Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
5/10/2011
1
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students: How toDiverse (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 theTo 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.
5/10/2011
2
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 d d idneeded guidance.
• Trainings can be scheduled through the SDE by contacting Dr. Fernanda Brendefur at [email protected]
5/10/2011
3
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 I A Titl I C Titl III t ) b f f i EL fTitle I-A, Title I-C, Title III, etc.) before referring ELs for 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 districtThe 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…• Is NOT a quick fix with easy answers.
• Is NOT a “one-size-fits-all” training. It is very district-specific.
6
• 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.
5/10/2011
4
Learn to Fish . . .
• Understanding needs will lead to individual assessment plans for studentsplans for 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• Module 1: Foundations
• Module 2: Language and Culture
8
• Module 3: Family and Community
• Module 4: Effective Curriculum and Instruction
• Module 5: Assessing ELs
• Module 6: Determining Special Education Eligibility
5/10/2011
5
Type 3 Errors – Solving the Wrong Problem
• All six topics must be addressed to ensure the right issue fhas been identified.
• Academic remediation does not equal language support.
• Specific EL needs should be addressed long before special education referral is consideredspecial education referral is 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?
5/10/2011
6
Things to consider
• Background Information:– Family’s socio-economic status and compositionFamily 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
What Can We Do Immediately?
• Educational Learning Plans (ELPs)– Is student receiving accommodations while they acquire theIs student receiving accommodations while they acquire the
language?
– Are all parties who work with students involved in the ELP process?
– An ELP provides students with accommodations for classroom pand statewide testing.
5/10/2011
7
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?
5/10/2011
8
Interventions
• Considering individual student information, hi h i t ti twhich interventions appear most
appropriate?
• Collaboration is key.
5/10/2011
9
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.
5/10/2011
10
Assessing ELs
• After reviewing the data, a collaborative t d t i “ hi h t ”team determines “which way to go.”
• If a Special Education Evaluation is agreed upon, the team determines the most appropriate protocolmost appropriate protocol.
Defining What Preponderance Looks Like
• A preponderance of evidence is required. What might that preponderance look like?
– Different for each studentDifferent 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?
5/10/2011
11
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
Purpose
To explain the evaluation process for CLD t d tstudents.
5/10/2011
12
“Begin with the assumption that there exist an infinite number of reasons for why any given child is having learning difficulties and that a
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
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 cultural, linguistic, or other external factor that may be y , g , yaffecting 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 - Parent Interview– Behavior - State/District test scores
Att d St d t k– Attendance - Student work– Interventions attempted - Classroom observations– Curricula used
5/10/2011
13
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 PerformanceBenchmark
Percentage of Grade Level
Peers Meeting Performance Benchmark
Percentage of Disaggregated Group Level
Peers Meeting Performance
Target Student
Performance Level
Benchmark(if applicable)
ISAT Reading 05/10/10 198 (Proficient) 89 79 181
Intervention Provided
Academic Area of Concern
Intervention
Duration Frequency
(how often per week)
Intensity (minutes per session)
Begin Date
(M/D/Y)
End Date
(M/D/Y)
Total(weeks)
Reading Treasure Chest/Book Studies with 2-5 peers and ELL Teacher; Instruction is focus on vocabulary development, language acquisition, reading comprehension, and literature discussion.
09/07/10 04/15/11 29 5 times 30
Reading Phonics for Reading My 10/01/09 03/17/10 21 5 times 60Reading Phonics for Reading, My Sidewalks/Reading Street beginning first grade level with a group of 2-5 peers and ELL Teacher
10/01/09 03/17/10 21 5 times 60
Reading Pre-primer level reading passages with Reading Specialist and 2-5 peers.
01/04/10 05/28/10 20 5 times 30
5/10/2011
14
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 He attended summer school in 2008 2009 and 2010during 2 and 3 grade. He attended summer school in 2008, 2009, and 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 5: Words Read Correct = 111, Errors = 4 (ROI = 1.1)ee 5 o ds ead Co ect , o s ( O ) 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 Testingg g g- English Language Testing
- Other factors:- student’s age- level and type of prior education- current language of instruction
f- type of instructional program- test’s norm sample* Flanagan & Alfonso, 2011
5/10/2011
15
Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM)
• Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment-2nd
Ed. by Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007• Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse g y g y
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?
Load
ing
Degree of Linguistic Demand
Low Moderate
High
Lo
w
WJ III-SPATIAL REASONS (Gv-VZ, SR)-101 KABC-II PATTERN REASONING (Gf, Gv)-105 KABC-II TRIANGLES (Gv)-103
X = 103
WJ III-VISUAL MATCHING(Gs-P, R9)-80 WJ III-NUMBERS REVERSED (Gsm-MW)-78 KABC-II REBUS (Glr) – 82
X = 78
WJ III-CONCEPT FORMATION(Gf)-90
X = 90
D
eg
ree
of
Cu
ltura
l L X = 103 X = 78 X = 90
Mo
de
rate
WJ III PAIR CANCELLATION (Gs-P)-94
X = 94
WJ III-VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING (Glr-MA)-76
X = 76
WJ III-SOUND BLENDING(Ga-PC)-88
X = 88
Hig
h
KABC-II GESTALT CLOSURE (Gv)-86
X = 86
KABC-II STORY COMPLETION (Gf, Gv)-83
X=83
WJ III-VERBAL COMPREHENSION (Gc-VL, LD)-82 KABC-II EXPRESSIVE VOCABULARY (Gc) - 88
X = 85 X = 86 X=83 X = 85
**Matrix of cultural loading and linguistic demand classifications with WJ III and KABC‐II subtests.
5/10/2011
16
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?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 concernconcern.
5/10/2011
17
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 SurveysIdaho English Language Assessment (IELA) information, etc.
Date Assessment/Documentation Result/Score
03/15/10 IELA (3rd grade) Listening=EF; Speaking=EF; Reading=AB; Writing=AB; Comp. = AB Overall= Intermediate
03/15/09 IELA (2nd grade) Listening=EF; Speaking=AB; Reading=AB; Writing=B; Comp = ABReading AB; Writing B; Comp. ABOverall= Advanced Beginning
03/15/08 IELA (1st grade) Listening=B; Speaking=B; Reading=B; Writing=B; Comp.=B; Overall=Beginning
12/03/07 Home Language Survey 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 gather data, , y g
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 testingg
Psychological processing evaluation – pattern of strengths & weaknesses and linking to academic deficit
5/10/2011
18
www.idahotc.comwww.idahotc.comTraining and Technology for Today’s Tomorrow
• Supported By:
• Website to link school professionals and parents with special education training opportunities and resources across the
Supported By:– Idaho State
Department of Education (ISDE), Special Education
• Project Team: – Cari Murphy
stateCari 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] [email protected]
208 426 4363 208 426 3257208.426.4363 208.426.3257
5/10/2011
19
www.sde.idaho.gov/site/isee
Contact Information:
Stephanie Dahlke, School Psychologist
Pocatello School DistrictPocatello School District
Teresa Fritsch, School Psychologist
Meridian School District
Richard Henderson, Director Special Education
