolescent struggling readers. (p. 31)

12

SRA FLEX Literacy™

In their review of the research literature, Kamil et al. (2008) found the effect size for the use of intensive and individualized interventions provided by trained specialists was considered strong, meaning it met the highest level of evidence as determined by the Institute of Education Sciences and What Works Clearinghouse. Progress monitoring is conducted a minimum of twice per month to ensure adequate progress is being made. Some implementations require weekly probes to fine-tune their analysis of student skills. Note that the goal of Tier 3 programs is to accelerate students’ skill acquisition so they can progress first to the Tier 2 programs and then, ultimately, need only the core or Tier 1 program. Thus, rather than considering the three tiers as distinct and separate services for students, the tiers should be seen as a continuum of services that best meet the needs of all students, not just those in need of special education.

Conclusion We cannot continue “business as usual” when ELLs are struggling in our classrooms. There is great promise, though, in using an RTI approach, for many reasons. First, the universal screening and progress monitoring called for in the RTI process allow for comparison of students to other similar or ‘true’ peers in their local cohort rather than to national norms. Second, an effective RTI model requires collaboration among all educators (e.g., speech and language therapists, school psychologists, counselors, English as a second language/Bilingual specialist), thereby providing increased opportunities for professional dialogue, peer coaching, and the creation of instructional models integrating the best practices of the various fields of education and related services. This collaboration is particularly critical, because the research base for all educational fields, including instruction for ELLs, is growing rapidly. Third, students who are struggling can be identified early and supported before falling too far behind to ever catch up. (Esparza Brown & Doolittle, 2008, p. 71)

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

13

REFERENCES Alliance for Excellent Education. (2012). Caught in the crisis: Students of color and native students in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.all4ed.org/ Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. Au, K. H. (2009/2010, December/January). Culturally responsive instruction. Reading Today, 30–31. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. Bakken, J. P., & Smith, B. A. (2011). A blueprint for developing culturally proficient/ responsive school administrators in special education. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9, 33–46. Barnes, C. J. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way. The Negro Educational Review, 57, 85–100. Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2005). Integrated vocabulary instruction: Meeting the needs of diverse learners in grades K–5. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Blanchett, W. J., Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2009). The intersection of race, culture, language, and disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44, 389–409. Boardman, A. G., Klingner, J. K., Boele, A., & Swanson, E. (2010). Collaborative strategic reading. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Literacy and learning: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 23, pp. 205–235). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 57–62. Brown, J. E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 66–72. Calderón, M. (2006). Effective instruction for English learners. Aiming High RESOURCE. Santa Rosa, CA: Sonoma County Office of Education. Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21, 103–127. 14

SRA FLEX Literacy™

Callins, T. (2006). Culturally responsive literacy instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39, 62–65. Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., Lively, T., White, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–315. Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally-responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351–371. Cheesman, E., & DePry, R. (2010). A critical review of culturally responsive literacy instruction. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5, 83–98. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English language learners and other language-minority students. Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www. bestevidence.org/word/ell_read_2005_BRJ.pdf Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/ell_read_mar_19_2012.pdf Cloud, N., Genesee, F., Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy instruction for English language learners: A teacher’s guide for research-based practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ textreading fluency in English. Reading and Writing, 23, 475–494. Curry, C. (2003, October). Universal design: Accessibility for all learners. Educational Leadership, 55–60. Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2011). eVoc strategies: 10 ways to use technology to build vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 64, 306–317. Davis Bianco, S. (2010). Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and fidelity of implementation in a Response to Intervention model. TEC Plus, 6(5), 1–13. De La Luz Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguistically different students. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427–449. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press. DePry, R., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Reflections on culturally responsive teaching: Embedding theory into practices of instructional and behavioral support. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5, 1–16. Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., . . . Snow, C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82, 5–60. doi: 10.3102/0034654311433587 Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

15

Echevarria, J., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009, July). Response to intervention and English learners. CREATEBrief: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from www.cal.org/create Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Esparza Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 66–72. Esparza Brown, J., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center on Response to Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 24–30. Ford, D. Y., & Kea, C. D. (2009). Creating culturally responsive instruction: For students’ and teachers’ sake. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–16. Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. (Under cooperative agreement grant S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction. org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf Fry, R., & Lopez, M. H. (2012). Hispanic student enrollments reach new highs in 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http:/ www.pewhispanic.org Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2009). Responsiveness to Intervention: Multilevel assessment and instruction as early intervention and disability identification. The Reading Teacher, 63, 250–252. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006, Winter). Identifying learning disabilities with RTI. Perspectives, 39–43. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing Responsiveness to Intervention. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. Gay, G. (2002a). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613–629. Gay, G. (2002b). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 16

SRA FLEX Literacy™

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10, 363–385. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470. Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/ practiceguides/ Goldenberg, C. (2008, Summer). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 8–23, 42–44. Gonzalez, R. J., Pagan, M., Wendell, L., & Love, C. (2011). Supporting ELL/ culturally and linguistically diverse students for academic achievement. Rexford, NY: International Center for Leadership in Education. Retrieved from http://www.LeaderEd.com Green, L. C. (2004, April). Bilingual word power—Research-based vocabulary strategies for English language learners. IDRA Newsletter. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association. Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds). (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for Response to Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Handsfield, L. J., & Jiménez, R. T. (2008). Revisiting cognitive strategy instruction in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: Cautions and possibilities. Language Arts, 85, 450–458. Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74, 372–388. Hemphill, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Huerta, T. M. (2011). Humanizing pedagogy: Beliefs and practices on teaching of Latino children. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 38–57.

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

17

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide. (NCEE#2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc Kane, W. (2010, November 13). Latino kids now majority in state’s public schools. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://sfgate.com Kea, C., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., & Richards, H. V. (2006). Becoming culturally responsive educators: Rethinking teacher education pedagogy. Tempe, AZ: Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCREST). Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134–144. Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2006). English language learners struggling to learn to read: Emergent scholarship on linguistic differences and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 386–389. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128. Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117. Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record, 108, 2247–2281. Klingner, J. K., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., & Lesaux, N. (2010). Response to intervention for English language learners. In M. Lipson & K. Wixson (Eds.), Successful approaches to response to intervention (RTI): Collaborative practices for improving K-12 literacy (pp. 134–162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (2000). The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 69–98. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguëlles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302. Kurjakovic, K. (2008). Vocabulary instruction for English language learners. Educator’s Voice, 1, 12–15. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lesaux, N. K., Koda, K., Siegel, L. S., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy of language minority learners. In D. L. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18

SRA FLEX Literacy™

Linan-Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based methods of reading instruction for English language learners, grades K-4. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 221–238. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82, 1544–1560. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711. Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2010). Read to Achieve: Comprehending Narrative Text. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates/McGraw-Hill. Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2013). Explicit instruction. In W. L. Heward (Ed.), Exceptional children (10th ed.) (pp. 166-168). Columbus, OH: Pearson/ Merrill. Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Modderman, S. L., Latterell, H. M., & Pan, S. (2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 161–184. Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & O’Reilly, M. (2012). Comprehensive behavior management: Individualized, classroom, and schoolwide approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). English language learners and learning disabilities: Research agenda and implications for practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 68–78. Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language learners through content area learning: Part One: Focus on motivation. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, Brown University. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132–141. Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33, 4–9. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006, May). Response to Intervention. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/Documents/Download%20Publications/ RtIAnAdministratorsPerspective1-06.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card in reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

19

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011NAEP reading assessments (NCES 2013 452). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, April). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]. (2008). English language learners: A policy research brief: A nation with multiple languages. Urbana, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org National Education Association. (2010). Response to intervention: A transformational approach. Washington, DC: NEA Education Policy and Practice, Center for Great Public Schools. Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (2011). The growing numbers of English learner students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/t3sis Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: “Referring into RTI.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269–288. Perez, D., & Holmes, M. (2010). Ensuring academic literacy for ELLs. American Secondary Education, 38, 32–43. Pitts, L. (2012, November 26). You can’t fix education by lowering the bar. The National Memo. Retrieved from http://www.nationalmemo.com/you-cant-fixeducation-by-lowering-the-bar/ Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39, 64–68. Ritchey, K. D. (2011). The first “R”: Evidence-based reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 50, 28–34. Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Language and reading interventions for English language learners and English language learners with disabilities. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43(7), 60–69. Rosenshine, B. V. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34–36. Rotherham, A. J. (2011, May 12). The education crisis no one is talking about. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2070930,00.html Rupley, W. H., Blair, T., R. & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2), 125–138. Shevalier, R., & McKenzie, B. A. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching as an ethicsand care-based approach to urban education. Urban Education, 47, 1086–1105. 20

SRA FLEX Literacy™

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288. Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2004, March). How do English language learners learn to read? Educational Leadership, 52–57. Smith, M. (2012, August 31). At some schools, the demographics future is now. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 325–344. Stecker, P. M. (2007). Tertiary intervention: Using progress monitoring with intensive services. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 50–57. Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B. V. (1981). Advances in research on teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1–9. Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 71, 317–334. Sun, J. W., Nam, J. E., & Vanderwood, M. L. (2010). English language learners (ELL) and response to intervention (RTI): Information for K–6 educators. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (2008). TESOL/ NCATE Standards for the recognition of initial programs in P-12 ESL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved on June 2, 2009 from http:// www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=219&DID=10698 Terry, N. P., & Irving, M. A. (2010). Cultural and linguistic diversity: Issues in education. In R. P. Colarusso & C. M. O’Rourke (Eds.), Special Education for all teachers (5th ed.) (pp. 110–132). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328–350. Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2010). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Provisional data file: SY2010-11 four-year regulatory adjusted cohort graduation rates. Washington, DC: Author. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Cardenas Hagen, E., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Education Research Journal, 43, 449–487. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S. S., & Stillman-Spisak, S. J. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 938–964. Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58–67. Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners

21

Vaughn, S., & Roberts, G. (2007). Secondary interventions in reading: Providing additional instruction for students at risk. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 40–46. Vialpando, J., Yedlin, J., Linse, C., Harrington, M., & Cannon, G. (2005). Educating English language learners: Implementing instructional practices. Washington, DC: The National Council of La Raza and The Education Alliance at Brown University. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007, March). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 28–33. Wagner, R. K., Francis, D. J., & Morris, R. D. (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 6–15. White, K. K., Zion, S., Kozleski, E., & Fulton, M. L. (2005). Cultural identity and teaching. Tempe, AZ: National Institute for Urban School Improvement.

22

SRA FLEX Literacy™