Data-Driven Implementation of Tiered Interventions with English Learners, Session 1
Articles,  Blog

Data-Driven Implementation of Tiered Interventions with English Learners, Session 1

like to thank everyone again for coming. And I would like to introduce
REL Northeast & Islands researcher Carrie Parker who
leads the Connecticut English Learner Research Partnership,
and she will be kicking off today’s webinar. All right, Carrie,
have a wonderful session.>>CARRIE PARKER:
Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for joining us today
for the first of three workshops focused on Data-Driven
Implementation of Tiered Interventions
with English Learners. I’m Carrie Parker. I’m Principal
Research Scientist with the REL. I serve as researcher
and facilitator for the REL’s Connecticut English Learner
Partnership which has helped to sponsor this series. We are so excited that more than
100 people have registered for this webinar today, including
representatives from at least 24 districts across Connecticut. Fourteen districts
registered with teams of two or more people. There are also registrants from
at least four of the risks and members of the Connecticut
State Department of Education. Since we have such a diverse
group from across Connecticut and we could also see in
the introductory polls that were taken we have a diversity of
specialties as well with English learner specialists as well
as special education, general education teachers, and
administrators, we hope that you will continue sharing in the
chat so that we can get a sense of who else is on the webinar. We know that, in many cases,
each of the little heads there for Hartford and for East
Hartford and the other districts represent multiple people. In addition, the chat can serve
as a great place for you to raise questions or share some
ideas with each other throughout the webinar. I will try and collect
the questions, and at different periods throughout the webinar,
Sarah and Lindsey will have an opportunity to answer them. But we try and use the chat
to be as interactive as possible with this
webinar, so feel free to use it. The workshop
is divided into three parts. We hope you’ll
be able to attend all three. Though, if you can’t, all the
workshops will be recorded and will be available online. Each of the sessions addresses a
different aspect of response to intervention
for English learners. Today’s will provide an overall
background and will look at Tier 1, Session 2 focuses on
using data to identify student difficulties,
and Session 3 focuses on appropriate interventions. We hope that by the
end of Session 3 you will feel confident in your ability to use
data to improve instruction for English
learners using the RTI process. And that those of you who are
attending as part of a district team will have found ways to
collaborate and together design an RTI process
that works in your district. Today’s 90-minute session
is designed to provide both information and tools and to
offer an opportunity to practice using some tools
and doing some reflections. Earlier this week, I sent
an email to all registrants and included an attachment
with handouts for today. If you didn’t get that email,
the handouts are also available by clicking the link
in the box that says download today’s files. In the email, we also
recommended that district teams participate in the webinar in
a face-to-face setting if at all possible. But if you haven’t been able to
do that, you will still be able to participate fully today. As I mentioned, this series
is part of the work of the REL’s Connecticut
English Learner Partnership. The partnership includes
both state and district members. A number of partnership members
are participating today and we want to thank them for the work
that they’re doing with us to design research and technical
assistance that’s relevant to Connecticut educators
working with English learners. And those partnership members
include Megan Alubicki Flick from the State Department of
Education, Teresa DeBrito from Region 12, Pedro Mendia-Landa
from New Haven, and Nancy Tracy from EdAdvance. If I have
neglected anyone, I apologize. We’ve
set out four goals for today. By the end of the session,
you should have a better understanding of data-driven
implementation of RTI with English learners, you should
have an understanding of some issues and solutions related to
over and under-identification of disabilities among English
learners, and you should have some ideas for
Tier 1 instruction for English learners. We are privileged to have with
us two English learner experts from the Center for Applied
Linguistics, CAL, to lead our series. They will be the leaders
of all three of the webinars. Dr. Sarah C. K. Moore is Program
Director of Pre-K to 12 English Learner Education at CAL where
she oversees projects addressing the educational needs
of emerging bilingual students. Sarah has led both pre and
in-service teacher preparation in a range of settings
and across grade levels. Her work at CAL primarily
focuses on general educator professional
development regarding sheltered instructional methods for
ensuring students’ development of both language and literacy
as well as content learning. Sarah holds a PhD in educational
leadership and policy studies with emphasis on language policy
and planning, and a masters in English as a Second Language
curriculum and instruction, both from Arizona State University. Welcome, Sarah. And Lindsey Massoud is a Senior
Research Associate at CAL with expertise in educational
linguistics, sociolinguistics, and methodologies for meeting
the needs of English learners in K-12 settings. Lindsey has conducted research
in the field of K-12 English language education across grade
levels utilizing a variety of methods, including
surveys, interviews, and video ethnography. She brings particular expertise
in specifying the linguistic demands embedded in
curricula and instruction and in supporting teachers’ development
of skills for ensuring that English learner
students have access to rigorous academic content. Lindsey holds a masters
in anthropology from the George Washington University with
an emphasis on linguistic and sociocultural anthropology
and a BA in linguistics from the University
of Maryland College Park. And, so, now I’m going to turn
it over to Sarah and Lindsey to begin. And I just want to note that
I have seen a couple of email coming
in from different participants. Now that I’m turning this over
to Sarah and Lindsey, I will pay attention to those emails, so
you may be hearing from me soon. So, welcome. Go ahead.>>LINDSEY MASSOUD: Great.
Thank you so much, Carrie. And thank
you, everyone, for being here. We know how valuable your time
is and really appreciate it. We hope that the sessions
are extraordinarily useful for your practice. And we’re looking
forward to being here together. We wanted to quickly just
introduce you to three sources that we’ll be using throughout
the presentation and drawing some content from the
IES Practice Guide on RTI in Primary Grades. That’s not specific for
ELs but it’s for RTI across all students,
research-based practices. We also will be drawing
on a document from the National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine called Promoting the Educational
Success of Children and Youth Learning
English: Promising Futures. And another IES Practice
Guide on instruction for English learners
in elementary and middle school. We will be covering content from
these three documents throughout the presentation and just wanted
to mention that up front that those are key resources for some
of the content that we’ll be talking through today. So, first we’re going to do an
introduction to RTI and SRBI and we’ll discuss some modifications
for English learners as well as general recommendations. First, I want to mention that,
of course, there are various terms used
to describe tiered intervention. Response to intervention or RTI
is a very common term for these. Also, multi-tiered
systems of support or MTSS. Another term often employed
for tiered interventions. And then, of course, scientific
research-based interventions or SRBI is the terminology used
specifically in Connecticut. According to the Connecticut
State Department of Education’s framework document on SRBI,
we just wanted to read this: “Scientific research-based
interventions emphasise successful instruction for all
students through high-quality core general education
practices as well as targeted interventions for students
experiencing learning, social, emotional,
or behavioral difficulties.” So SRBI in Connecticut, as a
lot of you may know, includes a variety of key practices,
including those related to the core curriculum, schoolwide
systems of support, school climate, instructional
strategies, differentiation, common assessments, and the
careful and collaborative use of data to support
both decision-making regarding individual students and
evaluation and improvement of educational practice
around the interventions. In this series of sessions, we
will use the term RTI typically since it’s employed across
a variety of contexts and is a common term used to describe
tiered interventions as well as in the practice
guides that we are presenting. But some content we’ll
also derive from Connecticut’s documentation on SRBI. To that end, we wanted
to briefly mention that, in Connecticut, SRBI is, of course,
contextualized within the state’s Accountability for
Learning Initiative, or CALI, which emphasizes positive school
climate, leadership, and SRBI, with the ultimate goal
of improved student learning through holistic accountability. Key components of this overall
approach are demonstrated in the inner circle and are
shown to feed into one another. We’re showing this because it’s
important to see up front that SRBI is a key part of
Connecticut’s overall approach to effective instruction for all
students, and it’s integrated with and impacted by a range of
other factors, including school climate and culture and
educational practices involving a wide range of school staff. We want you to just keep
that in mind as we go through the session. So, before we get started
and jumped into the content, we would like to get a sense
of who is here and what your experiences have been
with implementation of RTI for English learners
in your schools and districts. So, the needs assessment
questions appear on your screen. There are six of them. Please answer each question. You can answer as a team if
you’re meeting as a team, or you can answer individually
if you’re meeting individually. You will see there are six items
and we just wanted to get a sense of where you all
are in terms of RTI for English learners. Okay. So, it looks like we have
some responses coming in already for some of the questions. For the first question, my
school district has challenges in implementing RTI with English
learners, it looks like most of you agree or strongly agree,
which is why you are here, I assume. That’s great. I’m glad we’re together and hope
this affords some opportunities to reflect on ways that those
processes can be improved and ways that you can
talk to each other about that. Poll two, my school district
tends to under-identify English learners as needing
special education services. So, people are
disagreeing or neutral on this. Some strongly disagree. So, we’ll get into over and
under-identification a little bit later in the session, so it
will be interesting to hear some of your responses. Then, as well, we’ll get
into the nitty-gritty of that a little bit more. That’s great to know. Poll three, my school district
tends to over-identify English learners as needing
special education services. So, again,
sort of neutral, a few agree. Yeah. We’ll again get
into that in more detail later. Poll four, specialists in
ESL and special education work together to
implement RTI effectively for English learners. So, we have a lot of neutral,
one strongly agree, so that’s great, and a number of
disagree or strongly disagree. One of our key goals here is to
share expertise and figure out some ways that schools
and districts can help different educators work together to
implement RTI most effectively for English learners. Hopefully we’ll see that flip
by the end of our three series. Okay, poll five. Staff in my school district
need more knowledge about how to implement RTI. Yes, strongly agree. Great. We’re glad that you’re here. Poll six, staff in my
school district need more or better tools. Also, strongly agree. Great. So, we are hoping throughout
these three sessions to provide you not only with information
but hopefully with some tools that you can take and use. We have a couple of links in
the handouts and there are some great tools and some of the key
resources that we’re using as well. All right. With that, let’s dig in. So, just a brief review
of the three tiers of RTI. We’ll preview some of the
key modifications we’ll be talking about. The three tiers:
Tier 1, high-quality classroom instruction. For English learners, that
would also need to include ESL services and culturally
and linguistically responsive instruction. Tier 2, supplemental
instruction and interventions. For English learners, those
should involve ESL staff and differentiation for
English language proficiency. Tier 3, even fewer students,
very intensive interventions. For English learners, we would
again want to see involvement of ESL staff as well as
staff training in working with English learners. And, again, differentiation and
modifications with particular sensitivity to students’ English
language development and how that might be interacting
with target skills in the interventions. And throughout the process,
screening, assessment, and progress monitoring. For English learners, we’ll talk
about again involvement of ESL specialists, as well as
assessment and screening tools that are researched with English
learners and available in students’
first languages if possible. We know there are some in
Spanish, not always easy to find in other languages. But whenever
possible, it’s a great benefit. And then the consideration
of a broad range of data and comparison with true peers,
which means students who may have similar language background
and other characteristics to the student. We’ll talk in
more detail about each of these. So, throughout the series, we’re
going to come back to a couple of fictional
students, Isabel and Adnan. They are also on
the first page of your handouts. You can read
a little bit about them there. We’ll briefly introduce you
to them and then come back to them throughout. Isabel is a 4th grade student. She is an English learner. Scored approaching
proficient on her English language proficiency exam. Speaks Spanish at home, which
we know from her whole language survey as well as
personal interaction with her. She was born in the United
States and she does well in math but struggles with literacy, and
we know that from a variety of data sources, both
standardized assessments, formative assessments,
and screening tools. And here is Adnan. He is a 2nd grade student. Also an English learner. But scored not proficient
on his English language proficiency exam. Speaks Arabic at home. Recently
arrived from Syria as a refugee. And his English reading and
writing is below grade level, which, of course, we would
expect it to be as he is a new English
speaker just learning English. Part of what we want to address
throughout this series is how to ensure that we’re not assuming
why a student is struggling in school, that we are looking at
a variety of data, we’re looking at how they’re doing in English,
how they’re doing in content scores, and that kind of thing. So, we’ll look a little bit
more throughout as to how we can really figure out
why he’s struggling in that way. So, we also want you to think
of a student that you work with, maybe one that you’ve worked
with or are currently working with, their grade level, what is
their English proficiency, how did they score on the
standardized assessment, as well as what is your experience with
speaking English with them, what is their home language, what
country are they from, what are their strengths,
and what do they struggle with. You can jot some notes if you
want about your student, again, on page one of your handouts and
just come back to thinking about that
student throughout the session. If you want to jot some notes in
the chat, we would welcome that about a student that you’re
thinking of, maybe using a pseudonym if you
want to protect their anonymity. Maybe just jot some notes about
a student that you’re thinking of that
you can dedicate this work to. Throughout this series, we’ll be
talking about a variety of data sources that you can
use in determining RTI tiers for English learner students
and appropriate supports. These include standardized
assessments, that would be content assessments like Smarter
Balanced, also English language proficiency assessments such as
LAS Links in Connecticut or the WIDA Assessment elsewhere. These would include formative
assessments that can provide information about a range
of student knowledge and skills, screening and progress
monitoring tools that are used for the RTI process,
school records can provide some information about students’
background, and personal interactions both with the
student as well as with parents and families. And it’s important with all
students, but especially English learners, to try to develop
a comprehensive, broad view of each student in order to
understand how various elements of their backgrounds,
experiences, knowledge, and skills in both English and their
home language are impacting their participation and
performance on academic tests. In this section, we’ll review
recommendations from the IES Practice Guide on RTI which are
organized by tier and include recommendations for screening
and progress monitoring as well. We’ll then for each topic
discuss some key modifications for English learners. Many of these items will be
discussed in greater detail in sessions 2 and 3, but we wanted
to provide an overall picture of how RTI can be implemented with
English learners and key factors that your local
team might want to consider. And if you look at your handouts
on pages two to four, these slides are summarized there
as well as some thoughts about Isabel and Adnan and space
to jot some notes about your own student
as well if you choose to do so. We will be drawing, like I
said, on the IES Practice Guide on RTI. The first recommendation from
the Practice Guide is to screen all students for potential
reading problems at the beginning of the year and again
in the middle of the year and to regularly monitor the progress
of students who are at elevated risk for
developing reading disabilities. The Guide recommends universal
screening, which is also consistent
with Connecticut’s approach. And screening should take
place in kindergarten through second grade. Measures should be efficient,
reliable, and reasonably valid. More frequent monitoring is
recommended for students at risk for reading difficulties. And they recommend targeting
five areas: letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation,
nonsense word fluency, word identification, and oral reading
fluency, sometimes alternatively called passage reading fluency. And the Guide recommends
three practices to carry out this recommendation. The first is to
create a building level team to facilitate the implementation of
universal screening and progress monitoring, the second
is to select a set of efficient screening measures that identify
children at risk for poor reading outcomes with reasonable
accuracy, and the third is to use benchmark or growth rates
or a combination of the two to identify children at
low, moderate, or high risk for developing reading difficulties. Screening and assessment
for English learners should also involve an ESOL specialist if
possible as their expertise is irreplaceable when it comes to
understanding the linguistic and cultural background
of the students, including their experiences with English and how
this impacts their participation in instruction as
well as other academic skills. In addition, diagnostic
assessments and screening tools should be appropriate
for English learners. This means that they have been
researched with English learners and shown to be valid
and reliable for use with ELs. And when interpreting data,
educators should also take care to make sure that determinations
aren’t made based on standard benchmarks or only one score. As we mentioned, instead, review
students’ performance on English language proficiency, other
language assessments, and those factors related to their
backgrounds, including, for example,
prior schooling in the U.S. and the home country. It could also be helpful to look
at students’ true peers, others whose English language
proficiency, first language, and prior schooling,
for example, are similar. Comparing students, however,
should be done with great sensitivity to the wide
range of factors that can impact academic performance. This should always involve
thoughtful collaboration among staff representing varied areas
of expertise, including those with backgrounds
in special education and ESL. It looks like we have a question
from South Windsor, “Are you going to pause to allow us
to discuss this briefly or do we wait?” Okay. I think if you want to discuss
this, this might be a good time for a little bit of discussion. You guys can post. And maybe
think about Isabel and Adnan. So, based on what we’ve seen so
far, how do you think that this would play out for them? What are some things that you
think should be considered with regard to
Isabel and Adnan with regard to screening? So, while you’re thinking,
some of the things that we were thinking with Isabel and Adnan,
how are these practices going to work for them? One consideration is that it
could be particularly important to use a screener in Arabic
for Adnan if available as he has just begun to learn English, or
perhaps look for other ways to try to assess
his experience with Arabic. Try to get a sense of his
language skills in addition to his English language skills. It may be a way to try
to get a sense of where he’s at. And then for Isabel, maybe
consider her screening results in comparison with true
peers, perhaps other U.S.-born Spanish-speaking students
with similar English language proficiency scores. Things like that. Does anyone
else have any other thoughts? Feel
free to post them in the chat. Great. Jocelyn says
“consideration of contrastive analysis of both languages.” Fantastic. Yeah. And this is where it’s really
useful to try to tap into any resources within the local
context, whether it’s an ESL teacher or someone from the
community that is proficient in both the student’s languages,
both English and their home language. Great. Okay. Feel
free to keep doing this. For each of these
recommendations, we’re going to talk through a
general recommendation and then modifications for English
learners as well with specifics for Isabel and Adnan,
so keep sharing your thoughts. This is great. Okay. So, Chalise says, “one
of our difficulties is finding screeners that have
been researched with or for ELs. Do you have suggestions?” We’ll get into screening and
progress monitoring a little bit more in session 2. But there are some studies that
suggest that some of the things like DIBELS have been researched
with English learners, but they are not appropriate to use
for English learners fully in our opinion. There are some studies that
show that there is a predictive ability with English learners,
including all students, for something like the DIBELS. But one of the main points
that we would love to get across throughout this session is that
with English learners, because there is a lot going on,
and especially thinking about a student like Adnan who is also a
refugee and may be dealing with some social/emotional struggles,
just everything needs to be thoughtful and variety of data
sources together and really a team approach. There are some out there
that show that they do work with English learners, but we
would almost always put a little asterisk by that. But we will get into it a little
bit more in session two, like I said. I know in some of the
assessments that are approved in Connecticut, so the
AIMES and the DIBELS have Spanish versions. To South Windsor’s
question about data in the first language,
those have Spanish versions. Yes, Torrington. We do also have a lot of
concerns about lack of resources for English learners with
languages other than Spanish and SIFE students. It’s really a struggle. I think that that’s why we
really are advocating for use of a variety of data. If you can get information from
families, it’s not the same, it’s not ideal. But, yeah, the educational
background and family background, yeah. Jocelyn’s point,
see if Adnan is a SIFE student. Absolutely. You would
definitely want to know that. And I think, just trying
to get as well rounded a view as possible
with as much data as possible. And we are continuing to try
to see if maybe there are some other resources with regards to
other languages and things that have been created. We are continuing to look into
that as well and we’ll let you know if we find others. District, “we are wondering
about human resources to assist us in
administering the assessment.” Yes. It’s a great question. I think I’m not going
to get into that right now. That’s a really
big sort of systematic question. And I think we’ll push forward
for a bit and then we’ll keep thinking about those things. I think it may be a useful thing
to talk about with your groups, too,
based on your local context. All right. Let’s talk about Tier 1,
the IES Practice Guide general recommendations. Provide differentiated reading
instruction for all students based on
assessments of students’ current reading levels. The Guide recommends specific
differentiation strategies. We’ll discuss Tier 1 in greater
detail later in this session, so we won’t
spend a lot of time right here. But we’ll get
into this a little bit later. As we discussed in Tier 1, you
definitely want to have ESOL, English language support and
differentiation within the core curriculum, and
culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. For Isabel and Adnan, you might
want to think about for Adnan, as we discussed, he may have
experienced trauma as a refugee fleeing from Syria and teachers
should take that into account when observing his interactions
with peers, administering formative assessments, providing
feedback on the ways in which he participates in classroom
activities, sensitivity to socio-emotional needs may be
particularly important for him in order to support his
full participation in Tier 1 and ensure that he is making the
progress that he needs to make. And for Isabel, of course, since
she is a Spanish speaker, there are a lot of Spanish resources,
more so, of course, than for other languages, Spanish-English
cognate and that kind of thing. If you have any other questions
and thoughts, feel free to add them as
we go and I will watch for them. We’ll
keep going in the meantime. For Tier 2, the IES Practice
Guide general recommendation is to provide intensive systematic
instruction on up to three foundational reading skills
in small groups to students who score below the benchmark
on universal screening. Typically those groups meet
between three and five times a week for 20 to 40 minutes. They recommend that these are
homogenous groups, three to four students, and use curricula that
address key components of the target skills, and instruction
should be systematic and build over time. They recommend three practices
to carry out the recommendation. First is to use a curriculum
that addresses the components of reading instruction, phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency, and
relates to students’ needs and developmental level. And they recommend implementing
the program three to five times a week for 20 to 40 minutes
and to build skills gradually providing a high level of
teacher-student interaction with opportunities
for practice and feedback. So, for English learners
in Tier 2, instruction should be differentiated,
responsive to their linguistic and cultural background. This may include English
language supports, attention to different cultural experiences
that may impact how a student interacts
with teacher, peers, and techs. In addition, although Tier 2 is
often implemented in small group settings, this is particularly
important for English learners and care should be taken to
reduce group sizes as necessary to ensure English learners needs
are being met, both with regard to the skills being targeted
through the intervention as well as any English language
skills that students are still developing. ESOL staff should be involved
to ensure that the interventions and the assessments are done in
a way that is sensitive to and inclusive of English learners
continuing English language development as well as any other
factors in their cultural or personal background that may
impact their participation in the RTI process. Thinking again about
our friends, Isabel and Adnan. If you group them with
others who speak the same home language, that
could provide useful support. They could translate for each
other between English and their home language. It would, of course, be
particularly helpful for Adnan if there are other Arabic
speakers since he’s still just beginning to learn English. Involving ESOL staff
can help teachers understand language-specific
support they could use. For example, similarities
or differences between the home languages and English, as
well as linguistic and cultural differences that may
impact their participation and instruction. Any other thoughts at this point
on supports that could be useful for them or
other questions as you go along? I don’t see anything quite yet. The fourth recommendation from
the Practice Guide is regarding progress monitoring, which is to
monitor the progress of students in Tier 2 at least once a month. Data should be used to
determine whether students still require intervention. And for those still
making insufficient progress, schoolwide teams should design
a Tier 3 intervention plan. This includes establishing
a schedule for assessments, reassigning or regrouping
students as appropriate, and analyzing
data carefully and reliably. And the Guide recommends three
practices to carry out this recommendation, first to monitor
the progress of Tier 2 students on a regular basis using
grade-appropriate measures, and this should occur at least eight
times during the school year. Second, while providing
Tier 2 instruction, use progress monitoring data to
identify students needing additional instruction. And, of course,
we would say a variety of data. And three, consider using
progress monitoring data to regroup Tier 2 students
approximately every six weeks. For English learners, when
monitoring their progress, it’s very valuable, as we said,
to assess students both in the language of the intervention
as well as their home language whenever possible, and possibly
trying to get information from other sources other than
assessments about their home language use to the extent
that you can from families or other sources. This can provide two data points
indicating proficiency and skills in both languages which
can also inform one another. As mentioned for screening
assessment, these tools should be reliable and valid for use
with English learners, and when at all possible,
given in both languages. A broad range of data sources
and points should be reviewed when interpreting results
and making decisions about continuing or modifying
interventions as well as exit decisions. Thinking about Isabel and Adnan,
it may be useful to consider how true peers
have performed on these tools. Have they been used with other
Arabic or Spanish speakers with similar English
language proficiency levels? For Adnan, consider his status
as a recent immigrant, including the ongoing process of
cultural orientation to the U.S. and the ways in which his
previous experiences may impact how he interprets and responds
to items within the progress monitoring
tools of formative assessment. Does he have the cultural
background knowledge required for these items? What is assumed that
students know in order to answer these things? And then consider ways to modify
these assessments, discuss his performance with an ESOL
specialist familiar with him, someone who has interacted with
him and has a sense of both his personal background
as well as his progression learning English. The fifth and final
recommendation from the IES Practice Guide is regarding
Tier 3 to provide intensive instruction daily that promotes
the development of various components of reading
proficiency to students who show minimal progress after
reasonable time in Tier 2 small group instruction. This includes focusing on
a small number of high priority skills in a one-on-one or
small group setting and regular progress monitoring which can
demonstrate whether the program is working for the students or
whether changes need to be made. And they recommend
six practices to carry out this recommendation. The first is to implement
concentrated instruction focused on a small but targeted set
of reading skills, second is to adjust the overall lesson pace,
third is to schedule multiple and extended instructional
sessions daily, fourth is to include opportunities
for extensive practice and high-quality feedback with
one-on-one instruction and to plan an individualized Tier
3 instruction using input from a school-based RTI team, and
finally to ensure that Tier 3 students master a reading skill
or strategy before moving on. So, for English learners, again,
we want to address students’ specific learning needs,
the target skills, their English language learning needs. They need to be supported in
their English learning in order to meaningfully engage
and successfully engage with the content of the intervention. In support of this goal, staff
working with English learners in Tier 3 should have had training
in working with English learners specifically and should
also work closely with an ESOL specialist whose expertise will
be very valuable to the process. For Isabel and Adnan. For Isabel, it may be considered
drawing on Spanish language resources to bridge her Spanish
language knowledge with skills in English. Consider her performance on
formative assessments in Spanish if available and use those in
evaluating her needs for English language development. For Adnan, consider that his
language background includes an introduction to writing with
a different alphabet and that it may be useful to provide
scaffolding around the English alphabet using his concept of
alphabetic script from Arabic as a useful starting point. Okay. So, that was a
lot that just got thrown at you. We want to take a little bit
of time to reflect as a group. Take about three minutes either
with your group, or if you’re on your own, just do some
self-reflection, to think about the ways in which you’ve seen
the use and integration of these practices in your local context. Take three minutes. You can assign a moderator,
timekeeper, reporter, if you want to
have some roles for your group. And then we’ll have
people post within the chat. You’ll see the chat there, what
are some key things or takeaways among these practices
for implementing tiered interventions with English
learners, and then the practices are there to the right. Again, as you’re reflecting,
some of the practices that we’ve been talking about, modifying
the screening process to include multiple data points, language
support, screeners in students’ home languages,
involvement of ESOL staff. The second practice with Tier 1,
including ESOL services, English language
supports, and differentiation. Again, in
Tier 2, differentiation, English language supports,
involvement of ESOL staff. You should
easily see something developing. The fourth with progress
monitoring, include tools that are reliable and valid for use
with English learners, available in students’ home
languages, and again, a variety of relevant data. The fifth Tier 3, attention to
students’ progress in developing English language proficiency
and involvement of ESOL staff. Great. So, we have
some responses coming in. All right. So, Damien Reardon is sharing
“when ESOL teachers take their students to work with them, pull
out, do you consider this Tier 2 and 3 work, and do your ESOL
teachers document this work on SRBI forms?” No, I would
not consider that Tier 2 and 3. I would consider that – so, we
want to differentiate that the SRBI process, and you all can
comment in the notes if you have a different understanding in
your local context in terms of how your district views it. But what we want
to differentiate is that we have English language, we’re
addressing English language and we’re addressing possibly other
difficulties or potentially even disabilities that
students are struggling with. We want to make sure that we are
prioritizing the inclusion of ESOL support to students to
develop their English language proficiency, but that Tiers
2 and 3 are to work on very specific skills and identify
ways in which students may be struggling and potentially even
be identified as needing special education services. I think we want to differentiate
that and say that ESOL support is not
the same as SRBI in our view. If anyone else has some comments
on that, I would be interested to hear if there are any other
views on how that plays out at the local district. Yeah. Jocelyn, it looks like we
got a little bit of your comment about the Hartford team. It looks like it was going
somewhere interesting if you want to include that again. East Hartford shared importance
of continued language support through Tier 2 and 3. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and that’s for a couple
of different reasons, as you probably know. I mean, we want to ensure that,
one, we are addressing English language throughout
all of the students’ educational experiences, and so that’s why,
you know, on sort of a different topic, we also encourage
students’ participation in general content instruction. We want them to have language
supports within the other areas of instruction
that they need access to. So, we need the English language
supports for them to engage well, and we also really want
to keep moving them along in English throughout the day,
so it’s really important to have that woven throughout everything
that an English learner does throughout the school day. All right. And Colchester,
we have – thanks for posting. We have, “the key is
understanding the students’ home language and how that language
structure can lend itself to instruction
around learning English. Additionally, when
differentiating, it is important to understand the student’s LAS
level when setting expectations for performance.” Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, and we would also say
those levels, if you can also have information about the
different domains of English, reading, writing, listening,
speaking, if you can understand a little bit about where
students might be doing better or need some extra support
in learning English as well, so their overall proficiency,
but then also some sort of differentiation of the
different skills within English. Those are
really useful. Great. And, obviously, too,
the connections between home language and English, some
of the connections are obvious. I mean, Spanish, we all know
there’s lots of cognates and there’s similarities,
and that kind of thing. With a language like
Arabic, it’s harder to see the connections, but really trying
to see the students as bringing skills with them. So, like we talked about
with Adnan, he may have some experience with Arabic writing
already, and that concept of print in terms of alphabet can
still be drawn on, even if the languages have
some real great differences. Okay. Got Jocelyn’s
full comment. Great. “Here it is
in its entirety. Great. Practice 1, consideration of
language and cultural needs of our English learners. Practice 2, there’s not
consistency in understanding of Tier 1 across the district.” Okay. That’s
really good to know. So, this may be an opportunity
to try to gain some common understanding of what that
looks like across the district. Perfect. And we’ll be diving into Tier
1 very soon, as I mentioned. “Practice 4, there are very
few reliable and valid tools for progress.” Yes. We are – we will be digging
into that a little bit more in Session 2. It’s an area of great interest
for us too, and we’re continuing to research that and see if
there may be others out there, if anyone knows of more as well. And, like I said, we’ll be
getting into that a little bit more in just a month as well. All right. So, Torrington said
“we would not refer Adnan to RTI unless there were dramatic
issues that were clearly not language related. Lack of resources in his native
language would not be addressed until there were concerns that
could not be remedied by ESL instructional strategies.” Yeah, which makes sense. And, so, in Session 2, we’ll
get into this a little bit more. But one example of a case where
maybe you would refer Adnan for Tier 2 is maybe if there are a
few Arabic-speaking students at a similar level in the
school and maybe on some of the screening tools he falls behind
them on a specific skill, then maybe
you start asking more questions. But, yeah, we don’t
want to conflate language and disability, and we’ll
get into that a lot in the second session. Okay. So, I think we
need to move on, unfortunately. I love that we really got a lot
coming in, and I want to keep going through, but
I think we need to move along. And we can keep the chat open,
but I’m going to hand it over to Sarah to talk
about best practices for Tier 1.>>DR.
SARAH MOORE: Hello, everyone. Thank you
for being here with us today. We’re really excited to
be a part of this three-part webinar series. So, in this next section, we’ll
go into somewhat greater depth, looking at best practices
for Tier 1 or general classroom instruction
that supports all students. We’ll look at Tier 2 in greater
depth in the next session and Tier 3 in Session 3. High-quality Tier 1 instruction
is especially critical for English learners because they
need to be well supported in the general education classroom
with appropriate instructional strategies that promote
integrated language and content development for all students. Supporting ELs well in the
general education classroom can mitigate risks of inappropriate
identification in that students’ English language learning needs
will be addressed and can be better differentiated from other
learning needs that may result from different learning
difficulties a child may be experiencing. So, in addressing Tier 1 best
practices, we’ll focus on the four recommendations from
the IES Practice Guide, Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to
English Learners in Elementary and Middle School, which Lindsey
introduced a bit earlier. The Guide
recommends four practices for vocabulary instruction. First, choose a brief engaging
piece of informational text that includes academic vocabulary
as a platform for intensive academic vocabulary instruction. Second, choose a small set
of academic vocabulary for in-depth instruction. Third, teach academic vocabulary
in-depth using multiple modalities, so that is to say
writing, speaking, listening, and reading. And teach word learning
strategies to help students independently
figure out the meaning of words. Sorry about that, folks. Let’s think about how these
practices would work for Isabel and Adnan. Isabel, who speaks Spanish
at home, might benefit from reviewing cognate words
which are similar in English and Spanish, and it might be helpful
for Adnan, who has struggled with reading and writing
in English, to keep a personal dictionary in which you help
him locate images that represent words as well as synonyms
and sample sentences for new vocabulary words. One way to expand on vocabulary
instruction is through creating word maps which include
information comparable to a dictionary,
except using concept bubbles. The Guide recommends four
practices for integrating oral and written English language
instruction into content area teaching. First, strategically
use instructional tools, such as short videos, visuals,
and graphic organizers to anchor instruction and help
students make sense of content. Second, explicitly teach
the content-specific academic vocabulary as well as the
general academic vocabulary that supports it
during content area instruction. Third, provide daily
opportunities for students to talk about content
in pairs or small groups. Fourth, provide writing
opportunities to extend student learning and understanding
of the content material. Let’s think about how these
practices would work for Isabel and Adnan. Isabel might benefit
from generating interaction with Schemata and Text or GIST. GIST is an activity in which
teachers invite students to read a short text and highlight
academic or other vocabulary while reading. After reading, they exchange
summaries of the content of the passage in a small
group or with a partner orally. Next, the small group works
together to rewrite the passage in a way that maintains meaning
and the key vocabulary but might be in more accessible language. For Adnan, who arrived
recently and has lower English proficiency, you might consider
integrating sentence starters for him during an activity like
GIST so he can practice oral English and use
them to scaffold his writing. The Guide
recommends four practices for writing instruction. Provide writing assignments
that are anchored in content and focused on developing
academic language as well as writing skills. For all writing assignments,
provide language-based supports that facilitate students’ entry
into and continued development of writing. Use small groups or pairs
to provide opportunities for students to work and talk
together on varied aspects of writing. And finally, assess students’
writing periodically to identify instructional needs and provide
positive, constructive feedback in response. Let’s think about how these
practices would work for Isabel and Adnan. You might provide alternative
opportunities for both Isabel and Adnan to
develop their writing in stages. For example, they might start
by using graphic organizers that are tailored to their language
proficiency levels to organize their thoughts. Adnan, therefore, might
draw what he plans to write. Once the graphic organizers are
complete, they could be provided with example sentences
for integrating into their planned writing. After writing, you might ask
Isabel and Adnan to work with a peer who might review the
writing and together identify areas where sentences could
be even more descriptive or detailed based on vocabulary
words you have proved for them in advance. In an activity like this, it’s
critical that the writing is anchored
by core content learning. The Guide recommends
five practices for small group instructional interventions. Use available assessment
information to identify students who demonstrate persistent
struggles with aspects of language
and literacy development. Design the content of small
group instruction to target students’ identified needs. Provide additional instruction
in small groups consisting of three to five students to
those struggling with language and literacy. For students who struggle
with basic foundational reading skills, spend time not
only on these skills but also on vocabulary development
and listening and reading comprehension strategies. Provide scaffolded instruction
that includes frequent opportunities for students
to practice and review newly learned skills and concepts
in various contexts over several lessons to ensure retention. Let’s think about how these
practices would work for Isabel and Adnan. For Isabel, you might choose
to group her with other native Spanish speakers and invite
them to speak and write in their native language. For Adnan, before grouping,
be sure to account for his experience as a refugee and
allow him to listen to others without pressure
to participate in the beginning. He may be invited to participate
by selecting cards that represent content from a story,
feelings, numbers, or other types of information. In this way, he can share
his answers despite his English proficiency level. To summarize, the best
practices for Tier 1, focus on vocabulary in-depth
over meaningful amounts of time. Ensure you’re accounting
for all four language domains. Provide writing opportunities
that are well structured and scaffolded
consistently and regularly. For students struggling with
literacy or English development, conduct small-scale
interventions in smaller groups. So, here’s an opportunity
for us to chat some more. Transitioning
from talking at, if you will. In reflecting on some of these
practices for Tier 1, we’d like to hear
from you about your context. Which of these practices do
you see in use regularly at your school or district,
and which would you like to see implemented more regularly? Discuss with your team members. Consider assigning a moderator,
timekeeper, and recorder. Have the recorder post
your group’s response in the chat box. We’ll take about five
minutes for you to confer with colleagues. So, as we wait, I’ll
just remind us that the four practices are teach a
set of academic vocabulary words intensively across several
days using a diverse variety of instructional activities. We want to make sure that
we are integrating all four language domains. That’s sort of a
basic fundamental, and sheltered instruction, which lots of
you folks know, because it looks like at least half, I think, are
ESOL experts, English learner experts, so we appreciate your
and everyone else’s expertise, bringing together as a team. It’s really important
that teachers provide structured opportunities to develop
written language skills, and the structure and scaffolding
is what’s critical there. And then for kids who
are struggling with literacy and English language development, we
want to take advantage of small group
instructional interventions. So, that word intervention
sounds intense, but it just means employ sheltered
instructional methods that you know will help to
scaffold access to content for English learners. Okay, so, South Windsor, “we
see it being more integrated and explicitly taught at the
elementary level; however, we need to
improve at the secondary level.” Yes. And we actually also have
a question that looks like about whether there is a
guide for high school and the secondary level. This Guide was heavily
vetted by the Institute of Education Sciences. And, as such, we have
these recommendations that are research-based. And because of that,
there are some limitations on grade levels. So, we want to make sure
that recommendations that we’re sharing really
are, in fact, evidence-based. So, it may be that we can find
other examples of guides that would be more pertinent
to the secondary level. So, we’ll take a look at our
resources, Lindsey and I, and we’ll respond to this question
either in the interim between now and next time or during
Session 2 because that’s a really
important question and point. So, Colchester says, “we
would like to see more intense instruction of academic
vocabulary words across several days. We do integrate oral and written
English language instruction into content-area teaching,
albeit with limited support. We do provide practice 3 and 4
as well through a combination of English learner intervention
and classroom intervention.” Yeah. I think we have pretty
strong evidence from recent research that vocabulary
plays a critical role in English learners’ access
to core content and English language development. These recommendations, a
couple of them do really focus on vocabulary. One of the things we’ve also
wanted to keep in mind, which we’ll get into just briefly
in the next section, is to also think more broadly about
discourse patterns, and this may apply more particularly
to the secondary level. So, vocabulary’s just not about
words, it’s about word order and it’s about phrasing and
it’s about words that can have tricky meanings. So, yeah, I think this idea of
academic vocabulary broadly, not just words across several days. So,
we’re being really consistent. We’re really sort of hammering
in this learning in a diverse range of sort of instructional
strategies and context so that kids continue to see this stuff
in different settings so that they’re recognizing these key
discourse patterns or if it is a particular
vocabulary word or words. So, great. All right. I think we’ll move on. We’ll now briefly discuss some
issues around identification of English learners as in need of
special education services. It’s difficult in the course of
the RTI process to differentiate between language
learning and other needs. We’ll dive further into
some of those issues in the next session, but here we’ll begin
to discuss some of the issues around identification of ELs
with disabilities and ways to mitigate over
or under-identifying English learners as in need
of special education services. To that end, we’ll review
findings reported in promoting the educational success
of children and youth learning English, which is a
2017 publication of the National Academies Press, specifically
Chapter 10, which is entitled Dual Language
Learners and English Learners with Disabilities. For those of you who are English
learner experts, and, of course, obviously, all of you, but
for those with this particular background, I would
strongly recommend review and consultation
of this new publication. It is, in our opinion, among the
most comprehensive, updated, and highly vetted publications
with regard to English learners. In this case, they’re calling
kids dual language learners. But they’re looking at English
learners across grade levels and age groups. And the authors are
representative of the leading scholars and researchers
in the field of English language learner education, so I would
recommend consultation of this publication, not only Chapter
10, but others for those who may be interested. So, we’re going to take
a moment to ask you a couple questions about
the representation of English learners as dually-identified
in your context. Are English learners under
represented, over represented, neither, or not sure? Answers still coming in. It looked like we had come
to some half consensus, but now everything’s spreading
out, so that’s interesting. So, what we find is, in fact,
at the national level, English learners are under represented. Even though they make up 9.5% of
the general student population, they are only 8% of students
who have been reported with disabilities and referenced for
special educational supports. It’s important to note, however,
that the prevalence of language impairment among English
learners is the same as that in monolinguals. So, what we’re going to do is
on the next several slides we’ll present statements
regarding English learners. After each statement, take a few
moments and think about whether you think it’s true or false. Then we’ll share the
correct answer and review further information. For the following slides,
use the hand raising tool to indicate your response. Raise hand to indicate true and
do nothing to indicate false. So, if you think it’s true,
hand up; if not, sit tight. True or false, children with
disabilities get confused and overwhelmed by learning
and have difficulty learning one language; therefore, additional
languages will make acquisition more challenging. What do folks think? I see some hands going up. True. Oaky. I presume that means
most people think this is false. So,
let’s see what our answer is. Yes, it is false. There is no evidence that those
with disabilities get confused or overwhelmed or have
additional difficulties from learning two or more languages. English learners with a language
impairment can and do become bilingual and biliterate. True or false, language varies
depending on the subject area being taught. Hands up if we think it’s true. I guess I kind of
clued you in a little earlier. Whoops,
I didn’t think about that. All right.
Many people think this is true. Looks like a lot of the groups
have come to maybe consensus over there in conferring
independent of our large group and think it’s true. All right. True. Different academic subjects tend
to use specific vocabulary or sentence patterns. Many educators have heard about,
“the language of math” or, “the language of science.” This refers to the idea that
different academic subjects tend to use specific vocabulary or
sentence patterns and that these must be actively learned by
students, particularly if they’re English learners. For example, science assignments
might require the ability to make predictions supported by
evidence using sentence frames like I predict X because Y. Or math might require knowing
the difference between a “table that organizes data”
and a “table that is a piece of furniture.” Fortunately, there are now a
variety of strategies available for teachers in many different
content areas to scaffold the language demands
of their academic materials. And, you know, part of what’s
tricky here is the language demands we sometimes call
them embedded, so they’re not quite explicit. You have to sort of
understand that they’re there. One of the things that we’ve
been talking a lot about is teachers as educational
linguists, so it’s being able to recognize some of those embedded
demands, those implicit hidden meanings
and other linguistics issues. True or false, code switching,
switching between two languages during a conversation, reflects
confusion and inability of children with disabilities to
keep the two languages separate. Therefore, it’s a sign or a
cause of language impairment in ELs. Who thinks this is true? All right. I presume
everyone thinks that is false. Well, we’re
a very well-informed party here. Code switching is a
normal grammatical and effective behavior in all English
learners, including those with disabilities. It is not associated
with language impairment and is equally present in typically
developing English learners and speakers
of more than one language. Code switching is
neither a sign nor a cause of language impairment. So, our colleagues, someone
who was on the CAL board, Ofelia Garcia and others, have done
a lot of work and are sort of trending in the field with
notions around trans-languaging, this idea that languages do not
exist independent of one another among multilingual
and multiliterate seekers. Fortunately, there’s been some
shift, and I think it’s fairly known fairly widespread that
bilingualism and code switching is
a natural part of bilingualism. And we can make the argument
that, in fact, it demonstrates more sophisticated
levels of proficiency. If we’re working with younger
kids, you might consider using, for example, children’s books
that involve code switching. Skippy John Jones, for example,
I was reading with my son last night has code switching in
it between English and Spanish. All right. True or false, researchers agree
that most English learners need 4-6 years to
become fully English proficient. Some suggest that
it may take up to ten years. All right. True or false. Who do we see? Okay. I see lots of trues,
lots of trues, lots of trues. Now, if folks want to be really
tricky, well, I’ll tell you when we
get into the explanation here. Okay. It seems like
most people think this is true. Yeah, about half. I’ll presume that that means
maybe others are abstaining. So this is true. Empirical research shows that it
can take 4-6, 5-7, or even ten years for a student to develop
academic English proficiency. While some students can
appear to enjoy sophisticated conversations in English with
their peers, they may lack the very specific academic uses
of language that they need to succeed in school. With the realistic timeline for
language acquisition, educators and administrators can
make plans that support English learners
during their time in school. All right. True or false. Exposure to two or more
languages will worsen language impairment and other language
learning deficits due to cognitive overload, and this
exposure reduces the affected children’s
chances of learning English. All right. Do folks
think that’s true or false? Looking like most are false. And false. Researchers have found
that bilingual and monolingual learners with autism spectrum
disorder, for example, perform comparably on measures
of receptive or listening and reading, vocabulary and language
ability, as well as general expressive or
speaking and writing language. Recent studies of language
impairment in English learners also concluded that bilinguals
with language impairment do at least as well as their
monolingual peers on measures of morphosyntax in both languages. It is true, however,
that English learners in general education can become proficient
in English more quickly than others who are monolingual. True or false, the
main goal should be to maximize opportunities to learn English. Parents should stop using the
home language and speak to their child only in English. All right.
Everyone’s on to this one. False. Growing up with two languages
does not appear to have a negative
impact on language acquisition. Overwhelmingly, English learners
are likely to learn English without the need to exclude
native language from the home. Robust body of evidence
demonstrates that strong native language skills better
promote acquisition of a second language. For English learners
with disabilities especially, detrimental effects may be more
likely when parents only speak English to their children. Researchers recommend parents
speaking the home language because it facilitates social
interaction, and in turn both linguistic
and social development. So, especially with English
learners who may be dually identified or were under review,
it’s important that kids have the capacity and opportunities
to maintain close connections to the home language and parents,
family, and community members for fostering
strong identity construction. So,
let’s chat a little bit more. Earlier you responded regarding
whether you think over or under-identification is more
of an issue at your district. Now tell us why you
think that might be the case. What’s going on at your school
or district that may cause English learners to be over or
under identified, as in need of special education services? Your answer could include some
of the myths we’ve presented. Take about two minutes to confer
with colleagues and jot down your thoughts in the chat. So, sort of anecdotally what
I think has gone on in our field is we got really good about
being cautious around referring English learners to special
education as a sort of general matter, as we mentioned before,
at sort of the national level. Maybe our pre-service and
in-service teacher preparation programs got really good at
warning against misunderstanding language background
for special education needs. And, so, I think it’s important
that we are able to, as we’re talking about today, identify
data sources that are reliable and valid and are numerous so
that we’re getting a big-picture sort of formative, comprehensive
sense of where kids are as we engage in the
multi-tiered systems of support. M-hmm. Right. So, Krista says that “limited
services in the native language and distinguishing
between language acquisition and disability.” So, next time we’re going to
talk a whole lot and we’re going to dig
super, super deeply into data. “It’s hard
to get an accurate measure.” And here we have the
language diversity can be a big challenge. We’re going to, after the
session, go through and take a look at comments and questions. Because I have this wonderful
opportunity to be a little bit more closely connected with you,
we can follow up via emails in the
interim or in the next session. So, I think we will move on. So, again, mitigating risks
of inappropriate identification. I’m just going to
sort of go through this quickly. Early
identification is critical. A core premise is
differentiating between language learning and disabilities, and
then, again, the reason we’re here, coordination across staff. Now I think Carrie is going
to lead us in some questions.>>CARRIE PARKER:
Sure. So, thanks, everybody. This has been great
to have so much interaction. And I really appreciate the way
people are participating in each of the different chats. And as an interactive webinar
with both district teams and individuals, we’ve worked
hard to try and account for everybody’s different way of
approaching the webinar, and we appreciate your patience for
all the different things that we’re doing. So, we do have a couple
of questions, and I’m going to start
with one that Jocelyn raised. It’s sort of a
comment that opens the ability for conversation. So, Sarah and Lindsey, I’ll read
it out and have you guys then respond to it. “In an earlier question,
someone asked about progress or regarding progress, and the CELP
language proficiency descriptors provide a guideline
to demonstrate progress, but we don’t have a lot of research on
CELP to determine a timeline for monitoring progress, so the
relationship between monitoring progress and the CELP language
proficiency descriptors.”>>LINDSEY MASSOUD: Sure. So, I think with the CELP,
as with any English language proficiency descriptors,
it’s hard to identify, like, a specific timeline or a
specific process that students go through. So, I think that typically
there’s a progression that’s demonstrated within the CELP
as with others – other English language
proficiency descriptors. But these progressions,
it’s never sort of a single-lane road, if you know what I mean,
and there’s not a very specific timeline for doing so. So, I hope that this is sort
of getting at your question. I’m a little confused about
exactly what you’re asking. But I think basically we never
want to see those as, like, this is exactly the process that all
students go through in exactly the same time, and so we want to
look at those and see that some language skills
are prerequisites for others but that students really develop
English in ways that are also individual and are also impacted
by whatever else they’re dealing with in terms of potential
disabilities or other academic experiences
and other language experiences. So, language is something that
is a product of our experience. And, so, it’s not a process
per se, it’s a product of a collection of a million
experiences that we’ve had in English
and in any other languages. So, I think with regards
to a guideline to demonstrate progress, I think we can use the
CELP and other English language proficiency descriptors as
guideposts, but not as, like, a recipe or this
is necessarily how it would go. You can add to the comment
if I’m not getting quite at your question. And, Sarah, did you want
to add anything else about that?>>CARRIE PARKER: So, let
me just jump in because we have very little time left and we
want to make sure that we get to everything. I wanted to do two things. One is Sarah is going to talk
about the issue of assessments in multiple languages, but
before then, I also want to note that there’s a great
conversation happening in the chat box right now about
potential issues around reasons why overidentification happens. And, so, we’ll let Sarah
answer the question about the assessments in multiple
languages, and then depending on the time we have left, we might
try and engage in a little bit more conversation with what’s
happening there in the chat box. So, Sarah, go ahead.>>DR. SARAH MOORE: Sure. Right. I don’t want to take too much
time because I think we can send this out, but there’s some
research that’s been done by Kendall King and Martha
Bigelow out of the University of Minnesota, and they have
identified assessments not only in English, but also Arabic,
Chinese, Somali, Spanish, and Swahili. So, we’ll send
that information out to folks.>>CARRIE PARKER: Okay. Great. So, then let’s just take a
minute and look at the comments from Jocelyn and Chalise
and people in Wallingford that “overidentification
is an issue due to the lack of differentiation in
Tier 1 instruction and a lack of understanding about language
acquisition and that there’s not sufficient monitoring of Tier
1 and 2 to properly understand growth versus proficiency.” And Chalise was echoing
that and Wallingford as well. So, Sarah or Lindsey, I don’t
know if you have any feedback to that.>>LINDSEY
MASSOUD: Yeah, this is great. I think this goes to
a lot of what we’ve talked about throughout all sections of this
first session, which is kind of a nice way
to tie it all together. So, what we want
to see in the end is appropriate identification of interventions
and supports for students. And, so, if you have
more supports in Tier 1 and more appropriate instruction in Tier
1, you will see English learners progress more steadily. Wallingford makes the point,
we also use screening tools that are not appropriate for ELs. So, one of the main things,
and we’ll get into this more in Session 2 when we talk
about screening and progress monitoring, is that you really
don’t want to just use cut-off scores for English learners that
are the same for other students. You want to think about what
skills are being assessed and then think about is there a way
to get that information about how they might do with that
skill in their first language, and that’s why you want to try
to round out the picture, use multiple sources of data rather
than relying on cut-off scores. So, use the screening tools, but
try to round it out with some additional information. So, I think
this discussion is really great. It’s a nice way to sort of tie
together everything that we’ve talked
about in this first of three. So, that’s great.>>CARRIE PARKER: And, Lindsey,
I’m actually going to turn it right
back to you to do the wrap-up.>>LINDSEY MASSOUD:
Perfect. All right.>>CARRIE PARKER: We have four
minutes left, and we’re going to squeeze it all in. Go ahead.>>LINDSEY MASSOUD: Okay. If others agree,
I think we’ll just do this as basically homework. So, we were hoping to give you
five minutes or so, but I think we’ll just assign
this as homework for your team. So, we had the summary,
but don’t need to do that. Team planning. So, what we want you to do
is look at the last page of your handout, and what we’ve done is
just provide a very, very simple space to jot down implications
of today’s learning for your own practice. What does this mean for you
in your role, in your school, in your district? What are the implications? And then what are action steps? So, we want to do whatever we
can to make this very practical. So, what
are you going to do tomorrow? What are you going
to do within the next month? What are you going
to do within the next year? We’d love for you to discuss
this in your teams, maybe at a later time, or converse over
email or that kind of thing. So, I think just take that,
reflect a little bit, and think about some next steps, and we’ll
continue to think through these things together when we come
together in a month as well. So, I think that then
I can hand it back to you all?>>DR. SARAH MOORE
Well, we caught up very well. Our next session will be
March 2nd, and then will be March 22nd. Do we want to share a couple
more questions or thinking? It looks like there are
some questions going on across districts, so districts
interested in what other districts are doing. What we want to do is make sure
that we use this time wisely.>>CARRIE PARKER: So, it does
seem like there’s some great conversation happening across
districts, which is one of the goals that we had. And I do want to
thank everybody for having participated so actively. And this webinar was recorded,
and the session recording will be on the IES YouTube channel,
and we’ll send you an email when it is. We hope to see all of
you again on March 1st for the second session. And we really encourage you to
use those reflection questions that Lindsey just talked about
with your team to think about making sure that you apply what
you learned today and talk with your team about how to make
those changes in your schools and districts. And we don’t have a formal
evaluation system set up for this particular webinar,
although we will next time, but please do provide any feedback. Since we are having two more,
provide any feedback on the email link that’s in the chat
so that we can make changes to improve
this for the last two sessions. And I think those
are the things we have to say. We may finish one minute early
since we did skip one of those reflection sessions. But, again, we really thank
you for all your time and look forward to coming back and
seeing you again next month and continuing this conversation. Thanks a lot, everybody. I’m sorry, go ahead. Thanks to
Lindsey and Sarah and last word.>>DR. SARAH MOORE: I was just
going to add as a reminder that Session 2 is using data to
identify the source of students’ difficulties and modifications
for screening and monitoring, and Session 3 is identifying
appropriate data-based interventions for English
learners and team planning and next steps. So, just as a reminder
for the sort of coherence and consistency across the three.>>CARRIE PARKER: Yes.
Thank you so much, Sarah. Okay. Well, have a great rest of
your afternoon, and we will talk to you all next month. Bye-bye.>>LINDSEY
MOORE: Thanks, everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *