2 Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and English Learners

John J. Hoover

Laura Méndez Barletta

Janette K. Klingner

What is a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS)? MTSS is a structure that has evolved over the past two decades that incorporates the basic tenants of response to intervention (RTI), which has a major focus on academic supports, particularly in reading, and positive behavioral instructional supports (PBIS), which emphasizes affective, social, and behavioral development. MTSS is a systemic, continuous improvement framework designed to provide effective education to all learners, along with early intervention to students who show signs of struggling (Colorado Department of Education [CDE], 2015). MTSS simultaneously considers education at the district, building, and classroom levels to meet both academic and social/behavioral needs of students, grounded in data-based instructional decision making (CCSSO, 2015; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). When delivering instruction through an MTSS model, distinguishing between learning differences and disabilities among English learners is essential to provide sufficient opportunities to learn.

In regard to disability identification, MTSS offers, in part, an alternative to the previously used discrepancy-based learning disability identification models that require students to demonstrate a significant gap between potential, as determined with an IQ test, and academic achievement, as measured with an achievement test. Though frequently discussed in the literature as separate aspects of effective education, incorporating important features of RTI and PBIS collectively provides a more holistic and practical structure for educating all learners, including ELs who struggle with reading. We see potential in the MTSS model as a way to help educators shift from finding a LD or within-child deficits to focusing on providing the best instruction for all.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of MTSS and discuss some of the challenges schools with high percentages of English learners (ELs) face when trying to implement MTSS. This chapter includes two practical application examples describing implementation of MTSS in two school systems. The first is a rural district in which an MTSS model for ELs was developed and implemented in three elementary schools, and the second describes work in an elementary school, the Marble Mountain Elementary School. Both school systems contain high populations of ELs. Marble Mountain School was in the early stages of implementing the original, more academically specific, response to intervention (RTI) model, while the Rural School District model represents one example of the delivery of the more complete MTSS model.

Vignette: Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Multi-Tiered System of Supports

The delivery of an appropriate multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) for ELs was a stated goal for a medium-sized K–12 educational urban school district. The 50 percent population of diverse learners and 38 percent EL population created significant challenges for the district’s school-based MTSS teams. Though the primary first language among ELs was Spanish, the district also contained significant numbers of students whose first language was other than Spanish, most noticeably Russian and Hmong. The MTSS teams decided to initially focus on the content area of reading, as this was the area of greatest need for ELs and other diverse learners in the school district. To reshape and properly structure a multi-tiered system of supports in reading, each school’s MTSS team completed the following steps: (a) needs assessment of current instruction provided through different levels or tiers, (b) determination of the quality of core general classroom reading instruction for ELs, (c) establishing a set of guidelines for making certain that cultural and linguistic factors are considered when discussing multi-tiered instruction for ELs, (d) making certain that multiple forms of assessment and data points are used to best understand ELs’ reading progress, (e) creating a structure that is sustainable so new teachers to the school are trained and prepared to properly implement the MTSS process, and (f) including all key people in the MTSS process (i.e., classroom teacher, special educator, master or mentor teacher, parents/guardians, principal or designee, student when appropriate). ELs’ language proficiency, stage of second language acquisition, experiential background, and preferred ways of learning based on home teachings are incorporated into the MTSS process. Findings from the needs assessments and current instructional situations are documented and discussed, leading to the development of a three-year action plan for systematically implementing the MTSS process school-wide. The action plan includes tasks, responsible persons, timelines, and a process for evaluation of effectiveness in meeting ELs’ reading needs through MTSS.

Overview of MTSS

Similar to most educational initiatives and structures, different states and school systems have adopted their own definitions and characterizations of MTSS. Several definitions were found on 2015 state websites:

  • California: MTSS is an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on Common Core State Standards (CCSS), core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success.
  • Colorado: MTSS is a whole school, prevention-based framework for improving learning outcomes for every student through a layered continuum of evidence-based practices and systems.
  • Florida: The MTSS involves the systematic use of multisource assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in order to improve learning for all students, through integrated academic and behavioral supports.
  • Kansas: MTSS is a coherent continuum of evidence-based, system-wide practices to support a rapid response to academic and behavioral needs, with frequent data-based monitoring for instructional decision making to empower each student to achieve high standards.
  • North Carolina: NC MTSS is a multi-tiered framework, which promotes school improvement through engaging, research-based academic and behavioral practices, employing a systems approach using data-driven problem solving to maximize growth for all.

Though some variation exists, MTSS is characterized in similar ways with a focus on academic, social, and behavioral development and growth. It is important to know how MTSS is defined and interpreted, and it is also productive to know what MTSS is not, which was succinctly addressed by Hanselman (2015) at a No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Conference. She stated that MTSS is not a framework that guides only daily instruction, nor is it a continuum of supports representing a collection of teaching strategies. Rather, it is a framework that includes appropriate instruction and supports that are strength based, student centered, targeted, and layered to address developmentally appropriate academic, social, emotional, and behavioral skills using evidence-based practice, while valuing cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity (Hanselman, 2015). Overall, when characterizing MTSS, we are reminded that while MTSS incorporates aspects of RTI and PBIS models, it is the integrated nature of these educational areas that transforms MTSS into a more inclusive and contemporary integrated structure. In regard to reading instruction, Galloway and Lesaux (2014) wrote, “today’s reading reform efforts, such as the CCSS, emphasize both preventing reading difficulties and maximizing all students’ opportunities to learn” (p. 518), a statement most appropriate to the education of ELs struggling with reading.

MTSS and its implementation include several key features illustrated in Figure 2.1 and summarized below. The figure, developed by the authors, illustrates the MTSS components supported by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE, 2015). Other MTSS models may vary in structure as they depict efforts to deliver multi-tiered supports to all learners. This model, however, represents key features found in most MTSS models based on a review of several state and school district websites, and it serves as an important foundation for teaching ELs who struggle with reading.

Within the six-component structure illustrated, MTSS holds promise as a way to improve academic and social/behavioral learning outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students and to reduce disproportionate representation in special education (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Hoover & Klingner, 2011). We are particularly encouraged by recommendations to move to a more holistic approach to supporting student learning than has been typical in the past. For example, the National Association of School Psychologists emphasized the importance of a systemic approach, such as what we see in a multi-tiered model, that evaluates a student’s response within an ecological context of instruction (Christ, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005). Transitioning to an MTSS way of thinking requires a “shift from a within child deficit paradigm to an eco-behavioral perspective; [and] a greater emphasis on instructional intervention and progress monitoring prior to special education referral . . .” (Canter, 2006, para. 7).

The (a) combined emphasis on early intervention in both affective and academic learning, (b) focus on making sure children receive appropriate instruction at the “first tier,” or general classroom level, and (c) push to match instruction to a child’s needs based on ongoing classroom assessment are all features of MTSS that, when implemented well, should lead to increased opportunities to build reading proficiencies for English learners.

MTSS: A Way of Thinking

MTSS is a system of providing leveled support to all students, especially those who show early signs of struggle, through which “general education teachers must provide accessible and differentiated core instruction” (CCSSO, 2015, p. 3). MTSS holds promise as a way to improve learning outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students and reduce their misplacement into special education by ensuring that they receive systematic, high-quality, and appropriate instruction, intervention, monitoring, and evaluation (Cramer, 2015; Donovan & Cross, 2002). Each MTSS component illustrated in Figure 2.1 is necessary to distinguish language acquisition from disability. Collectively, the model components, briefly summarized below, provide the foundation for discussions about effective instruction for ELs by addressing positive research findings, while reducing misconceptions as discussed in subsequent book chapters.

1. Shared Leadership. Implementation of MTSS requires coordination of resources, training, coaching, and evaluation. To be effective, MTSS incorporates shared input and decision making among individuals who represent the home-community, district office, school and instructional settings and classrooms (CDE, 2015). Throughout this book, we emphasize and provide examples of ways shared leadership is beneficial to the education of ELs who struggle with reading.

2. Data-Based Problem Solving and Decision Making. Achievement and social/behavioral data are used to base important instructional, eligibility, and placement decisions for learners in an MTSS model (CCSSO, 2015; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Additionally, using students’ learning rate over time and level of performance grounds ongoing decision making. Learning rate refers to a student’s growth in achievement or behavior competencies over time compared to prior levels of performance and peer growth rates. Level of performance refers to a student’s relative standing on some dimension of achievement/performance compared to expected performance. Important educational decisions about learning and performance are made regularly using universal screening and progress-monitoring data. Decisions about intensity and likely duration of interventions are based on individual student response to instruction across multiple tiers of intervention (CDE, 2015). Decisions about the necessity for more intense interventions (e.g., eligibility for special education or exit from special education) are based on learning rate and level. The significance of data-based decision making and instructional problem solving cannot be overstated as these are key to distinguishing language acquisition from disability and are examined in greater detail in subsequent chapters.

3. Multi-Tiered Continuum of Supports. MTSS addresses academic and social/behavioral needs through Universal (Tier 1) instruction to all learners, Targeted (Tier 2) instruction for those who show signs of struggle, and Intensive (Tier 3) intervention to students demonstrating more significant learning needs. Table 2.1 summarizes details often associated with the common three-tier structure typically found in most MTSS models (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hoover, 2010; National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE], 2005).

Students are initially provided evidence-based instruction in Tier 1, and if they do not make adequate progress, or “respond to instruction,” supplemental instruction in Tier 2 is provided. That is, students receive instruction that supports specific needs that surface in Tier 1 instruction. For those who continue to experience inadequate progress, Tier 3, or intensive intervention, is provided to meet significant needs, which may include special education in some MTSS models. Estimates in the area of reading are that approximately 80 percent of all learners make adequate progress in Tier 1; 15 to 20 percent may require some supplemental instruction in Tier 2; and 5 percent or less need intensive intervention implemented in Tier 3 (Hoover, 2013; Yell, 2004). Reference to the different tiers of instruction (as summarized above) is made throughout this book as we examine language acquisition and learning disabilities in reading.

4. Evidence-Based Instruction, Intervention, Assessment Practices. MTSS stresses the importance of delivering instruction in each tier grounded in evidence demonstrating effectiveness, and using appropriate assessments to measure progress with that instruction (CCSSO, 2015; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Providing high-quality instruction, intervention, and/or assessment matched to the needs of students is therefore essential in MTSS. The type of instruction and/or intervention selected should have been demonstrated through scientific research and practice to produce high learning rates for students. It is believed that selection and implementation of high-quality instruction and/or intervention will markedly increase the probability of, but does not guarantee, positive individual response. Embedded in each tier is a set of support structures or activities that help teachers implement research-based curriculum and instructional practices designed to improve student achievement from which lack of progress may indicate a learning disability (NASDSE, 2005). Though monitoring results may inform educators about a possible learning disability, evidence-based assessment devices and procedures are used to confirm a disability once language acquisition and learning disability behaviors are distinguished. Several chapters in this book address this particular component in greater detail.

5. Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring. Universal screening is an assessment type using quick, low-cost, repeatable data collection procedures to measure academic and behavioral skills of all students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Universal screening (a) reflects how functional the curriculum and instruction are in the school, (b) determines the extent students are making acceptable progress, and (c) assists to identify students who show signs of struggle. Universal screening is generally administered three times per year to monitor progress and “red flag” struggling learners in a timely manner. Similar to universal screening, progress monitoring is an assessment structure for identifying effectiveness of instruction and identifying learners who show signs of struggle. However, progress monitoring is conducted more frequently (e.g., every two weeks, monthly) to gather academic and behavioral data. Student performance examined frequently over time more quickly informs educators about learners’ response to instruction and intervention (Hoover & Klingner, 2011). Screening and monitoring results assume a huge role in efforts to distinguish language acquisition from disability and are examined in greater detail throughout the remaining chapters.

6. Family, School, Community Partnerships. The importance of school and district partnering with home and community on academic and social/behavioral progress is well documented in the literature. Herrera, Perez, & Escamilla (2015) wrote that “the family and community in which the CLD [culturally and linguistically diverse] student is being raised define literacy” (p. 7). In an effectively delivered MTSS model, families and community are key participants and partners in school decision making. Regarding the education of ELs, home-community-school connections are critical to reading success. Santiago and Alicea (2015) wrote that an educator’s academic preparation should be “complemented with a truer understanding of family as a unit that contributes to the child’s holistic literacy and cultural formation” (p. 69).

Given the underlying nature and importance of partnerships, this component assumes an essential role in the education of ELs who struggle with reading and will be referenced at strategic times throughout the remaining chapters as we explore strategies to avoid misinterpreting language acquisition as a learning disability.

In MTSS, ELs who are likely to have reading difficulties are identified and provided instruction and interventions that include the critical elements of reading (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). It is essential that selected methods and instructional practices are researched with and valid for use with ELs. Table 2.2 developed from sources cited in the table, provides a brief overview of instructional methods found effective for teaching reading to ELs. Chapter 5 provides detailed presentation of some of the methods summarized in the table. For additional information the reader is referred to cited sources.

Additionally, an important component of MTSS for reading is the ongoing assessment of a student’s proficiency in different academic skills, such as phonemic awareness, rapid letter naming, and comprehension. As discussed, ongoing assessment is significant because information obtained from assessments informs instruction at each tier and also identifies the appropriate level of service for each student in a timely manner (NASDSE, 2005).

Overall, within MTSS, students who make expected gains are said to respond to instruction and are expected to continue to make progress when evidence-based instruction is provided in the general education classroom. Conversely, students who make minimal gains after receiving quality, validated interventions are considered to be inadequately responding to intervention (or to be “nonresponders”). According to researchers (e.g., Al Otaiba et al., 2014; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003), these students may need more intensive long-term interventions (Tier 3), and possibly special education services.

The use of MTSS as a means to identifying learning disabilities is a relatively new phenomenon, and supported by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2008), with the understanding that the evidence about the learner gathered through MTSS represents only part of the material used in the comprehensive evaluation for making eligibility decisions (i.e., other evidence about learner progress is required in addition to MTTS progress data). When used within the context of the broader and more comprehensive evaluation, many proponents of MTSS, including researchers, policy makers, and practitioners, believe that it provides a more valid approach to identifying learning disabilities than previous IQ-achievement discrepancy methods (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Hoover, 2006, 2012). The premise is that MTSS more accurately identifies students as having LD if their academic performance (i.e., reading) does not adequately respond to an implemented intervention. However, some of the assumptions that underlie MTSS may be faulty when applied to ELs. We discuss these next.

Assumptions Underlying MTSS That May Be Problematic With ELs

MTSS is based on certain key principles that can be problematic when applied to ELs and other culturally and linguistically diverse students (Barrera, 2004; Hoover & Klingner, 2011; Klingner & Edwards, 2006). When practitioners understand these assumptions, they are in a better position to make wise choices for children and less likely to draw erroneous conclusions prematurely. They realize that there are many possible reasons an EL might be struggling.

Assumption 2

Learning to read in one’s second language is similar to learning to read in one’s first language; therefore, instructional approaches that have been found through research to be effective with mainstream English speaking students (and thus deemed “research-based”) are appropriate for serving ELs.

Although the developmental processes are similar when learning to read in a first or second language, there also are important differences that must be taken into account when planning for instruction and assessing student progress (see Chapter 4 for a description of these differences; August & Shanahan, 2006; Echevarria et al., 2012; Orosco & O’Connor, 2014). For example, ELs benefit from additional oral language instruction. Districts and schools should provide professional development in teaching reading to ELs, and teachers should do all they can to learn about working with this population of students. It is not enough, for example, to have a master’s degree in reading if the graduate program did not include a focus on ELs (Orosco, 2007).

Assumption 3

Students who fail to respond to research-based instruction have some sort of learning problem or internal deficit and perhaps even a learning disability.

There are many reasons a child may not respond to a particular instructional approach (Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Nguyen, 2012). It could be that the method is not an effective one with this child, whereas a different approach and learning experience would yield much better results. Or the level of instruction might not be a good match for the child. The environment might not be conducive to learning. It is important to look in classrooms and observe instruction, materials, content, and the physical environment, as well as make attempts to use different approaches, before determining that a child may have a disability because he/she is not responding to an intervention. It may be more appropriate to provide ELs with extra support at the second tier of an MTSS model while they are acquiring English rather than placing them in special education.

Practical Applications

Practical Application 1: Rural School District Model

Our first practical application example describes aspects of a district-based project implemented during 2012–2015 by two of this book’s authors (i.e., Hoover and Klingner). We refer to the project as the Rural School District Model as the setting is a remote rural school district, with approximately 6,000 students of which 37 percent are ELs (Hoover & Soltero-Gonzalez, 2014). The overall goal of the project was to work with the school district to develop and implement an MTSS model, with specific emphasis on literacy instruction for ELs in Grades K–3 in three elementary schools with high populations of ELs. One of the three schools used a dual language model and the other two an ESL model of instruction. The K–3 educators possessed varying amounts of teaching experiences and higher education degrees, with most teaching in the district 3–10 years. The project provided professional development, instructional coaching, classroom observations, materials and resources, and related supports necessary to advance the literacy knowledge and skills of the K–3 educators.

Central to the project work was a university-school district partnership that provided the foundation for the MTSS work. Much went into the partnership and professional development for the MTSS model, leading to a unique two-dimensional framework illustrated in Table 2.3.

The five components in Dimension 1 are research-based derived from over a decade of findings discussed in the literature (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hoover & Love, 2011; Klingner & Edwards, 2006; National Center on Response to Intervention [NCRI], n.d.; Orosco & Klingner, 2010). The ten teaching qualities in Dimension 2 are derived from national and state educator preparation accreditation standards (e.g., Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], CEC, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages [TESOL] International Association). The underlying premise is that in order to effectively implement an MTSS model (or any educational instructional model) these ten teacher qualities must be present (Hoover & Soltero-Gonzalez, 2014). The effectiveness of the model is limited to the extent that one or more of the teacher qualities is not incorporated into the delivery of MTSS. Nationally, accredited teacher preparation programs must demonstrate, during the accreditation process, how its teacher candidates possess these ten teaching abilities, and these, in turn, contribute to the implementation of the two-dimensional MTSS model.

table 6

Specifically, as can be seen, the two-dimensional model incorporates all six of the recommended components illustrated in Figure 2.1 (p. 29):

  1. Shared Leadership is evident through the university-school district partnership.
  2. Data-based decision making and problem solving are included in both dimensions of the model.
  3. Multi-tiered continuum of supports is one of the five main MTSS model components in the Rural School District Model project.
  4. Evidence-based instruction, intervention, and assessment are all highly evident in both dimensions of the model, including the quality teaching abilities.
  5. Universal screening and progress monitoring are incorporated in the multiple sources of assessment and ecological decision-making aspects of the Rural School District MTSS Model project.
  6. Family, school, community partnership is seen in the university-school district partnership and collaboration and as two of the ten essential teaching qualities in Dimension 2.

Though beyond the scope of this chapter, evaluation of the two-dimensional model includes the gathering of evidence to determine the extent each teaching quality (Dimension 2) is incorporated into the delivery of the five components in Dimension 1. To date, our research findings show that each quality is found in the delivery of each of the Dimension 1 components, providing initial evidence of the fidelity of implementation of the Rural School District MTSS model (Hoover & Soltero-Gonzalez, 2014). Therefore, initial results suggest that this more comprehensive, two-dimensional model for providing quality instruction to ELs is promising, expanding on the six key features framing the MTSS model illustrated in Figure 2.1. Though initial findings are encouraging, several challenges exist that confronted educators during the development and implementation of the Rural School District MTSS model. A few of these challenges are addressed below.

Challenge 1: Competing mandates to deliver district curriculum and methods prevent classroom teachers from implementing the MTSS literacy methods for ELs presented during the professional development.

Schools and school districts have multiple initiatives occurring simultaneously, often leading to confusion and difficulty in implementation. In our project, a key component within the professional development is an action item completed by participants detailing how they plan to incorporate their learning into existing instruction. By providing time during each workshop, teachers are able to cooperatively plan the implementation of one key “takeaway” from the workshop, leading to increased success in the classroom. Another effective practice is to guide teachers to not change too much too quickly but rather attempt key changes on a small scale increasing in scope based on initial successes. Additionally, by planning the professional development workshops in partnership with the school and educators, topics will be more relevant to participants leading to increased successful implementation beyond the workshop sessions.

Challenge 2: Professional development incorporated into the delivery of the Rural School District MTSS Model interfered with teacher planning, instruction, and related tasks that affected attention of participants and interest in trying the new ideas in the classroom to improve reading instruction for ELs.

Time has always been one of the most valued and important items in the life of educators. Today, we expect teachers of ELs to do more, with less, in the same amount of time. Recognizing the importance of educator time and the need for focused attention during workshop sessions, the project staff revised the process for delivering workshop sessions. This included (a) holding workshops at times that school professional development was already scheduled, (b) providing teachers a brief amount of time after school prior to beginning the workshop to attend to their most pressing items, and (c) ensuring that the workshops were highly interactive, practical, and relevant. In addition, the workshops included follow-up classroom visits or observations of team meetings to provide additional supports beyond the workshop sessions. Each of these delivery considerations contributed to greater teacher attention, more active workshop participation, a more focused effort to attend to workshop expectations, and increased implementation with fidelity of select workshop topics to best educate ELs in reading.

Challenge 3: Educators interpreting the reading achievement data of ELs focused primarily on the content and skills addressed through the curriculum without attending to the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of the instruction. Lack of consideration of the responsiveness of the instruction limits effectiveness of instructional adjustments for ELs.

ELs require the additional consideration, beyond discussing knowledge and skills, of the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of the instruction. Delivering the proper knowledge and skills in a reading lesson will be only as effective as that delivery reflects the cultural and linguistic needs, teachings, and values ELs bring to the classroom. Unless properly prepared, educators often neglect to consider the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of the instruction when interpreting achievement or social/behavioral data and evidence. To meet this need, a simple checklist was developed and used that contained items to guide team members to specifically consider diversity issues (in addition to knowledge and skills). The checklist used in the Rural MTSS project includes select items from the many guides and forms presented throughout this book. Simply drawing attention to cultural and linguistic considerations through use of an easy-to-use guide is often sufficient to make certain diversity is part of the data interpretation discussions.

Challenge 4: In much of the literature, Tier 1 is usually presented and discussed by itself, while Tiers 2 and 3 are typically paired and discussed together. This presentation format contributes to educators’ perception that Tier 2 is more of a “gateway” to Tier 3 rather than a support level to Tier 1. In the Rural School District Model project, linking Tiers 1 and 2 in MTSS decision-making discussions challenged educators to see the Tier 1–2 connection and its significance to reading instruction for ELs.

In today’s schools and classrooms, there exist many mandates, expectations, and requirements associated with the teaching of ELs. Students who struggle with Tier 1 instruction should receive needed Tier 2 supports that are clearly designed to support Tier 1 learning. If this is the case, then why do we not discuss the instruction provided in Tier 1 along with the Tier 2 supports thereby linking in a positive and productive way Tiers 1 and 2 instructions? As we continue to discuss Tier 2 as associated with Tier 3 (e.g., Tiers 2 and 3 are frequently discussed in the literature in the same paragraph or section), disconnects between Tiers 1 and 2 may continue to exist. In the Rural School District project, we attempted to guide teachers to think about Tier 2 in more connected ways to Tier 1 by helping them consider improvements to Tier 1 instruction at the same time they were considering needed Tier 2 supports. This process served three important purposes: (a) discussing Tier 3 only when Tiers 1 and 2 collectively are not successful, (b) making adjustments to Tier 1 while providing Tier 2 to improve learners’ chances of being successful in Tier 1 during and upon completion of Tier 2 instruction, and (c) teachers beginning to see that many of the same tasks and structures previously implemented in Tier 2 only can now be incorporated into Tier 1 instruction, thereby reducing the future need for some students to require Tier 2 supports (Hoover & Love, 2011).

Practical Application 2: Marble Mountain Elementary School

Marble Mountain Elementary School recently began implementing the RTI aspects of the broader MTSS model. Their student population was 92 percent Latino (of whom 53 percent were considered English learners). North County School District selected Marble Mountain as a pilot school for RTI because of concerns about the high percentages of ELs receiving special education services (31 percent of all ELs) and the school’s low performance on high stakes tests. The district carefully collected the available research about RTI and staff felt confident that they were recommending the most effective and feasible RTI model. Three days of professional development were provided to Marble Mountain teachers, support personnel, and administrators on how to implement the various components of RTI. Yet no sooner had the year begun than the practitioners at Marble Mountain began to experience challenges in their RTI implementation. They were especially concerned about using RTI with ELs. Although the educators were aware that second language acquisition, best practices for ELs, and cultural variations need to be considered when assessing student progress and making instructional adjustments, they were not always confident that they had sufficient expertise to carry out these activities. We discuss four of their challenges next.

Challenge 1: According to progress-monitoring data, more than half of the ELs in each first-grade class are not reaching benchmarks even though they are supposedly receiving research-based instruction. It is not feasible to provide Tier 2 instruction to all of these students.

When many or most ELs in the same grade or classroom are not progressing with a particular instructional program, the first step should be to look for ways to make instruction more appropriate for culturally and linguistically diverse students. It is important to (a) examine the program to determine if it has been validated with students like those in the class, (b) determine whether instruction is at an appropriate level for students and the program is well implemented, and (c) establish whether teachers are sufficiently differentiating instruction to meet diverse student needs. Determining how appropriate an instructional program is requires studying the program manual or research reports to find out how the program was developed and tested, and with whom.

For example, what percentage of the students in the original sample (i.e., students who participated in the testing) were English learners? If the answer is none or few, the instructional program is probably not suitable for these students. If the answer is less than half, do the researchers or program developers report how well the English learners did with the program (separately from other non-EL participants)? This is important to know because researchers can call a practice or program effective based on a small majority of the participants achieving better results than when using a comparison program. It is possible, and in fact likely, that some students, including ELs, not in the “small majority” actually did better with the comparison program. However, if this breakdown is not provided then educators may erroneously assume that all learners, including the ELs, demonstrated effectiveness with the tested program.

Determining whether a program is well implemented necessitates observing in classrooms. The program might be an appropriate one, but the teacher may be having trouble applying it with fidelity. Perhaps the teacher is struggling with classroom management and needs assistance in this area before focusing extensively on reading instruction. Or perhaps the teacher has not been trained in how to differentiate instruction. It very well could be that the teacher also requires more professional development in how to teach reading to ELs. In Marble Mountain’s case, none of the district-provided RTI professional development included this above training, and most of the teachers lacked sufficient preparation on effective instruction for teaching reading to ELs in their teacher education programs. In other words, when so many students seem to be struggling in the general classroom, the first step should be to improve the core instruction, since the majority of students in the classroom do not have a learning disability.

Challenge 2: Teachers and other school personnel are not clear how the RTI process is similar to and different from the prereferral process they had used in previous years. Their RTI meetings look very much like the child study team meetings of old.

Teachers’ concerns have changed very little over time—they are still frustrated that some students are not learning more quickly and that they are not receiving more needed assistance. However, as discussed in the previous challenge, efforts to assist struggling learners should begin with examining and improving the instruction, as necessary. Unfortunately, discussions at RTI problem-solving meetings still center on possible reasons for a child’s struggles from a deficit perspective, in other words, focused on what could be wrong with the child. There still seems to be a push to qualify a student for special education so that he can receive more intensive support. It is natural that it will take time for school personnel to shift their thinking from one of figuring out what is wrong with a student to one of looking more broadly at the instructional context and ways to make it better (i.e., previous challenge), as well as how to provide support for all struggling students in a multileveled instructional system. During this transition period, we advise focusing on ways to improve Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction and interventions to be more appropriate for ELs, and for all students. Rather than instructing a child through Tier 3, we suggest providing a different form of intervention at Tier 2, perhaps for a longer duration, making sure that educators with expertise in teaching reading to ELs deliver the intervention.

Challenge 3: School personnel were confused about Tier 2 interventions. They wonder (a) whether EL services, such as English language development (ELD) instruction, “count” as a Tier 2 intervention, and (b) whether a special education teacher can provide Tier 2 supports.

Tier 2 interventions are only those small-group interventions that are supplemental to the core curriculum and based on students’ needs as assessed by universal screening and progress monitoring. Instructional activities designed to support ELs’ English language development (ELD) should be part of Tier 1, similar to other areas such as mathematics and reading instruction. The decision to deliver Tier 2 supports in ELD is also similar to the decision to provide Tier 2 supports in mathematics or reading: only after Tier 1 instruction is determined to be appropriate (i.e., culturally and linguistically responsive), delivered with fidelity, and deemed ineffective based on progress monitoring. Here is a way to think about this:

In regard to the role of special educators, Tier 2 is under the domain of general education, not special education. Although the special education teacher might serve as a consultant regarding Tier 2 interventions, and may even occasionally provide Tier 2 interventions, particularly if she is modeling how to teach a particular kind of lesson for her colleagues, this should not be her primary role, and she should not be the school’s main Tier 2 intervention provider. A general education reading specialist, mathematics specialist, or English language development specialist would be far more appropriate for providing Tier 2 supports, with special education support as needed.

Challenge 4: The school has limited resources. School personnel are struggling to figure out ways to make RTI feasible. They lack full sets of books in the basal reading series that they are supposed to be using; they are being asked to pay for and implement progress monitoring in addition to the other high stakes testing they have already been administering; they have one reading specialist providing Tier 2 support, but she does not have time to help teachers with their instruction and also provide intensive instruction for all students who need it; they know their teachers need more preparation in how to work with ELs and would like to provide more professional development but cannot afford it.

Schools are part of larger systems. Unless funding structures are changed to provide more support for struggling schools, they are going to find it very hard to implement RTI, or any other reform, for that matter. Marble Mountain’s principal has already allocated 15 percent of her special education funding to help pay for the reading specialist’s salary, as is allowed by the law. She is reallocating Title 1 funds—that in the past paid for paraprofessionals—to hire two additional intervention specialists as well as to purchase more materials. Although the school cannot afford to bring in an external professional developer, the principal allocated resources to provide a small stipend to the one teacher who has a master’s degree in teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students to facilitate a study group that meets one day a week after school to discuss EL reading issues. The principal is now trying to obtain professional development credits for the participating teachers that will contribute to increases on the salary scale. The principal is doing all she can to improve learning opportunities for her school’s students, and to make RTI work, but really wishes that she had more guidance in how to do this, along with additional resources to more effectively meet ELs’ reading needs.

We teach all students how to do mathematics in Tier 1. We teach all students how to read in Tier 1. We teach all ELs English language development (ELD) in Tier 1. While we are teaching with fidelity, we are assessing students’ progress. When we find that some students are not progressing well in properly delivered Tier 1 mathematics, we should provide them with Tier 2 interventions in mathematics; when some students are not progressing well in learning to read in properly delivered Tier 1 reading instruction, we should provide them with Tier 2 interventions in reading; and when some ELs are not progressing with properly delivered ELD instruction in Tier 1, we should provide them with Tier 2 English language acquisition supports. Of critical importance is that all three areas of mathematics, reading, and ELD are taught as Tier 1 core instruction, supplemented when adequate progress is not made.

Research To Practice

Lessons Learned From Practical Examples for Educating ELs

Both Marble Mountain Elementary and the Rural County School District are not alone in the challenges they face in their attempts to develop and implement effective multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) for ELs. To help support these and other schools, we developed two tables located at the end of the chapter. The first, Table 2.5, was designed to assist school personnel to think about their readiness to implement MTSS and what factors should be in place. Table 2.6, provides additional decision points about each tier in the MTSS model. Use of these guides provides important information as school districts and individual schools engage in partnerships with universities or other educational organizations that support MTSS development, implementation, and evaluation.

Summary

In this chapter, we discussed the contemporary and widespread practice of MTSS relative to the education of ELs. We provided an overview of the MTSS model, discussed assumptions that can be problematic for ELs, provided an example of a multi-tiered research study, and discussed challenges to MTSS implementation as experienced by educators in two project application examples. In addition, two checklists for practitioners to use to help guide their practice were presented. Our intent in this chapter was to provide a foundation for the chapters in this book that follow. Each subsequent chapter provides more in-depth information about an aspect of differentiating between learning disabilities and language acquisition or learning differences among ELs within an MTSS framework, beginning with discussions of several misconceptions about the education of ELs and reading instruction in Chapter 3.

table 8

Source: Adapted from the Meadows Center (2014) and the University of Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts (2003), both at University of Texas, Austin.