School Psychology Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uspr20

An Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision

Making Practices for English Learners

Sylvia Linan-Thompson, Alba Ortiz & Linda Cavazos

To cite this article: Sylvia Linan-Thompson, Alba Ortiz & Linda Cavazos (2022) An Examination
of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices for English Learners, School Psychology
Review, 51:4, 484-497, DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690

Published online: 28 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1602

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uspr20
School Psychology Review
2022, VOL. 51, NO. 4, 484–497
https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690

SPECIAL SERIES

An Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices for

English Learners
Sylvia Linan-Thompsona, Alba Ortizb, and Linda Cavazosc
University of Oregon; bThe University of Texas at Austin; cEnglish Learner Advocacy Leadership Support (ELLAS)
a

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Within a culturally and linguistically responsive (CLR) multitiered system of supports (MTSS) Received February 22, 2021
framework, effective policies, practices, and personnel ensure that resources and tools promote Accepted October 27, 2021
equity for all students. Observation data were analyzed to describe the implementation of two KEYWORDS
components of MTSS/RTI, assessment and data-based decision-making, in five schools that served MTSS, English learners,
large numbers of English Learners (ELs) in bilingual education programs. Data were analyzed to assessment, data-based
identify CLR policies and practices implemented by the schools and those that needed to be refined decision-making
or improved. Recommendations for how school psychologists can collaborate with educators in
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
developing and implementing effective CLR assessment and data-based decision-making practices Jorge E. Gonzalez
in MTSS/RTI for ELs are presented.

IMPACT STATEMENT
Although several concept papers have identified promising practices in implementing MTSS with
ELs, few studies have described how assessment and data-based decision-making practices are
operationalized in schools or how school psychologists can support the implementation of culturally
and linguistically responsive MTSS for ELs.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004), response to intervention
(RTI) was conceived as a multitiered approach to early
identification and support of children with learning diffi-
culties. The focus on early intervention was in direct con-
trast to the practice common at the time of not providing
targeted instructional support until students had experi-
enced years of academic failure. IDEA (2004) allows mul-
tidisciplinary teams to identify students with specific
learning disabilities based on their response to interven-
tion. Over time, RTI was incorporated into a broader
framework, Multitiered System of Supports (MTSS), to
add a focus on the prevention of learning and behavioral
problems (Bailey, 2019). Most schools now implement
MTSS frameworks that include RTI (hereafter referred to
as MTSS/RTI) (Spectrum K12, 2008). Thus, the imple-
mentation of an MTSS/RTI framework in schools is used
to prevent learning difficulties, provide early intervention
for students who are not progressing as expected, and
determine eligibility for special education. The focus of
this article is on the implementation of assessment and
data-based decision-making (DBDM) in the context of
MTSS/RTI for English learners (ELs).
Distinguishing between language acquisition and lan-
guage-based learning difficulties or disabilities continues
to be a challenge for educators (Ortiz et al., 2018). This
can be explained, in part, by the fact that ELs are a heter-
ogenous group, representing diverse racial and ethnic
groups and more than 400 languages, although the major-
ity, 76%, are Spanish speakers (U. S. Office of English
Language Acquisition, 2019). Moreover, they are served
in different types of language instruction programs. For
example, some receive first language (L1) and English as
a second language (ESL; L2) instruction in bilingual edu-
cation programs, while others are taught in English in
general education classrooms but are provided ESL classes.
As a result, the language and literacy skills of ELs develop
at different rates and are impacted by the language of
instruction and the quality of oral language and reading
instruction they receive (Hammer et al., 2011; Iglesias &
Rojas, 2012). These, along with a multitude of other factors
(e.g., students’ socioeconomic status, immigrant status,
disability status) and educator variables (e.g., shortage of
bilingual education and ESL teachers and of bilingual
interventionists and school psychologists), lead to vari-
ability in the design and implementation MTSS/RTI

CONTACT Sylvia Linan-Thompson sthomps5@uoregon.edu Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences, University of Oregon, 352 HEDCO
Education Bldg, Eugene, OR 97403-1299, USA.
© 2022 National Association of School Psychologists

frameworks and differing levels of success not only to pre-
vent learning difficulties, but also in appropriately identi-
fying ELs who have learning difficulties or disabilities.
Effective MTSS/RTI implementation depends on timely
assessment and interpretation of student performance
data, and evaluation of contextual factors that contribute
to their success, or failure. These data are then used to
develop individual-, group- and system-level interventions
to improve student learning. School psychologists are in
an excellent position to assist with designing and imple-
menting or refining MTSS/RTI frameworks because of
their unique set of training and experience related to
assessment, data collection and analysis, consultation and
collaboration, instructional support, family collaboration,
and special education services (NASP, 2016).
To better understand the implementation of MTSS/
RTI in schools that serve a large number of ELs, the Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded two sets
of model demonstration projects to develop evi-
dence-based practices in the implementation of MTSS/
RTI for ELs (U.S. OSEP, 2011, 2016). Projects examined
the fidelity of implementation of classroom-, school-, and
system-level MTSS/RTI practices for improving literacy
outcomes for ELs. The first cycle funded collaborative
projects between university and school district personnel
to develop and/or refine MTSS/RTI models for ELs with
reading difficulties or disabilities in kindergarten to third
grade (2011–2015) and the second for ELs in third to fifth
grade (2016–2020). In both cycles, projects worked in
elementary schools where ELs represented at least 40% of
the school population, with no fewer than 100 ELs in
targeted grade levels.
Project staff and school personnel in participating
schools collaborated to improve components of their
respective MTSS/RTI models, with a focus on integration
of culturally and linguistically responsive practices in oral
language and literacy instruction. Projects funded in both
cycles investigated how MTSS/RTI models used culturally
and linguistically responsive practices (CLRP) that could
be implemented and sustained in general and special edu-
cation settings to improve literacy outcomes for ELs, with
a focus on reading. CLRP were defined as those promoting
the redesign of learning environments to support the
development and success of all students, including com-
municating high expectations and incorporating students’
cultural and home experiences into curriculum and
instruction.
This article reports on the assessment and DBDM prac-
tices implemented in five elementary schools that partic-
ipated in the model demonstration projects and that
served ELs in bilingual education programs. MTSS/RTI
policies and practices are first identified noting which
Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 485
practices were effective and which hindered implementa-
tion then recommendations for refining these components
are offered.
CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY
RESPONSIVE MTSS/RTI
The terms culturally responsive practices, culturally
responsive pedagogy, and culturally responsive instruction
have been used in the literature to describe instruction
that uses the cultural knowledge, experiences, frames of
reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse
students to make learning relevant and effective (Gay,
2002, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1994). In addressing the
implementation of MTSS/RTI in schools that serve large
numbers of ELs, the term culturally and linguistically
responsive education system is more appropriate because
it includes a focus on system-level changes required to meet
the unique needs of ELs as well as the district and state
contexts in which schools operate. Klingner et al. (2005)
describe CLR educational systems as those that leverage
resources, human and material, to create schools that are
responsive to cultural diversity by implementing policies
and practices that support all students, and by instilling
the “ethics of care, respect, and responsibility in the pro-
fessionals who serve culturally and linguistically diverse
students” (p. 8). The core components of MTSS/RTI
frameworks for ELs are the same as for non-ELs; the crit-
ical difference is in the integration of culturally and lin-
guistically responsive practices. Based on what is known
about second language development, best practices in
bilingual education, and about effective assessment
approaches, scholars (e.g., Esparza Brown & Sanford, 2011;
García & Ortiz, 2008; Klingner et al., 2008; Linán-
Thompson & Ortiz, 2009; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008) have
identified promising practices for MTSS/RTI for ELs.
Assessment
In an MTSS/RTI framework, assessments must be con-
ducted by trained and knowledgeable personnel who collect
data from multiple sources to identify learning difficulties
across contexts, including home and school. Evaluators (a)
use technically sound instruments that are valid and reliable
for the target population and that have alternate forms for
monitoring student progress; (b) administer assessments
in ways that do not discriminate against students from
racially, culturally, or linguistically diverse backgrounds;
and (c) conduct assessments in the child’s native language
or other mode of communication and in the form most
likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows
and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally
486 School Psychology Review, 2022, Volume 51, No. 4DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690
(IDEA, 2004). Assessment tools and processes provide
information that directly assists in identifying students’
educational needs and in planning core instruction and
supplemental intervention. Screening and progress moni-
toring assessments predict student performance, for exam-
ple, on district- and school-level assessments of curriculum
standards or state-mandated accountability assessments.
The role of assessments in an MTSS/RTI model is to
determine if students need additional instruction and to
monitor their progress. The amount of literacy instruction
ELs receive in each language, and whether they are assessed
in L1, L2, or both, will vary depending on the type of bilin-
gual education program in which they are enrolled.
Consequently, the language and literacy skills of ELs vary
in each language and change over time (Project ELITE
et al., 2015). Thus, to understand students’ language and
literacy development, it is important to establish students’
current oral language and literacy performance in L1 and
L2 and then to monitor changes over time. Assessment in
MTSS/RTI, including universal screening and progress
monitoring, must effectively identify ELs at risk of reading
failure as well as those who respond and those who do not
respond adequately to instruction or intervention. Table 1
identifies the CLR educational system components, stan-
dard practice, and CLR policies and practices related to
assessment (Linán-Thompson & Ortiz, 2009; Ortiz et al.,
2018). In CLR educational systems, policy refers to regu-
lations, procedures, or administrative actions adopted by
the federal, state, or local education agencies that are
enacted in schools. School practices reflect those policies
Table 1. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Assessment Practices for ELs
CLR Component Standard MTSS/RTI
Policy and practice Use valid and reliable assessment instruments for
screening and progress monitoring.
Practice Conduct universal screenings at regular intervals
(Beginning, Middle, EOY)
Practice Use progress monitoring assessments that have
alternate forms
Policy and practice Use assessments that predict performance in
target areas
Practice Base decisions on more than one assessment
instrument/procedures
Practice Give students credit for all they know
Practice Develop a comprehensive profile of student
performance in target areas
and are enacted by the people in schools (Klingner et al.,
2005). Table 1 can be used to guide the identification of
standards that are in place and to evaluate whether these
are responsive to the needs of ELs.
CLRP in MTSS/RTI includes the use of equivalent
assessment instruments and procedures to document stu-
dent progress in L1 and L2, as appropriate. For example,
the language of the literacy assessments for ELs in bilingual
education programs may be conducted in L1, initially; in
L1 and L2 as literacy instruction in English is introduced;
but in L2 when students are transitioned to instruction in
English and no longer receive literacy instruction in L1.
ELs in English as a second language programs or who
receive all their instruction in English, are assessed with
grade-appropriate literacy measures in English. In decid-
ing whether ELs need supplemental intervention, assess-
ment results are interpreted in relation to their L1 and L2
proficiency and the amount and quality of literacy instruc-
tion they have received in the target language.
Interpreting literacy achievement in relation to stu-
dents’ language proficiency levels may be challenging
because, unlike reading skill development, most MTSS/
RTI models do not include screening or progress moni-
toring assessments in the oral language domain. In the
case of ELs, language proficiency is assessed when students
enter school to determine eligibility for dual language or
ESL programs and then annually to determine continuing
eligibility for these programs. Even when ELs are able
decoders and fluent readers, the lack of adequate vocabu-
lary in English, and unfamiliarity with the structural
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive MTSS/RTI
Use instruments developed for and validated with ELs.
Use equivalent instruments and procedures in both languages to compare
performance across languages.
Use instruments that allow documentation of changes in language and
literacy performance, in L1 and L2, within and across grades.
Assess academic achievement in the language(s) of instruction.
Assess oral language proficiency in L1 and L2.
Use instruments that have alternate forms in L1 and L2
Use instruments that predict performance on State-mandated language
proficiency standards
Use instruments that predict achievement on State-mandated literacy
assessments in L1 and L2
Gather data that provide information about linguistic and cultural
influences on performance (e.g.., from EL parents and families; teachers
across grades and content areas; classroom observations of L1 and L2
instruction)
Allow students to respond in either language to give them credit for their
linguistic knowledge and skills in each language, independently and
cumulatively when allowed.
Document oral language proficiency in L1 and L2
Document academic skills in the language(s) of instruction.
Document skill development within and across grades (i.e., longitudinally)
Document factors that may impact performance (e.g., linguistic or cultural
bias in assessment; testing in only one language)
 Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 487

components (e.g., syntax and grammar) of English may Data-Based Decision-Making

affect the speed with which they process text, which, in
Decision-making in any MTSS/RTI framework is driven
turn, may interfere with reading comprehension. Even
by valid and reliable data, specifically, that provided by
when they are fluent readers, lack of English language
benchmark and progress monitoring instruments. When
skills can affect comprehension. For example, third grade
benchmark assessments do not provide norms for students
ELs who can read grade-level text at 130 correct words per
learning in a second language, state or district policies
minute are less likely to pass the state accountability test,
should provide explicit criteria for identifying ELs who
a measure of reading comprehension, than native English
are not meeting grade level expectations and for determin-
speakers who read at the same rate (Kung, 2007). This
ing which ELs will receive supplemental intervention.
reinforces the importance of continuous progress moni-
These criteria should include decision rules for moving
toring of oral language development to accurately interpret
students across tiers (e.g., exiting students from Tier 2
reading performance and for instructional planning.
intervention, moving students from Tier 2 to Tier 3 inter-
Educators can use language and literacy assessment data
vention, or referring students to problem solving or special
to develop a comprehensive profile of students’ skills within
education referral committees). These policies, proce-
and across grades. Oral language proficiency should always
dures, and criteria will guide the work of data review teams.
be collected in L1 and L2 and academic performance
The purpose of data meetings is to review benchmark
should be collected in the language(s) of instruction. Unless
assessment and progress monitoring data to identify stu-
the purpose is to document language and literacy profi-
dents who are not making expected progress. When these
ciency in a target language (e.g., English or Spanish), ELs
data are ambiguous, grades, teacher-administered assess-
should be given credit for all they know and can do, regard-
ment data, and past educational placement can provide
less of the language in which they demonstrate that knowl-
useful information to the decision-making process. Data
edge and skill. This would be the case, for example, when
may reveal differences in the progress of subgroups of ELs
the goal is to know if ELs are familiar with concepts and
(e.g., ELs with interrupted formal education or ELs with
corresponding vocabulary, regardless of whether that
disabilities), suggesting that core instruction and supple-
knowledge is demonstrated in L1 or L2. Assessing perfor-
mental intervention are not meeting the needs of these
mance in each language independently provides a fraction-
students and need to be modified. When additional data
alized view of students’ proficiency, and underestimates
are needed, input from parents and family members can
their language abilities because this approach treats ELs as
be used to compare a student’s behavior and performance
though they are “two monolinguals in one person”
in home and community contexts with those at school.
(Grosjean, 1989, p. 3). Instead, bilingual children use all
CLR policies, practices, and people involved in DBDM are
their language resources, separately and together, to meet
summarized in Table 2.
their communication goals (García, 2014). A comprehen-
Klingner and Edwards (2006) recommend that data
sive language profile captures this complex linguistic phe-
teams include members who have expertise in areas such
nomenon and credits language skills cumulatively (Ortiz
as L1 and L2 acquisition and bilingualism and biliteracy.
et al., 2018). Educators who understand first and second
Bilingual education and ESL teachers and interventionists
language acquisition and the relationship between oral
are critical members of these teams as are personnel who
language and reading development will be better able to
can interpret data from assessments in English and other
distinguish ELs who need additional academic support
languages and who can help educators use results in plan-
from those who need intervention to improve their oral
ning oral language and literacy instruction for ELs.
language skills. For instance, ELs who have not had access
Because of their training and expertise, school psycholo-
to appropriate literacy instruction will make rapid and con-
gists, educational diagnosticians, and other assessment
sistent gains once they are provided systematic and explicit
specialists (e.g., speech pathologists) can be important
core instruction and supplemental intervention (Linán-
members of, or consultants to, DBDM teams. DBDM team
Thompson & Ortiz, 2009). However, those students who
members should hold an asset-based view of ELs and their
continue to experience difficulties despite effective core
families and communities. Educators with deficit orienta-
instruction and increasingly intensive intervention or
tions perceive differences as problems and focus on what
whose reading and writing skills do not reflect the increase
ELs lack (e.g., English proficiency). In contrast, those with
in their general language abilities (Adelson et al., 2014)
asset-based views work on fostering mutually respectful
should be considered for special education referral to deter-
and trusting relationships with ELs and their families and
mine whether learning difficulties are explained by the
on identifying and building on the knowledge and skills
presence of disabilities. Appropriate referral decisions
that students acquire in the context of their homes and
depend on effective CLR assessment and DBDM practices.
488 School Psychology Review, 2022, Volume 51, No. 4DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690
Table 2. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Data-Based Decision-Making for ELs
CLR Components Standard MTSS/RTI
People and practice Establish a DBDM process to collect and regularly
analyze student performance.
People and practice Include DBDM team members representative of
assessment, instruction, and administration
Policy and practice Base decisions on data from multiple sources
Policy and practice Identify students at risk of reading failure and well
as those who respond, or do not respond, as
expected to instruction and intervention
People and practice Determine areas of strengths and needs
Policy and practice Identify possible explanations for student failure
(system, instruction, student level)
People and practice Use assessment results for instructional planning
communities (e.g., cultural values and proficiency in a
language other than English). Rather than locating prob-
lems in students, team members examine whether, and
how, teachers incorporate students’ “funds of knowledge”
(González et al., 2006) in the teaching-learning process to
rule out lack of access to CLR instruction as the root cause
of students’ learning difficulties.
When discussing ELs’ progress, DBDM teams should
consider information on students’ current oral language
and reading performance in the context of the educational
opportunities students have had and develop a longitudi-
nal description of their learning trajectories and responses
to instruction and intervention (Ortiz et al., 2018). They
should also determine if additional assessment or progress
monitoring data are needed to determine why individual
ELs or groups of ELs are not progressing as expected. In
addition, to understand the lack of student progress, data
teams should evaluate the effectiveness of EL programs
and services to identify elements of the core curriculum
or instructional practices that need to be refined or mod-
ified to improve student outcomes. Reviews should con-
sider whether there are school or classroom factors that
negatively impact student progress (e.g., unwelcoming
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive MTSS/RTI
Data are collected and regularly analyzed by EL student subgroups (e.g., by
language proficiency; immigrant status; program)
At least one member has expertise specific to ELs
Members have asset-based views of ELs, families and communities
Members include bilingual personnel (bilingual education and ESL
teachers, school psychologists, interventionists; specialists)
Use data on student performance on L1 and L2 oral language and literacy
measures, within and across grades, parents/family input regarding
their child’s developmental history and performance in home,
community, school contexts; input from teachers across grades;
documentation of response to core instruction; documentation of
response to intervention in L1 and L2
Set criteria for academic performance in L1 and L2.
Identify individuals at risk of failure
Identify groups of ELs (e.g., long-term ELs, students with interrupted or no
formal education, recent arrivals) at risk of failure
Teams develop a cumulative profile of student performance in L1 and L2
each year and develop trends across grades
Teams examine data within and across group differences in EL population
Teams acknowledge the influence of cultural practices and students’
background experiences and prior knowledge
Examine effectiveness of language instruction model; appropriateness of
core curriculum and instruction; validity/reliability of measures; student
attributes (lack of proficiency, mobility, possible disability)
Examine language history (simultaneous/sequential bilinguals; bilingual
education and ESL placements across grades; language proficiencies
and changes across time) school attendance)
Ensure the expertise of personnel and their perceptions of, or bias toward,
ELs
Use data to set goals for explicit, skills-based native language and ESL
instruction
Use data to set goals for explicit, skills-based literacy instruction
Set goals that facilitate transfer across languages (e.g., how to apply L1
reading skills to L2 reading)
Specify growth targets for L1 and L2 instruction
school climates, need for administrator leadership, lack of
instructional materials in L1).
Implementation of a CLR MTSS/RTI framework
requires policies that guide assessment and DBDM prac-
tices. Critical aspects of effective implementation are the
selection and use of valid and reliable measures, clear and
evidence-based benchmarks to guide decision making
regarding the need for supplemental interventions, and
effective instruction. Schools must also consider the extent
to which MTSS/RTI processes and benchmarks are appro-
priate for ELs and other culturally or linguistically diverse
students (Artiles et al., 2010; Ford, 2012).
METHOD
The two model demonstration projects whose work is
reported here conducted qualitative studies of the imple-
mentation of MTSS/RTI frameworks in five elementary
schools that served large populations of ELs and offered
recommendations to refine elements of their frameworks,
as needed, to create CLR educational systems. Project
Palma (pseudonym) was funded in the first cycle of

MTSS/RTI model demonstration projects for ELs (2011–
2015) and worked in Schools 1 and 2, focusing on ELs in
grades K–3. Project Éxito (pseudonym), funded in the
second cycle (2016–2020), collaborated with Schools 3,
4, and 5, focusing on ELs in grades 3 to 5. Both projects
investigated how schools implemented MTSS/RTI for
ELs, identified existing culturally and linguistically
responsive practices (CLRP), and helped schools integrate
CLRP practices that could be sustained after completion
of the projects. To understand what MTSS/RTI policies
and practices were implemented at each school, observa-
tional data were collected on all components of the
schools’ MTSS/RTI frameworks over the duration of the
projects. The assessment and DBDM processes used as
part of the MTSS/RTI framework in the five schools are
described.
Research Questions
Documentation of assessment and DBDM practices for
ELs was guided by three questions:
1. What assessment and DBDM practices are imple-
mented by educators in the five participating
schools?
2. Which assessment and DBDM practices are cul-
turally and linguistically responsive for ELs?
3. What changes, if any, are needed to improve CLR
practices in assessment and DBDM for ELs?
Site Descriptions
School 1 was in an urban district and School 2 was in a
neighboring metropolitan district in Texas. Both schools
offered a dual language program in which ELs received
formal literacy instruction in Spanish in grades K–3.
School 1 implemented whole class reading comprehen-
sion lessons and small group activities that included
teacher-led guided reading and independent worksta-
tions, while School 2 teachers used a commercially avail-
able core reading program for reading instruction in all
three grades.
Table 3. School Demographics
School 1 School 2
School size 687 812
Hispanic 91% 90%
English learners 59% 58%
Economically disadvantaged 93% 86%
Special education 14% 6%
Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 489
Schools 3, 4, and 5 were in a school district in Texas on
the border with Mexico. The school district offered an
early-exit transitional bilingual education (TBE) program
whose goal was to ensure that ELs achieved English lan-
guage and literacy proficiency by third grade. By third
grade, ELs in the three participating schools received all
their instruction in English, with Spanish support as
needed. Demographic information for the five participat-
ing schools is provided in Table 3.
Participants
Participants included those involved in the implementa-
tion of assessment and DBDM processes in the five model
demonstration schools. School personnel are identified as
the implementation of these components is discussed.
Team composition varied across schools, but most
included reading specialists, interventionists, assistant
principals, special education, and classroom teachers.
Principals or deans of instruction did not participate
directly in the meetings but were the decision makers at
the school level with regard to assessment and data meet-
ing procedures.
Instruments
Data Meeting Observation Form
This project-developed instrument was used to collect data
about assessment and DBDM practices and procedures used
in the participating schools. One all-day benchmark and
two to three progress monitoring meetings per grade were
observed at each school each year of the project. Project staff
documented meeting attendees, roles and contributions,
assessments used, data considered, and how decisions were
made (e.g., criteria for supplemental intervention, grouping,
interventions recommended, language of intervention, staff
responsible for student support and services). Team mem-
bers’ justifications for decisions were recorded.
Student Assessment Records
Administrators provided oral language and reading per-
formance data for ELs in their respective schools. These
School 3 School 4 School 5
718 399 780
98% 100% 100%
53% 45% 53%
97% 99% 98%
10% 16% 11%
490 School Psychology Review, 2022, Volume 51, No. 4DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690
data included results of the State of Texas Assessment of
Academic Readiness (STAAR; Texas Education Agency,
2010) in reading and the Texas English Language
Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS; Texas Education
Agency, 2017) which assesses the English proficiency of
ELs. Students were identified by project-assigned
codes only.
Field Notes
Field notes provided the context for data gathered from
data meeting observation forms and assessment records.
Notes also documented other events and interactions rel-
evant to assessment and DBDM processes and insights,
questions, and concerns about the schools’ MTSS/RTI
processes.
Data Analysis
Data Meeting Observations
Data collected the first year were analyzed to identify the
procedures used by grade level data teams. Two types of
data were collected on the form. Descriptive data on par-
ticipants, type of language and literacy measures used,
and skills measured were summarized. Open-ended
questions in two areas: decision-making procedures (3
questions) and meeting outcomes (6 questions) were
coded to identify effective practices and areas for
improvement. For example, a discussion among teachers
on the difficulty of determining students’ level because
assessments provided conflicting information, was coded
as an assessment issue and a barrier to effective identifi-
cation of students needing Tier 2 intervention. Questions
related to meeting outcomes addressed a number of top-
ics including what decisions were made and how they
were made. We made note of who participated in the
discussions and whether decisions were made by con-
sensus or by specialists and/or teachers. With regard to
grouping decisions, we determined if teachers had set
criteria, if they identify a set number of students, or used
some other process. The process was used for observa-
tions in subsequent years to document any changes in
these procedures.
Table 4. Reading Measures Administered
School Spanish
1 Tejas lectura en español (Tejas LEE; Texas Education Agency, 2010)
Evaluación del desarrollo de lectura (EDL; Pearson, 2007).
2 AIMSweb (Pearson, 2012)
3–5
Student Assessment Records
STAAR (Texas Education Agency, 2010) and TELPAS
(Texas Education Agency, 2017) results were analyzed
descriptively for students in Project Palma and Project
Éxito schools. Progress monitoring data from dis-
trict-created reading CBAs were also analyzed for stu-
dents in Project Éxito schools and compared to results
of the STAAR. Relationships between students’ reading
achievement and their language proficiency levels were
examined.
Field Notes
Project staff reviewed field notes as they analyzed and
interpreted assessment and DBDM data. When clarifi-
cation about practices, procedures, or policies was
needed, staff consulted the appropriate school or dis-
trict staff.
FINDINGS
Implementation of MTSS/RTI assessment and data meet-
ing practices varied across districts, schools, and grades.
The schools’ baseline practices are described first, includ-
ing CLR policies and practices and identified areas of need.
Recommendations to refine existing practices are then
described.
Assessment Practices
Initial observations revealed that all five schools had
assessment procedures in place and that reading assess-
ment practices were similar across schools. Students were
assessed at the beginning of the year, benchmark measures
were collected at the middle and end of the year, and prog-
ress monitoring measures were administered at regular
intervals. Table 4 lists the reading assessments used in
schools. Further, all schools administered the state-man-
dated language proficiency assessment annually and aca-
demic accountability assessments beginning in third
grade. None used a universal screener or progress moni-
toring assessment for oral language development.
English
The Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI; Texas Education
Agency, 2010)
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA; Pearson, 2005)
AIMSweb (Pearson, 2012)
AIMSweb (Pearson, 2012)
Previous year’s accountability assessment scores (screening)
District developed Curriculum-based assessments (progress
monitoring)

Effective Assessment Practices
Observations revealed that some of the promising prac-
tices delineated in Table 1 were implemented by all schools
and that others were not implemented by any. All five
schools used instruments developed for and validated with
ELs and had alternate forms in L1; Schools 1 and 2 had
alternate forms for L2 assessments. Although teachers in
all five schools used instruments developed for and vali-
dated with ELs and had alternate forms in L1, teachers in
School 1 used assessments that overlapped or were not
considered appropriate (ELD/DRA) and teachers in
Schools 3-5 used instruments that only focused on reading
comprehension. Only teachers in School 2 used appropri-
ate reading instruments. They used AIMSweb at all three
grade levels for benchmarks and progress monitoring. The
district set benchmarks to identify struggling readers
based on their performance on this instrument.
All schools assessed academic achievement in the lan-
guage(s) of instruction. Schools 1 and 2 assessed in either
Spanish or English depending on the grade level and
matched the language of instruction. Teachers assessed
students in kindergarten and first grade in Spanish.
Students began to receive some English instruction in sec-
ond grade, but assessment was primarily in Spanish and
in third grade instruction and assessment were in English.
TPRI and AIMSweb assess early reading skills such as
book and print awareness, phonological awareness, gra-
phophonemic knowledge, word reading, nonsense word
reading, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. DRA
assesses reading engagement, oral reading fluency, and
comprehension. In Schools 3, 4, and 5, assessments were
administered in English because all instruction was in
English.
In schools 1 and 2, equivalent instruments and proce-
dures for assessment of reading skills in L1 and L2 were
available for use by teachers who provided dual language
instruction. However, because of time constraints, teachers
assessed students’ academic skills only in their primary
language. Consequently, they did not have data document-
ing changes in language and literacy performance, across
languages, within and across grades. Second grade teach-
ers in School 1 were an exception; they conducted bench-
mark assessments in the primary language, but students
who were at or above benchmark, were assessed in both
languages. They alternated the language of assessment for
progress monitoring.
Teachers in School 2 were able to document skill devel-
opment within and across grades because assessment
instruments were aligned across grade levels, allowing
them to track data longitudinally. The district set bench-
marks to identify struggling readers based on their per-
formance on AIMSweb (Pearson, 2012) Spanish and
Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 491
English assessments. Grade appropriate measures were
used and criteria for identifying students in need of Tier
2 intervention at each assessment point were clear. Across
grade levels and points in time during the year, less than
30% of students were identified as needing Tier 2 inter-
ventions. For example, the percentages ranged from 18%
in the middle of Kindergarten to 28% in the middle of first
grade. Although the literacy skills assessed changed over
time to reflect the most appropriate reading skills at each
grade level, measures and criteria for placement in sup-
plemental intervention were aligned across grades so
teachers could easily determine if students’ reading abili-
ties were improving.
The Project Éxito school district required schools to
conduct progress monitoring assessments for all students
and to enter student performance data into the district
data dashboard following a schedule set by central office
staff. This practice was designed to hold school staff
accountable for timely assessment and data reporting.
Schools 3, 4, and 5 complied with the progress monitoring
policies. Based on the recommendation of Project Éxito
staff, the district modified this policy in Year 3, giving
schools the option to assess only those students who were
not meeting benchmarks, a recommended practice in
MTSS/RTI implementation. Schools 4 and 5 chose to fol-
low this new guideline, while School 3 continued to follow
the usual testing schedule.
Assessment Practices that Hinder Effective MTSS/RTI
Observation data from School 1 revealed that screening
assessments differed by grade level. For example,
Kindergarten teachers used Tejas LEE as a universal
screener, first grade teachers could use either Tejas LEE or
EDL, while second grade teachers were required to use
both Tejas LEE and EDL. Results of district benchmark
assessments were used to identify students who needed
additional instructional support; however, cutoffs were
adjusted based on availability of support staff and sched-
ules. District policy mandated that teachers use EDL/DRA
results to monitor student progress and provided grade
level performance benchmarks for students in grades 1 to
3. As a result, teachers in School 1 were not able to docu-
ment and track changes in students’ literacy performance
within and across grades., Administrators did not provide
guidance on how to use data to identify students who
needed supplemental instruction or how to interpret data
from different measures. Instead, grade level teams applied
their own criteria in decision making. The use of a variety
of assessments, in combination with differences in deci-
sion making from grade to grade, resulted in a number of
challenges in the implementation of MTSS/RTI. The first
challenge, teachers’ difficulty in interpreting data, was due
492 School Psychology Review, 2022, Volume 51, No. 4DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690
to the number of different measures used for screening,
some of which measured the same skill but yielded con-
flicting data. For example, teachers had reading compre-
hension data from Tejas LEE and from EDL, but, in some
cases, student performance data were inconsistent on these
measures. In these instances, teachers often ignored the
data and reverted to making decisions based on their
informal observations of student performance. This some-
times resulted in an inappropriate “fit” between student
needs and the interventions provided, requiring that stu-
dents be regrouped between testing periods. In other cases,
teachers ignored assessment results and did not provide
supplemental intervention for eligible students because
they felt the students were doing well in class.
The second challenge teachers faced was that measures
across grade levels were not aligned. As previously noted,
school personnel used Tejas LEE to assess the reading skills
of students in kindergarten to grade 2. However, Tejas LEE
was the only measure used in kindergarten, first grade
teachers had the option of using either the Tejas LEE or
EDL, and in second grade, the administration of both Tejas
LEE and EDL was required. In addition, second and third
grade teachers often used test preparation materials in the
spring ahead of the administration of the state account-
ability test.
Challenges in Project Éxito Schools were related to the
frequency and scheduling of required testing which
resulted in overlapping dates for testing. In some cases,
assessments for the end of six weeks and the beginning of
six weeks, and MOY benchmarking and beginning of six-
week testing, were administered the same week. Teachers
in School 3 continued test preparation and testing through
the end of the school year, even after the annual state
accountability assessment had been administered.
Teachers expressed the frustration that testing often pre-
vented them from focusing on core instruction. The cycle
of “teaching to the test,” followed by test administration,
limited opportunities for enriching instruction and activ-
ities that improve student motivation and engagement.
The frequent testing cycles may have diminished students’
motivation to do their best on accountability assessments,
despite teachers’ continual reinforcement of the impor-
tance of these tests. For students, accountability testing
represented a test day just like any other.
There were promising CLR assessment practices that
were not implemented in any of the project schools.
Assessments were conducted in the named language
(English or Spanish) and there was no evidence that stu-
dents could respond in either language and receive credit
for their linguistic knowledge and skills, regardless of
the language in which they demonstrated the skill.
Although students took the state-mandated English
language proficiency assessment once a year, their
Spanish oral language proficiency was not assessed.
Moreover, student records did not document information
from parents and families about their children’s commu-
nication competence. Thus, teachers did not have a com-
prehensive profile of students’ language abilities in L1
and L2 or access to data to compare students’ linguistic
skills across languages. A significant number of ELs,
across schools, did not meet the state’s grade-level read-
ing standards. This suggests that district screening and
benchmark assessments did not adequately predict perfor-
mance on the state’s reading accountability measure. The
absence of these recommended practices limited educa-
tors’ ability to identify individual and contextual factors
that impact performance.
Effect of Practices on Student Outcomes. Project staff
examined student data to demonstrate how the use of
different assessments led to inconsistent identification of
students for Tier 2 intervention. When the percentage of
students identified for intervention exceeds 20%, a
criterion typically used in schools where MTSS/RTI
frameworks are well-implemented, contributing factors
must be identified to address this issue. In Schools 1 and
2, inconsistencies in the assessments administered at
each grade level made it difficult to determine whether
the instruments, lack of appropriate instruction, a
disability or other variables explained performance
differences. A third challenge was the increase in the
number of students who were eligible for Tier 2
intervention when the language of assessment changed.
In School 1, the percentage increased from 41% in second
grade, when students were assessed in Spanish to 73% in
third grade, when they were assessed English. In School
2, the difference in the percentage of third grade students
identified for Tier 2 was 21% when assessed in Spanish
and 69% when assessed in English. These differences can
be attributed to the change in the language of assessment
and the use of different instruments. In School 2, third
grade ELs were assessed with a fluency measure in
Spanish and a comprehension measure in English.
Data-Based Decision Making Practices. Each school
held data meetings at the beginning of the year and after
benchmark assessments at the middle and end of the
year. Teachers and reading specialists analyzed the results,
grouped children for instruction and intervention and,
during the middle-of-year and end-of-year meetings,
analyzed student growth in reading. Additionally, the
grade level team meeting was used to review progress
monitoring data, to identify trends in student
performance, and to regroup students as needed.

Effective Practices
At all five schools, data teams were composed of teachers,
specialists, and administrators. Because the members of
the grade level data teams included bilingual education
teachers, all teams had more than one member with exper-
tise specific to ELs. Schools 1 and 2 had bilingual reading
interventionists, but there were no reading intervention-
ists in Schools 3, 4, and 5. DBDM team members held
asset-based views of ELs. Discussion in these meetings
focused on identifying students’ strengths and needs, not
on child characteristics as the cause of presenting prob-
lems. In Project Palma schools, teachers also focused
attention on identifying multicultural curricula and
related instructional materials that would support student
learning.
During data meetings, teachers in all schools examined
students’ data on literacy measures within grades to identify
individuals at risk of failure. At Schools 1 and 2, collabo-
ration between classroom teachers and the reading spe-
cialists facilitated decision making. After benchmark
assessments, both schools held all-day data meetings by
grade level. At the meeting, teachers, reading specialists,
and administrators reviewed data across the grade level
and by classroom. Additional data meetings, typically led
by the specialists, occurred regularly, every 2-3 weeks.
Together, teachers and specialists reviewed the progress
of students receiving intervention to identify those who
met benchmarks and could return to core instruction only;
they planned additional interventions for those who had
not progressed as expected.
Data teams in schools 3, 4, and 5 met bimonthly with
their respective dean of instruction to review results of
CBAs and/or benchmark assessment from administrations
of released accountability assessments. Each school had a
data wall that was color-coded to indicate student perfor-
mance levels and language proficiency levels from the
previous year’s TELPAS. This visual display allowed school
staff, including grade level teams, to identify students who
were performing at or above and those who were perform-
ing below grade level. Supplemental reading instruction
for students below grade level was provided during a des-
ignated Tier 2 block at the 3 schools.
The use of reading assessments, clear procedures, and
strong collaboration between reading specialists and
teachers, allowed educators at School 2 to use student data
to set goals for explicit, skills-based literacy instruction that
began by the 3rd week of school. Schools 3, 4, and 5 used
progress monitoring data to make decisions about supple-
mental instruction and intervention. The regular data
meetings and visual display of data allowed for a compre-
hensive view of student performance by grade level and
provided opportunities for collaboration and ample
Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 493
discussion about students who were moving between tiers
or who were not making adequate progress.
Practices that Hindered Effective MTSS/RTI. Effective
implementation of MTSS/RTI requires valid, reliable
data. As previously noted, teachers in School 1 used valid
and reliable measures but the use of multiple measures
hindered their ability to appropriately identify students
who needed Tier 2 support. During data meetings,
teachers often discussed the relative merits of different
types of benchmark and progress monitoring assessments.
Confusion when weighing these differences led to their
overreliance on reading levels, rather than reading skills,
to group students and monitor progress. Furthermore,
because the availability of supplemental reading support
was not consistent, teachers had to adjust the number of
students who received supplemental instruction, even
though some students may have still needed support.
In Schools 3, 4, and 5, assessment data to guide deci-
sions about instruction and intervention were limited. The
data was derived from CBAs consisting of sections of
released state accountability assessments in reading. This
led to additional test preparation during core instruction
and supplemental intervention, rather addressing the spe-
cific needs of individual students and groups of students
to improve reading performance.
DBDM CLR practices that were not implemented in
any of the schools were related to oral language, contextual
factors, and to disaggregation of data. None of the schools
conducted screening or benchmark assessments of oral
language development. Teachers relied on results of the
annual state-mandated assessment of English language
proficiency, but these data were out-of-date and thus of
limited use in planning instruction for the current or next
school year. thus lacked the necessary data to inform oral
language instruction in L1 or L2 or to examine relation-
ships between oral language and literacy growth. Although
all teams conducted data meetings, none examined group
differences among their EL population, nor did they
acknowledge the influence of cultural practices and stu-
dents’ background experiences on student performance.
Improving MTSS/RTI Models in Project Schools
To address the challenges identified through the observa-
tions, and the absence of promising CLR practices, project
staff and school personnel identified areas for improve-
ment. Educators at School 1, focused on changes needed
to develop an MTSS/RTI process that would facilitate
tracking of students longitudinally and as they transitioned
from reading instruction in Spanish to instruction in
494 School Psychology Review, 2022, Volume 51, No. 4DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690
English. After reviewing data, School 1 personnel agreed
to use AIMSweb as a screening and progress monitoring
measure. However, the change was not implemented
because the school was identified as a low performing
school in year 2 of the project and central office adminis-
tration mandated the use of district approved assessments.
Although they were not able to make that change, School
1 personnel modified their assessment process to com-
pensate for the limitations of their screening and progress
monitoring process. For example, because AIMSweb does
not provide a Spanish equivalent of the English Maze
(comprehension) test in third grade, they added a Spanish
comprehension measure. In the lower grades, they stan-
dardized their process by using the DRA/EDL as a general
screener to identify students who were performing below
grade level, and then TPRI/Tejas LEE data to identify spe-
cific areas of difficulty (e.g., graphophonemic awareness,
syllable segmentation or blending). They continued to use
DRA/EDL for progress monitoring with on-level students,
while Tejas LEE and EDL were used with students per-
forming below grade level. These changes provided better
data for instructional planning. The last year of the project,
the percentage of students who did not meet the bench-
mark decreased at all four grade levels (See Table 5).
Project, district, and school staff in Schools 3, 4, and 5
focused their attention on (a) adoption of a universal
screener in English and Spanish to assess reading perfor-
mance in grades 3 to 5; (b) altering test preparation sched-
ules and testing cycles during reading and Tier 2
instruction; and (c) implementing more comprehensive
progress monitoring measures instead of, or in addition
to, district CBA measures based on the state reading
accountability test. The district leadership team agreed to
adopt the Learning Inventory of Need (LION; Liberty
Source, 2014) in English and Spanish, as a universal
screener for students in grades 3 to 5. School personnel in
Schools 4 and 5 continued bimonthly progress monitoring
for students performing below grade level in reading but
changed the schedule to monthly progress monitoring for
students performing at grade level. School 3 maintained
bimonthly progress monitoring because it was easier to
schedule the assessments for all students instead of coor-
dinating schedules so that only students who were not
performing at grade level were tested more frequently.
Table 5. Percentage of Students in School 1 Who Did Not Meet
Benchmark
Grade Y1 Y4
K 9% 0 cess that allows longitudinal tracking of oral language and
1st grade 68% 39%
2nd grade 36% 10%
3rd grade 88% 79%
DISCUSSION
A central tenet of MTSS/RTI frameworks is that districts
and schools conduct regular assessments to identify stu-
dents who are not achieving, or who are at risk of not
achieving, learning goals.
Formative Assessment
MTSS/RTI for emergent bilingual students must incorpo-
rate formative assessments (e.g., universal screenings,
progress monitoring, and benchmark measures) of both
oral language and literacy skills that are developed for and
validated with ELs and that yield data that allows educators
to compare student performance in L1 and L2. Assessment
procedures should include tools to gather input from par-
ents and families to describe skills in the context of both
home and school.
The claim that assessment will lead to better instruc-
tion and, in turn, better student achievement is often
taken at face value. Although participating schools used
universal screenings (with one exception) and benchmark
assessments to monitor student progress, a significant
number of ELs did not meet state reading standards on
the STAAR. Data indicated that the formative assess-
ments used did not predict, or produce, the intended goal,
ensuring that students met rigorous grade-level and
accountability standards. Failure to evaluate assessments
and the quality of data they produce for instructional
planning and progress monitoring can have significant
negative effects, including narrowing the curriculum and
increasing the amount of time spent on teaching to the
test (Lane, 2020). The espoused purpose of accountability
tests is to ensure that all students are exposed to, and
acquire, rigorous curriculum standards (Lane, 2020). For
ELs, accountability assessments also indicate whether ELs
are making expected progress toward achieving English
proficiency standards.
Longitudinal Record Keeping
ELs in bilingual education programs develop oral language
proficiency and learn to read in two languages. For exam-
ple, they may initially receive instruction in L1 only or
they may receive L1 and English as a second language
instruction from the start. They may learn to read in L1
first before they are provided instruction to facilitate trans-
fer of L1 skills to reading in L2 or they may learn to read
in both languages simultaneously. A record-keeping pro-
literacy development and documentation of results and
interventions provided to improve oral language and

reading skills, within and across grades, should be a part
of every school’s MTSS/RTI framework (Ortiz et al., 2018).
Longitudinal language data, in concert with students’
response to supplemental intervention, are essential to
determining if learning problems reflect limited language
proficiency, lack of appropriate language instruction,
or both.
Contextual Factors
All participating schools had well-defined assessment and
DBDM procedures that were implemented with fidelity.
They conducted data meetings and used data to plan core
instruction and supplemental intervention. However,
while schools used progress monitoring data to identify
individual ELs and subgroups who were not progressing
as expected, educators did not systematically attend to
contextual factors that contributed to low academic per-
formance of identifiable groups. When large numbers of
ELs do not meet benchmarks, priority should be given to
system-level factors that influence student outcomes,
including school climate, school leadership, teacher qual-
ifications, and the effectiveness of core reading instruction
and supplemental intervention for ELs. Culturally and
linguistically responsive school climate builds on students’
background and life experiences and gives respect to stu-
dents’ and families’ funds of knowledge (González et al.,
2006). This minimizes deficit thinking and negative attri-
butions about student performance that could potentially
lower expectations and/or fail to consider school, class-
room, or instructional variables as root causes of low aca-
demic performance (García & Ortiz, 2008).
Preparation of School Psychologists
School psychologists can play a critical role in helping dis-
tricts and schools design and implement culturally and
linguistically responsive MTSS/RTI frameworks for ELs.
They can assist educators in (a) selecting valid and reliable
universal screening and progress monitoring instruments;
(b) developing indicators of risks associated with oral lan-
guage and literacy development and for other factors that
may influence student performance (e.g., social, emo-
tional, and behavioral issues); (c) designing, implement-
ing, and evaluating interventions for students at risk; (d)
collecting and analyzing data that can be utilized in
progress monitoring; and (e) utilizing data to assist admin-
istrators in developing school improvement plans (NASP,
2016). They can also be key players in evaluating the effec-
tiveness of schools’ MTSS/RTI frameworks.
School psychologists who support educators who work
with ELs must have expertise specific to areas such as: (a)
Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 495
first and second language acquisition, (b) sociocultural
foundations, (c) CLR assessment and interpretation of
assessment data, (d) DBDM for ELs, and (e) CLR instruc-
tion and intervention. Availability of bilingual school psy-
chologists would facilitate their collaboration with
bilingual education personnel and with school leaders
responsible for implementing programs and services for
ELs. However, given the critical shortage of these person-
nel, professional development should include a focus on
practices that can be used by monolingual school psychol-
ogists. For example, monolingual school psychologists
need strategies to facilitate collaboration with bilingual
educators, interpreters, and translators in the assessment
process, procedures for interpreting assessment results in
relation to students’ English proficiency, and ESL options
available in designing and implementing interventions for
ELs receiving English-only instruction. Given that ELs are
the fastest growing student subgroup in the U.S., univer-
sities have the obligation to recruit and prepare prospective
school psychologists, and state and local education agen-
cies have the obligation to provide professional develop-
ment opportunities for practicing school psychologists, to
ensure they have the skills needed to support MTSS/RTI
frameworks for ELs.
Moving Forward: Implications for Research
Given the central role of assessment and DBDM in these
frameworks, research should explore whether, and how,
the involvement of school psychologists contributes to
timely, accurate identification of ELs experiencing learn-
ing difficulties and improves practices used to monitor
student progress. Research is also needed on how to eval-
uate, and credit, students’ bilingual abilities in the context
of assessment and data-based decision making. Continued
reliance on assessments of students’ skills in English only
or in each language, independently, will continue to under-
estimate the knowledge and skills of ELs, increasing the
likelihood that they will be identified as students with
learning difficulties or disabilities. Finally, studies should
explore how MTSS/RTI data can be incorporated into the
special education assessment process and whether basing
eligibility determinations on a student’s response to inter-
vention is a viable alternative when valid and reliable
assessment instruments for ELs are not available.
LIMITATIONS
The purpose of this study was to describe the implemen-
tation of two components of MTSS/RTI frameworks,
assessment and data-based decision making, in schools
that served large numbers of ELs in bilingual education
496 School Psychology Review, 2022, Volume 51, No. 4DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001690
programs. Data are presented describing existing CLR
policies and practices used by the participating schools as
well as efforts to refine or improve practices as needed.
The next steps would be to (a) document whether the
schools are sustaining CLR assessment and DBDM prac-
tices, (b) examine how these data inform the planning and
delivery of differentiated core instruction for ELs and sup-
plemental intervention for those performing below grade
level, and (c) document whether teachers use CLR instruc-
tional and intervention practices. All these data are essen-
tial to understand the impact of CLR practices on student
achievement. To extend the knowledge base associated
with MTSS/RTI for ELs, it is also important to conduct
studies that involve students who speak languages other
than English, who are served in English as a second lan-
guage programs, and who are in secondary schools.
CONCLUSION
The findings presented here highlight the complexities
encountered in implementing CLR assessment and DBDM
processes in schools when district policies dictate practices
that are not aligned with best practice. School psycholo-
gists are an untapped resource in addressing these com-
plexities and in designing and implementing MTSS/RTI
frameworks. Their participation in these efforts, and their
contributions to ensuring that assessment and data-based
decision-making are culturally and linguistically respon-
sive, can help ensure that English Learners achieve their
maximum potential.
DISCLOSURE
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
FUNDING
This work was funded by Office of Special Education Programs,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
REFERENCES
Adelson, V., Geva, E., & Fraser, C. (2014). Identification, assess-
ment and instruction of English language learners at-risk for
learning difficulties in the elementary and intermediate grades.
OISE/University of Toronto. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/
gevalab/
Artiles, A. J., Bal, A., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2010). Back to the
future: A critique of response to intervention’s social justice
views. Theory into Practice, 49(4), 250–257. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00405841.2010.510447
Bailey, T. R. (2019). Is MTSS the new RTI? Center on multi-
tiered systems of support at American Institutes for Research.
https://mtss4success.org/blog/mtss-new-rti-depends-
where-you-live
Esparza Brown, J., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English lan-
guage learners: Appropriately using screening and progress
monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. http://
www.rti4success.org/images/stories/pdfs/rtiforells.pdf
Ford, D. Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special
education: Looking back to move forward. Exceptional
Children, 78(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001440291207800401
García, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2008). A Framework for culturally
and linguistically responsive design of response to interven-
tion models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Learners,
11(1), 24–41.
García, O. (2014). Becoming bilingual and biliterate:
Sociolinguistic and sociopolitical considerations. In C. A.
Stone, E. R. Stillman, B. J. Ehran, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.),
Handbook of language and literacy: development and disorders
(2nd ed., pp. 145–160). Guildford Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special educa-
tion for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6),
613–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014349
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research,
and practice. Teachers College Press.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of
knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities,
and classrooms. Routledge.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is
not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language,
36(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5
Hammer, C. S., Jia, G., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2011). Language and
literacy development of dual language learners growing up
in the United States: A call for research. Child Development
Perspectives, 5(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.
2010.00140.x
Iglesias, A., & Rojas, R. (2012). Bilingual language development
of English language learners: Modeling the growth of two
languages. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language devel-
opment and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (2nd ed.,
pp. 3–30). Brookes Publishing.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/
idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1400
Klingner, J., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W.,
Durán, G. Z., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the dispropor-
tionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse
students in special education through culturally responsive ed-
ucational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos
Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 13, 1–40.
Klingner, J. K., Barletta, L. M., & Hoover, J. J. (2008). Response to
intervention models and English Language Learners. In J. K.
Klingner, J. J. Hoover, & L. M. Baca (Eds.), Why do English lan-
guage learners struggle with reading: Distinguishing language
acquisition from learning disabilities (pp. 37–56). Corwin.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations
with response to intervention models. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.6
Kung, S. (2007). Predicting the success on a state standards test
for culturally and linguistically diverse students using curricu-
lum-based oral reading measures [Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation]. University of Minnesota.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. Josey-Bass.
Lane, S. (2020). Test‐based accountability systems: The impor-
tance of paying attention to consequences. ETS Research Report
Series, 2020(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12283
Liberty Source. (2014). Learning inventory of need (LION).
Liberty Source.
Linán-Thompson, S., & Ortiz, A. A. (2009). Response to inter-
vention and English-Language Learners: Instructional and
assessment considerations. Seminars in Speech and Language,
30(2), 105–120.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Building
capacity for student success: Multitiered systems of support.
https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/poli-
cy-priorities/relevant-law/the-every-student-succeeds-act/
essa-implementation-resources/essa-and-mtss-for-school-
psychologists
Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Wilkinson, C. Y. (2018).
Language and literacy assessment record for English
Learners in bilingual education: A framework for instruc-
tional planning and decision-making. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4),
250–265.
Pearson Education. (2012). AIMSweb technical manual.
Pearson Reading Group. (2005). Developmental reading assess-
ment (DRA). Person Clinical Assessment.
Pearson Reading Group. (2007). Evaluación del Desarrollo de la
Lectura (EDL). Pearson Clinical Assessment.
Rinaldi, C., & Samson, J. (2008). English language learners
and response to intervention referral considerations.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6–14. https://doi.
org/10.1177/004005990804000501
Spectrum K12 Solutions/The Council of Administrators of
Special Education. (2008). Response to Intervention (RTI)
adoption survey. The Council of Administrators of Special
Education.
Texas Education Agency. (2017). Educator Guide: TELPAS Grades
K–12. https://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ell/telpas
Texas Education Agency. (2010). Tejas LEE.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). TPRI.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). The State of Texas Assessments
of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading. https://tea.texas.
gov/student.assessment/staar/
U. S. Office of English Language Acquisition. (2019). The top
languages spoken by English Learners (ELs) in the United
Examination of MTSS Assessment and Decision Making Practices 497
States. https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/olea-top-languages-
fact-sheet-20191021-508.pdf
U. S. Office of Special Education Programs. (2011). Applications
for new awards; Technical assistance and dissemination to im-
prove services and results for children with disabilities—Model
demonstration projects to improve literacy outcomes for
English Learners with disabilities in kindergarten through
three. Federal Register. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2011-08-15/pdf/2011-20698.pdf
U. S. Office of Special Education Programs. (2016). Applications
for new awards; Technical assistance and dissemination to im-
prove services and results for children with disabilities—Model
demonstration projects to improve literacy outcomes for
English learners with disabilities in grades three through five
or three through six. Federal Register. https://www.govinfo.
gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-03-07/pdf/2016-05026.pdf
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENTS
Sylvia Linan-Thompson, PhD, is an associate professor at the
University of Oregon in the Department of Special Education
and Clinical Sciences and is affiliated with the Center on
Teaching and Learning. Her primary research interests are
examining appropriate instructional and assessment practices
for English learners. She been PI or Co-PI of longitudinal inter-
vention research projects that developed and examined reading
interventions for struggling readers who are monolingual
English speakers, English language learners and bilingual stu-
dents acquiring Spanish literacy, and has examined the English
writing development of ELs with and with our learning disabil-
ities. She has also examined the implementation of RtI with
English language learners in dual language schools. She has
authored articles, chapters and books on these topics.
Alba A. Ortiz, PhD, is a Professor Emerita in the Department
of Special Education, College of Education, at The University of
Texas at Austin.
Dr. Linda Cavazos, PhD, is a researcher and technical assistance
provider with 25 years’ experience in supporting literacy, English
learners, and special education. Her research focuses on how
these topics intersect and on improving the academic outcomes
of English learners. Dr. Cavazos holds a PhD in Multicultural
Special Education from The University of Texas at Austin.