Gwendolyn Cartledge ( cartledge.1@osu ) Lefki Kourea ( kourea.1@osu )

1. Reducing Reading/Special Education Risk for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Low-Income Urban Learners: A Longitudinal Follow-up Gwendolyn Cartledge (cartledge.1@osu.edu) Lefki Kourea (kourea.1@osu.edu) The Ohio State University Amanda Yurick (a.l.yurick@csuohio.edu) Cleveland State University

2. Reading Failure • Early intervention at the preschool and kindergarten levels is increasingly embraced as a means to reduce reading and special education risk for all children (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) • Low-income children who are racial/ethnic minorities and/or English language learners (ELLs) evidence special risk factors w/ lower achievement & higher special education placements (Ortiz et al., 2006; Valenzuela et al., 2006) • Problems in reading is principal reason for special education referral • National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP, 2003) 71% students with disabilities read below basic; in urban areas 79% reading at lowest levels • The especially poor reading performance of African American males is well documented in the research literature (Tatum, 2006)

3. Reading Failure • English Language Learners (ELLs) are at increased risk for underachievement, grade retention, attrition, and reading failure (August & Hakuta, 1997; Haagar, & Mueller, 2001) • 10-20% of school-aged children are diagnosed with reading disabilities, with the most common cause of disabilities being phonological processing deficits (Harris & Sipay, 1990) • Deficits in phonological awareness are most often due to insufficient educational experiences or inadequate instruction (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002) • Good evidence that systematic and explicit interventions centered on phonological awareness can reduce risk (Simmons, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006).

4. Why intervene early? • Is more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success (Lyon & Fletcher, 2001) • Federal mandates (IDEA 2004 & NCLB) • Studies with systematic, explicit phonics-based instruction improved the reading skills of at-risk young students (e.g., Foorman et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2003; O’Connor, 2000) • Converging evidence suggests that the principles of effective reading intervention for non-ELLs is the same for ELLs (Gersten & Baker, 2000) • Instruction needs to be explicit, intensive, & systematic (NRP, 2000)

5. Multi-Year Project • Session presents research of early reading intervention with young urban learners: native English speakers and English Language Learners (ELLs) • Particular attention to African American males • Research began w/ single-subject pilot study of 7 African American Kindergarten students: 7 males, 1 female

6. Benchmark Results Instructional Recommendation (IR): Intensive - Needs substantial intervention, Strategic - Needs additional intervention, Benchmark - At grade level.

7. A two-year longitudinal project Objectives: 1. Investigate the responsiveness to an explicit PA training of at-risk urban learners 2. Define the characteristics of non-respondents to PA training

8. Year 1’s Investigation in Kindergarten PRETEST School 1 School 2 School 3 At/some risk Some/low risk Treatment Group (n=61) Comparison Group (n=32) POSTTEST

9. Purpose of study in Year 2 • Investigate the effects of Year’s 2 reading intervention on PA skills of treatment students, who failed to meet benchmarks in Year 1 • Investigate whether treatment students, who met benchmarks in Year 1, would be able to maintain treatment gains without additional intervention in Year 2 • Compare the performance of the Comparison Group with the other two groups

10. Methods • Participants and settings • 61 follow-up students from 3 urban schools • Sample attrition/retention rate: 34.4% (n=32) • Treatment group’s attrition rate: 37.7% (n=23) • Comparison group’s attrition rate: 28.1% (n=9) • Student group assignment • ERI-Treatment => students who failed to meet end-of-year’s 1 benchmark goals • ERI-Control => students who met end-of-year’s 1 benchmark goals • Comparison => students who received only classroom instruction in Year 1

11. Methods

12. Year 2’s Investigation in Grade 1 PRETEST ERI Treatment Group (n=23) ERI-Comparison Group (n=15) Comparison Group (n=23) Repeated measures on a tri-weekly basis POSTTEST

13. Methods • Dependent variables • Primary: Pre/Post Measures • WJ-III: Letter Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension • CTOPP subtests (e.g., Elision, Rapid Color Naming, etc) • DIBELS Benchmarks (Spring 2006 & 2007) • Secondary: Tri-weekly Measures • DIBELS progress monitoring probes on • Phoneme Segmentation Fluency • Oral Reading Fluency • Nonsense Word Fluency

14. Methods • Independent variable • Early Reading Intervention • Scripted supplemental reading program with high degree of explicitness and code emphasis (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2003) • It targets core beginning reading skills (Phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, word reading, writing, spelling) • Fluency-building activity • Use of decodable stories (increase in difficulty and length as students progress) • Included 4 components: (a) sight-word acquisition practice, (b) teacher modeling and guided practice, (c) partner reading, and (d) testing • Implemented 4-5 days per week for 20-35min per session • Delivered by 6 trained IAs (4 paraprofessionals & 2 GA’s) • Integrity checks collected 1-2 times per week

15. Results

16. Results

17. Results

18. Results

19. Results

20. Results

21. Looking into our ERI-Treatment group

22. Looking into our ERI-Treatment group

23. Looking into our ERI-Treatment group

24. Conclusions • Year 2’s PA training for ERI-treatment group: • Produced greater decoding gains than Year 1’s • Produced greater overall gain outcomes (WA & LWID) for our ELL treatment group • ERI-Comparison students not only maintained Year 1’s treatment gains but also surpassed their comparison peers on WA & LWID standardized measures • Comparison students maintained a slight edge in comprehension but continued to lag behind in LWID & WA

25. Implications • Phonemic awareness instruction (i.e. ERI) effective in helping students acquire and maintain skills from kindergarten intensive instruction • Students in 2nd year interventions may benefit from more fluency and comprehension instruction. These students warrant more intensive study • Instruction effective for ELL as well as non-ELL students • Non-treatment students would benefit from more instruction on phonemic/phonological awareness

26. Progress by African American Males Over Two-Year Period

27. Experimental Condition by Gender for African-American Students ONLY

28. PSF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years

29. NWF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years

30. PSF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years

31. NWF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years

32. Implications • Both groups received intervention during kindergarten (1st year), but only ERI Treatment received PA intervention the second year during first grade • African American males made progress, but the data are mixed, especially for NWF • African American males appeared to fare less well than females in the study. • The small numbers limit interpretation of data. • More research needed to study specific instructional needs of young African American males.

33. References • August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. • Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Schatschneider, C.S., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55. • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to interventions: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 411), 93-99. • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (January/February/March, 2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 93-99. • Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470. • Haager, D., & Windmueller, M.P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235-250. • Lyon, G.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2001). Early warning systems. Education Next, 1(2), 22-29. • Mathes, P. G., & Torgesen, J. K. (1998). All children can learn to read: Critical care for the prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3&4), 317-340. • National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. U.S. department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service & National Institute of Child Health & Human Development Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

34. O’Connor, R.E., & Klingner, K.K. (2007, April 20). RtI: Who still needs help when interventions have failed? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Council for Exceptional Children, Louisville, KY. • Ortiz, A.A., Wilkinson, C., Roberson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M.I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 53-63. • Simmons, D. (2006). What research says about RTI as early intervention and as a method of LD identification. Paper presented at the national convention for Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, Utah. • Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Official website: http://www.scottforesman.com/eri/index.cfm • Tatum, A.W. (2006). Engaging African American males in reading. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 44-49. • Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Qi, C.H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425-441. • Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409. • Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P., Crino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56-73. • Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuelle, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169. • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing