RTI in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Schools

By Janette Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder

Response to intervention holds promise as a way to improve learning outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students and reduce their disproportionate representation in special education (Donovan & Cross, 2004). An emphasis on early intervention, a focus on making sure children receive appropriate instruction at the “first tier” or classroom level, and a push to match instruction to a child’s needs based on ongoing classroom assessment are all features of RTI that, when implemented well, should lead to increased opportunities to learn for culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Yet RTI is based on certain key principles that can be problematic when applied with culturally and linguistically diverse students. When we understand these assumptions, we are in a better position to make wise choices for children and less likely to draw erroneous conclusions prematurely. We realize that there are many possible reasons culturally and linguistically diverse students might be struggling and are in a better position to provide them with optimal support.

Over the next month, I will be discussing these assumptions. I will also write about common challenges educators face when implementing RTI in diverse schools and offer suggestions for how to address them. I look forward to reading your comments and questions and engaging in a dialogue about how best to meet the needs of our culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Assumption 1: “Evidence-based instruction” is good instruction for everyone. Culturally and linguistically diverse students who have been taught with generic evidence-based interventions have been provided with sufficient opportunities to learn.

The RTI model is based on the principle that instructional practices or interventions at each level should be based on scientific research evidence about “what works.” However, it is essential to find out what works with whom, by whom, for what purposes, and in what contexts. One size does not fit all. 

Numerous instructional approaches recommended as being research-based have not actually been validated or even tried out with culturally and linguistically diverse students or in the high-poverty school contexts in which many culturally and linguistically diverse students are educated. It is important to note that the National Reading Panel, whose report became the foundation for the recommendations behind Reading First, “did not address issues relevant to second language learning” (2000, p. 3). The panel excluded research on English language learners because another expert panel examined the body of research on learning to read in English as a second language (August & Shanahan, 2006).

Research reports must include relevant information about the participants in research studies so we can determine if our students are similar to those who took part in the body of work that supports the effectiveness of a particular instructional approach. Practitioners should routinely check research reports to make sure this information is provided. Relevant information might include, but is not limited to:

• language proficiency
• ethnicity
• socio-economic status
• previous educational experiences (e.g., previous schooling, whether or not students are literate in their first language)
• disability status

Also, data should be disaggregated to show how interventions might differentially affect students from diverse backgrounds.