�鶹������ý

As the dual language learner (DLL) population continues to grow, administrators and educators in districts across the country are seeking research-proven, effective models and methods to support the unique needs of these students. One promising model is the framework, now commonly referred to as a ). With high-quality core literacy instruction, data-based decision-making, and supportive partnerships between teachers and specialists, the MTSS framework can support DLLs in both their linguistic and literacy development.

At the foundation of the MTSS is : high quality, research-based classroom instruction with ongoing student assessment to ensure sufficient academic progress for each individual student. Those not making sufficient progress are referred to , targeted small-group instruction adapted to the needs of the group. Students showing little progress after this targeted instruction are referred to , individualized intensive instruction with weekly monitoring. Each of these tiers is accompanied by additional supports, including specialist collaboration and professional development. (For a visual representation of an MTSS, see .)

The Model Demonstration Coordination Center () recently held an event demonstrating how MTSS frameworks can benefit DLLs who have, or may be at risk of having, literacy-related disabilities: . The MDCC establishes partnerships between groups to bridge research into practice to improve educational outcomes for children. The event highlighted a collaborative effort among three groups ( and both the University of Texas at Austin, and at The University of Colorado at Boulder) across two states and four diverse school districts.

The three groups in the MDCC collaboration worked with teachers and administrators to adapt, refine, and evaluate multi-tiered frameworks within schools with high DLL populations. Their work focused on improving core instruction through professional development, universal screening and progress monitoring, differentiation through tiered instruction, and culturally responsive pedagogy. Their goals were to improve the reading achievement and language development of DLLs while simultaneously increasing the accuracy of special education referrals.

At the event, Project REME’s Lucinda Soltero-González provided multiple strategies for designing effective literacy instruction for DLLs within this MTSS framework. First, DLLs need culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices. This involves building strong teacher-student-family relationships, setting high expectations for all students, and providing students with curricula that connect them with their homes and community. In the primary grades, for example, read-alouds can connect students’ experiences in their communities to what they are learning in school.

Secondly, Soltero-González continued, classroom teachers must ensure they are focusing on all four language domains (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) with a heavy emphasis on oral language development. Why oral language? connects faster oral language development and higher vocabulary with stronger reading comprehension ability. In the primary grades, DLLs should have ample time in the classroom to build their oral language proficiency through conversation. Explicit vocabulary instruction should be integrated into instruction with emphasis on depth of vocabulary, a knowledge field where DLLs often need extra support. Soltero-González offered an example in a video clip: while pointing out the ‘-ight’ ending, a teacher may explicitly point out that the word ‘bright’ can refer to the amount of light or intelligence.

Sylvia Linan-Thompson of Project ESTRE²LLA explained that DLL students not responding to core instruction need systematic and targeted interventions. It may be that these students have literacy-related learning disabilities that are interfering with their linguistic development. Schools that monitor students’ language development through regular assessment can distinguish between students who have not had adequate English learning opportunities from students who are having learning difficulties.

Any intervention should include a specific focus on language development and be scaffolded to meet each student’s individual language needs. When identifying students with reading difficulties, schools should consider the student’s educational background (including time spent in instruction in his/her first language (L1) versus second language (L2)). Linan-Thompson emphasized that education history is of particular importance for students who have previously been enrolled in different models of transitional bilingual education (TBE). For example, a student who was enrolled in TBE through second grade may underperform on third-grade English benchmarks, but that may be due to his or her limited exposure to English, not a learning disability. Linan-Thompson stressed the need for accurate screening and progress-monitoring tools for DLLs that can disentangle whether a child’s academic difficulty is due to language or a learning disability.

In conjunction with the event, , , and published a series of briefs also under the heading . These highlight specific best practices and offer implementation guidance for policymakers in districts with growing DLL populations. As Greg Roberts of The University of Texas at Austin concluded, one of the key opportunities of the MTSS framework is “we’re not only looking at the content area, in terms of student learning, but we’re looking also at language and…[how it] is responding to ongoing, intensive and appropriate instruction.” In other words, linguistic and academic development cannot be separated. MTSS systems offer one way for educators and schools to formalize their connection and support DLLs’ success.

This post is part of �鶹������ý’s Dual Language Learner National Work Group. . To subscribe to the biweekly newsletter, , enter your contact information, and select “Education Policy.”“