1. hobbies and interests
2. reading

5/10/2011
Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse (CLD) Students: How to
Meet Their Needs
Stephanie Dahlke, School Psychologist,
[email protected],
Pocatello School District in partnership with the
Idaho Division of Special Education
Purpose
 To review and make connections to the
Idaho Toolkit.
**Disclaimer: With exception of the Idaho Toolkit
(LEP/SPED), the materials, authors and references
used today are representative of the districts’ best
practices and are not endorsements from the SDE.
They are considered best practice.
1
5/10/2011
CLD Roadmap - It’s not yes or no;
it’s which way to go
• Culturally Competent Assessments
– The question isn’t CAN we get to the
destination, the question is did we take the
right road.
– There is no set path.
– Teams must learn to consider the right
information.
So Where’s the Map?
• The Idaho Toolkit gives districts the
needed
d d guidance.
id
• Trainings can be scheduled through the
SDE by contacting Dr. Fernanda
Brendefur at [email protected]
2
5/10/2011
Why the Toolkit?
• The Idaho State Department of Education saw a need for
districts to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of
school-wide programs serving English Learners (i.e., core,
Titl II-A,
Title
A Title
Titl I-C,
I C Titl
Title III
III, etc.)
t )b
before
f
referring
f i EL
ELs ffor
eligibility to special education.
• They also saw a need for districts and schools to develop
effective collaboration between special education, general
education, and LEP programs.
• The toolkit was developed as a response to ongoing district
requests for more guidance in the area of special education
as it pertains to ELs.
The Toolkit…
6
• Is NOT a quick fix with easy answers.
• Is NOT a “one-size-fits-all” training. It is very district-specific.
• Is NOT an easy step-by-step process to get ELs into special
education programs. There are no cut and dry answers!
• Is a systemic and comprehensive approach to ensuring
districts are serving ELs with high-quality English language
development (ELD) and core instructional programs.
• Is aligned to Idaho’s Response to Intervention model.
3
5/10/2011
Learn to Fish . . .
• Understanding needs will lead to individual assessment
plans for students.
students
• School personnel will be able to identify a protocol,
rather than follow a protocol.
• Schools will be able to self-assess how they are
servicing EL students school-wide.
Modules and Topics
8
• Module 1: Foundations
• Module 2: Language and Culture
• Module 3: Family and Community
• Module 4: Effective Curriculum and Instruction
• Module 5: Assessing ELs
• Module 6: Determining Special Education Eligibility
4
5/10/2011
Type 3 Errors – Solving the Wrong
Problem
• All six topics must be addressed to ensure the right issue
has been identified.
f
• Academic remediation does not equal language support.
• Specific EL needs should be addressed long before
special education referral is considered
considered.
Foundations, Culture, and
Language
• CLD is more than learning to speak a new language.
• Within native English speaking groups, culture can still
be an issue.
• Important Question: What does CLD look like for your
population? What should you consider?
5
5/10/2011
Things to consider
• Background Information:
– Family’s
Family s socio
socio-economic
economic status and composition
– Numbers of years in country and student’s birth place
– Educational history (e.g., time spent in American schools, type of
English Learner programs)
– Family background
– Transience
– Cultural and linguistic background
What Can We Do Immediately?
• Educational Learning Plans (ELPs)
– Is student receiving accommodations while they acquire the
language?
– Are all parties who work with students involved in the ELP
process?
– An ELP p
provides students with accommodations for classroom
and statewide testing.
6
5/10/2011
Effective Curriculum and Instruction
• Consider the Core
– Does it have a language building component?
– Are CLD students being successful in it?
– Is core effectiveness data being
disaggregated to assess each core
curriculum?
Effective Curriculum and Instruction
• Consider English Learner (EL) Curriculum
– Is it language based and not specific skill
remediation?
– Is it being used at the recommended
frequency and duration?
– Is it proving effective for the majority of
participants?
7
5/10/2011
Interventions
• Considering individual student information,
which
hi h iinterventions
t
ti
appear mostt
appropriate?
• Collaboration is key.
8
5/10/2011
Assessing ELs
• What if interventions are not working?
• BEFORE a student is referred for special
education evaluation, all the data should
be revisited and evaluated.
9
5/10/2011
Assessing ELs
• After reviewing the data, a collaborative
t
team
determines
d t
i
“which
“ hi h way to
t go.””
• If a Special Education Evaluation is
agreed upon, the team determines the
most appropriate protocol.
protocol
Defining What Preponderance Looks Like
• A preponderance of evidence is required. What might
that preponderance look like?
– Different for each student
– Language proficiency assessments
– Formal and informal measures – achievement and
intellectual
– Language and skill intervention data
– Peer comparisons
– Functional observations – what do they look like in
the classroom?
10
5/10/2011
Determining Special
Education Eligibility
How to interpret the data…
Teresa Fritsch, Psy.S., NCSP
School Psychologist, Meridian School
District in partnership with the Idaho
Division of Special Education
[email protected]
Purpose
To explain the evaluation process for CLD
students.
t d t
11
5/10/2011
Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse (CLD)
“Begin with the assumption that there exist an infinite number of
reasons for why any given child is having learning difficulties and that a
given disability only represents but one of those reasons. In other
words, try first to eliminate all other potential reasons for learning
difficulties, particularly those related to culture or the process of second
language acquisition before entertaining the idea of testing for the
presence of a suspected internal disability. Utilize ecological and
ecosystems approaches to frame the child’s school performance within
the context of any
y cultural,, linguistic,
g
, or other external factor that mayy be
affecting the learning process.”
(Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D., St. John’s University, 2008)
Reminder: Data Collection Includes
• Background Information:
– Family’s socio-economic status and composition
– Numbers of years in country and student’s birth place
– Educational history (e.g., time spent in American schools, type of English
Learner programs)
– Family background
– Transience
– Cultural and linguistic background
• Current Data:
–
–
–
–
–
Academics
Behavior
Att d
Attendance
Interventions attempted
Curricula used
- Parent Interview
- State/District test scores
- Student
St d t workk
- Classroom observations
12
5/10/2011
4. Data that establishes that the core curriculum is effective for most students.
Directions: For each of the assessments, list the percentage of students within the student’s grade level who met grade-level performance
benchmarks (may include ISAT, IRI, Grade Level Curriculum Based Measures, other measures).
Name of
Assessment
Area
Assessed
Date
Performance
Benchmark
Percentage of
Grade Level
Peers Meeting
Performance
Benchmark
ISAT
Reading
05/10/10
198 (Proficient)
89
Percentage of
Disaggregated
Group Level
Peers Meeting
Performance
Benchmark
(if applicable)
79
Target
Student
Performance
Level
181
Intervention Provided
Academi
c Area of
Concern
Reading
Reading
Reading
Intervention
Treasure Chest/Book Studies
with 2-5 peers and ELL Teacher;
Instruction is focus on
vocabulary development,
language acquisition, reading
comprehension, and literature
discussion.
Phonics for Reading
Reading, My
Sidewalks/Reading Street
beginning first grade level with a
group of 2-5 peers and ELL
Teacher
Pre-primer level reading
passages with Reading
Specialist and 2-5 peers.
Begin
Date
(M/D/Y)
09/07/10
Duration
End
Date
(M/D/Y)
04/15/11
10/01/09
01/04/10
Total
(weeks)
Frequency
(how often per
week)
Intensity
(minutes per session)
29
5 times
30
03/17/10
21
5 times
60
05/28/10
20
5 times
30
13
5/10/2011
Summary of the data demonstrating the student’s progress during instruction and intervention in the academic areas
of concern:
Student entered Super Elementary in first grade as a beginning English speaker. He spent 90 minutes each day with ELL staff.
He participated in a language acquisition and letter sounds and names intervention using programs such as Zoophonics and
Read Well with the ELL teacher. In 2nd grade at Wonderful Elementary, he received small group intervention with the ELL
teacher focusing on language development and beginning reading. His reading program consisted of sight words and
instruction in the Treasure Chest program to build fluency and comprehension.
In 3rd grade, back at Super he received 60 minutes of intensive intervention with the ELL teacher for 6 months using Phonics for
Reading and My Sidewalks/Reading Street. Student was the lowest scoring reading in his grade. Compared to his ELL grade
level peers receiving similar interventions, Student’s rate of improvement (.11/week) was slow and flat with minimal progress.
His expected rate of improvement was 2.68 words read correct per week. His first and second grade sisters had far surpassed
his reading fluency. In addition to the interventions listed above, Student attended IRI tutoring for 60 minutes twice per week
during 2nd and 3rd grade.
grade He attended summer school in 2008,
2008 2009
2009, and 2010
2010.
On a 4th grade CORE reading MAZE, Student scored 0, because he was unable to read the passage, which is not necessarily a
valid assessment of his reading comprehension. The bottom 25% of 4th grade students (as measured by school-wide Title I
and ELL data collection) receive intervention in the ELL room and participate in ongoing data collection. Student’s reading
fluency has fluctuated from 13 words per minute with 8 errors on 09/1/10 to 14 words per minutes with 11 errors on 11/19/10
(making little gains despite intensive interventions). Of the bottom 25% peer group, five are considered comparable peers to
Student that are male, native Spanish speakers having been born in Mexico arriving in the U.S. in 2006 or 2007 during
kindergarten through 2nd grades. Their most recent (12/13/10) reading fluency scores were as follows:
Student: Words Read Correct = 18, Errors = 6 (ROI = -0.50)
Peer 1: Words Read Correct = 77, Errors = 2 (ROI = .80)
Peer 2: Words Read Correct = 86, Errors = 9 (ROI = .82)
Peer 3: Words Read Correct = 93, Errors = 9 (ROI = .80)
Peer 4: Words Read Correct = 95, Errors = 4 (ROI = 1.15)
Peer
ee 5
5: Words
o ds Read
ead Co
Correct
ect = 111,, Errors
o s = 4 ((ROI
O = 1.1))
Students in the ELL peer group are increasing at a rate much greater than Student. Despite over three years of intervention,
Student continues to struggle with basic reading skills. His fluency has not improved as would be expected given the intensity
of his interventions. His reading comprehension is significantly compromised because his fluency is so low.
Psychological Processing Evaluation
* Reliability and Validity
- 4 General Approaches to Testing related to CLD:
- Modified or Adapted Testing
- Nonverbal Testing
- Native Language
g g Testing
g
- English Language Testing
- Other factors:
- student’s age
- level and type of prior education
- current language of instruction
- type off instructional program
- test’s norm sample
* Flanagan & Alfonso, 2011
14
5/10/2011
Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM)
• Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment-2nd
Ed. by Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007
• Assessing
g Culturally
y and Linguistically
g
y Diverse
Students, by Rhodes, Ochoa, Ortiz, 2005
• Degree of cultural and linguistic loading (low,
medium, high)
• Does it match the typical pattern of a student
who is CLD?
• Difference or disorder?
Degree of Linguistic Demand
Moderate
High
Degree of Cultural L
Loading
Low
Low
Moderate
WJ III-SPATIAL REASONS
(Gv-VZ, SR)-101
KABC-II PATTERN REASONING
(Gf, Gv)-105
KABC-II TRIANGLES (Gv)-103
High
WJ III-VISUAL MATCHING
(Gs-P, R9)-80
WJ III-NUMBERS REVERSED
(Gsm-MW)-78
KABC-II REBUS (Glr) – 82
X = 103
WJ III PAIR CANCELLATION
WJ III-VISUAL-AUDITORY
(Gs-P)-94
LEARNING (Glr-MA)-76
WJ III-CONCEPT FORMATION
(Gf)-90
X = 78
X = 90
WJ III-SOUND BLENDING
(Ga-PC)-88
X = 76
X = 94
X = 88
KABC-II GESTALT CLOSURE
KABC-II STORY COMPLETION (Gf,
WJ III-VERBAL
(Gv)-86
Gv)-83
COMPREHENSION
(Gc-VL, LD)-82
KABC-II EXPRESSIVE
VOCABULARY (Gc) - 88
X = 86
X=83
X = 85
**Matrix of cultural loading and linguistic demand classifications with WJ III and KABC‐II subtests. 15
5/10/2011
Steps to Use in Determining the Pattern of Scores
Derived from the C-LIM (pg. 180):
“Is the highest Cell Average in the uppermost left-hand corner (the Low/Low cell
classification?
Is the lowest Cell Average in the lowermost right-hand corner (the High/High
cell classification?
Do the remaining Cell Averages fall between the highest and lowest scores and
follow a relative decline in value from the upper-left cells to the lower-right
cells?
If the answer to all questions is “yes,” then it is very likely that the test
results are invalid and reflect lack of acculturation and limited English
proficiency more so that true ability. If the answer to any question is “no,” then
the data may be valid and uncompromised by cultural or linguistic factors and
can be used, in conjunction with other converging data, to support hypotheses
regarding the presence of a disability.”
(Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
Psychological Processing
Emphasis on:
• Pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
• Link the psychological normative
weakness to the academic area of
concern.
concern
16
5/10/2011
1. Is the student’s first language English?
Yes
No
2. Documentation of English Language Proficiency when the Student is an English Learner (EL):
Directions: Provide supporting evidence using information gathered through formal and informal assessments including: Home Language Surveys
Idaho English Language Assessment (IELA) information, etc.
Date
03/15/10
Assessment/Documentation
IELA (3rd grade)
03/15/09
IELA (2 grade)
03/15/08
IELA (1 grade)
12/03/07
Home Language Survey
nd
st
Result/Score
Listening=EF; Speaking=EF;
Reading=AB; Writing=AB; Comp. = AB
Overall= Intermediate
Listening=EF; Speaking=AB;
Reading=AB;
Reading
AB; Writing
Writing=B;
B; Comp.
Comp = AB
Overall= Advanced Beginning
Listening=B; Speaking=B; Reading=B;
Writing=B; Comp.=B; Overall=Beginning
Native language = Spanish
3. Impact of English Learning on the student’s academic functioning in the area(s) of concern
Directions: Describe how the student’s English Learning impacts his/her ability to learn and their achievement level.
Student’s growth on the Listening and Speaking portions of the IELA reflect his growth in English acquisition in both
receptive and expressive language. The Reading and Writing portions of the IELA correlate with academic
achievement. Typically, growth on the Listening and Speaking portions are commensurate with growth on the Reading
and Writing portions. Five males listed below are considered comparable peers. They are native Spanish speakers
having been born in Mexico and arriving in the U.S. during kindergarten through 2nd grades:
Peer 1: arrived in U.S. in 1st grade; Intermediate (3) on IELA Reading and Early Fluent (4) Overall
Peer 2: arrived in U.S. in kindergarten; Intermediate (3) on IELA Reading and Intermediate (3) Overall
Peer 3: arrived in U.S. in kindergarten; Intermediate (3) on IELA Reading and Intermediate (3) Overall
Peer 4: arrived in U.S. in kindergarten; Intermediate (3) on IELA Reading and Early Fluent (4 )Overall
Peer 5: arrived in U.S. in second grade; Advanced Beginning (2) on IELA Reading and Advanced Beginning (2) Overall
All 5 peers are in the Strategic or Benchmark range based on 4th grade fall CBM proficiency; whereas Student is in the
Intensive range (below the 10th percentile).
Review
 Curricula appropriate and completed with fidelity
 Utilize formal and informal assessments, observations,
interviews,, file review,, etc. as you
y gather
g
data
 Language proficiency/Language dominance
 Intensive interventions – language-based interventions as
well as skill based – with comparison peer data
 Progress monitoring in area(s) of concern – comparison peer
data
 Academic achievement testing
g
 Psychological processing evaluation – pattern of strengths &
weaknesses and linking to academic deficit
17
5/10/2011
www.idahotc.com
Training and Technology for Today’s Tomorrow
• Supported By:
• Website to link school
professionals and
parents with special
education training
opportunities and
resources across the
state
– Idaho State
Department of
Education (ISDE),
Special Education
• Project Team:
– Cari Murphy
– Shawn Wright
Statewide Special Education Technical
Assistance (SESTA)
Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies, BSU
Gina Hopper,
Carol Carnahan,
Associate Director
Statewide Consultant
[email protected]
208 426 4363
208.426.4363
[email protected]
208 426 3257
208.426.3257
18
5/10/2011
www.sde.idaho.gov/site/isee
Contact Information:
Stephanie Dahlke, School Psychologist
Pocatello School District
[email protected]
Teresa Fritsch, School Psychologist
Meridian School District
[email protected]
Richard Henderson, Director Special Education
[email protected]
19