This article reviews the research on and provides a framework for integrating assessment and early reading instruction in a unified tiered approach that includes English language learners (ELLs). The authors begin with a review of the research for implementing the guiding principles of the tiered framework with ELLs, including (a) screening and progress monitoring for ELLs, (b) delivering explicit and systematic reading instruction for ELLs, and (c) structuring reading instruction within a multitiered approach.
AugustD.HakutaK. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
AugustD.ShanahanL. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Washington, DC: National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
4.
BaileyA. (2006). From lambie to lambaste: The conceptualization, operationalization and use of academic language in assessment of ELL students. In RolstadK. (Ed.), Rethinking school language (pp. 8–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BakerS. K.BakerD. L. (2008). ELLs and response to intervention: Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. In GrigorenkoE. L. (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond (pp. 249–273). New York, NY: Springer.
6.
BakerS. K.FienH.BakerD. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1-20.
7.
BakerS. K.GerstenR.Linan-ThomsonS. (2010). Early reading instruction and intervention with ELLs: Key considerations in a multitiered approach. In ShinnM. R.WalkerH. M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RTI (3rd ed., pp. 15–41). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
8.
BakerS.GoodR. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561–579.
9.
BakerS.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ.Kame’enuiE.BeckC. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing high poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
10.
BurnsM. K.DenoS.JimersonS. R. (2007). Toward a unified model of response to intervention. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 428–440). New York, NY: Springer.
11.
BurnsM. K.GibbonsK. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. (2006). Response to Intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 32, 3–5.
13.
CalderonM.Hertz-LazarowitzR.SlavinR. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English reading. Elementary School Journal, 99, 153–165.
14.
CarnineD.SilbertJ.Kame’enuiE.TarverS. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
15.
ChardD.BakerS. K.ClarkeB.JungjohannK.DavisK. L. S.SmolkowskiK. (2008). Preventing early mathematics difficulties: The feasibility of a rigorous kindergarten mathematics curriculum. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 11–20.
16.
ChristT. J.BurnsM. K.YsseldykeJ. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communique, 34, 1–8.
17.
CumminsJ. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
18.
CumminsJ. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students’ schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles, CA: Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education.
19.
DenoS. (1998). Academic progress as incompatible behavior: Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) as intervention. Beyond Behavior, 9(3), 12–17.
20.
DentonC. A.AnthonyJ. L.ParkerR.HasbrouckJ. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. Elementary School Journal, 104, 289–305.
21.
Dominguez de RamirezR.ShapiroE. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356–369.
22.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W.SchummJ. (2000). How reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping formats: A meta-analytic review. In GerstenR.SchillerE.VaughnS. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 105–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
FienH.BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.SmithJ. M.Kame’enuiE. J.Thomas BeckC. (2008). Using Nonsense Word Fluency to predict reading proficiency in K–2 for ELLs and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37, 391–408.
24.
FinnJ.GerberS.Boyd-ZahariasJ. (2005). Small classes in the early grades, academic achievement, and graduating from high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 214–223.
25.
FleissJ. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
26.
FrancisD.LesauxN. K.AugustD. (2006). Language of instruction. In AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 365–410). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
28.
GarcíaS. (2009, March). Implications of response to intervention for bilingual and English language learners. Paper presented at the New York State Association for Bilingual Education conference, New York, NY.
29.
GerstenR. (1996). The double demands of teaching English language learners. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 18–22.
30.
GerstenR. (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teachers of English-language learners. Elementary School Journal, 100, 37–56.
31.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.ShanahanT.Linan-ThompsonS.CollinsP.ScarcellaR. (2007). IES practice guide: Effective literacy and English language instruction for ELLs in the elementary grades (Report No. NCEE 2007–4011). WashingtonDC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
32.
GerstenR.DiminoJ. A. (2006). New directions in research—Current issues in special education and reading instruction-RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99–108.
33.
GerstenR.JiménezR. (1998). Modulating instruction for language minority students. In Kame’enuiE.CarnineD. (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 161–178). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
GerstenR.WoodwardJ. (1994, April). Lost opportunities: Observations of the education of language minority students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
35.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–23, 42–44.
36.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.
37.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum offluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
38.
GunnB.BiglanA.SmolkowskiK.AryD. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 90–104.
39.
GunnB.SmolkowskiK.BiglanA.BlackC. (2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. Journal of Special Education, 36, 69–79.
40.
HaagerD.KlingerJ. K.VaughnS. (2007). Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
41.
HarnB.Linan-ThompsonS.RobertsG. (2008). Intensifying instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 115–125.
42.
HintzeJ. M.RyanA.StonerG. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review, 32, 541–556.
43.
HospM. K.FuchsL. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade?School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.
44.
HublerD. (2005, August10). Task force to gauge progress of English-language learners. Education Daily, 1-2.
45.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
46.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.
47.
Kame’enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D. (2000). Schools as host environments: Toward a school-wide reading improvement model. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 31–52.
48.
KampsD.AbbottM.GreenwoodC. R.Arreaga-MayerC.WillsH.LongstaffJ.WaltonC. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 153–169.
49.
KlingerJ. K.EdwardsP. E. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117.
50.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275–293.
51.
LeafstedtJ.RichardsC.GerberM. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk ELLs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 252–261.
52.
Linan-ThompsonS.BryantD. P.DicksonS. V.KouzekananiK. (2005). Spanish literacy instruction for at-risk kindergarten students. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 236–245.
53.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.Hickman-DavisP.KouzekananiK. (2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulty. Elementary School Journal, 103, 221–267.
54.
MacMillanD. L.ReschlyD. J. (1998). Over-representation of minority students: The case of greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined. Journal of Special Education, 34, 15–24.
55.
MarstonD. (2003, December). Comments on three papers addressing the question: “How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes and to achieve acceptable patterns of LD identification?”Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning DisabilitiesResponsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
56.
McMasterK. L.KungS.-H.HanI.CaoM. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies: A “Tier 1” approach to promoting ELLs’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74, 194–214.
57.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org
58.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2003 (Report No. NCES 2004452). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
59.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
60.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
62.
PepeM. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
RaudenbushS. W. (2009). The Brown legacy and the O’Connor challenge: Transforming schools in the images of children’s potential. Educational Researcher, 38, 169–180.
64.
Read Naturally. (2007). One minute reader. Saint Paul, MN: Author.
65.
SaenzL.FuchsL.FuchsD. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.
66.
SantoroL.JitendraA.StarostaK.SacksG. (2006). Reading well with Read Well: Enhancing the reading performance of English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 105–115.
67.
SaundersW. M.GoldenbergC. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited- and fluent-English-proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99, 277–301.
68.
ShanahanT.BeckI. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 415–488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69.
SilbertglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304–325.
70.
SimmonsD.Kame’enuiE. J.StoolmillerM.CoyneM. D.HarnB. (2003). Accelerating growth and maintaining proficiency: A two-year intervention study of kindergarten and first-grade children at-risk for reading difficulties. In FoormanB. R. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 197–228). Timonium, MD: York Press.
71.
SlavinR. E.CheungA. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247–284.
72.
SmithJ. L. M.FienH.BasarabaD.TraversP. (2009). Planning, evaluating, and improving tiers of support in beginning reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, 16–22.
73.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
74.
SwetsJ. A. (1996). Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75.
TorgesenJ. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7–27.
76.
VanDerHeydenA.WittJ.NaquinG. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.
77.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.Linan-ThompsonS.MathesP. G.CarlsonC. D.HaganE. C.FrancisD. J. (2006). Section on teaching, learning, and human development—Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449–489.
78.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–411.
79.
VaughnS.MathesP.Linan-ThompsonS.CirinoP.CarlsonC.Pollard-DurodolaS.FrancisD. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 154–180.
80.
WileyT.G. (1996). Literacy and language diversity in sociocultural contexts. Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
81.
WolfM.StoodleyC. J. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
