Reducing Reading/Special Reducing Reading/Special Education Risk for Culturally Education Risk for Culturally

and Linguistically Diverse and Linguistically Diverse Low-Income Urban Learners: Low-Income Urban Learners:

A Longitudinal Follow-upA Longitudinal Follow-up

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

The Ohio State UniversityThe Ohio State UniversityAmanda Yurick (a.l.yurick@csuohio.edu)

Cleveland State University

Reading FailureReading Failure Early intervention at the preschool and kindergarten levels is

increasingly embraced as a means to reduce reading and special education risk for all children (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)

Low-income children who are racial/ethnic minorities and/or English language learners (ELLs) evidence special risk factors w/ lower achievement & higher special education placements (Ortiz et al., 2006; Valenzuela et al., 2006)

Problems in reading is principal reason for special education referral

National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP, 2003) 71% students with disabilities read below basic; in urban areas 79% reading at lowest levels

The especially poor reading performance of African American males is well documented in the research literature (Tatum, 2006)

Reading Failure English Language Learners (ELLs) are at increased risk for

underachievement, grade retention, attrition, and reading failure (August & Hakuta, 1997; Haagar, & Mueller, 2001)

10-20% of school-aged children are diagnosed with reading

disabilities, with the most common cause of disabilities being phonological processing deficits (Harris & Sipay, 1990)

Deficits in phonological awareness are most often due to

insufficient educational experiences or inadequate instruction (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002)

Good evidence that systematic and explicit interventions centered on phonological awareness can reduce risk (Simmons, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006).

Why intervene early? Why intervene early?

Is more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success (Lyon & Fletcher, 2001)

Federal mandates (IDEA 2004 & NCLB)

Studies with systematic, explicit phonics-based instruction improved the reading skills of at-risk young students (e.g., Foorman et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2003; O’Connor, 2000)

Converging evidence suggests that the principles of

effective reading intervention for non-ELLs is the same for ELLs (Gersten & Baker, 2000)

Instruction needs to be explicit, intensive, & systematic (NRP, 2000)

Multi-Year ProjectSession presents research of early reading

intervention with young urban learners: native English speakers and English Language Learners (ELLs)

Particular attention to African American malesResearch began w/ single-subject pilot study

of 7 African American Kindergarten students: 7 males, 1 female

Benchmark ResultsDIBELS January/ Winter Assessments DIBELS May/ Spring Assessments

Student ISFG:25

LNFG:27

PSFG:18

NWFG:13

IR LNFG:40

PSFG:35

NWFG:25

IR

Henry 6 24 0 0 Intensive 56 52 44 Benchmark

Kevin 7 10 0 0 Intensive 25 27 22 Intensive

Richie 8 0 0 0 Intensive 21 10 17 Intensive

Zach 16 5 0 0 Intensive 32 29 33 Strategic

Isha 9 33 8 2 Strategic 46 55 39 Benchmark

James 4 31 0 5 Strategic 54 46 55 Benchmark

Mark 4 18 2 7 Intensive 40 46 38 Benchmark

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

A two-year longitudinal project

Objectives:

1. Investigate the responsiveness to an explicit PA training of at-risk urban learners

2. Define the characteristics of non-respondents to PA training

Year 1’s Investigation in Year 1’s Investigation in KindergartenKindergarten

School 1 School 2 School 3

Treatment Group (n=61)

ComparisonGroup (n=32)

POSTTESTPOSTTEST

PRETESTPRETEST

At/some risk Some/low risk

Purpose of study in Year 2Purpose of study in Year 2

Investigate the effects of Year’s 2 reading intervention on PA skills of treatment students, who failed to meet benchmarks in Year 1

Investigate whether treatment students, who met benchmarks in Year 1, would be able to maintain treatment gains without additional intervention in Year 2

Compare the performance of the Comparison Group with the other two groups

MethodsMethods Participants and settings

61 follow-up students from 3 urban schools Sample attrition/retention rate: 34.4% (n=32) Treatment group’s attrition rate: 37.7% (n=23) Comparison group’s attrition rate: 28.1% (n=9)

Student group assignment ERI-Treatment => students who failed to meet

end-of-year’s 1 benchmark goals ERI-Control => students who met end-of-year’s 1

benchmark goals Comparison => students who received only

classroom instruction in Year 1

MethodsMethods

38%

33%

10%

15%

2%

2%

African American Caucasian Hispanic Somalian Asian Multiracial

Year 2’s Investigation in Grade Year 2’s Investigation in Grade 11

ERI Treatment Group (n=23)

ERI-Comparison Group (n=15)

ComparisonGroup (n=23)

PRETESTPRETEST

POSTTESTPOSTTEST

Repeated measures on a tri-weekly basis

MethodsMethods Dependent variables

Primary: Pre/Post Measures WJ-III: Letter Word Identification, Word Attack,

Passage Comprehension CTOPP subtests (e.g., Elision, Rapid Color

Naming, etc) DIBELS Benchmarks (Spring 2006 & 2007)

Secondary: Tri-weekly Measures DIBELS progress monitoring probes on

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Oral Reading Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency

MethodsMethods Independent variable

Early Reading Intervention Scripted supplemental reading program with high degree

of explicitness and code emphasis (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2003)

It targets core beginning reading skills (Phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, word reading, writing, spelling)

Fluency-building activity Use of decodable stories (increase in difficulty and length

as students progress) Included 4 components: (a) sight-word acquisition practice,

(b) teacher modeling and guided practice, (c) partner reading, and (d) testing

Implemented 4-5 days per week for 20-35min per session Delivered by 6 trained IAs (4 paraprofessionals & 2 GA’s)

Integrity checks collected 1-2 times per week

ResultsResultsWJ - Letter Word Identification

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4

Mea

n R

aw S

core

Comparison ERI-Treatment ERI-Comparison ERI

Pretest-Year 1 Posttest-Year 2Posttest-Year 1 Pretest-Year 2

ResultsResults

WJ - Letter Word Identification (Year 2)

8.74

10.35 10.27

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3

Mea

n G

ain

Comparison ERI-ComparisonERI-Treatment

ResultsResultsWJ- Word Attack

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4

Mea

n R

aw S

core

Comparison ERI-Treatment ERI-Comparison ERI

Pretest-Year 1 Posttest-Year 1 Pretest-Year 2 Posttest-Year 2

ResultsResultsWJ - Word Attack (Year 2)

5.09 5.26

17.47

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3

Mea

n G

ain

Comparison ERI-Treatment ERI-Comparison

ResultsResults

WJ - Passage Comprehension

0

5

10

15

20

1 2

Mea

n R

aw S

core

Comparison ERI-Treatment ERI-Comparison

Pretest-Year 2 Posttest-Year 2

ResultsResults

WJ - Passage Comprehension (Year 2)

8.96

7.228.27

01

2345

678

910

1 2 3

Me

an

Ga

in

Comparison ERI-Treatment ERI-Comparison

Looking into our ERI-Treatment Looking into our ERI-Treatment groupgroup

WJ - Letter Word Identification

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4

Mea

n R

aw S

core

ELLs Non-ELLs

Pretest-Year 1 Pretest-Year 2Posttest-Year 1 Posttest-Year 2

+ 11.43

+ 11.43

+ 9.88

+ 11.13

Looking into our ERI-Treatment Looking into our ERI-Treatment groupgroup

WJ - Word Attack

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4

Me

an

Ra

w S

co

re

ELLs Non-ELLs

Pretest-Year 1 Posttest-Year 1 Pretest-Year 2 Posttest-Year 2

+ 3.71

+ 5.57+ 3.31

+ 5.13

Looking into our ERI-Treatment Looking into our ERI-Treatment groupgroup

WJ - Passage Comprehension

02468

101214

1 2

Mea

n R

aw S

core

ELLs Non-ELLS

Pretest - Year 2 Posttest - Year 2

+ 8

+ 5.43

ConclusionsConclusions

Year 2’s PA training for ERI-treatment group: Produced greater decoding gains than Year 1’s Produced greater overall gain outcomes (WA &

LWID) for our ELL treatment group ERI-Comparison students not only maintained

Year 1’s treatment gains but also surpassed their comparison peers on WA & LWID standardized measures

Comparison students maintained a slight edge in comprehension but continued to lag behind in LWID & WA

ImplicationsImplications Phonemic awareness instruction (i.e. ERI) effective in

helping students acquire and maintain skills from kindergarten intensive instruction

Students in 2nd year interventions may benefit from more fluency and comprehension instruction. These students warrant more intensive study

Instruction effective for ELL as well as non-ELL students

Non-treatment students would benefit from more instruction on phonemic/phonological awareness

Progress by African American Males Over Two-

Year Period

Experimental Condition by Gender for African-American

Students ONLY

3

1

4

4

6

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y

ERI-Treatment ERI-Comparison Comparison

Male Female

PSF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years

33%

33%

33%

67%

33%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% O

F E

RI-

TR

EA

TM

EN

T

ST

UD

EN

TS

1 2 3

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

AT RISK SOME RISK LOW RISK

Mid-Year 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2007

NWF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years

66%

33%

33%

67%

67%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% O

F E

RI-

TR

EA

TM

EN

T

ST

UD

EN

TS

1 2 3

Nonsense Word Fluency

AT RISK SOME RISK LOW RISK

Mid-Year 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2007

PSF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years

75%

25%

50%

50%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% O

F E

RI-

CO

MP

AR

ISO

N

ST

UD

EN

TS

1 2 3

Phonene Segmentation Fluency

SOME RISK LOW RISK

Mid-Year 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2007

NWF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years

100% 100%

25%

25%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% O

F E

RI-

CO

MP

AR

ISO

N

ST

UD

EN

TS

1 2 3

Nonsense Word Fluency

AT RISK SOME RISK LOW RISK

Spring 2007Spring 2006Mid-Year 2006

Implications Both groups received intervention during kindergarten

(1st year), but only ERI Treatment received PA intervention the second year during first grade

African American males made progress, but the data are mixed, especially for NWF

African American males appeared to fare less well than females in the study.

The small numbers limit interpretation of data. More research needed to study specific instructional

needs of young African American males.

References August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A

research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Schatschneider, C.S., & Mehta, P. (1998).

The role of instruction learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to interventions: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 411), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (January/February/March, 2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 93-99.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470.

Haager, D., & Windmueller, M.P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235-250.

Lyon, G.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2001). Early warning systems. Education Next, 1(2), 22-29. Mathes, P. G., & Torgesen, J. K. (1998). All children can learn to read: Critical care for

the prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3&4), 317-340. National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children

to read. U.S. department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service & National Institute of Child Health & Human Development Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

O’Connor, R.E., & Klingner, K.K. (2007, April 20). RtI: Who still needs help when interventions have failed? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Council for Exceptional Children, Louisville, KY.

Ortiz, A.A., Wilkinson, C., Roberson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M.I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 53-63.

Simmons, D. (2006). What research says about RTI as early intervention and as a method of LD identification. Paper presented at the national convention for Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Official website: http://www.scottforesman.com/eri/index.cfm

Tatum, A.W. (2006). Engaging African American males in reading. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 44-49.

Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Qi, C.H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425-441.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P., Crino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56-73.

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuelle, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing