Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention: What's the Connection for English Language Learners

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University]On: 25 January 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 915031382]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading & Writing QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713775334

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention: What's the Connection forEnglish Language Learners?Lisa J. Bowman-Perrott a; Socorro Herrera b; Kevin Murry b

a Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA b Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas,USA

Online publication date: 28 December 2009

To cite this Article Bowman-Perrott, Lisa J., Herrera, Socorro and Murry, Kevin(2010) 'Reading Difficulties and GradeRetention: What's the Connection for English Language Learners?', Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26: 1, 91 — 107To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10573560903397064URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560903397064

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention:What’s the Connection for English

Language Learners?

LISA J. BOWMAN-PERROTTTexas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

SOCORRO HERRERAKEVIN MURRY

Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA

Much of the student diversity in U.S. schools reflects increasingnumbers of English language learners (ELL). ELL represent a veryheterogeneous group in terms of their native language proficiency,educational experiences, access to quality early childhood pro-grams, and immigration experiences. An unfortunate commonalitythey often share is poor academic achievement, particularly in thearea of reading. Higher rates of grade retention and school dropoutare consistently linked to poor academic performance. This articlediscusses literacy development, reading difficulties related to specialeducation identification, and reading interventions for ELL. Practi-cal strategies for reading instruction are also provided.

Increasing student diversity is perhaps the most notable hallmark of turn-of-the-century classrooms in the United States. Much of this diversity arises fromincreasing numbers of English language learners (ELL) in public schools. TheU.S. Department of Education (2002) reported that the number of ELLenrolled across the nation has increased from 2.1 million to 4.4 million stu-dents during the past decade. These figures represent a phenomenal 110%increase in the population of these students. Furthermore, recent projectionsindicate that this trend in classroom diversity may be expected to continuefor the foreseeable future. For example, it is estimated that ELL will constitute

Address correspondence to Lisa J. Bowman-Perrott, Department of EducationalPsychology, Special and Bilingual Education, 4225 Texas A&M University, College Station,TX 77843-4225, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26:91–107, 2010Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1057-3569 print=1521-0693 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10573560903397064

91

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

40% of the K–12 student population in the United States by the year 2030(U.S. Department of Education, 2003). ELL refers to students, in a broadsense, who come from an environment where a language other than Englishhas had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiencyand who, because of this, have ‘‘sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writ-ing, or understanding the English language’’ (Anstrom, 1996, p. 3).

Among ELL, more than 400 first (or home) languages are representednationally. Although Vietnamese (2.4%), Hmong (1.8%), Korean (1.2%),and Arabic (1.2%) are among those, Spanish (77%) represents the largestgroup (Zehler et al., 2003a). Among native Spanish-speaking students, thefastest growing group (from 15% in 1970 to 38% in 2000) represents familieswho claim Mexico as their country of ethnic origin (Fix, Passel, & Ruiz DeVelasco, 2004; Herrera, Murry, & Cabral, 2007). ELL represent a very diversegroup in terms of their proficiency in their first language, their educationalexperiences (in their countries of origin and in the United States), their accessto quality early childhood programs, and their immigration experiences.However, an unfortunate commonality they often share is lower academicachievement than their native English-speaking peers—this is particularlytrue in the area of reading (Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006). Because manyELL are Hispanic (Gersten et al., 2007), references to Hispanic students in thisarticle will refer to ELL. This article addresses achievement gaps; the relation-ship of reading difficulties to grade retention, dropout, and identification forspecial education; and reading interventions for ELL.

ELL AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Although prior research on academic achievement has tended to focus on thelanguage of instruction for ELL (Snipes, Soga, & Uro, 2007), recent studies haveaddressed effective interventions and strategies (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2006).Because reading is an area in which ELL often struggle—and these difficultiesare the main reason many are referred for special education services (U.S.Department of Education, 2003)—it is imperative that effective evidence-basedpractices for this group of students be identified and implemented. This isparticularly critical in light of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which inpart seeks to ensure that ELL develop ‘‘high levels of academic attainment inEnglish, and meet the same challenging State academic content . . . standardsfor all students’’ (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 1).

Unlike their English-dominant grade-level counterparts, ELL face thedual challenge of learning a new language (English) at the same time thatthey are asked to perform in content areas. Although many school systemsacross the United States offer support for language learning through the thirdgrade (Herrera et al., 2007), second language acquisition remains a lifelongprocess. In fact, findings from longitudinal research show that these students

92 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

students often require from 7 to 10 years to develop cognitive academic lan-guage proficiency skills in the second language (L2; W. P. Thomas & Collier,2002). Cognitive academic language proficiency is that level of second lan-guage acquisition required for ELL to perform at grade level in content areaclassroom learning. Clearly, reading is essential to grasping content areaknowledge and developing cognitive academic language proficiency.

Achievement Gaps

It is sometimes hard to get a clear picture of how well ELL are faring academi-cally because of differences in assessment and reporting practices acrossstates. However, nationwide data reveal a glimpse of a significant gapbetween the achievement of ELL compared to their native English-speakingpeers—particularly in the area of reading (see Albus, Thurlow, Liu, &Bielinski, 2005). In fact, Zehler et al. (2003b) reported that 76% of third-gradeELL performed below grade level or ‘‘well below’’ grade level in reading (inEnglish) and 53% scored below grade level in math. In an analysis ofNational Assessment of Educational Progress data, Mazzeo, Carlson, Voelkl,and Lutkus (2000) found that 70% of 4th-grade, 62% of 8th-grade, and50% of 12th-grade ELL scored below grade level in English=language arts.They also reported that 44% of 8th-grade ELL and 30% of 12th-grade ELLscored below grade level in science and that 46% of 8th graders and 33%of 12th graders scored below grade level in math. A look at more recent read-ing outcomes from 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress dataindicates that there is more variability (89%) in reading scores between ELLwho are ‘‘high’’ performing (based on the 90th percentile) and those whoare ‘‘low’’ performing (based on the 10th percentile) than between ELL andnon-ELL (35%; Center for Public Education, 2007).

School Dropout

Given these statistics, it is unfortunately not surprising that dropout rates forELL are proportionally higher than for other students. Specifically, ELL whospeak English with some degree of fluency are 3 times as likely to dropout as their English-dominant peers, whereas ELL who have difficulty withEnglish are 5 times as likely to drop out (August & Shanahan, 2006). In addi-tion, in 2005, approximately 37% of Hispanic students born outside of theUnited States between the ages of 16 and 25 dropped out of school. Thisis compared to 14% of their Hispanic peers who were first generation,12% for Hispanics who were second generation or more, 10% of AfricanAmericans, 6% of Caucasians, and 3% of Asians (U.S. Department of Edu-cation, 2007). A 4-year study of high school graduation rates for 100 MexicanAmerican and Mexican immigrant students found that several of the studentswho were retained once or twice reported dropping out because they

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 93

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

they were too old to be in high school (Falbo, 1996). Findings from an analy-sis by Rooney et al. (2006) revealed that of Hispanic youth aged 16 and 17,21% in 1995, 12% in 1999, and 11% in 2004 who had ever been retaineddropped out of school.

Grade Retention

Closely linked with school dropout (Editorial Projects in Education, 2006) andpoor academic performance (U.S. Department of Education, 2006) is graderetention. The National Research Council (1998) reported that not meetinggrade-level expectations in reading in the early grades is the main reason stu-dents are retained. This is significant, as students who have been retained areat greater risk for dropping out of school (U.S. Department of Education,1997). More specifically, the U.S. Department of Education (1997) reportedthat students retained 2 years or more were nearly 4 times as likely to dropout as those who had never been retained. The authors of the 1995 DropoutRates in the United States report indicated that although they were unable to‘‘disentangle the causal effects of retention on dropout rates,’’ they were ableto examine ‘‘the association between grade retention and dropping out’’ (U.S.Department of Education, 1997, p. 41). These findings need to be consideredin light of startling data presented by Heubert and Hauser (1999). Theseauthors found that among Hispanic students aged 15 to 17 enrolled in school,approximately 40% to 50% were below grade level for their age. This suggeststhat a large number of Hispanic students have been retained. Furthermore, in1999, 13% of Hispanic students in Grades K–12 had repeated a grade (U.S.Department of Education, 2003). This is compared to 9% for their Caucasianpeers, 7% for their Asian=Pacific Islander peers, and 18% for both their AfricanAmerican and American Indian=Alaska Native peers.

The accumulated research offers little support for retaining students(Bowman, 2005). Although youth retained in earlier grades seem less likelyto drop out than those retained in later grades (McMillen, Kaufman, & Klein,1997), several additional negative outcomes have been linked to graderetention. Research indicates that there is a cost to students emotionally(Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Smalls, 1997) as well as academically(Roderick, 1995). There is also a related cost to districts for each studentretained (A. Thomas, 1992). Any benefits to holding students back cited inthe literature have shown only short-term gains (Jimerson, 2001). In fact,research examining the academic achievement of students who have beenretained over time has revealed that within 2 or 3 years, the achievementof these students was no better than before retention, and the academic out-comes of these students were poorer than those of their peers in the generalpopulation who were not retained (Dawson, 1998; Jimerson, 2001).

Willson and Hughes (2006) conducted a study in which they investi-gated predictors of grade retention for 283 first-grade Hispanic students

94 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

who demonstrated below-grade-level literacy performance. They examinedthe following variables: affective (e.g., emotional and behavioral adjust-ment), home and school (contextual), and academic competency. Theirfindings were that students who were retained were less engaged in instruc-tion (per teacher report), achieved at lower levels than their peers, were lessresilient, had less support from their teachers, and had parents who were notlikely to share the responsibility for their children’s academic success. One ofthe points the authors made was that parents of ELL who themselves havelimited English proficiency (and believe that it is solely the teacher’s orschool’s responsibility to make decisions related to their child’s educationand outcomes) may be less likely to challenge the school’s decision to retaintheir child.

Referral to Special Education

Poor educational performance, including grade retention, has importantimplications for students. This is also true for students learning English as asecond language, as poor educational performance is the primary reasonELL are referred to special education (Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney,& Kushner, 2006). Findings of a study conducted by Artiles, Rueda, Salazar,and Higareda (2005) indicated that ELL who were limited in their native lan-guage and in English had the highest rates of identification for special educa-tion. Simons and Connelly (2002) found that many secondary-age immigrantstudents are referred to special education when they do not make academicgains in content area classes. Although there is great variability nationally inhow ELL are identified for special education, most ELL (56%) who arereferred to special education are referred because of reading disabilities(U.S. Department of Education, 2003). The second most common disabilitycategory into which ELL are placed (24%) is speech=language impairment(U.S. Department of Education, 2003).

Zehler et al. (2003a) reported that in the 2001–2002 school year, nearly360,000 ELL with disabilities were served in U.S. public schools (K–12). Thisstudent group represented approximately 9% of all ELL enrolled in publicschools. ELL with disabilities were found to be more likely to receive instruc-tion in English and more likely to receive special education services in morerestricted placements=settings compared to ELL without disabilities. Morethan half were provided special education services in the general educationclassroom setting. In addition, ELL reportedly received fewer native-languagesupport services. Specifically, of ELL identified with a learning disability,15.8% received no English as second language services, 57.9% received someservices, and 26.3% received extensive services.

Referral to special education has been a concern for many ELLadvocates—particularly in light of the over- and underrepresentation ofELL in some disability categories. It is imperative that educators and other

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 95

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

professionals who work with ELL be able to distinguish reading and relatedlearning disabilities from the development of second language acquisition(Klingner et al., 2006). This can be done in part by using progress monitoring(e.g., curriculum-based measurement) as an assessment tool for ELL. The useof curriculum-based measurement may show promise with ELL in helping toappropriately assess academic (viz., reading) growth and outcomes, as someresearchers have noted that a lack of appropriate assessment instruments forELL is a concern (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Ortiz & Yates, 2002). When assessingELL, it is important to also be mindful of students’ proficiency in their nativelanguage (L1) and how that affects their development and performance inreading English (L2).

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

It is important to understand how literacy (reading) skills develop in secondlanguage learners (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Members of the NationalReading Panel (2000) determined that phonics, phonemic awareness,vocabulary, reading comprehension, and reading fluency were necessarycomponents of reading instruction. Although ELL were not included in thissample, a subsequent study indicated that ELL can benefit from the same ele-ments of reading instruction if these elements are modified to meet students’needs (e.g., the addition of oral language proficiency measures and anincreased focus on vocabulary development; August & Shanahan, 2006).

In addition to these components, D. Freeman and Freeman (2004)asserted that all good readers use their background knowledge and cues(e.g., pictures, headings) to derive meaning from what they read. To helpdraw upon students’ background knowledge, educators or peers workingwith ELL can do the following: (a) help ELL by previewing the material;(b) if possible, have students provide an overview or summary in theirL1—or in the language in which they have the most understanding; (c) helpstudents comprehend what they are reading while they read (e.g., by defin-ing vocabulary words, checking for understanding); and (d) review what wasread afterward to assist in ensuring that students are gleaning as much as theycan from reading.

D. Freeman and Freeman (2004) described the reading process for ELLin light of three language systems that help them construct meaning fromtext: sociological, psychological, and linguistic. This sociopsycholinguisticperspective acknowledges that a variety of factors may influence readingability. For example, the sociocultural context of reading (e.g., stage of cul-tural identity formation, affinity of the text with the student’s socializationexperiences) may prove significant with young or adolescent readers. Cogni-tive processing styles, challenges, patterns, and strategies also influence read-ing ability, according to this perspective. Finally, the sociopsycholinguistic

96 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

view of reading appropriately recognizes that reading is about the processingof symbolic language. It is, therefore, dependent upon ELL proficiencyin both the L1 the L2 (typically English; D. Freeman & Freeman, 2004; D.Freeman, Freeman, & Murry, 2008; Murry, 2008).

For proponents of the sociopsycholinguistic perspective, reading isabout more than just the translation of letters into sounds (word recognition)or the efficient processing of letter–sound relationships (explicitly targetedphonemic awareness arising from graphophonic cues). Instead, ELL wholearn to read for comprehension using authentic texts also use semanticand syntactic cues in text in order to construct meaning from what they read.Semantic cues direct students toward the meaning of words in particular con-texts and help ELL understand how words are ordered to make meaningfulsentences in the target language.

Thus, appropriate sociocultural, psychological, and linguistic contextsfor ELL can serve to enable a differential, sociopsycholinguistic brand of pho-nemic awareness and comprehension awareness. First and most appropri-ately, this multifaceted awareness is targeted in an implicit manner, as oneaspect of authentic reading for comprehension (D. Freeman & Freeman,2004; Murry, 2008). Second, this capacity is best acquired subconsciously,as a natural aspect of students’ literacy development as they maximize lan-guage interactions and language reading to construct meaning from theirworlds and the texts (content area and general) that they read for successin school.

Relationship Between L1 and L2

Literacy development is an area in which it is essential that students achievemastery. Students’ prior schooling experiences and their level of L1 literacyare key factors in their English literacy development. Regardless of whetherthey are literate in their L1, ELL are expected to learn to read (and write) inEnglish. This can be a difficult issue, as not all native languages representa-tive of ELL are based on the English alphabet. Several differences need to beconsidered. One difference addressed by De Jong and Harper (2005) is thefact that ‘‘grammatical information carried in the structure of words variesacross languages (e.g., in English, past tense is signaled through ‘-ed’ suffixeson verbs whereas many Asian languages indicate tense by using separatewords)’’ (p. 106). Another is that orthographic differences exist (e.g., theupside-down question mark in Spanish at the beginning of a question).Finally, there are differences in phonological awareness and word order(e.g., the Spanish phrase la casa blanca translates literally into ‘‘the housewhite’’ in English). Spanish, like English, is an alphabetic language. Innon-alphabetic languages, for example Chinese, phonological awarenesscan be determined by identifying characters that rhyme (see Ho & Bryant,1997) as well as those that have the same tone (Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005).

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 97

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

The literature reveals that skills that help students with reading readinesscan transfer from L1 to L2 (Cummins, 1991). In fact, Ovando and Collier (1998)posited that ‘‘students who are literate in L1 generally progress much faster inL2 reading than those who are not literate in their primary language’’ (p. 129).Incorporating the L1 in the process of learning English may help studentsmake a more positive connection with the L2 as well as help with the transferof reading skills (Ovando & Collier, 1998). For example, research demon-strates the importance of phonological awareness and vocabulary in helpingto predict L2 reading achievement (National Reading Panel, 2000). Gottardo(2002) studied the relationships between students’ first and second languageoral proficiency and reading skills and discovered that reading and phono-logical processing were related within and across L1 and L2. Native-languagephonological processing and reading, and English vocabulary and phonologi-cal processing, were found to be the strongest predictors of reading words inEnglish. In addition, Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, and Wade-Wooley (2001) foundan L1=L2 transfer of phonological skills in Cantonese (a non-alphabeticlanguage). Gholamarin and Geva (1999) found that there was a transfer ofphonological skills from Farsi (another non-alphabetic language) to English.

Jimenez, Garcia, and Pearson (1996) found that native Spanish-speakingELL who experienced success in reading comprehension were able to trans-fer information from Spanish to English along with strategies such asthink-alouds and passage recalls. It is important to keep in mind that someELL have not developed literacy skills in either language—this is particularlytrue for immigrant students who have experienced interruptions in theirschooling (Rubinstein-Avila, 2003).

SECONDARY STUDENTS

Small gaps in reading abilities at the elementary school level often becomelarge ones at the middle and high school levels (Zeno, Ivens, Millard, &Duvvuri, 1995). The term Matthew effect (Reschly, this issue) can describethis phenomenon—students who are behind in reading get further behind,and those who are making gains continue to make gains. Middle and highschool students with reading difficulties often experience lower levels ofmotivation to read (Sample, 2005), seem to make few strategic reading con-nections between their L1 and L2 (Jimenez, 1997), and appear to be lesslikely to make connections between their L1 and L2 (Jimenez, 1997). Inaddition, Zeno et al. reported that secondary-age students who strugglewith reading are typically placed in special education. However, they oftenreceive less literacy instruction. With these findings in mind, one mustconsider why so little attention is paid in the literature to older studentswho struggle with reading (Zeno et al., 1995).

ELL need to develop both basic interpersonal communication skills orsocial language (Cummins, 2001) as well as cognitive academic language

98 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

proficiency. One concern highlighted by Valdes (2001) is that immigrant stu-dents are often provided with ‘‘childish’’ and unchallenging tasks, such ascoloring and copying from worksheets. Thus, they do not understand whatis going on around them (instruction) and often become disinterested anddiscouraged. Valdes also found that vocabulary enrichment (which is criticalfor secondary ELL) too often consists of working with isolated words withvery little emphasis on reading comprehension. Another finding by Valdesis that approximately two thirds of secondary ELL do not receive the lan-guage assistance they need to make significant academic gains and achieveeducational success. It is important that educators use a variety of instruc-tional methods for older students struggling with reading, such as usinghigh-interest books that are on students’ reading level (Zeno et al., 1995).

EARLY INTERVENTION

Often, reading problems experienced by secondary students can be seen inthe earlier grades. Thus, early intervention is key to preventing school failure,and early reading interventions are critical for students at risk. It is importantfor all children to have access to quality early childhood programs and earlyintervention efforts. In light of the extant data, this is particularly true forHispanic students. It was reported that Caucasian non-Hispanic and AfricanAmerican children are enrolled in early childhood programs with more fre-quency than Hispanic children (President’s Advisory Commission on Edu-cational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, 2003). Roughly 75% ofHispanic and African American kindergartners entering preschool experi-ence one or more risk factors (e.g., poverty) compared to their peers fromCaucasian non-Hispanic families. Specifically, Hispanic students experiencemore of these factors than African American youth (President’s AdvisoryCommission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, 2003).

Fix et al. (2004) indicated that Hispanics are more likely to live belowthe federal poverty level. As a result, there is an increased probability thatmany of these youth enter school with limited vocabularies, poor early lit-eracy skills, and lack other school readiness factors. They may also experi-ence a lower motivation to learn. In addition, the report Status and Trendsin the Education of Hispanics indicated that ‘‘numerous studies show thatchildren from low-income families are substantially behind their more afflu-ent peers in the basic components of literacy development before they enterschool’’ (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 14). The report indicatedthat the presence of children’s books in the home, the frequency of readingwith adults, and the quality of parent–child language interactions in thehome differ between low-income children and their peers from familiesof another socioeconomic status. Thus, participation in early childhoodand early intervention programs can help alleviate some of the effects ofrisk factors.

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 99

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

Reading Interventions and Strategies for ELL

Until recently, there has been a paucity of research on reading interventionsfor ELL with or at risk for reading disabilities (Klingner et al., 2006). The fieldsof education and second language acquisition are beginning to get a clearerpicture of supplemental reading interventions and programs that encouragepositive gains for ELL—particularly in the early grades. Data from availableresearch indicate that phonological and print awareness, as well as letter rec-ognition (in students’ native language or English), are related to success inreading. This is particularly critical, as the National Research Council (1998)reported that children at risk for reading problems often enter school with lit-tle or no phonological awareness. Although an exhaustive review of readinginterventions for ELL is not within the scope of this article, some of the inter-ventions for helping ELL with or at risk for reading difficulties are discussedhere. A subsequent article will provide a more comprehensive review.

LANGUAGE OF INTERVENTIONS

Some reading interventions have used students’ native language (in mostcases, Spanish) and=or English (e.g., De la Colina, Parker, Hasbrouck, &Lara-Alecio, 2001). Some have provided native-language support for inter-ventions conducted in English (see Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekannani, 2003). Vaughn et al. (2006) provided a readingintervention in the language in which the ELL received reading instruction.A study by Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) encouraged thepractice of developing phonological awareness in students’ L1 to help withgains in reading English. Klingner et al. (2006) found that in both Englishand students’ native language, gains in reading achievement were madewhen phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge, print awareness,and rapid naming speed were included as aspects of reading instruction.They also indicated that further research is needed to gain a better under-standing of how these factors interact with other factors related tonative-language and second language acquisition. In addition, theyaddressed the importance of being able to assess students’ language andliteracy skills in both languages.

COMPONENTS OF INTERVENTIONS AND ELL GAINS

Vocabulary instruction was incorporated into some reading interventions(e.g., Tam, Heward, & Heng, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006), as was errorcorrection and repeated reading (Tam et al., 2006). Others included theuse of peer and cooperative learning groupings (Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz,& Slavin, 1998; Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Li & Nes, 2001; Saenz, Fuchs, &Fuchs, 2005). As a result of all or some of the components of various

100 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

interventions, ELL made gains in reading fluency (Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski,& Ary, 2000; Haager & Windmueller, 2001), phonemic awareness (Pollard-Durodola, Mathes, Vaughn, Cardenas-Hagan, & Linan-Thompson, 2006),reading comprehension (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Linan-Thompson et al.,2003), oral reading (Bryant et al., 2000; De la Colina et al., 2001), wordidentification (Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004), and errorcorrection (Tam et al., 2006).

ELL who struggle with reading benefit from explicit instruction inphonemic awareness and decoding skills, word recognition, readingcomprehension, vocabulary instruction, oral reading fluency, spelling, andwriting (see Gunn et al., 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow et al.,1998). Also beneficial are small-group instructional groupings and cooperat-ive learning activities (e.g., Mathes & Denton, 2002).

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Given some of the limitations and recommendations of the authors of thesestudies, there is a need to ensure that interventions are being implementedwith a high degree of fidelity. It is also important to note whether educatorscontinue to use effective strategies after the completion of the study. It is alsonecessary to replicate studies, particularly because some of the interventionshad small sample sizes and=or were implemented for a short period of time.One consideration for future research should be the effect that within-groupvariability may have had on the reliability of the data. In addition, the qualityof the research design (e.g., random assignment to groups) needs to be con-sidered. Although experts know some of the strategies that have yieldedreading gains for struggling ELL, continued efforts are needed to furtherexamine interventions that produce positive academic gains for ELL.Research efforts that include the role of native-language support, native-language instruction, and the sociocultural and affective perspectives ofELL need to be considered. Another recommendation is to use progressmonitoring (e.g., curriculum-based measurement) to monitor the progressof ELL who experience or are at risk for reading problems (Gersten et al.,2007). The data from progress monitoring (ongoing assessments throughoutthe school year) can—and should—inform instruction for these learners.

STRATEGIES FOR TEACHERS

Practical strategies teachers can use in the classroom include providingpre-reading activities for ELL to help generate student interest and attention.Post-reading activities can also be used to reinforce what students havelearned. Providing a variety of genres, including multicultural literature, willenhance students’ cognitive development. Discussion of what students haveread helps with comprehension as well as provides opportunities for

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 101

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

students to practice English (oral language development). Encouraging stu-dents to read for pleasure in their L1 and L2 and providing time for sustainedsilent reading are suggestions as well. D. Freeman and Freeman (2004)encouraged teachers to set a goal that students will become independentreaders and to introduce students to a variety of genres. They also encour-aged the use of sustained silent reading, teachers modeling reading for stu-dents, and use of a concurrent writing program to determine whetherstudents are writing about what they are reading (D. Freeman & Freeman,2004; Y. Freeman & Freeman, 2000). In addition, a strategy proposed byWong Fillmore, and Snow (2003) was also recommended by Jimenez, Garcıa,and Pearson (1994) for ELL—the use of cognitive strategies. Such strategiesinclude predicting what will happen in a story or in a given portion of text,identifying main ideas, connecting what is read to prior knowledge, reflect-ing on what was read, and reviewing and asking questions.

DISCUSSION

ELL face the dual challenges of learning a new language and learning aca-demic content. Unfortunately for too many ELL, grade retention, school drop-out, and poor academic outcomes are a reality. Thus, early intervention iscritical for ELL who have difficulties reading. Quality instruction and supple-mental instruction in the early grades can help prevent reading difficultiesfor ELL (Snow et al., 1998). Response to intervention is a procedure that‘‘holds great promise for the reading field’’ (Gersten & Dimino, 2006,p. 106), primarily because it focuses on prevention and early interventionand includes progress monitoring. Data from monitoring students’ progressare beneficial not only to classroom teachers but to child study teams aswell—particularly in the area of designing and revising interventions.

Knowledge of progress monitoring, the critical role L1 can play in L2 lit-eracy, and effective instructional strategies for ELL is essential for teachers inlight of the growing linguistic diversity in U.S. classrooms. ELL spend a sig-nificant amount of time in general education classrooms. However, themajority of general education teachers are not endorsed in English as secondlanguage, nor are they formally trained in teaching ELL. Thus, it is critical thatquality preservice and ongoing professional development and support beprovided to general education teachers. Teacher expertise and preparationare key elements of student success. Lack of access to qualified teachershas been identified as a contributor to the low academic achievement experi-enced by some ELL (Ortiz et al., 2006).

Improved early intervention efforts (e.g., participation in quality pre-school programs) and the implementation of the aforementioned interven-tions will help reduce the likelihood that ELL will experience significantreading problems that will put them at risk for identification for special

102 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

education services and=or potential grade retention and school dropout.Effective instructional practices, including quality reading instruction,academic language development, and the use of comprehension strategies,can help ELL as they learn to read (and write) in English. In addition tothe extant literature, more research is needed on students for whom Englishis a second language and who are not native Spanish speakers (e.g., Hmong,Vietnamese). Finally, regular education, special education, and English assecond language teachers must develop strategies to increase theircooperation and collaboration. They must set aside time to consult aboutinstruction and outcomes for the ELL they serve.

REFERENCES

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., Liu, K., & Bielinski, J. (2005). Reading test performance ofEnglish language learners using an English dictionary. Journal of EducationalResearch, 98, 245–254.

Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Dauber, S. (1994). On the success of failure. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Anstrom, K. (1996, Summer). Defining the limited-English proficiency student popu-lation. National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education, 1(9). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/directions/09.htm

Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English language learners with special educationneeds: Contexts and possibilities. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), Englishlanguage learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment,and instruction (pp. 3–27). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity inminority disproportionate representation: English learners in urban schooldistricts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners:Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowman, L. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or hindrance to student academicsuccess? Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 42–46.

Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M.(2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilitiesin general education middle-school content area classes. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 23, 238–252.

Calderon, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1998). Effects of bilingualcooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the tran-sition from Spanish to English reading. The Elementary School Journal, 99,153–164.

Center for Public Education. (2007). Preparing English language learners for aca-demic success. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.3531983/k.A79C/Preparing_English_language_learners_for_academic_success.htm

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 103

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiencyin bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingualchildren (pp. 70–89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (2001). Instructional conditions for trilingual development. Inter-national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(1), 61–75.

Dawson, P. (1998, June). A primer on student grade retention: What the researchsays. NASP Communique, 26(8), 28–30.

De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for Englishlanguage learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher EducationQuarterly, 32(2), 101–124.

De la Colina, M. G., Parker, R. I., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2001). Intensiveintervention in reading fluency for at-risk beginning Spanish readers. BilingualResearch Journal, 25, 417–452.

Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of twotutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-Englishbilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 289–305.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transferof phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.

Editorial Projects in Education. (2006, June). Diplomas count: An essential guide tograduation policy and rates. Educational Week, 25(41S), 6.

Falbo, T. (1996, August). Latino youth and high school graduation. Invited addressat the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,Ontario, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401353)

Fix, M., Passel, J. S., & Ruiz De Velasco, J. (2004, May). School reform: The demo-graphic imperative and challenge. Paper presented at the IZA=Urban InstituteWorkshop on Migration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.iza.org/conference_files/iza_ui_2004/fix.pdf

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know toteach reading, ESL, spelling, phonics and grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Freeman, D., Freeman, Y., & Murry, K. (2008). Understanding English phonology.DVD No. 3 of the series Linguistics for Teachers, Manhattan, KS. Available fromhttp://coe.ksu.edu/esl/kcat-tlc.html

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2000). Effective reading instruction for all students.TESOL Matters, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=195&DID=614&rcss=print&print=yes

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella,R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English lear-ners in the elementary grades. Washington, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinkingspecial education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). ReadingResearch Quarterly, 41(1), 99–108.

Gholamarin, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the con-current development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. LanguageLearning, 49, 183–217.

Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills inbilingual Spanish English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(5), 46–77.

104 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Wooley, L. (2001). Factors related toEnglish reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: Moreevidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 93, 530–542.

Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. V. (2000). The efficacy of sup-plemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic studentsin early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.

Haager, D., & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English lan-guage learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes inan urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235–250.

Herrera, S., Murry, K., & Cabral, R. (2007). Assessment accommodations forclassroom teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion,and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ho, C. S., & Bryant, P. (1997). Phonological skills are important in learning to readChinese. Developmental Psychology, 33, 946–951.

Jimenez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacyLatina=o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224–243.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcıa, G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Three children, two languages,and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual=monolingual reading. AmericanEducational Journal, 32, 67–98.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies ofbilingual Latina=o students who are successful English readers: Opportunitiesand obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.

Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications forpractice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30, 420–437.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners whostruggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabil-ities, 39, 108–128.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehensionstrategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a secondlanguage. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.

Li, D., & Nes, S. (2001). Using paired reading to help ESL students become fluent andaccurate readers. Reading Improvement, 38(2), 50–61.

Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekannani, K. (2003). Effec-tiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English languagelearners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 221–238.

Mathes, P. G., & Denton, C. A. (2002). The prevention and identification of readingdisability. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9, 185–191.

Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J. E., Voelkl, K. E., & Lutkus, A. D. (2000). Increasing the partici-pation of special needs students in NAEP: A report on 1996 NAEP researchactivities (NCES 2000–473). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Edu-cational Statistics.

McMillen, M., Kaufman, P., & Klein, S. (1997). Dropout rates in the United States:1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 105

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

Murry, K. (2008). Sound and phury: The phonology of reading and teaching lan-guage. DVD No. 4 of the series Linguistics for Teachers, Manhattan, KS. Avail-able from http://coe.ksu.edu/esl/kcat-tlc.html

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implicationfor reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development.

National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. xx 6301 et seq.Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Con-

siderations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support Englishlanguage learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 53–64.

Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2002). Considerations in the assessment of Englishlanguage referred to special education. In A. J. Artiles & A. Ortiz (Eds.), Englishlanguage learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, andinstruction (pp. 65–85). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching inmulticultural contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Mathes, P. G., Vaughn, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). The role of oracy in developing comprehension in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Topics in Language Disorders, 26, 365–384.

President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans.(2003). From risk to opportunity: Fulfilling the educational needs of HispanicAmericans in the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Roderick, M. (1995, December). Grade retention and school dropout: Policy debateand research questions (Research Bulletin No. 15). Bloomington, IN: Phi DeltaKappa.

Rooney, P., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Choy, S., Hampden-Thompson, G., Provasnik, S.,et al. (2006). The condition of education 2006. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.

Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2003). Conversing with Miguel: An adolescent English languagelearner struggling with later literacy development. Journal of Adolescent andAdult Literacy, 47, 290–302.

Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for Englishlanguage learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.

Sample, K. J. (2005). Promoting fluency in adolescents with reading difficulties.Intervention in School & Clinic, 40, 243–247.

Simons, J., & Connelly, M. (2002). Quality ESL programs. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowPress.

Smalls, U. S. (1997). Reacting in the best interest of our kids. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED415980)

Snipes, J., Soga, K., & Uro, G. (2007, Fall). Improving teaching and learning forEnglish language learners in urban schools (Research brief). Washington, DC:Council of the Great City Schools.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties inyoung children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

106 L. J. Bowman-Perrott et al.

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010

Tam, K. Y., Heward, W. L., & Heng, M. A. (2006). A reading instruction interventionprogram for English-language learners who are struggling readers. Journal ofSpecial Education, 40(2), 79–93.

Thomas, A. (1992). Alternatives to retention: If flunking doesn’t work, what does?Eugene: Oregon School Study Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED343209)

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness forlanguage minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz,CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved fromhttp://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Dropout rates in the United States: 1995.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress onthe implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrievedfrom http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/research.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Status and trends in the education ofHispanics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Biennial evaluation report to Congress on theimplementation of the state formula grant program 2002–2004. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Condition of education. Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005(NCES 2007–059). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in Americanschools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan,C. E., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English inter-vention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 43, 449–487.

Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition:Cross language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88.

Willson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Retention of Hispanic=Latino students in firstgrade: Child, parent, teacher, school, and peer predictors. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 44, 31–49.

Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2003). What teachers need to know about language.In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to knowabout language (pp. 10–46). McHenry, IL: The Center for Applied Linguistics.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. F., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L.,& Sapru, S. (2003a). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP stu-dents with disabilities: Volume I report. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. F., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L.,& Sapru, S. (2003b). Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP andSPED-LEP students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s wordfrequency guide. New York: Touchtone Applied Science Associates.

Reading Difficulties and Grade Retention 107

Downloaded By: [Texas A&M University] At: 19:35 25 January 2010