Around the world, school systems are increasingly seeking proactive means to address learning needs during core instruction while providing additional layers of support through tiered intervention (Sedita 2016). The Multi-Tier System of Support (MTSS) framework is one such popular example in the United States, which when implemented with fidelity can effectively sustain the cultural and linguistic growth of Multilingual Learner students (Rinaldi 2018). For adolescent Emergent Bilingual (EB) students, particularly those identified as Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE), the need for all tiers of instruction to be designed in culturally and linguistically sustaining ways is essential to their success and to their sense of belonging in school (Paris 2012; Auslander 2022; Center for Applied Linguistics 2022). Despite growing consensus that additive multilingual programming and the use of translanguaging pedagogy are superior (Collier and Thomas 2004), monolingual program models are the current reality for most English Learner students in the United States (Chang-Bacon 2022) and internationally. The results for EB students, particularly those who have additional academic, linguistic, social–emotional, or disability-related needs, are dire; many are chronically absent, dropping out of school at alarming rates, or are otherwise reporting no sense of belonging in school (Hos 2020; Chang-Bacon 2021; Center for Applied Linguistics 2022). One possible avenue to provide students with precisely what they need within the context of monolingual program models is through the development of culturally and linguistically sustaining multi-tiered systems of support provided by language teachers who often have expert knowledge of first and second language acquisition and the distinction between academic and linguistic learning needs (Linan-Thompson et al. 2022). By designing an MTSS framework that explicitly embeds “CLA Culturally and Linguistically Aligned practices that provide specific supports for MLs Multilingual Learners across all tiers” (Brown et al. 2024), students will be provided with access and entry points throughout their day in all classrooms. During the 2023–2024 school year, I conducted an action research study in a suburban school district in the North East of the United States that aimed to examine the impact of MTSS on the sense of belonging in school for adolescent EB students and SLIFE. The participants came from a convenience sampling of a cohort of my students. In total, 15 participants ages 10–13 participated in this study. The results of the study seemed to indicate a stronger sense of belonging and more of a desire to actively participate and engage with the material in classrooms where curriculum and instruction were more culturally and linguistically sustaining. Students reported feeling happier, more respected, and more willing to engage in learning when they could see themselves reflected through the content and when their cultural and linguistic assets were being recognized. This article provides an overview of the WIN (What I Need) block, a quarter-long intervention class which met twice every 3 days for 50 min. I created a framework (Figure 1) for identifying students in need of additional linguistic, academic, or social–emotional learning support and attempted to design a culturally and linguistically sustaining curriculum to meet the students' specific needs informed by research from the field of Bilingual Special Education (Hamayan et al. 2013). Initially EB students were placed into Tier 2 and 3 WIN groups based on minimal data and assessment measures that were not necessarily normed or validated for Multilingual Learners. Given that the goal of WIN is to provide students with precisely what they need, this model was neither culturally and linguistically responsive nor sustaining. To meet the needs of EBs and SLIFE, additional and varied forms of data would need to be collected and analyzed through a culturally and linguistically responsive lens (Linan-Thompson et al. 2022). The data that informed placement into my WIN groups included reading assessment scores, English proficiency assessment scores, analysis of current academic performance, writing samples, and student observations. The focus areas for my WIN groups depended on the specific needs of the students, mostly centering around literacy and oral language development (Hos 2016; Center for Applied Linguistics 2022; Herrera, et al. 2022; DeCapua and Marshall 2023). Modeled after the Institute for Education Science's research into providing reading interventions for students in Grades 4-9, my focus area included embedded formal academic skills, goal setting, academic conversation skills, and social–emotional learning skills. I created a four-day cycle of instruction (Figure 2) throughout the quarter where the first day began with a read aloud, the second day focused on word study—specifically multisyllabic words, cognates, and morphemes, the third day was for nonfiction reading and reading fluency, and the fourth day was dedicated to authentic oral language production and academic conversation skills. By tapping into the oral language abilities of EBs and SLIFE, a relative strength and asset (Cardenas-Hagan 2020), students engaged with a variety of literature and genres through content-connected read alouds that served as the basis for literacy instruction. Before listening, students participated in a mini-inquiry where they generated a list of words, ideas, and questions about an image connected to the topic or theme of the text. For instance, in a 5th grade group, students generated nouns, adjectives, verbs, and sentences to describe an image from the text The Day You Begin by Jaqueline Woodson and were encouraged to use their entire linguistic repertoire to do so. They could either contribute orally or in writing and were provided with bilingual visual dictionaries to transfer their knowledge between languages. This was then turned into an anchor chart that we could refer to as we read and discussed the text in depth. Each cycle focused on a different strategy for listening or reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. The text was chosen as it served both as a window into different experiences of being new in school while also serving as a mirror through which my newcomer students could see themselves reflected. In alignment with the Multi-Level Prevention System of MTSS With Embedded CLA (Culturally and Linguistically Aligned) Practices (Brown et al. 2024), culturally and linguistically sustaining practices were employed using texts that were relevant to student lived-experiences, provided windows and mirrors, and supported their oral language development. Opportunities to develop metalinguistic awareness, such as identifying cognates, comparing letter-sounds across languages, and providing opportunities for students to discuss the text using all their linguistic resources (e.g., translanguaging and home language use), were embedded throughout. A major challenge of designing culturally and linguistically sustaining Tier 2 and 3 intervention is the necessity for Tier 1 core instruction to be universally accessible to all learners by providing entry points and language access tools and strategies. Without this, deficit-oriented narratives are perpetuated where EBs and SLIFE are labeled “at-risk” when the reality is that they may not be receiving instruction that is accessible (Linan-Thompson et al. 2022). Without a process for identifying students based on valid and reliable data, schools risk over-referring students for intervention or evaluation who do not in fact need either (Rinaldi 2018). It was the case that some of my students did not need intervention; they needed Tier 1 instruction that was accessible and linguistically comprehensible. However, while schools work to improve Tier 1 within monolingual contexts, freeing language experts to provide targeted instruction for EBs and SLIFE is vital. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Joseph Santiago‐Silvestri (Mon,) studied this question.