Response to Intervention: A Bright Spot for the Literacy Enhancement of English Language Learners in California?

1. Response to Intervention:A Bright Spot for the Literacy Enhancement of English Language Learners in California? February 5, 2011 NSSLHA Conference California State University, Sacramento 8:30-10:00 AM

2. Presenters Robert A. Pieretti, M.S., CCC-SLP Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology California State University, Sacramento rpieretti@csus.edu Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin, Ph.D. CCC-SLP Professor, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology California State University, Sacramento celeste@csus.edu Ploua Vue. B.S. Graduate Student, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology California State University, Sacramento pvue555@gmail.com

3. Our diversity has greatly increased in the 21st century

4. Recent Statistics--% of U.S. population: 197020002050 White 83.7 70 50 Black 10.6 12 13 Hispanic 4.5 13 24 Asian 1.0 4 9 Native Am. .4 .9 1

5. It is very important for SLPs to be involved in supporting ELL students to succeed…and we can do this through increasing their access to the curriculum

6. We will cite research.. • To support the notion of evidence-based practice as we serve ELL students in the schools

7. Terry, P., Connor, C., Thomas-Tate, S., & Love, M. (2010).Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 126-145. • A meta-analysis of research shows that there is widely varying achievement among children in American schools • When children enter school (kindergarten), achievement gaps are observable even before they start learning to read

8. The most salient child characteristics that predict academic success are SESand race • Low-SES, non-White children tend to lag behind White, middle-SES children • We need to work hard to close this gap

9. IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE SKILLS • Justice 2010: Well over 50% of prisoners/incarcerated individuals cannot read • Young children with language impairments who grow up with limited language skills have far-reaching consequences in every area of their lives

10. If we do not help ALL students succeed in school, we impact their futures…

11. One prison in Virginia… • Builds prison cells according to the number of 2nd graders who do not read at grade level • For example, in 2010, if 500 second graders do not read well, 500 prison cells are made available to house these children 10-15 years later

12. As SLPs, we can collaborate in the schools to emphasize • Justice and equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of race, SES, or primary language • Leveling the playing field

13. Response to Intervention-An Opportunity? • Under IDEA, federal funds can be allocated for early intervening services to provide academic assistance for students at risk for academic failure from special educators • Students who demonstrate improvement need different instruction, not special education…. • ELLs are frequently designated as struggling readers who are placed in undifferentiated remediation programs with native English speakers who have scored poorly on standardized reading tests (Harper et al., 2008).

14. In the old days we had…. Regular education in the classroom OR ▼ Special education with an IEP

15. Now more schools across the U.S. are implementing RTI Regular education classroom (Tier 1) ▼ Noncategorical, nonspecial education interventions (after-school math and/or reading academy; REWARDS reading program, etc.) (Tier 2) ▼ Special education with IEP (Tier 3)

16. So What? Why is this important? • Statistics provided by the U.S. Depts. of Ed and Commerce (2004): Non-English-speaking students are the most likely to drop out of school, to exhibit the lowest achievement scores, and to exhibit the highest rates of poverty. (Lovett et. al., 2008, p. 333) • This is really the take away message today….we need strategies to help these students access the core curriculum and we currently have unique opportunities to think in new and different ways!

17. Many current experts are recommending RtI • For differentiating language differences from disorders in ELL students • Generally, ELL students who do not respond to RtI genuinely need special education

18. Justice 2010: • If children show treatment resistance sped

19. Diehl & Silliman, 2009; Language and Communication Disorders in Children) • RtI is a method of service delivery that tries to “catch” kids before they end up needing special education • There is especially an emphasis on reading intervention in the early grades • Great because it takes us away from a “wait to fail” system and instead has a “supporting success” orientation • Goal: PREVENT problems later

20. It is easy to be afraid that being involved in RtI will create more work for us! • But ultimately, it will make our jobs easier because fewer children will be on IEPs • More students will receive support BEFORE we are asked to formally evaluate them for special education

21. So instead of being overwhelmed by the idea of RtI… • Hopefully we will find ways to support ELL students as part of a school team approach • In the ideal team approach, the work load is shared

22. And we are able to work together to support our ELLs as they work to become successful, productive members of society

23. PRIMARY TOPICS FOR TODAY… • Revisit links between oral language and literacy • Discuss the challenges faced by English Language Learners (ELLs) “at risk” for academic failure in early elementary school • Review current research regarding language and literacy enhancement for ELLs • Review current research agenda designed to examine benefits of an intervention designed to meet the needs of these students • Discuss potential roles and provide practical suggestions for the SLP working with ELL populations

24. HOW DID I GET HERE? • An interest in children with early oral language difficulties that become later reading and writing difficulties…….(It all began in 250 Shasta Hall) • An interest in promoting early detection and remediation

25. Dr. GOLDSWORTHY AND SAC STATE STUDENTS IN SPHPHAVE SET THE TONE FOR LITERACY INTERVENTION IN OUR CLINIC • CHILDREN’S LITERATURE (Context) LINKED TO • ORAL NARRATIVE ACTIVITIES (Oral Language) LINKED TO • SOURCEBOOK OF PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS SERIES (Phonological Awareness) LINKED TO • Modified RAVE-O activities: Language activities designed to promote RETRIEVAL, AUTOMATICITY, VOCABULARY, ELABORATION, AND ORTHOGRAPHY ACTIVITIES (Language/Literacy)

26. HOW DID I GET HERE? • My work in the Public Schools….which led to several interests, including: • Multilingual students (Difference vs. Disorder, but suggestions to team?) • Response to Intervention (RTI) programs: Which students need Special Education and which students need more intense instruction…………………….

27. Questions!?!?!?!?!?!? ...............All of which led to the research agenda we will review today!

28. My Daily Affirmation Throughout The Research Process: If you think you’re on to something….

29. Even if you aren’t sure EXACTLY where you’re going—Stay On Course!!!

30. You’ll find something worthwhile in the end…..

31. I get by with a little help from my friends!!!!! Research Assistants from the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology: Debbie Tobler Ploua Vue Stacie Chastain Aron Goeke Jayne Adams

32. SPECIAL ED: WHO ARE THESE KIDS? • WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? • WHERE DO THEY GO?

33. Remember, early success in school is closely linked to success in the language arts—specifically reading and reading comprehensionKids who don’t achieve traditionally get referred to Special Ed… • What about English Language Learners? • Traditionally, ELLs have been overrepresented by those same two words: SPECIAL ED!

34. Research completed in California • Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005: ELLs with limited proficiency in both their native language and in English are disproportionately included in Special Education programs in both the elementary and secondary grades….. Does this necessarily indicate a language disorder? Consider subtractive bilingualism…..

35. The Situation in California • Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which introduced stringent accountability measures to ensure federal education funding • Standards based education and assessment • California chooses to test in English only • Proposition 227 lead to English language mainstream classrooms for most ELLs

36. The Situation in California (Cont’d) Many feel this Inclusion leads to marginalization School curriculums adoptions: • Assume phonics-based reading instruction • Assume an English oral language foundation • Assume access to familiar vocabulary in English • Do not include modifications “to help ELLs develop oral language in English, to build on students’ literacy skills in their native language, or to acknowledge differences in cultural experiences and identity development” (Harper et al, 2008, p. 274)

37. Shaywitz (2004): Essential, scientifically-proven elements of reading programs for children at-risk for reading difficulties • Systematic and direct instruction in Phonemic Awareness • Systematic and direct instruction in phonics • Practice applying phonics in reading and writing • Fluency training • Enriched language experiences

38. How about effective English literacy instruction for ELLs? Research confirms the need for: • Systematic and explicit phonologically based intervention (Lovett et al.,2008) • Oral language development (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Gersten & Geva, 2003; Harper et al., 2008; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2006) • Extensive vocabulary development, reading comprehension, attention to sentence forms, and discourse structure (Gersten & Geva, 2003) • Cultural relevance (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2006)

39. Research Also Confirms RTI for ELLS • Linan-Thompson et al. study (2003):26 ELLs. Grade 2. 58,35-minute sessions. Small groups over 3 months. Significant gains on measures of word attack, passage comprehension, phoneme segmentation fluency, and oral reading fluency. • Vaughn et. al study (2006): 41 hispanic ELLs. Grade 2. 50-minute sessions, 5 days per week. Added element: guided story retelling with complete sentences and content-specific vocabulary. Significant gains: PA, RAN, letter knowledge, word attack, passage comprehension, and spelling dictation.

40. Research Needs • What is the value of each intervention component? What helps the most? (Vaughn et. al., 2006) • What about ELLs from language groups other than Spanish? What about shorter, less intensive interventions? (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006, 7 month study)

41. Research Needs • Links between L2 development and the curriculum: Promotion of academic language development (Saunders & O’Brien, 2006)

42. The Hmong: A population of Interest • One of fastest growing California Populations • Largest concentrations in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Kan & Kohnert, 2005) • 36,000 Hmong American students in California K-12 (Vang, 2004-5). Of these, 85% classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP)

43. The Hmong: A population of Interest • Fifth largest group of ELLs in California schools (CDE, 2009) • In Sacramento county, second largest group of ELLs behind Spanish speakers (CDE, 2009) • Population expected to grow exponentially • “Struggles of Hmong students have been obscured by the successes of Asian students in general” (Magagnini, 2010).

44. Hmong and Academic English: A Mismatch? • Phonology: Unlike English, one morpheme=one syllable. Language with 8 inflectional tones. Few glides. Many more stops. Includes post-veolar and uvular sounds. • Semantics: Unlike English, Hmong uses classifiers to indicate a semantic class to which something belongs: ib tug cwj mem ib (quantifier--“a” or “one”) tug (classifier--long-thin object) cwj mem (noun--pencil) • Morphology: English: Uses a final sound: “house” + “s” Hmong: ob lus tsev Hmong uses a quantifier: ob(quantifier-two) lus (classifier—something big) tsev (house) Sources: Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Rubba 2006; Kan 2010

45. Hmong and Academic English: A Mismatch? • Syntax/Grammar • Hmong is Subject-Verb-Object, but unlike English, the word order changes to emphasize certain parts of utterances. • English:‘He/She cut a piece of paper.’ • Hmong: Nws txiav ib daim ntawv. • Translation:He/She cut one (classifier) paper. • English:‘I cut that piece of paper.’ • Hmong:Daim ntawv ko yog kuv txiav hov. • Translation:(Classifier) paper there is I cut, really. Sources: Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Rubba 2006; Kan 2010

46. Most Noteworthy: Narrative Differences! Hmong: Historic emphasis on oral skills; Long, highly-detailed, loosely-connected narratives: Fadiman (1997): Hmong phrase-hais cuaj los kaum los, meaning “to speak of all things.” The phrase itself is sometimes used at the beginning of Hmong oral narratives to remind listeners that the world is full of things that, even though it may not seem so, are actually connected, that no event occurs in isolation, that you can miss a great deal by sticking to the point, and “that the storyteller is likely to be long-winded” (p. 13).

47. Most Noteworthy: Narrative Differences! English: Frequent formulaic structures, beginning with early storybooks • Topic statements • Characters • Development of central idea/plot • Prove something, argue something with examples • Series of examples • Conclusions

48. California First Grade Standards • 1.2.0 Reading Comprehension • Comprehension and Analysis of Grade-Level-Appropriate Text • 1.2.7 Retell the central ideas of simple expository or narrative passages.   • 1.2.5 Confirm predictions about what will happen next in text by identifying key words • 1.3.0 Literary Response and Analysis  • Narrative Analysis of Grade-Level-Appropriate Text •  1.3.1 Identify and describe the story elements of plot, setting, and  characters, including the story's beginning, middle, and ending. •  1.3.3 Recollect, talk, and write about books read during the school year. • 1.2.0 Speaking Application (Genres and their Characteristics) •  1.2.2 Retell stories using basic story grammar, sequencing story events by answering who, what, when, where, why, and how questions.

49. WHERE AM I NOW? • Department of Education, University of California, Davis. • Language, Literacy and Culture Emphasis WHERE AM I GOING? • Three questions are currently informing my research agenda • Dissertation development • PhD to be awarded Spring 2011 

50. Question 1. Can intense, short term curriculum modifications designed by special educators for students with language-based reading difficulties enhance pre-requisite English literacy skills for typically developing ELL students whose first language is Hmong? In other words: Can such a program help build bridges for these students? Help differentiate difference from disorder AND provide a foundation from which to proceed?