English Language Learners and Response to Intervention: Introduction to Special Issue

Abstract

Recent changes in federal law have led to a rush for establishing response-to-intervention (RTI) models in schools. Public Law 108-466, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), includes a provision that sets stage for widespread changes in process for identifying students with learning disabilities. According to IDEA 2004, states must allow local education agencies (LEAs) to use RTI procedures for (a) determining if a child has a specific learning disability, (b) determining eligibility to receive special education, and (c) as a process of examining child's responsiveness to scientific, research-based ([section] 300.307 (a) (2). If LEAs choose to use RTI procedures, federal regulations provide specific guidance for process. Thus, Section 300.311 (a) (7) states that RTI procedures must include documentation of the instructional strategies used and student-centered data collected. Because majority of students with learning disabilities have reading-related disorders, two reading-related issues arise in implementing RTI, (a) use of intervention strategies that are validated by research and (b) use of valid and reliable assessments for identifying students in need of intervention and measuring their responsiveness to intervention. The purpose of this special issue of Learning Disability Quarterly is to highlight research that addresses issues and concerns that result from implementing RTI procedures in schools with students whose first language is not English and who are considered English language learners (ELLs). The studies in this issue focus on specific instructional and assessment issues surrounding implementation of RTI with ELLs. Do intervention practices that have been validated with monolingual English speakers also work with ELLs? Are there special considerations that would make RTI more appropriate for ELLs? What is best approach to determining ELLs' responsiveness to interventions? The first article, by Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, Wills, Longstaff, Culpepper, and Walton, reports on an experimental study involving 318 first- and second-grade students involved in tier-two, small-group instruction. A little over half of sample were classified as ELLs. The socioeconomic status and school context (urban/rural) varied across six schools included in study. The experimental schools used a three-tier approach, with second tier implementing a direct approach for groups of 3 to 6 students. The reading curricula for experimental second tier included in foundational skills of early reading: phonological awareness, letter-sound recognition, alphabetic decoding, reading fluency and comprehension. The comparison schools used no tiered approach to reading instruction; however, ELL students received supplemental balanced literacy instruction emphasizing word study, group and individual story reading, and writing activities in groups of 6 to 15 students. The authors discuss importance of direct for ELLs in a second tier of intervention. The next article, by Calhoon, A10taiba, Cihak, King, and Avalos, examines peer-mediated as an intervention approach for ELLs. Six teachers who taught a 50/50 two-way immersion program in first-grade classrooms were randomly assigned to peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS) or a contrast condition. The PALS intervention was a supplemental tier-one instructional program conducted three times a week for 20 weeks. The authors explored impact of intervention on different aspects of reading, including phonological awareness, decoding, and oral reading fluency. …