Intervention

Parents and families have full involvement in finding the best intervention strategies for their student. Many Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) for these students require “spate personnel, policies, and funding sources.” Professionals involved must be knowledgeable of the student’s strengths and weakness in order to form the best IEP.

Questions for Professionals Working to Involve the Student in General Education Inclusion Classrooms to Consider

Is there a cultural liaison that can link the school and community contexts and parental rights for the parents?

Is the family informed of the student receiving preventive, tiered intervention in addition to ESL services as part of the school’s RTI/multi-tier system of supports (MTSS) model?

Are the parents involved in the process, problem solving, and monitoring of the educational plan’s (instruction and intervention) efficacy and response before the student is referred for special education evaluation?

Is the parent’s consent to a special education evaluation based on an informed understanding of the process and, when necessary, with the support of the cultural liaison, cultural navigator, or translator?

When appropriate, are parents provided with the opportunity to report on surveys (adaptive, ecological, etc.) with the support of a cultural liaison, cultural navigator, or translator?

Have the student’s parents/guardians participated in the eligibility determination as partners and do they understand how the child will continue to receive the tiered, ESL, and specially designed instruction if eligible for special education services?

Creating a Team

Click on the Icon for Tips from the Michigan Department of Education in, "Coordinating Support Services for English Language Learners with Special Needs"

Tier 1

Types of Intervention

Questions to Address Challenges

Characteristics

Reading Interventions
Reading Interventions in English
Reading Interventions in Native Language

There is evidence that universal (core) instruction is effective with most students who share the student’s same cultural characteristics and/or stage or level of English language proficiency.
Instruction/intervention implemented was determined to be culturally and/or linguistically appropriate and was delivered using evidenced-based instructional practices (e.g., see Council for Exceptional Children, 2014; International Reading Association, 2002).
Limited opportunities for acquiring culturally bound knowledge, culture itself, ethnic diversity, and the normal process of developmental language acquisition can be ruled out as a primary cause of the student’s difficulties.

Is there adequate instruction in reading and math, including in the five critical areas of literacy (phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary development; reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and reading comprehension strategies) identified in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, §1208(3), the National Reading Panel (2000) report, and the National Literacy Panel report (August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009)?
Is the core curriculum for ELL students reflective of academic standards specific to bilingual education and ESL programs (e.g., World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment standards)?
Is there evidence of differentiation in the core Tier 1 curriculum by classroom teacher and ESL teacher?
Is the core instruction of high quality and delivered with fidelity?
Is there a difference in the student’s performance by subject area?
Are the universal screening and progress-monitoring instruments that have been selected culturally responsive for the learners who will be taking them? For example, are there items on the tests that would be easily understood based on the target student’s English language proficiency levels?
Was progress monitoring conducted in the language of intervention, when appropriate, and in English?

Tiers 2 & 3

Questions to Address Challenges

Students are brought into the second and third tier of intervention when tier one does not bring the student up to par with his/her academic progress.

Was the instruction/intervention implemented in a culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate manner?
Does the intervention include explicit academic intervention in the area(s) of learning difficulty?
Is there evidence that interventions were implemented with high fidelity as intended (i.e., by a qualified educator the specified number of times, for the time allotted, the number of weeks, and with regular progress monitoring)?
Do Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions supplement core instruction (not replace it)?
If students did not make sufficient progress with Tier 2 intervention, are the Tier 3 interventions delivered with higher intensity (i.e., qualified educator, more frequency, longer duration, and smaller group delivery [e.g., group sizes of 1 to 1 or 1 to 3])?