Using an extant database, we examined three grade 1 criteria for identifying response to intervention (RTI) in English language learners (ELLs): (a) set benchmark criteria with a standard score above 95 (37th %ile) on both decoding and comprehension measures and a raw score of 40 or more correct words per minute (CWPM) on oral reading fluency; (b) discrepancy benchmark criteria, with performance on these measures at or above the mean of not-at-risk peers; and (c) discrepancy slope criteria, with growth during grade 1 on these measures at or above the mean of not-at-risk peers. The sample consisted of 81 students (41 intervention, 40 comparison) who were bilingual (Spanish/English) and were part of a supplemental reading instruction study during first grade. The three grade 1 criteria were evaluated in relation to a set benchmark criteria in grade 2. Results indicated that approximately 80% of the students did not meet any criteria in either year, but that the discrepancy slope criteria in grade 1 were most predictive of set benchmark criteria in grade 2. Recognizing that we applied highly stringent criteria, implications and issues are presented related to using RTI with ELLs to facilitate decision making about further intervention and referral for special education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
BakerS. (2003). Enhancing core reading instruction for English language learners in kindergarten and Grade 1. Presented at the Institute on Beginning Reading II, Salem, Oregon.
3.
CarrekerS. (1999). Language enrichment. Bellaire, TX: Neuhaus Education Center.
4.
ChiappeP.SiegelL. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of reading development of Canadian children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 135–153.
5.
CirinoP. T.VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.Cardenas-HaganE.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (submitted). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at-risk for reading problems.
6.
DentonC. A.AnthonyJ. L.ParkerR.HasbrouckJ. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289–305.
7.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8.
FletcherJ. M.ReidL. G.BarnesM.StuebingK. K.FrancisD. J.OlsonR. K.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2002). In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.ShankweilerD. P.KatzL.LibermanI. Y.SteubingK. K. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement profiles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6–23.
10.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.MehtaP.SchatschneiderC. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Pscyhology, 90(1), 37–55.
11.
FrancisD. J.RiveraM.LesauxN.KieferM.RiveraH. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(4), 204–219.
13.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216.
14.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–171.
15.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.ShanahanT.Linan-ThompsonS.ChiappeP.ScarcellaR. (2006). Effective literacy and language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades, An IES practice guide. Washington, DC: IES, Department of Education.
16.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
17.
GoodR. H.BankN.WatsonJ. M. (Eds.), (2003). Indicadores dinámicos del exito en la lectura. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
18.
GunnB.BiglanA.SmolkowskiK.AryD. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.
19.
GunnB.SmolkowskiK.BiglanA.BlackC. (2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 69–79.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
21.
KlingnerJ.Edwards, (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.
22.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.PraterK.CirinoP. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at-risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 390–398.
23.
McCardleP.ChhabraV. (Eds.). (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Pub.
24.
McGraw Hill Reading. (2001). New York: McGraw Hill School Division.
25.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL.S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field of trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445–463.
O'ConnorR. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(1), 43–54.
28.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
ShanahanT.BeckI. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English language learners. In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 415–488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735–749.
31.
SpeeceD.CaseL. P.MolloyD. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 147–156.
32.
StanovichK. E.SiegelL. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24–53.
33.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58.
34.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. K.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT.GarvanC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual response to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.
35.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.Linan-ThompsonS.MathesP. G.CarlsonC. D.Cardenas-HaganE. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449–488.
36.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.Hickman-DavisP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–410.
37.
VaughnS.MathesP.Linan-ThompsonS.CirinoP.CarlsonC.Pollard-DurodolaS.Cardenas-HaganE.FrancisD.J. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–180.
38.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.LyonJ. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223–238.
39.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638.
40.
WoodcockR. W. (1991). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised. Chicago: Riverside.
41.
WoodcockR. W.JohnsonM. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Chicago: Riverside.
