1. No category

NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
Why Focus on EL Students?

Growing Numbers of ELs in U.S. Schools


From 1997-98 to the 2008-09 school years, the number of
EL students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, a 51
percent increase (Batalova & Terrazas, 2010).
Uneven Literacy Performance
30% of EL 4th graders reaching basic reading competency
compared to 70% for non-EL
 29% of EL 8th graders compared to 77% of non-EL

MINI SKILLS SESSION:
IDENTIFYING ENGLISH
LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA
Dr. Catherine Christo, Megan Sibert, & Natasha Borisov
Why Focus on EL Students? cont.




The dropout rate for EL students is 15 to 20 percent higher
than for the general student population (Sheng, Sheng, &
Anderson, 2011).
EL students are overrepresented in special education
programs (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).
ELL students have lower academic achievement as
compared to non-ELL students (Brooks, Adams, & MoritaMullaney, 2010).
There is a lack of research, best practice guidelines, or
“definitive“ protocol for this population
Ethical/Legal Standards

NASP Guidelines



Ethical/Legal Standards, cont.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing


Address issues of language, appropriateness of norms and
cultural as well as linguistic differences…
IDEA

“….findings are not primarily the result of … cultural factors or
environmental or economic disadvantage”
School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how
diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and
school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or
behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy,
counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into
account individual characteristics…
Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of
the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of
students, families,…
School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively
pursue knowledge of the student’s disabilities and developmental,
cultural, linguistic, and experiential background,…
Presentation Outline
1.
Learning Trajectory for EL
students
2.
Learning to Read
3.
Dyslexia Defined
4.
Current Assessment Methods
5.
Suggestions for Assessment
6.
Case Studies
7.
Interventions
8.
Q&A
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 1
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
Resources

What Works Clearinghouse:



Reading Rockets



http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx
For practice guides and reviews of intervention
programs
English Language Learners resources
Parent friendly
Dr. Cristina Griselda Alvarado

Learning Trajectory for EL Students
www.educationeval.com/.../EvidenceBased_Bil_ed_Programs.
Expected Trajectory: BICS vs. CALP
L2 Acquisition Stages
• Silent Period
• Focusing on
Comprehension

Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS)


Typically acquired in 1-2 years
Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP)

Typically acquired in 2-7 years

Source: Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of
research on academic achievement in a second language.
TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-624.
Stage 1:
Preproduction
(first 3
months)
Stage 2:
Early
Production
(3-6 months)
Stage 4:
Intermediate
Fluency
(2-3 years)
Stage 3:
Speech
Emergence
(6 months – 2
years)
• Improved comprehension
• Adequate face-to-face
conversational proficiency
• More extensive vocabulary
• Few grammatical errors
• Focusing on
comprehension
• Using 1-3 word
phrases
• May be using
routine/formulas (e.g.,
“gimme five”)
•
•
•
•
Increased comprehension
Using simple sentences
Expanded vocabulary
Continued grammatical
errors
Source: Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005).
Possible Factors Contributing to
Delayed L2 Acquisition
Mostly, it’s due to:
But sometimes, it’s due to:
Factors Contributing to Delayed L2
Acquisition


Cultural
Factors
Deficits in
Phonological
Skills
Delayed
Second
Language
Acquisition
Family
Factors

Personal and
Intrinsic
Factors





Environmental
Factors
L1 Schooling
Quality and
Quantity


Poor self-concept
Withdrawn Personality
Anxiety
Lack of Motivation
Traumatic Life Experience
Difficult Family Situation
Different Cultural Expectations
Limited Literacy of Parents in Native
Language
Poor Instructional Match
Unaccepting Teachers and/or School
Community
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 2
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
Factors Contributing to Delayed L2
Acquisition, cont.
Importance of Home Support…


Deficit in phonological skills
(both for L1 and L2) is
indicative of dyslexia
Later exposure to L2

Research shows that children who are
exposed to L2 before age 3 have better
reading performance than children
exposed to L2 in 2nd and 3rd grade.
Importance of Native Language
Literacy
In U.S. schools where all
instruction is given in
English, EL student with no
schooling in their first
language take 7-10 years or
more to reach age and
grade-level norms of their
native English-speaking
peers.
Immigrant students who
have had 2-3 years of first
language schooling in their
home country before they
come to the U.S. take at least
5-7 years to reach typical
native-speaker performance.
Source: Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in
Language and Education, 1(4).
Importance of Native Language
Literacy cont.
Neural mechanisms within parieto-temporal
regions of impaired readers in second
language learning are similar to that of the
impaired reading in a mother language.
Whenever possible, look for patterns of
language acquisition difficulties in student’s
native language.
Review records, interview parents, etc.
Good to Know…

Studies show that students
whose primary language is
alphabetic with letter-sound
correspondence (e.g.,
Spanish) have an advantage
in learning English as
opposed to students who
speak non-alphabetic
languages (e.g., Chinese).
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 3
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
Cross-Language Transfer


If students have certain strengths in their L1, and those
strengths are known to transfer across languages, then we
can expect that the students will develop those
proficiencies in their L2 as their L2 proficiency develops
Domains of Cross-Linguistic Transfer:
Phonological Awareness
Syntactic Awareness
 Functional Awareness
 Decoding
 Use of Formal Definitions and Decontextualized Language


Learning to Read
Basic Assumptions
(Regardless of Language Status)

Simple model of reading (Tumner and Gough)
Decoding

Reading
Competent reading rests on the development of basic
skills


Comprehe
nsion
The “hands and feet of genius”
Multiple components of reading must be taught in a
systematic, explicit manner that also immerses children in
language and text
It’s All About the Word


Children must learn how
visual information is linked
to speech – the words and
sounds they know.
“The first steps in becoming
literate, therefore, require
acquisition of the system for
mapping between print and
sound”
Ziegler and Goswami, 2006
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 4
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Well… Maybe Not All




2/10/2013
Word Reading Must Become:
Story structure
Language
Background
knowledge
Comprehension
Fast
Accurate
Effortless
This is true in any
language and the
crux of the problem
in dyslexia across
languages.
Automatic (Almost)
Integrate Multiple Systems
Bilingual Environments

1.
2.
3.
4.
Visual system
Phonology
Working memory
Language
5.
6.
7.
8.
Orthographic
Phonological
Context
Meaning
For EL student, each of these areas
must be considered!

Concepts learned well in one
language can be transferred to
another
Knowledge of phonemes may be
absent for English Learners



Training helps
Children with no phonological
problems catch up with their peers
in phonological processing in 1 to 2
years
National Literacy Panel on
Language Minority Children

Profiles of both groups with
reading problems are very similar
Definition of Dyslexia: NICH and IDA
Dyslexia
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is
neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by
difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word
recognition and by poor spelling and decoding
abilities.
These difficulties typically result from a deficit
in the phonological component of language
that is often unexpected in relation to other
cognitive abilities and the provision of
effective classroom instruction.
Secondary consequences may include
problems in reading comprehension and
reduced reading experience that can impede
growth of vocabulary and background
knowledge.
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 5
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Characteristics of Students With
Reading Problems



Possible Causes
Most reading problems have
to do with decoding and
spelling
Some readers may
understand the system but
lack fluency
Some readers have trouble
with comprehension
Visual processing
Temporal processing
 Phonological
processing
 Rapid Naming
speed
 Orthographic
processing


Each of these reading
problems require
different interventions!
Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Different writing systems
Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Alphabetic
 Logographic
 Syllabic

Alphabetic languages differ
Similar or different alphabet
Opaque vs. transparent
orthographies
 For example – Spanish
consonants but not vowels


2/10/2013


Directionality of print
Can transfer knowledge
learned in one language
to another


Common manifestation is
lack of rapid word
recognition.
Grain size theory
Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

In more consistent orthographies
dyslexia manifests as problems in
fluency rather than accuracy.


Children become accurate decoders
by first grade
Phonological processing, Rapid
naming, Orthographic processing
Current Methods of
Assessment
Results have inconsistent results
 Spanish – all three predicted reading
in kindergarteners

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 6
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Factors Contributing to Difficulties when
Assessing ELs with LD
Who are EL Students?

Identifying EL students

2/10/2013

NCLB definition:
Typical EL students and EL’s with LD share
many characteristics:

1) Age 3-21
2) Enrolled or preparing to
enroll in elementary or
secondary school
 3) Not born in the U.S., native
language other than English,
comes from an environment
where English isn’t the dominant
language
 4) whose difficulties in
speaking, reading, writing, or
understanding English may
deny him the ability to meet the
state’s proficiency level to be
successful in an English-only
classroom








Poor comprehension
Difficulty following directions
Syntactical and grammatical errors
Difficulty completing tasks
Poor Motivation
Low Self-Esteem
Poor Oral Language Skills
 It has been suggested that linguistic diversity may increase assessment errors
and reduce the reliability of assessments
 Lack of teachers trained in bilingual and multicultural education to meet and
assess EL students’ needs
 Mistaking basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) for cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP)
Assessment in English
Pro’s:


Con’s:
Accommodations can be made
(to test itself or to test
procedure) to provide a more
valid picture of the ELL student’s
abilities:
Provides information about the
student’s level of
functioning/ability in an
English-speaking environment


Student’s may not thoroughly
understand task instructions or
particular test items due to limited
English proficiency
Compromises test validity:



Student not represented in the norm
group
Changing/simplifying language to
improve understanding of test
instructions breaks standardization
Students demonstrate slower
processing speeds and are more
easily distracted during assessments
conducted in a language with which
they are less familiar
Assessment in English
Assessment in Native Language
Checklist of Test Accommodations
Before Conducting the Test:

Make sure that the student has had
experience with content or tasks
assessed by the test

Modify linguistic complexity and text
direction

Prepare additional example items/tasks
During the Test:

Allow student to label items in receptive
vocabulary tests to determine
appropriateness of stimuli

Ask student to identify actual objects or
items if they have limited experience
with books and pictures

Use additional demonstration items

Record all responses and prompts

Test beyond the ceiling

Provide additional time to
respond/extra testing time

Reword or expand instructions

Provide visual supports

Provide dictionaries

Read questions and explanations aloud
(in English)

Put written answers directly in test
booklet
(modified from Szu-Yin & Flores, 2011)
Pro’s:
May provide a more
accurate inventory of
student’s knowledge
and skills
 Interpreters can be
utilized to facilitate
testing if psych doesn’t
speak student’s native
language

Con’s:
Language-specific
assessment for each
and every student are
not available
 If they are unfamiliar
with the educational
context, using
interpreters may
compromise test
validity

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 7
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
Nonverbal Assessment
Pro’s:


IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
Attempts to eliminate
language proficiency as a
factor in the assessment
May provide a better/more
accurate estimate of student’s
cognitive abilities



Strengths of this method:



Con’s

2/10/2013

Weaknesses of this method:

Often does not fully eliminate
language
Offers a limited perspective
of a student’s academic
potential
Fails to provide information
about linguistic proficiency in
student’s native language or
in English
Widely used and understood
Provides fairly clear-cut criteria for which students have and do not have
SLD/Dyslexia
Uses norm or criterion-referenced standardized tests



IQ scores based on tests administered in English lack validity and
reliably for bilingual children whose language proficiency in English is
still developing
IQ is likely to be underestimated when tests are given in English,
lessening likelihood of identification of SLD in ELL students
Gap between scores of immigrant and indigenous children on IQ tests
becomes smaller the longer the immigrant student has been in the
English-speaking country (Ashby et al.)
Content of IQ tests may lack any overlap with content covered in or
important to the academic context
Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
RTI/CBM

Strengths:




Weaknesses:


Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
CBM- continued
Strengths:
 CBM reading measures have been found to be a sensitive measure of
reading progress for bilingual Hispanic students
 Direct link between assessment and instruction
 Found to be very useful for native English-speaking students
 Data-based decision making about placement
Weaknesses:
Very little research done regarding use of CBM specifically with bilingual
students
 Relationship between reading fluency and reading proficiency in ELL’s
learning to read in English is not clear
 Curriculum being taught is not necessarily culturally unbiased or sensitive

Uses multiple measures of functioning/ability (CBM) and monitors
students to ensure they are progressing or are identified as needing
more support
Focuses more on supporting students’ needs and less on labeling their
challenges
Ensures appropriate and effective curricula are being implemented with
fidelity and integrity
Doesn’t consider many ecological variables
Doesn’t provide scientifically based research on the varying population
that RTI is purported to benefit
Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
Focuses on individual student’s performance pattern
Can interpret pattern of scores in comparison to typical
pattern of English Learners
 Provides information that may be helpful in designing
interventions



Weaknesses:


Doesn’t consider many ecological variables
Limits of using cognitive processing measures with English
Learners
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 8
NASP CONVENTION 2013 When Should You Refer
EL’s for Special Ed?

2/10/2013
Questions to Consider
Depends on the system
your school follows:
RTI, PSW or
discrepancy approach?
Are the instruments being used appropriate for the student?
Will a variety of tests, instruments, or procedures be used to
determine if a child is a child with a disability?
Will actual test scores be provided or will the test results be
reported descriptively?
Will the student be evaluated in his or her native language? Why or
why not?
Are bilingual personnel available to complete the evaluation?
If there are no bilingual personnel available, will interpreters be
used to evaluate the child?
Will the student be evaluated in the language of instruction?
Has the assessment process been explained to the parents in their
native language if necessary?





Source:
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/
pdf/curriculum/bilingual/CAPELL_SP
ED_resource_guide.pdf



Recommendations for Best Practice



Assess students in both native language
and English
Thorough analysis of language
proficiency using a broad range of test
results and observation (multiple data
sources)
Provide information on:
best educational placement for the student
type of instruction that would be most
beneficial
 the point at which student will be ready to
transition from bilingual education to
English-only education


Assessment and Diagnosis

Recommendations for Best Practice


Use of observations
and interviews in
multiple settings, times,
and events
Assessment of
portfolios, work
samples, projects,
criterion-referenced
tests, informal reading
inventories, and
language samples.
(APA, 1985; IDEA, 1990, 1997)
Best Practice Guidelines (Cline, 1995)







The active involvement of EL and bilingual
support teachers at every stage
Recording and reviewing information on a
student’s knowledge and use of native
language and of English
Setting and reviewing of specific
educational goals that include language
and cultural needs
Arrangement of appropriate language
provision
Investigation of social, cultural, and
language isolation and peer harassment
Using interpreter when appropriate
Placing student performance in context
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 9
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Multidimensional Assessment Model for
Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI)
Models for Assessing CLD/Bilingual Students

Ortiz, Ochoa, Dynda (2012)
Contemporary Intellectual
Assessment



A grid that provides nine profiles for a
practitioner to choose from and takes into
consideration 3 major variables about the
student:

MAMBI
C-LIM
Current grade
Type of educational program
 Proficiency in both L1 and L2


Guajardo Alvarado
www.educationeval.com
Once these variables are accounted for,
the practitioner is left with the method of
evaluation most likely to yield valid results:

Best Practices in Special
Education Evaluation of
Students Who are Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse
 Bilingual Special Education
Eval … Woodcock Test


Nonverbal Assessment
Assessment primarily in L1
 Assessment primarily in L2
 Bilingual assessment both in L1 and L2


2013
Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests
Alvarado’s 4 Steps to Bilingual Special
Education Evaluation
Available in Flanagan, Ortiz, and Alfonso:
Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment
PATTERN OF EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF
CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
LOW
MODERATE
1.
HIGH
LOW
PERFORMANCE
LEAST AFFECTED
INCREASING EFFECT OF
LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE
MODERATE
3.
HIGH
DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING
2.
4.

INCREASING EFFECT OF
CULTURAL DIFFERENCE
PERFORMANCE
MOST AFFECTED
(COMBINED EFFECT OF
CULTURE & LANGUAGE
DIFFERENCES)
Gathering of student information
Oral language proficiency and
dominance testing
Achievement testing
Cognitive testing
The language or languages of each
step is dictated by the individual
student’s language exposure, language
dominance, and academic background
and by the objective of the assessment.
Informal Ways to Assess Language
Dominance
Determining Language Dominance






2/10/2013
Alvarado’s model for determining language
dominance:
Using a test that has two language forms that
have been statistically equated in order to allow
comparison of abilities and skills between those
two languages.
Two steps are proposed:
1: the core language of the cognitive battery is
determined on the basis of the student’s dominant
language
2: the appropriate scale is selected on the basis
of the student’s language status in his/her
dominant language
In the Woodcock tests, the Batería III COG is
statistically equated to the WJ III COG. Likewise
the Batería III APROV is statistically equated to
the WJ III ACH.





Language student prefers
talking in
Which language
produces better phrasing
Speech therapists can
test
What movies do they
watch
(English or Spanish)
Friends on playground
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 10
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
Current Academic Variables
Considering Contexts, Academic
Variables, & Processing
Context: Culture




Processing
Context: Language
Context

Ethnicity
Birthplace
Number of years
in the U.S.
Parent Education
(where, what
level, quality, in
L1/L2)









Context: Education
















Context
Impact of poverty –environmental and neurological
Dyslexia may manifest in one language and not
another
Understanding of text structure
Nature of first language may impact how quickly
students learn second


Context
Proficiency in L1 & L2
Student’s primary/dominant language
CELDT scores
Language(s) spoken at home
Primary language of parent(s) and sibling(s)
Parent language proficiency in L1 & L2
Exposure to English
School
Family
Media
Cultural/Linguistic Factors
Context
Schooling in another country
Duration
Quality
Years of formal school
In L1 & L2
Curriculum used
EL program or other special education/intervention
program
Educational progress
Previous work samples
Prior language proficiency levels/CELDT scores
Context
Phonetic may be easier to transfer
Language loss for native language
Semi-lingualism
Process and conditions of learning second language
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 11
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Current Academic Variables:
Teacher/Classroom/School








Curriculum
Teacher training in
teaching EL students
Teaching strategies
used
Direct & systematic
Use of visuals,
concrete objects
Opportunities for
hands-on learning
Scaffolding
techniques
Varied instructional







grouping
Interventions
Frustrational/instructio
nal/mastery levels
Progress monitoring
data
Research/evidencebased?
Rate of improvement
Minutes of ELD per
day
Language use in
classroom
Current Academic Variables:
Student Variables






Current level of

performance

(compare to EL &

non-EL peers)
Math

ELA

Peer groups, quality
of peer interaction, 

behavior
Classrooms
Playground
Difficulty in determining:
benchmarks
expectations
 appropriate growth



Lack of growth can be due to variety
of factors, such as:
Language
SES
 Instruction


IDEA 2004 explicit on this
As defined in NCLB


Contain the 5 areas noted in National Reading
Panel
Has child had high quality, research based
interventions?


School history
Data from an RtI model



Types of interventions
Progress made
Sources of information




History
Direct observations
Performance of other students
Interviews with teachers/parents to further
clarify problem
How CBM Can Help EL Students



Current Academic Variables
Determine whether instructional programs
are addressing needs of EL population as a whole
Inform instructional decisions for struggling EL readers
Compare target students to peers
Using CBM with ELs
Current
Academic Variables
Current
Academic Variables
Has child had adequate reading instruction.


Problems With CBM and ELs


Current
Academic Variables
Home
History
Interaction with
adults
School
Home
History
Personality
Rule Out Lack of Instruction
Current
Academic Variables
2/10/2013
Current
Academic Variables
Used to:
Screen for students at risk of learning difficulties
Monitor progress of all students
 Monitor progress of selected students
 Determine whether instruction/intervention is effective
 Making special education decisions



CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 12
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Using CBM with ELs

DIBELS found to better predict
low risk than at risk







Useful but need more research
Relationship between oral
reading fluency and
comprehension

ELs have different growth rates
than non-ELs
Start lower so even with same
slope don’t catch up
Fluency probes over-predict
reading scores
Have weaker relationship with
future reading than for non-EL





Current
Academic Variables

More extraneous variables that
can lead to measurement error
Reading Components and Processing
Processing
National Reading Panel

Phonemic Awareness in L1
and L2
 Phonics in L1 and L2
 Fluency
 Vocabulary
 Comprehension

In comparison to peers
In comparison to self
Appropriate
instruction/intervention
Other processes related to
reading

Lack of research on effective
intervention
 Targeted intervention




Phonological Processing
Most common for English only
 Associated with reading deficits in most
languages but strength of relationship
varies
 Phonological processing in English predicts
reading for EL reading disabled.




Difficult to determine directionality and
causality
Cross language impact
Spanish phonological processing linked to
English reading
Rapid naming
Working memory
Oral Language

Weakness in Cognitive Process
Related to Reading
Current
Academic Variables
Kindergarten phonemic
segmentation fluency poor
predictor of later decoding
Oral reading fluency may be
better than maze fluency for
predicting later comprehension
Diversity of ELs
IDELS: Spanish version of DIBELS
AIMSweb Spanish reading
How to determine
underachievement


Using CBM with ELs
Classifies EL at risk better than
non-EL
RTI with ELs

Current
Academic Variables
2/10/2013
New Directions
Processing

Processing
Basing assessment in phonological
skills
Less culturally biased than IQ testing
Phonological processing skills
relevant to alphabetic literacy can
be developed by exposure to any
language
 Phonology is a surface feature of
language and “native-like”
familiarity in the phonology of a
new language should be developed
more quickly than CALP skills (2
years vs. 5-7 years)


(Frederickson and Frith, 1998)
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 13
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Cognitive Processes

Swanson et al (2012) ELs and bilinguals w/w/o RD




Short term memory (core phonological loop) problem or
Working memory deficit impacting controlled attention
Spanish and English




Naming speed,
Orthographic
processing
 Working memory

Consider

Spanish working memory and word reading
English phonological processing and naming speed
Some in Spanish

May also be

Available Tests
WJ Bateria
Phonological
processing
Long term storage
and retrieval
Some working
memory





Some rapid naming
TOPPS (researcher
developed version of
CTOPP)
CELF
WISC IV
TAPS
Processing


Naming speed – English
Strongest measures



Reading disabled students who are EL and bilingual
have similar cognitive profiles
Phonological processing


Cognitive Processes
Processing
2/10/2013
CHC factors,
Berninger (PAL II)
Processing





DAS II
ROWPVT, EOWPVT
Woodcock Munoz
Language
Survey-R
BVAT-NU
Case Example
Ling-lee, 11 years, 6th grade








Adopted from China at age 10 years
She lives with her parents and younger sister, who
is also from China
Has low vision and she began to wear glasses
after coming to the U.S.
Parents have limited information about her early
health history
Currently in good health with the exception of
seasonal allergies
Problem behaviors when Ling-lee first arrived
are mostly gone and she does well socially
Attends Chinese school and hip-hop dance
Ling-lee states likes math best – also language
arts because it makes you think and learns
something new every day. Likes social studies
least but learns interesting things - doesn’t get it
sometimes.
Reasons for Referral



Does Ling-lee have dyslexia?
Does Ling-lee have dyscalculia?
How can the school and her parents best help Linglee to learn?
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 14
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Educational History








Previous Evaluations
Attended school through 2nd grade in China; picked up English quickly
upon coming to the United States.
Chinese School teacher said that her skills in reading and writing in
Mandarin where at the 4th grade level. Currently she is receiving A’s
and B’s in her classes at Chinese School.
Attended private school for 4th grade.
She began at Ivy in 5th and is currently in 6th
Outside tutoring in Barton based reading and math
Able to decode but struggles with comprehension (mother notes in both
oral and written)
Problems with directionality in math and reading
CST 2011 Far Below Basic; CELDT scores Early Intermediate in Listening,
Speaking and Reading and Beginning in writing.
Special Education evaluation on 10/2011

Placed due to academic underachievement in reading, writing and math and
processing disorder in attention. Goals in math, reading, written language




Academic: WJ-III (10/2011)








Spelling weakest
Cognitive: K-ABC II (4/2010)

Long-Term Retrieval = Average
All other scores in the Below
Average range
Verbal =16th percentile; Visual =
27th percentile;
Attention/Concentration = below
average
TAPS 3


Phonological Processing, Visual
Motor Skills, & Memory = Average
Language Understanding  very
weak
BASC-2

WISC IV

WRAML 2

Word Identification = 14th
percentile

Fluency & Reading Comprehension
= Well Below Average
Written Language = Below Average



Math Calculations & Math Fluency
= Average Range
Reading

SS=85, 16th percentile; VCI = 3rd
percentile; WM = 4th percentile; PS
= 24th percentile
Mother: Clinically Significant 
Hyperactivity, Conduct Problems,
Depression
Teacher: No clinically significant
areas
Assessment Results
Behavior During Testing

2/10/2013
Friendly, conversed with the examiner regarding topics such
as vacations, friends and family pets… responded
appropriately in conversations but did little reciprocal
questioning or expansion on topics.
Generally Ling-lee worked quickly… difference between
her response pattern, depending on the area being
assessed… math… consider and monitor her response much
more than in written language.
Ling-lee did not display signs of inattention as has been
noted in previous testing, though she was eager to complete
the testing so that she could do other things.
Occasionally language issues were noted; for example, in
asking for repeated instructions when the instructions were
complex.
KAUFMAN TEST OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEEMENT II
Subtest Score Percentile
Cluster/Subtest
(mean=100)
READING
 Letter and Word Recognition
WRITTEN LANGUAGE
 Written Expression
READING RELATED SUBTESTS
 Nonsense Word Decoding
TEST OF WORD READING
EFFICIENCY
Standard Score
(Range)
Sight Word
92
Efficiency
Phonemic
Decoding
Efficiency
90
92
30th
61
<1st
92
30th
GRAY ORAL READING TEST 5
Standard
Percentile
Score
Rate
7
16th
Accuracy
8
25th
Fluency
7
16th
Composite
Comprehension
16th
7
PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNER – II (PAL-II)
Skills
Scaled Score
Composite/Subtest
Phonological
Pseudoword Fluency
8
Pseudoword accuracy
7
Morphological Decoding
Find the Fixes
9
Morph Decoding Fluency
6
Morph. Decoding Accuracy
7
Related Processes
Composite/Subtest
Orthographic Coding COMP.
Receptive
Expressive
Phonological Coding
Syllables
Phonemes
Rimes
Silent Reading Fluency
Morphological/syntactic Coding
4
Are They Related
Does It Fit
Sentence Structure
Rapid Automatic Naming/
Switching Total
Letters
Letter groups
Words
Verbal Working Memory
Letters
Words
Sentences/Listening
Sentences/Writing
10
3
2
11
Sentence Sense Accuracy
Sentence Sense Fluency
Orthographic Spelling
Word Choice Accuracy
4
3
12
Word Choice Fluency
12
Scaled Score
8
9
8
5
5
5
7
11
12
9
6
3
9
10
Assessment Results, cont.
Cluster/Subtest
BASIC CONCEPTS
Numeration
Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Data analysis
OPERATIONS
Mental Computation
Addition/Subtraction
Multiplication/Division
APPLICATIONS
Foundations of Problem Solving
Applied Problem Solving
KEYMATH 3
Standard Score Scaled Score Percentile
(mean=100)
(mean=10)
7TH
78 (73-82)
8
7
6
6
6
30th
92 (86-98)
10
9
8
7th
78 (69-97)
7
5
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 15
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Carlos, 8 years, 3rd grade






Background Information

Latino boy, resides in San Francisco with his
mother, father, twin sister, and older brother
(20)
Hearing and vision are within normal limits.
Carlos was born in San Francisco to parents
of Mexican descent.
Spanish is primary language, though some
English is spoken in the home, as well.
Primary language of instruction is Spanish,
though he receives some instruction in English,
and he often prefers to speak English in
informal conversation.
Carlos reports that his English is “not really
good,” and that Spanish is all he speaks at
home.






Assessment Results: DAS-II
Composite/Cluster
Standard Score
Special Nonverbal
Composite
98
45th
Average
97
42nd
Average
Nonverbal Reasoning
Spatial Cluster
Percentile
T-Score
Descriptor
50th
100
Clusters/Subtests
Average
Percentile
Descriptor
Nonverbal Reasoning Cluster
Matrices
48
42nd
Average
Sequential &
Quantitative Reasoning
48
42nd
Average
50
54th
Average
51
54th
Average
Spatial Cluster Subtests
Recall of Designs
Pattern Construction
Test of Auditory Processing Skills-3 (TAPS 3)
Index
Standard Score
Percentile
Descriptor
Phonologic
90
25th
Average
Memory
83
13th
Bilingual Verbal Ability TestsNormative Update (BVAT-NU)
Cluster/Subtest
Standard Score
Percentile
Descriptor
Bilingual Verbal
Ability
89
23rd
Below Average
English Language
Proficiency
86
18th
Below Average
Picture
Vocabulary
86
17th
Below Average
Oral Vocabulary
95
37th
Average
88
21st
Verbal Analogies
Below Average
*Norms based on age
Test of Auditory Processing Skills 3:
Spanish Bilingual Edition (TAPS-3: SBE)
Percentile
Subtest
Scaled Score
Percentile
Word Memory
9
37th
Sentence Memory
7
16th
9
37th
Memory
Phonologic
Word Discrimination
9
37th
Phonological Segmentation
8
25th
Phonological Blending
7
16th
4
2nd
Cohesion
Auditory Comprehension
Carlos is currently a 3rd grade student at Elementary
School in San Francisco, in the Bilingual Pathway. Most
academic instruction is delivered in Spanish
Receives daily English Language Development (ELD)
support.
His teacher reports that his reading, writing, and math
skills are improving, but that he continues to require
additional support.
He received speech/language therapy in the past,
but was exited from those services following his last
triennial evaluation.
Attends the afterschool program.
Described as a very sweet, motivated, and
cooperative young boy.
His teacher states that Carlos is very intelligent,
respectful, and has high self-esteem.
Below Average
Scaled
Scores
Subtest
2/10/2013
Cohesion
Memory
Number Memory Forward
7
16th
Number Memory Reversed
9
37th
Word Memory
2
<1st
Sentence Memory
8
25th
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 16
NASP CONVENTION 2013 Test of Visual Perceptual Skills 3 (TVPS-3)
2/10/2013
Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII)-Test of
Achievement (Norms based on age)
Cluster
Standard Score
Percentile
Descriptor
Overall
76
5th
Low
Basic Processes
80
9th
Below Average
Subtests SS/Percentile
Sequencing
65
1st
Very Low
Complex Processes
75
5th
Story Recall 86/18th
Picture Vocabulary 71/3rd
Understanding Directions 73/3rd
Oral Comprehension 93/31st
Writing Fluency 88/21st
Writing Samples 89/23rd
Letter-Word Identification 88/21st
Word Attack 99/48th
Passage Comprehension 77/6th
Reading Vocabulary 87/19th
Calculation 121/92nd
Math Fluency 96/39th
Applied Problems 79/8th
Quantitative Concepts 91/27th
Reading Fluency 91/28th
Low
Scaled
Scores
Cluster
Percentile
Basic Processes
VMI:
112, 79th
Percentile
Visual Discrimination
5
5th
Visual Memory
5
5th
Spatial Relations
8
25th
Form Constancy
6
9th
3
1st
Figure Ground
5
5th
Visual Closure
5
5th
Sequencing
Sequential memory
Complex Processes
Cluster areas for
determining Specific
Learning Disability
according to IDEA





MATH REASONING
83/12th

ORAL EXPRESSION
71/3rd

LISTENING
COMPREHENSION
80/10th

READING FLUENCY
91/28th
MATH CALCULATION
114/83rd
READING
COMPREHENSION
77/6th
WRITTEN EXPRESSION
 READING FLUENCY
87/20th
91/28th
BASIC READING
SKILLS 93/31st
Bateria III Pruebas De Aprovechamiento
(Norms based on age)
Bateria III Tests of Achievement:
Bateria III Cluster areas for
determining Specific Learning
Disability according to IDEA
 Rememoracion de cuentos 87/20th
 Vocabulario sobre dibujos 66/1st
 EXPRESION ORAL 68/2nd
 Comprension de indicaciones
62/1st
 Comprension Oral 73/3rd
 COMPRENSION AUDITIVA
59/<1st
 Fluidez en la escritura 87/19th
 Muestras de redaccion 98/45th
 EXPRESION ESCRITA 92/31st










Identificacion de letras y palabras
111/77th
Analisis de palabras 109/73rd
DESTREZAS BASICAS en LECTURA
112/78th
Comprension de textos 87/19th
Vocabulario de lectura 81/11th
COMPRENSION de LECTURA
80/9th
Problemas Aplicados -Conceptos cuantitativos 88/22nd
RAZONAMIENTO en
MATEMATICAS -Fluidez en la lectura 47 FLUIDEZ
en la LECTURA 47
Interventions

The following reading interventions are
recommended by What Works
Clearinghouse for use with ELL students:




Enhanced Proactive Reading
Read Well
SRA Reading Mastery/SRA Corrective Reading
Interventions
Interventions
AIM for the BESt: Assessment and Intervention Model for the
Bilingual Exceptional Student



Common elements in the above intervention programs:




Incorporates pre-referral intervention, assessment, and intervention
strategies
Uses nonbiased measures
Aims to improve academic performance for culturally and
linguistically diverse students and aims to reduce inappropriate
referrals to special education

formed a central aspect of daily reading instruction
between 30 and 50 minutes to implement per day
intensive small-group instruction following the principles of
direct and explicit instruction in the core areas of reading
extensive training of the teachers and interventionists
How?





Use of instructional strategies proven to be effective with language-minority
students
Allows teachers flexibility to modify instruction for struggling students
Supports teachers with a team of professionals
Uses CBM and criterion-referenced tests to assess in addition to standardized
test data
Model holds promise for improving educational services provided
to limited English-proficient students(Ortiz et al., 1991)
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 17
NASP CONVENTION 2013 References










References, cont.
Alvarado, C.G. (n.d.). Bilingual special education evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals using
Woodcock tests.
Ashby, B., Morrison, A. & Butcher, H.J. (1970). The abilities and attainments of immigrant children. Research in
Education, 4, 73-80.










Ascher, C. (1991). Testing Bilingual Students. Do We Speak the Same Language? PTA Today, 16(5), 7-9.

Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1994). Curriculum-Based Measurement Reading with Bilingual Hispanic Students: A
Validation Study with Second-Grade Students.

Batalova, J., & Terrazas, A. (2010). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United
States. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=818#1a

Becker, H., & Goldstein, S. (2011). Connecticut administrators of programs for English language learners: English
language learnes and special education: A resource handbook. Retrieved from CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf.

Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive
learning communities for ELL students: Transforming school principals'
perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-151.

Christo, C. Crosby, E. Zoraya, M. (In press). Response to Intervention and Assessment of the Bilingual Child. In A.
Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Clinton, A. (in press) Semi-lingualism: What neuroscience tells us about the complexities of assessing the bilingual
child from low socio-economic backgrounds. In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA
Publications


Cline, T. (1998). The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children. British journal of Special
Education, 25 (4), 159-163.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in Language and
Education, 1(4).
Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities. Clearing
House: A Journal Of Educational Strategies, Issues And Ideas, 84(6), 244-248.
Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H.-K., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: a crosslinguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. [Article]. Journal of Research in
Reading, 35(4), 372-392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x
de Ramírez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Evaluation of Reading
Skills of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners in Bilingual Education Classrooms. [Article]. School
Psychology Review, 35(3), 356-369
Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological Testing of Linguistic-Minority Students: Knowledge Gaps and
Regulations. Exceptional Children, 56(2), 145-52.
Frederickson, N.L. & Frith, U. (1998). Identifying dyslexia in bilingual children: A phonological approach
with Inner London Sylheti speakers. Dyslexia, 4, 119-131.
Linan-Thompson, S., & Ortiz, A. A. (2009). Response to Intervention and English-Language Learners:
Instructional and Assessment Considerations. [Article]. Seminars in Speech & Language, 30(2), 105-120.
Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English learners response to intervention:
Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185-195.
Cline T (1998) The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children British journal of Special
References, cont.

2/10/2013
References, cont.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A
policy brief. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.ncte.org/library/
NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchBrief.pdf
O'Bryon, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2010). Bilingual school psychologists' assessment practices with English language
learners. [Article]. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1018-1034. doi: 10.1002/pits.20521
Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y.-J., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The Role of
Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special Education: Implications for
Response to Intervention. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316-333. doi:
10.1080/15235882.2011.628608
Ortiz, S. O., Ochoa, S. H., & Dynda, A. M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations:
Moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P.
L., (3rd Edition), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (p. 526-552). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Considerations in Implementing
Intervention Assistance Teams to Support English Language Learners. Remedial And Special Education, 27(1), 5363.
Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A Framework for Serving English Language Learners with Disabilities. Journal
Of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 72-80.
Petitto, L.A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span: Implications for
education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 185-197.
Pollard-Durodola, P., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Tong, F. (In press). Implications of bilingualism in reading assessment. .
In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Ramus F, Rosen S, Dakin SC, Day BL, Castellote JM, White S, Frith U. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia:
insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126, 841–865.








Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005). 'Bilingual Education and Second-Language Acquisition'.
In Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. New York: The Guildford
Press.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & O'Hanlon, L. (2005). Nonbiased Assessment of English Language Learners: A
Tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(3), 178-185.
Sandberg, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2011). English Learners: Challenges in Assessment and the Promise of
Curriculum-Based Measurement. [Article]. Remedial & Special Education, 32(2), 144-154. doi:
10.1177/0741932510361260
Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2012). Cognition and Literacy in English Language Learners
at Risk for Reading Disabilities. [Article]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 202-320. doi:
10.1037/a0026225
Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Fulbright RK, Skudlarski P, Todd-Constable R, Marchione KE,
Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Gore JC. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with
developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52,101–110
Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. J. (2011). Dropping out of school among ELL students: Implications to
schools and teacher education. Clearing House, 84(3), 98-103.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census
population profile maps. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/
2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_main.html
Wilda, L.-R., Ochoa, S. H., & Parker, R. (2006). The Crosslinguistic Role of Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency on Reading Growth in Spanish and English. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 87-106
You, H., Gaab, N., Wei, N., Cheng-Lai, A., Wang, Z., Jian, J., & Ding, G. (2011). Neural deficits in second
language reading: fMRI evidence from Chinese children with English reading
impairment. Neuroimage, 57(3), 760-770.
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 18