Response to intervention (RTI) allows schools to support the academic success of English learners (ELs) while helping educators rule out cultural or linguistic differences and educational background as the root of ELs’ academic or behavioral struggles. However, in rural schools, insufficient training in how to effectively instruct ELs and limited experience teaching ELs due to local demographics may lead RTI teams to prescribe inappropriate interventions or to avoid putting ELs through the RTI process altogether. The framework proposed in this article guides rural RTI teams through the process of considering the factors that might be influencing the performance of struggling ELs to provide these students with the supports they need to benefit from core instruction and tiered interventions.
AmendumS. J.Bratsch-HinesM.Vernon-FeagansL. (2018). Investigating the efficacy of a web-based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 155–174.
2.
AnayaJ. B.PeñaE. D.BedoreL. M. (2018). Conceptual scoring and classification accuracy of vocabulary testing in bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(1), 85–97.
3.
ArtilesA. J.RuedaR.SalazarJ. J.HigaredaI. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300.
4.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on minority-language children and youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
BakerS.LesauxN.JayanthiM.DiminoJ.ProctorC. P.MorrisJ.. . . Newman-GoncharR. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx
6.
BaluR.ZhuP.DoolittleF.SchillerE.JenkinsJ.GerstenR. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164000/pdf/20164000.pdf
7.
BarreraM.LiuK. K. (2010). Challenges of general outcomes measurement in the RTI progress monitoring of linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Theory into Practice, 49, 273–280.
8.
BarrioB. L. (2017). Special education policy change: Addressing the disproportionality of English language learners in special education programs in rural communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(2), 64–72.
9.
BettsJ.BoltS.DeckerD.MuyskensP.MarstonD. (2009). Examining the role of time and language type in reading development for English language learners. Journal of School Psychology, 47(3), 143–166.
10.
BrendleJ. (2015). A survey of response to intervention team members’ effective practices in rural elementary schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(2), 3–8.
11.
BrownH. D. (2000). Principles of language teaching and learning. Longman.
12.
BrownJ. E.DoolittleJ. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 66–72.
13.
California Department of Education. (1993, November). A report on Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the California Department of Education.
14.
CalvoA.BialystokE. (2014). Independent effects of bilingualism and socioeconomic status on language ability and executive functioning. Cognition, 130(3), 278–288.
15.
CappsR.BachmeierJ. D.FixM.Van HookJ. (2013). A demographic, socioeconomic, and health coverage profile of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute.
16.
Castro-OlivoS. M.PreciadoJ. A.SanfordA. K.PerryV. (2011). The academic and social-emotional needs of secondary Latino English learners: Implications for screening, identification, and instructional planning. Exceptionality, 19(3), 160–174.
17.
ChoiE.OhK.YoonS. M.HongS. (2012). A literature review of implementing response to intervention for English language learners. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2), 11–17.
18.
ChrabaszczA.JiangN. (2014). The role of the native language in the use of the English non-generic definite article by L2 learners: A cross-linguistic comparison. Second Language Research, 30, 351–379.
19.
ClineZ.NecocheaJ. (2003). Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE): More than just good instruction. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(1), 18–24.
20.
ColemanR.GoldenbergC. (2010). What does research say about effective practices for English learners? Part IV: Models for schools and districts. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(4), 156–163.
21.
CountsJ.KatsiyannisA.WhitfordD. K. (2018). Culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education: English learners. NASSP Bulletin, 102(1), 5–21.
22.
DelliCarpiniM.GulerN. (2013). Success with ELLs: Assessing ELL students in mainstream classes: A new dilemma for the teachers. The English Journal, 102(3), 126–129.
23.
DiCerboP. A.AnstromK. A.BakerL. L.RiveraC. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446–482.
24.
Dougherty StahlK. A. (2016). Response to intervention: Is the sky falling?Reading Teacher, 69, 659–663.
25.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016)
26.
FairbanksS.SugaiG.GuardinoD.LathropM. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288–310.
27.
Faulkner-BondM.SireciS. G. (2015). Validity issues in assessing linguistic minorities. International Journal of Testing, 15(2), 114–135.
28.
FuchsD.FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–171.
29.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57–61.
30.
FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
31.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. A.FalchiL. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity matters (Research Review No. 1). Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
32.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.ShanahanT.Linan-ThompsonS.CollinsP.ScarcellaR. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. IES practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). What Works Clearinghouse.
33.
GreshamF. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(4), 328–344.
34.
GrowL. L.CarrJ. E.GunbyK. V.CharaniaS. M.GonsalvesL.KtaechI. A.KisamoreA. N. (2009). Deviations from prescribed prompting procedures: Implications for treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(2), 142–156.
35.
HaagerD. (2007). Promises and cautions regarding using response to intervention with English language learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 213–218.
36.
Hagermoser SanettiL. M.KratochwillT. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38, 445–459.
37.
HalleT.HairE.WandnerL.McNamaraM.ChienN. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20.
38.
HamiltonE. R.CardosoJ. B.HummerR. A.PadillaY. C. (2011). Assimilation and emerging health disparities among new generations of US children. Demographic Research, 25, 783–818.
39.
Hansen-ThomasH.RichinsL. G.KakkarK.OkeyoC. (2016). I do not feel I am properly trained to help them! Rural teachers’ perceptions of challenges and needs with English-language learners. Professional Development in Education, 42(2), 308–324.
40.
HarperC.De JongE. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152–162.
41.
HarrisB.SullivanA. L. (2017). A framework for bilingual school consultation to facilitate multitier systems of support for English language learners. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(3), 367–392.
42.
HarrisB.SullivanA. L.Oades-SeseG. V.Dotelo-DynegaM. (2015). Culturally and linguistically responsive practices in psychoeducational reports for English language learners. Journal of Applied School of Psychology, 31, 141–166.
43.
HarryB. (2002). Trends and issues in serving culturally diverse families of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 132–140.
44.
HawkenL. S.VincentC. G.SchumannJ. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 213–225.
45.
HooverJ. J.deBettencourtL. (2018). Educating culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners: The need for continued advocacy. Exceptionality, 26, 176–189.
46.
HooverJ. J.EricksonJ. (2015). Culturally responsive special education referrals of English learners in one rural county school district: Pilot project. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(4), 18–28.
47.
HooverJ. J.Soltero-GonzálezL.WangC.HerronS. (2019). Sustaining a multitiered system of supports for English learners in rural community elementary schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519847466
48.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. http://idea.ed.gov/
49.
KarabenickS. A.NodaP. A. C. (2004). Professional development implications of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 55–75.
50.
KimJ. S.VanderwoodM. L.LeeC. (2016). Predictive validity of curriculum-based measures for English learners at varying English proficiency levels. Educational Assessment, 21(1), 1–18.
LeeS. J.HawkinsM. R. (2015). Policy, context and schooling: The education of English learners in rural new destinations. Global Education Review, 2(4), 40–59.
53.
LevinsonB. A. U.BucherK.HarveyL.MartínezR.PérezB.SkibaM. C. Z. (2008). Learning styles across cultures: Suggestions for educators. Education & Training, 50, 115–127.
LiH.RennJ. (2018). Nurturing Spanish-speaking English learners to be bilinguals in the rural Midwest: Challenges and possible solutions. INTESOL Journal, 15(1), 5–28.
56.
Linan-ThompsonS.OrtizA. A. (2009, May). Response to intervention and English-language learners: Instructional and assessment considerations. Seminars in Speech and Language, 302(2), 105–120.
57.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.PraterK.CirinoP. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 390–398.
58.
LlosaL. (2012). Assessing English learners’ progress: Longitudinal invariance of a standards-based classroom assessment of English proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2012.721422
59.
LovettM. W.De PalmaM.FrijtersJ.SteinbachK.TempleM.BensonN.LacerenzaL. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333–352.
60.
MaR.OxfordR. L. (2014). A diary study focusing on listening and speaking: The evolving interaction of learning styles and learning strategies in a motivated, advanced ESL learner. System, 43, 101–113.
61.
MarstonD.CaseyA.WallaceT. (2011). The context and content of implementation. In ShapiroE. S.ZigmondN.WallaceT.MarstonD. (Eds.), Models for implementing response to intervention: Tools, outcomes, and implications (pp. 201–224). Guilford Press.
62.
MellardD.McKnightM.JordanJ. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217–225.
63.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 186–195.
64.
MendozaM. M.DmitrievaJ.PerreiraK. M.Hurwich-ReissE.WatamuraS. E. (2017). The effects of economic and sociocultural stressors on the well-being of children of Latino immigrants living in poverty. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 15–26.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
67.
NoellG. H.WittJ. C.SliderN. J.ConnellJ. E.GattiS. L.WilliamsK. L.. . . DuhonG. J. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 87–106.
68.
O’NealD. D.RinglerM.RodriguezD. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners in rural eastern North Carolina. The Rural Educator, 30(1), 5–13.
69.
OroscoM. J.KlingnerJ. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: “Referring into RTI.”Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288.
70.
OrtizA. A.WilkinsonC. Y.Robertson-CourtneyP.KushnerM. I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 53–63.
71.
ParadisJ. (2016). Developing English as a second language with and without specific language impairment: Clinical implications. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(1), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0008
72.
PereiraN.de OlivieiraL. (2015). Meeting the linguistic needs of high-potential English language. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 208–215.
73.
PumariegaA. J.RotheE. (2010). Leaving no children or families outside: The challenges of immigration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 8, 505–515. https://doi.org/0.111/.1939-0025.2010.01053.x
74.
RaganA.LesauxN. (2006). Federal, state, and district level English language learner program entry and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language minority learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(20), 1–32.
75.
ReidJ. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87–111.
76.
ResendizM.PeñaE. (2015). Dynamic assessment with English language learners. Journal of Texas Educational Diagnosticians’ Association, 44, 15–17.
77.
Richards-TutorC.BakerD. L.GerstenR.BakerS. K.SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 144–169.
78.
Riley-TillmanT. C.KalbererS. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2005). Selecting the right tool for the job: A review of behavior monitoring tools used to assess student response to intervention. The California School Psychologist, 10(1), 81–91.
79.
RinaldiC.SamsonJ. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral considerations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 6–14.
80.
RobinsonG. G. (2016). Culturally responsive beliefs and practices of general and special education teachers within a response to intervention framework. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(2), 22–36.
81.
RobinsonG. G.BursuckW. D.SinclairK. D. (2013). Implementing RTI in two rural elementary schools: Encouraging beginnings and challenges for the future. Rural Educator, 34(3), 1–9.
82.
SamsonJ. F.CollinsB. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for American Progress.
83.
SanfordA. K.BrownJ. E.TurnerM. (2012). Enhancing instruction for English learners in response to intervention systems: The PLUSS model. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(1), 56–70.
84.
ShapiroE. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. Best Practices in School Psychology V, 2, 141–157.
85.
ShepherdK.SalembierG. (2011). Improving schools through a response to intervention approach: A cross-case analysis of three rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 3–15.
86.
ShimJ. M. (2013). Involving the parents of English language learners in a rural area: Focus on the dynamics of teacher–parent interactions. Rural Educator, 34(3), 18–26.
87.
SteckerP. M.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10–17.
88.
Sterling-TurnerH. E.WatsonT. S.MooreJ. W. (2002). The effects of direct training and treatment integrity on treatment outcomes in school consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 47–77.
89.
Sterling-TurnerH. E.WatsonT. S.WildmonM.WatkinsC.LittleE. (2001). Investigating the relationship between training type and treatment integrity. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 56–67.
90.
ThoriusK. K.SullivanA. L. (2013). Interrogating instruction and intervention in RTI research with students identified as English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29(1), 64–88.
91.
The United Nations Children’s Fund. (2013). The state of the world’s children 2013: Children with disabilities.
92.
VanderwoodM. L.TungC.ArellanoE. (2014). Application of a multitiered system of support with English language learners. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 2(1), 45–53.
93.
VeraE.HookK.DaskalovaP.HillL.GalvinS.FritscheS.RocheM. (2018). Understanding the socioemotional worlds of English learners: A retrospective study. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 28(2), 137–163.
94.
WalkerA.ShaferJ.IiamsM. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130–160.
95.
WalquiA. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.
96.
WertsM. G.CarpenterE. S.FewellC. (2014). Barriers and benefits to response to intervention: Perceptions of special education teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(2), 3–11.
97.
WinslerA.BurchinalM. R.TienH. C.Peisner-FeinbergE.EspinosaL.CastroD. C.. . . De FeyterJ. (2014). Early development among dual language learners: The roles of language use at home, maternal immigration, country of origin, and socio-demographic variables. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 750–764.
98.
XuY.DrameE. (2008). Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential of response to intervention for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 305–311.
99.
YettickH.BakerR.WickershamM.HupfeldK. (2014). Rural districts left behind? Rural districts and the challenges of administering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 29(13), 1–15.
100.
YohaniS. (2013). Educational cultural brokers and the school adaptation of refugee children and families: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(1), 61–79.
101.
ZapfM. K. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 14, 105–119.
