PROMISES AND CAUTIONS REGARDING USING

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION WITH ENGLISH

LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Diane Haager

Abstract. This article provides a commentary on issues regarding the use of response to intervention (RTI) with English language
learners (ELLs). The commentary draws on current literature on
reading instruction, ELLs, RTI, and students with learning disabilities and highlights key points from the articles in this special
issue. The discussion includes future directions for research.

DIANE HAAGER, Ph.D., professor, Caiifomia State University, Los Angeles.

Using a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach to and procedural concerns (see, for review, Kavale &
identifying students with learning disabilities has been Forness, 2000; Keogh, 1987).
Several critical issues have been discussed at length
a welcome shift in policy and practices that have
otherwise largely relied on arbitrary discrepancy crite- in proceedings of the President's Commission on
ria in determining eligibility for special education. Excellence in Special Education (2002) and a summit of
Several potential benefits of RTI hold promise for learning disabilities researchers (Bradley, Danielson, &
improving educational outcomes for children. First, Hallahan, 2002), both of which contributed greatly to
early screening assessment and intervention for strug- recent changes in federal law. Subjectivity in teachers'
gling readers raise the possibility of identifying learn- referral of students, inaccuracy in assessment practices,
ing disabilities early and avoiding a prolonged wait for and lack of consistency in the nature and quality of
students to qualify for special education services. general education instruction prior to placement often
Second, early identification may lessen the impact of result in a "wait-to-fail" phenomenon, whereby stua learning disability by keeping the achievement gap as dents who qualify for special education are placed long
narrow as possible. Third, the use of RTI may con- after entry to school (Gresham, 2002; Vaughn &
tribute to improving literacy rates by providing inter- Klingner, 2007).
Problems with a discrepancy approach are well
vention for all students who experience difficulty with
reading, not just those whose difficulties are severe documented, and the concept of RTI holds promise
for addressing these problems (e.g., Gresham, 2002;
enough to warrant special education.
How we define learning disabilities and operational- Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). The use of discrepancy criteria
ize the criteria for eligibility has been a controversial is dependent on accurate and valid measurement, an
topic for decades. Consider, for example, how many issue of particular concern when applying discrepancy
times a multidisciplinary panel such as the National criteria to English language learners (ELLs). LinanJoint Committee on Learning Disabilities has raised crit- Thompson and colleagues (this issue) suggest that other
ical issues in connection with defining learning disabil- factors, such as language of instruction and the school
ities (e.g.. National Joint Committee on Learning context in general, need to be considered as well. Under
Disabilities, 1987, 1991, 1998). Prominent authors and the reauthorized IDEA legislation, P.L. 108-446, and
other panels have frequently raised similar definitional accompanying federal regulations, a state may not

Volume 30, Summer 2007

213

require the use of discrepancy criteria to identify stu- instruction in the early grades. This report makes a
dents with learning disabilities and must permit the strong recommendation for research and development
use of a RTI approach. A multidisciplinary team that to "carry promising practices and validated practices
includes the child's parents must examine evidence through to classroom applicability" (p. 382), including
regarding the child's progress toward grade-level stan- research "on educational improvement, particularly in
dards and the child's responsiveness to scientifically schools with large numbers of children from lowbased instructional practices. The team should examine income families" (p. 383).
evidence to identify patterns of strength and weakness
Considering that the RTI process begins with highin the child's academic or behavioral competence and quality reading instruction in the general education setuse multiple measures and a comprehensive evaluation ting, important questions arise regarding ELLs. What do
to make the final determination.
we really know about effective reading instruction for
When the students under consideration for eligibility ELLs? Are the curricula, practices, and assessments used
are also classified as ELLs, there may be additional with non-ELLs as effective with ELLs?
factors to consider in determining eligibility, but these
The research base on effective reading instructional
are not specified in the federal guidelines. The articles practices for ELLs is fragmented and fraught with
in this issue examine some of these factors, including controversy. In the most comprehensive effort to date
the nature and quality of the general education reading to examine the research on ELL literacy development.
program, the assessments used to determine students' Snow (2006) summarized the work of the National
responsiveness to instruction, and the content and Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
procedures of follow-up intervention. In this commen- Youth: "The literature we reviewed reveals remarkably
tary, I first provide an overview of critical issues in little about the effectiveness of different aspects
reading instruction and special education for ELLs of instruction, and provides only limited guidance
and then attempt to draw from these articles some key about how good instruction for second-language speakprinciples regarding the use of RTI models with ELL ers might differ from that for first-language speakers
(p. 638) ... Most discouraging, the research we reviewed
students.
provides little basis for deciding whether or what
English Language Learners, Reading Instruction,
kinds of accommodations or adaptations are most
and Learning Disabilities
helpful to second-language learners" (p. 639). To some
The number of ELL students in schools around the extent, the lack of answers from research may be
nation has increased significantly in recent years, espe- related to constraints imposed by the politics of educacially in urban centers (Donovan & Cross, 2002). tional policy, most notably arguments over bilingual
Studies and databases continually demonstrate the per- versus second-language instruction (Gersten, 2006;
vasive academic difficulties of ELLs. Many students who Gersten & Baker, 2000).
enter school with a primary language other than
There is some evidence that word-level instructional
English score below competency markers on various
components
validated with native English-speaking
aspects of academic achievement; over 50% score in the
children
are
also
effective with ELLs, such as explicitly
bottom third in reading or mathematics (National
teaching
phonological
awareness, letter-sound relationCenter for Education Statistics, 2005) with a continued
ships, and decoding, especially when done along with
gap between ELL and non-ELL reading achievement.
meaningful experiences in engaging text. We know less
The Hispanic population in U.S. schools has grown
about how to effectively teach ELLs to gather meaning
from 2% to 15% from 1950 to 2000, and an estimated
from text in their second language (Chiappe & Siegel,
31% of students have difficulty speaking English, the
2006; Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2002; Snow,
language of instruction in most classrooms containing 2006). Not only do we need to know what practices are
ELLs (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
effective, but as Klingner and colleagues noted, we need
The disproportionate representation of minority stu- to know what works "with whom, in what contexts,
dents, many of whom are classified as ELLs, in special and under what circumstances" (Klingner, Sorrells, &
education has been a nagging concern in the field. The Barrera, 2006, p. 223).
2002 National Academy of Sciences panel (Donovan
The beginning of the RTI process. Tier 1, involves
& Cross, 2002) charged with examining disproportion- high-quality reading instruction in the general educaate representation issues concluded that the most tion classroom. A series of observational studies in
effective means of reducing the disproportionate repre- first-grade classrooms with large proportions of ELLs
sentation of low-income, ethnic-minority students in investigated specific instructional practices that correboth special education and gifted education programs lated significantly with ELL students' reading gains
would be to improve the core elements of classroom (Baker, Gersten, Haager, & Dingle, 2006; Gersten, Baker,

Learning Disability Quarterly

214

Haager, & Graves, 2005; Graves, Gersten, & Haager, Assessing Responsiveness of ELLs to Intervention
Any form of RTI must include assessment procedures
2004; Haager, Gersten, Baker, & Graves, 2003).
Six clusters of observed teaching practices, or sub- to identify potential candidates for tiers of intervention
scales, were found to relate significantly to beginning and to monitor students' progress toward established
reading instruction for ELLs. One cluster. Explicit goals. Curriculum-based measures (CBMs) are used
Teaching/Art of Teaching, included such practices as extensively for both screening and progress monitoring
modeling, making instruction explicit, and prompting (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006, for review). All of the studies
students, and correlated with reading gains (r = .62, in this issue used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Haager et aL, 2003; r = .75, Baker et al., 2006). Only one Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in English as a form of CBM to
item of this subscale truly seems unique to ELL measure the progress of ELLs who received intervention,
students - the extent to which the teacher adjusts his but not all used the DIBELS assessments as a screening
or her use of English during a lesson to make it under- tool to identify potential candidates for intervention.
standable to the students. The other items represent Screening is generally viewed as a means of catching
what would typically be considered simply good students who may be at risk for reading difficulties so
instruction (e.g., prompting, modeling). Instruction that no child is allowed to slip through the cracks only
Geared Toward Low Performers (r = .65/.60), Phonemic to find much later that intervention would have helped.
Given that these assessments are conducted in
Awareness and Decoding (r = .63/.49), Interactive
English
and in the early grades when ELLs are at the
Teaching (r= .57/.62), Vocabulary Development (r= .51
beginning
stages of acquiring English competency, one
.64), and Sheltered English Techniques (r = .49/.67) also
might wonder about the validity of screening using
correlated significantly with reading gains for ELLs
tools that have not included ELLs adequately in norm(Baker et al., 2006; Haager et al., 2003). Other signifiing samples and development procedures. False posicant findings came from contrasting high-gain classtives are a concern in general when using universal
rooms with less effective classrooms (Gersten et al.,
screening tools (Speece & Walker, 2007), and this con2005; Graves et al., 2004). That is, students in the highcern might be greater when using these tools with ELLs.
gain classrooms had higher rates of accurate passage
Yet, some preliminary evidence suggests that screenreading, or oral reading fluency. Effect sizes were large ing assessments have some utility with ELLs for identifor all subscales except Sheltered English Techniques, fying students who may benefit from additional
where no difference was found. This is interesting, reading intervention, when interpreted and used with
given the emphasis in teacher education and pro- caution. For example, assessments in English of rapid
fessional development on sheltered instructional letter naming and phoneme segmentation skills, using
techniques as a means of making instruction compre- the DIBELS assessments at the middle of kindergarten,
hensible for ELLs. Thus, sheltered English instruction were highly predictive of end-of-kindergarten and
may not be sufficient for truly starting ELLs off in end-of-first-grade reading outcomes (Oh, Haager, &
beginning reading. To make significant reading gains, Windmueller, in press). In first grade, nonsense word
ELL students need teachers to be using effective instruc- reading was a strong predictor at the beginning of the
tional techniques in general, adjusting their instruction year, but by the middle of the year, oral reading fluency
for individuals having difficulty, engaging their stu- (passage reading) was the most predictive (Oh et aL, in
dents in interactive and engaging vocabulary and press). Similarly, Windmueller (2004) found that from
comprehension development, and providing high- first to third grade, nonsense word reading and oral
quality explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and reading fluency were strong predictors of reading outdecoding.
comes.
We know even less about effective instruction for
Although the predictive value in using these tools is
ELLs with learning disabilities (ELL/LD), particularly in encouraging, it is important to be cautious about overreading (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & Leos, 2005). The reliance on such measures for making high-stakes deciresearch base on effective reading instruction for stu- sions (i.e., labeling students as "at risk" or "disabled," or
dents with LD in general must be extrapolated in trapping them into a remedial track that is difficult to
designing instruction for ELLs with LD (Klingner et al., escape). Nevertheless, the use of data to guide supple2007; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, mental instruction for an ELL student who may need
2005). What we know more about is preventing reading more practice with reading in English is valid. If it
failure that might lead to later, unnecessary identifica- turned out to be a case of false positive identification,
tion of learning disabilities in ELLs, as demonstrated by that is, a student who appears in the data to be below
the articles in this special issue of the Learning Disability grade-level benchmarks but is actually achieving as
expected, the use of effective progress monitoring, the
Quarterly.

Volume 30, Summer 2007

215

second step of assessment, would quickly identify that

there is no significant learning problem.
All studies included in this issue conducted a preintervention assessment for the purpose of pre- and
post-comparisons, but not necessarily for the purpose of
screening for intervention candidates. Only one study
identified intervention candidates based on screening
assessments (Kamps et al., this issue). The other studies
were conducted in intact classrooms to examine the
effects of instruction in general education classrooms.
How do CBM assessments fare as progress monitoring
tools for ELLs? Progress monitoring assessment is a
central component of RTL In order to know if the intervention has the desired effect of bringing early-identified students up to grade-level expectations, there must
be a way of measuring responsiveness. Some evidence
suggests that CBM processes are useful with ELLs. Firstgrade ELL students made similar progress to non-ELLs
using nonsense word reading and oral reading fluency
measures (Graves, Plasencia-Peinado, Deno, & Johnson,
2005). Similarly, oral reading and maze CBMs were useful in measuring the progress of third- and fifth-grade
ELLs (Wiley & Deno, 2005).
Linan-Thompson et al. (this issue) directly addressed
the question of how best to do this by comparing three
approaches to measuring responsiveness with ELLs. The
discrepancy slope criteria were the best predictors of
later performance. One question that arises here is the
feasibility of school personnel being able to manage calculations and analyses of slopes. A critical issue in
selecting a progress-monitoring tool is its sensitivity to
growth with an ELL population. Linan-Thompson and
colleagues noted that relatively few students met endof-year criteria, partially due to the stringency of the criteria established with a largely non-ELL population and
the low levels of language proficiency of the ELLs
included in the study. With so few assessments tested
with ELL populations, especially in the context of RTI,
this study has taken a valuable first step in bringing this
issue to the forefront.
Issues in Quality of Reading Instruction for ELLs
in RTI
The studies in this issue provide macro- and microperspectives on general education teachers' reading
instruction for ELLs in an RTI framework. Calhoon and
colleagues included all ELLs in intact classrooms in
a peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS) program
designed for use in a general education classroom to
improve learning for all students and did not identify or
pull out any students to receive secondary intervention.
The classrooms studied were two-way bilingual immersion programs, and teachers used the strategies with all
students. Students in the PALS classrooms made signifi-

cantly greater gains in reading than the control classrooms, providing some evidence that this flexible teaching approach may be useful with ELLs in Tier-1
instruction in RTI models. In this study, the ELLs most
benefited in word- or letter-level processing. Reading
fluency gains lagged somewhat, but this may be consistent with other studies showing that ELLs may be
slower to develop skills beyond word-level processing
(e.g., Chiappe et al., 2002).
Kamps and colleagues (this issue) followed 318 students receiving Tier-2 supplemental instruction. Most
important, these authors demonstrated the benefits of
providing Tier-2 intervention to ELLs by examining
students' reading gains in both decoding and reading
fluency. The scope of the study allowed for an examination of specific reading programs and approaches that
led to the significant gains. Programs that followed the
principles of direct instruction were found to be highly
effective with ELLs of varying linguistic and cultural
backgrounds.
Looking within just four classrooms. Graves and colleagues (Mclntosh, Graves, & Gersten, this issue) provide a close-up look at how two of the teachers not only
provided high-quality tier-one instruction, but also supplemental Tier-2 instruction for struggling ELL readers.
The two teachers received high-quality ratings on their
overall reading instruction. The extra support and
instruction that they provided for ELLs experiencing
difficulty greatly contributed to these students' growth.
One important instructional issue that emerges from
the studies in this issue is fidelity of implementation.
Both Calhoon et al. and Kamps et al. included careful
and systematic examination of fidelity in their studies,
which greatly enhanced their ability to attribute outcomes to the treatment. Fidelity of implementation
continues to be a research-to-practice issue, particularly
when bringing practices developed in empirical investigations to scale (Denton, Vaughn & Fletcher, 2003;
Sloane, 2005). RTI will only be as effective as the implementation of the intervention part of the equation.
Therefore, in implementing any tier of the RTI model,
school personnel must carefully consider the importance of monitoring and supporting teachers' use of
the prescribed instructional procedures. Additionally,
schools should plan for ongoing examination and support of their model to refine and adjust it.
Another issue that emerges is the nuanced and individualized nature of ongoing support that teachers will
provide for struggling ELLs in RTI. Mclntosh et al. provide vignettes of teachers skilled in not only knowing
when a student needs support but also in knowing how
to provide that support in that classroom and for that
student. Contextual factors are critically important and
include school-, teacher- and student-level variation.

Learning Disability Quarterly

216

Directions for Future Research

Though standards-based reading instruction and the
use of reading programs that have a strong research
foundation are quickly becoming the norm in today's
elementary classrooms, research focusing on the reading development of ELLs has been lacking (Snow, 2007;
Vaughn et al., 2006). How, then, does a school using
RTI procedures determine that the reading instruction
provided in any tier is, in fact, appropriate for an ELL
population and that an individual student's response to
the instruction is inadequate? Inherent in this question
are several issues that warrant further investigation.
Continued large-scale research and development is
needed regarding reading instruction at the whole-class
and small-group levels for ELLs. What would be most
practical for schools with heterogeneous populations that is, most schools - would be research-based approaches that are deemed valid and effective for both
ELL and non-ELL populations. It is not feasible or
desirable to have one set of tools and procedures for
non-ELLs and another for ELLs. Therefore, replication
of studies conducted with monolingual English-speaking samples should include ELLs either exclusively or
in mixed samples (as in Calhoon et al., this issue) to
determine the dual utility of instructional tools and
practices with both populations.
Contextual issues are also important as RTI practices
are adopted widely. There may be no one-size-fits-all
model of RTI that can be used across the diverse array of
schools and communities that include ELLs. Little
research has examined how RTI models might be
adapted or modified based on cultural and contextual
factors across different settings. Does a large school in
an urban setting have similar RTI needs as a rural
school?
Further development is also needed of the tools and
procedures used for measuring student responsiveness
to ensure they are valid and useful with ELLs, particularly in the early grades. CBM holds promise of fulfilling
the role of progress monitoring in RTI approaches,
but further research is needed. Additionally, further
defining what constitutes responsiveness or nonresponsiveness, particularly with ELLs, is an important
consideration. Until these questions are answered, it
will be important for school personnel to act not on cut
scores alone, but to also factor in teacher observation of
students and their day-to-day performance.
Underlying all the above issues is the need for not
only researchers, but also school administrators and
officials, to consider the professional development and
support needs of practitioners who will provide instruction and conduct assessment in implementing RTI. It is
important that such training and support include how
to adjust and enhance instruction and how to interpret

or supplement assessments for ELLs. It is also important

for practitioners to better understand the reading
development and language development processes for
ELLs in the context of a prevention and intervention
approach.
REFERENCES
Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching
practice and the reading growth of first-grade English learners:
Validation of an observation instrument. Elementary School
Journal, 107(2), 199-220.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification
of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Eribaum Associates,
Chiappe, P,, & Siegel, L, S. (2006), A longitudinal study of reading
development of Canadian children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. The Elementary School lournal, 107(2), 135-152.
Chiappe, P,, Siegel, L, S,, & Wade-Woolley, L, (2002), Linguistic
diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal
study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369-400,
Denton, C, Vaughn, S,, & Fletcher, J, (2003), Bringing researchbased practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201-211
Donovan, M, S,, & Cross, C, T, (Eds,), (2002), Minority students in
special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press,
Fuchs, L, S., & Fuchs, D, (2006), The role of assessment in the
three-tier approach to reading instruction. In D, Haager, J, K,
Klingner, & S, Vaughn (Eds,), Evidence-based reading practices for
response to intervention (pp, 29-42), Baltimore: Paul H, Brookes
Publishing,
Gersten, R, (2006), Introduction: Scientific research on English
learners. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 133-134,
Gersten, R,, & Baker, S, (2000), What we know about effective
instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional
Children, 66, 454-470,
Gersten, R,, Baker, S, K,, Haager, D,, & Graves, A, (2005), Exploring
the role of teacher quality in predicting reading outcomes for
first-grade English learners: An observational study. Remedial
and Special Education, 26, 197-206,
Graves, A,, Gersten, R,, & Haager, D, (2004), Literacy instruction in
multiple-language first-grade classrooms: Linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 19, 262-272,
Graves, A., Plasencia-Peinado, J,, Deno, S,, & Johnson, J, (2005),
Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first-grade
English learners in multiple-language classrooms. Remedial &
Special Education, 26(4), 215-225
Gresham, F, M, (2002), Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In
R, Bradley, L, Danielson, & D, P, Hallahan (Eds,), Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp, 467-547), Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates,
Haager, D,, Gersten, R,, Baker, S,, & Graves, A, (2003), The
English-Language Learner Classroom Observation Instrument:
Observations of beginning reading linstruction in urban
schools. In S, R, Vaughn & K, L, Briggs (Eds,), Reading in the
classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning (pp, 111144), Baltimore: Paul H, Brookes Publishing,
Kavale, K,, & Forness, S, (2000), What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33(3), 239-256
Keogh, B, K, (1987), Learning disabilities: In defense of a construct.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 3, 4-9,

Volume 30, Summer 2007

217

Klingner, J, K,, Sorrells, A, M,, & Barrera, M, T, (2007),

Speece, D, L, & Walker, C, Y, (2007), What are the issues in
Considerations when implementing response to intervention
response to intervention research? In D, Haager, J, K, Klingner,
with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In D, Haager,
& S, Vaughn (Eds,), Evidence-based reading practices for response to
J, K, Klingner, & S, Vaughn (Eds,), Evidence-based reading pracintervention (pp, 287-301), Baltimore: Paul H, Brookes
tices for response to intervention (pp, 223-244), Baltimore: Paul H,
Publishing,
Brookes Publishing,
Vaughn, S,, & Fuchs, L, (2003), Redefining learning disabilities as
McCardle, P,, Mele-McCarthy, }., & Leos, K, (2005), English laninadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential
guage learners and learning disabilities: Research agenda and
problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3) 137implications for practice. Learning Disabilities Research and
146,
Practice, 20(1), 68-78,
Vaughn, S,, & Klingner, J, K, (2007), Overview of the three-tier
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, (1987), Issues
model of reading intervention. In D, Haager, J. K, Klingner, &
in learning disabilities: Assessment and diagnosis. Retrieved June
S, Vaughn (Eds,), Evidence-based reading practices for response to
12, 2007, from http://www,ncld,org/content/view/455/480/
intervention. Baltimore: Paul H, Brookes,
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, (1991,
Vaughn, S,, Mathes, P,, Linan-Thompson, S,, & Francis, D, (2005),
January), Learning disabilities: Issues on definition, Asha, 33
Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabili(Suppl, 5), 18-20,
ties to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, (1998),
Research and Practice, 20(1), 58-67.
Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities
Vaughn, S,, Mathes, P,, Linan-Thompson, S,, Cirino, P,, Carlson,
for ongoing assessment in schools, Asha, 40 (Suppl, 18), 258aC, Pollard-Durodola, S,, Cardenas-Hagan, E,, & Francis, D,
258g,
(2006), Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade
National Center for Education Statistics, (2005), The nation's report
English language learners at risk for reading problems.
card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005, Washington, DC: Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153-180,
Author.
Wiley, H,, & Deno, S, (2005), Oral reading and maze measures as
Oh, D,, Haager, D,, & Windmueller, M, P, (in press), A longitudipredictors of success for English learners on a state standards
nal study predicting reading success for English language learnassessment. Remedial & Special Education, 26(4), 207-214
ers from kindergarten to grade one. Multiple Voices.
Windmueller, M, P, (2004), Early reading predictors of literacy
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
achievement for English learners: A longitudinal study from first
(2002), A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and
through third grade (Doctoral dissertation. University of
their families. Washington, DC: U,S, Department of Education,
Southern California, 2004), Dissertation Abstracts International
Sloane, F, (2005), The scaling of reading interventions: Building
65, 2543.
multilevel insight, Reading Research Quarterly, 40(3), 361-366,
Snow, C, (2006), Cross-cutting themes and future research direcPlease address correspondence to: Diane Haager, California State
tions. In D, August & T, Shanahan (Eds,), Developing literacy in University, Los Angeles, Division of Special Education and
second-language learners (pp, 631-651), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Counseling, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032;
Eribaum Associates,
dhaager@calstatela,edu

Learning Disability Quarterly

218