The response to intervention (RTI) of English language learners identified as at risk for reading difficulties in the fall of first grade was examined at the end of first grade and at the end of second grade. Students at risk for reading problems were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. Intervention students received supplemental reading intervention daily for 50 minutes in small groups from October to April. Students in the comparison condition received the school's existing instructional program for struggling readers. Criteria were established to determine adequate RTI at the end of first grade and at the end of second grade. The results indicated that more students who participated in the first-grade intervention in either Spanish or English met the established RTI standards than students who did not, and this finding was maintained through the end of second grade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Denton, C.A., Anthony, J.L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish—English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 289—305.
2.
Dickson, S.V., & Bursuck, W.D. (1999). Implementing a model for preventing reading failure: A report from the field. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 191—202.
3.
Donovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Escamilla, K., Loera, M., Ruiz, O., & Rodriguez, Y. (1998). An examination of sustaining effects in Descubriendo La Lectura programs. Literacy Teaching andLearning, 3, 59—78.
5.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Steubing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3—17.
6.
Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204—219.
7.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying leraning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 25, 33-45.
8.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Smith, S.B. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. Educational and Child Psychology, 15, 56—70.
9.
Gunderson, L., & Siegel, L.S. (2001). The evils of the uses of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first and second language learners. ReadingTeacher, 55(1), 48—55.
10.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 90—103.
Jimenez, J.E., Siegel, L.S., & Lopez, M.R. (2003). The relationship between IQ and reading disabilities in English-speaking Canadian and Spanish children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 15—23.
13.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437—447.
14.
Klingner, J.K., & Artiles, A. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education?Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66-71.
15.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
16.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, M. S. Donovan & C. T. Cross (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Neal, J.C., & Kelly, P.R. (1999). The success of Reading Recovery for English language learners and Descubriendo La Lectura for bilingual students in California. Literacy Teaching andLearning, 2, 81—108.
18.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107-110. 115 STAT. 1425. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
19.
O'Connor, R.E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15, 43—54.
20.
Ortiz, A.A., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Recognizing learning disabilities in bilingual children: How to lessen inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 2(1), 43—56.
21.
Salend, S.J., Duhaney, L.M., & Montgomery, W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 289— 299.
22.
Speece, D.L. & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735—749.
23.
Sebastián, N., Cuetos, F., Martí, M.A., & Carreiras, M.F. (2000). LEXESP: Léxico informatizado del español: Edición en CD-ROM. Barcelona, Spain: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona .
24.
Speece, D., Case, L.P., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147— 156.
25.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33—58.
26.
Swanson, H.L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.
27.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to treatment: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137—146.
28.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). Group size and time allotted to intervention: Effects for students with reading difficulties. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 299—324). Baltimore: York Press.
29.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hick-man-Davis, P. (2003). Response to treatment as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391—410.
30.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P.G., Cirino, P.T., Carlson, C.D., Francis, D.J., et al. (in press). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
31.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P.T., Carlson, C.D., Francis, D., et al. (in press).Effects of English intervention for first-grade English language learners at-risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal.
32.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-toremediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601—638.
33.
Woodcock, R.W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery—Revised . Chicago: Riverside.
