Separating Difference from Disability Credit to Dr. Catherine Collier

Separating Difference from Disability

Credit to Dr. Catherine Collier

Why Are We Here?

We are growing

2007 - 2008

1,150 ELLs

40 languages

2012 - 2013

1,898 ELLs

70 languages

Spanish; 839

Russian; 146Vietnamese; 141

Ukrainian; 136

Arabic; 119

Marshallese; 70

Korean; 54

Nepali; 37

Tagalog; 33

Chinese-Un-specified; 31

Punjabi; 21

Cambodian; 20Swahili; 17

Urdu; 16Somali; 15

Amharic; 11Burmese; 10

Lao; 10French; 9

Indonesian; 9 Pilipino; 9 Portugese; 9 Rumanian; 9

41 other languages, 118 students, spoken by 8 or fewer students

Number of students by language

ELL Qualified Compared to Dually Qualified

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ELL 320 320 267 230 150 133 100 84 68 64 53 52 57

ELL &SpEd

5 23 22 25 21 30 29 47 23 5 8 10 10

25

75

125

175

225

275

325

375

I Grant Disproportionality Data

HispanicWeighted risk factor

Hispanic Autism Comm EBD HI SLD ID

2007-2008 0.57 0.91 0.36 0.81 1.52 1.06

2008-2009 0.44 0.88 0.35 0.98 1.56 0.75

2009-2010 0.18 0.87 0.23 0.78 1.69 1.1

2010-2011 0.38 1.02 0.32 0.83 1.74 0.98

2011-2012 0.41 0.97 0.51 0.56 1.46 1.18

Comm: Communication EBD: Emotional Behavior DisorderHI: Health ImpairedSLD: Specific Learning DisabilityID: Intellectually Disabled

Rationale for General Education Intervention Team• To prevent disproportionality based on race or

ethnicity• To prevent disproportionate representation of students

in special education generally and inappropriate identification

• To continuously monitor progress, which is required for all students by district, state and federal procedures

• To help identify targeted intervention strategies• To ensure that data supports appropriate referral for

special education consideration

Adapted from Julie Weatherly, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia 2009 Northwest Institute on Special Education Law: A review of recent court cases

Placement in ELL• Home Language Survey identifies students

with a native language other than English• Student’s level of English is assessed using

the Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment (WELPA) screener

• Student qualifies if score is at Level 1, 2, or 3.• WELPA administered annually until student

exits at Level 4.

A Quote from ResearchOne of the most common reasons for referrals to special education has been limited English proficiency (Maldonado-Colón, 1986). This is the case despite the fact that limited English proficiency, when it stems from the presence of a non-English language in the child's home, has, in and of itself, no negative effects on learning. …

When, however, no accommodations are made to a child's lack of proficiency in the language of the early childhood setting, children are left without means of understanding what is being said or expressing what they need to say. Their performance then becomes similar to that of children with disabilities.

SOURCE: Barrera, Isaura (1995). To Refer Or Not to Refer: Untangling the Web of Diversity,"Deficit," and Disability. In: New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal v10 pp 54-66, Summer 1995

“We acquire language one way-when we understand it (comprehensible input in a low- anxiety environment)”.

Stephen Krashen

BICS vs. CALP

Social Language Listening and Speaking

6 months – 2 years

Academic LanguageListening, Speaking, Reading,

and Writing3 - 9 years

BICS

CALP

Stages of Second Language AcquisitionStage Characteristics Approximate

Time Frame

Preproduction Minimal comprehensionDoes not verbalize

0 – 8 months

Early Production

Limited comprehension, one or two-word responses, key words and familiar phrases, present tense

6 months – 1 year

Speech Emergence

Good comprehensionSimple sentences, grammar and pronunciation errors, misunderstands jokes

1 – 3 years

Intermediate Fluency

Excellent comprehensionFew grammatical errors

3 – 5 years

Advanced Fluency

Near-native level of speech 5 – 7 years

L 2

Abi

lity

Listening

Speaking

ReadingWrit

ing

WELPA 1 WELPA 3WELPA 2 WELPA 4

Beginning/ Advanced Beginning

Intermediate Advanced Transitional

Time

Natural Progression of Language Acquisition De Avila

Proficiency Levels

Level 1

Beginning/

Advanced Beginning• Student: Use native

language as much as possible (in all four domains)

• Teacher:• Use TPR • Use realia and visuals• Modeled reading

(books on CDs, read aloud, shared reading)

• Advanced graphic organizers

• Yes/No, Either/Or questions

• Daily listening and speaking activities

Level 2

Intermediate

• Student: Use native language as needed

• Teacher:• Use realia and visuals• Shared reading,

guided reading, independent reading

• Advanced graphic organizers

• What, When, Where, Why, How, Either/Or questions

• Daily listening and speaking activities

Level 3

Advanced

• Student: Use native language as needed

• Teacher:• Use realia and

visuals• Guided reading,

independent reading• Advanced graphic

organizers• Higher level thinking

questions

English Language Development Standards

• http://standards.ospi.k12.wa.us/ResourcesOfGLE.aspx?subject=1,GLE&gl=4&ea=2&co=6&gle=79

http://standards.ospi.k12.wa.us/ResourcesOfGLE.aspx?subject=1,GLE&gl=4&ea=2&co=6&gle=79




10:2

• If you speak another language, which stage would you say you are at?

OR• Think of an ELL student you work

with – which stage is s/he currently in?– BICS - interpersonal vs CALPS -

academic

Role of General Education Intervention Team• Support general education teacher in the

development and implementation of interventions for students experiencing difficulties

• Evaluate factors related to the child’s learning• Evaluate the child’s response to

interventions; modify interventions as necessary

• To ensure that data supports appropriate referral for special education consideration

INTERVENTION PROCESS OVERVIEW

Four step chartStep 1:

FormativeStep 2:

Implement Interventions Step 3:

Referral to General Ed Intervention Team

Step 4: Referral to Special Education

Team

1. Complete a Parent Interview to determine: • Developmental history• Student’s native language• Other languages spoken by

the student and/or in the home• Formal education in the native

language • Native language literacy• Parental education level 2. Review student file to determine: • Years learning English• Attendance history3. Determine the ELL support provided: • What ELL support services

have been provided? • Does the teacher use

strategies to support ELLs (i.e., GLAD, visuals, etc.)?

• Does the student use Imagine Learning English consistently? (Provided for L1 and L2 students.)

4. Consider the student’s level of English Language Acquisition: • Review the stages of language

acquisition• Have the ADEPT

administered1

• Complete the SOLOM

1. Identify the area of concern: • Determine the specific area

of need to target

2. Implement research based interventions • Target the area of need for

4-6 weeks

3. Monitor and document progress for 4-6 weeks

After 6-weeks of intervention

1. If progress is made, continue the intervention, no further referral necessary at this time

(OR)

2. If no progress is made more interventions are necessary, continue to step 3, refer to General Education Intervention Team.

1. The team reviews: • Information from the parent

interview• Student’s current level of

language acquisition (SOLOM, ADEPT)

• Previously implemented interventions

• Initial work samples compared to current work samples

2. Complete Critical Data Matrix for ELL Student of Concern • Consult a district ELL Coach

for support with items 14, 162

3. The team analyzes the Matrix, and either: • The data supports more

interventions, refer to step 2Or

• The data supports a referral to the Special Education team for further review, refer to step 4

Before determining an ELL student will be evaluated for special education, the following questions must be addressed: 1. Has the ELL coach/ facilitator been involved in the stepped intervention process?2. Has the student had sufficient time to adjust to a new physical and cultural setting? 3. Has the student had appropriate instruction in reading and math, aligned to the state expectations?4. Do the concerns exist in the student’s native language?5. Is the student’s progress significantly different from that of peers who started at about the same level of English proficiency and have had comparable instruction?6. Can problematic behaviors be explained by cultural differences or bias?7. Have modifications or accommodations to student instruction been made and tracked in the regular education setting?

If any of the above answers are “No”, go back to prior steps with the general education team.

Four step chart – Step 1Step 1:

FormativeStep 2:




Team









administered1



of need to target


4-6 weeks




(OR)















FormativeStep 2:




Team









administered1



of need to target


4-6 weeks




(OR)














Implement an intervention

for 4 – 6weeks

Monitor

Adjust


FormativeStep 2:




Team









administered1



of need to target


4-6 weeks




(OR)















FormativeStep 2:




Team









administered1



of need to target


4-6 weeks




(OR)














10:2

• Discuss your experience with or reactions to the four step chart

The Matrix• Provides a structure for organizing

information about the student which should be considered prior to referral

• Visually organizes the information which supports referral and/or supports more intervention

• Focuses team on “Red Flag” issues• Designed to be used by a team – at

both data gathering and decision making

Separating Difference from Disability:

A Matrix for Supporting Quality Decisions

The Matrix: Decision Point #1Developmental History

• Does the information provided by parents support a history of developmental issues?

If there is no history of developmental delay(s), place a mark toward more interventions.

If there is a history of developmental delay(s), place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #2Student’s Native Language

• Take into consideration the transparent or non-transparent nature of the native language. If the native language is transparent in nature,

place a mark toward more interventions. If the native language is non-transparent in

nature, place a mark toward referral.

See LanguageTransfer resource by Rigby.

The Matrix: Decision Point #3Other Languages Spoken by Student

• If student has multiple languages that he/she speaks, it is reasonable to expect average to above average learning of English.

If the student has learned multiple languages and is struggling to learn English, it is likely that a better understanding of reason for difficulty is needed. Place a mark toward more interventions.

The Matrix: Decision Point #4Multiple Languages Spoken in Home

• If multiple languages are spoken in the home of the student and the student is 6-years-old or younger, it can have an impact on the usage of language.

If the student is 6 years old or younger, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student is older than 6 and still struggles between languages, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #5Formal Education in Native Language

• If student has not received expected years of education in the native language the student will not (in all likelihood) have the structures of language relative to academic learning and the experience of how to function in a school setting.

If a student has had formal education in their native language and shows mild to moderate issues learning English, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student has had formal education and shows extreme issues learning English, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #6Student Literacy in the Native Language

• If the student did not learn to read in the native language, then we are trying to teach the process of reading while teaching a new language, which slows the learning process.

If the child did not learn to read in their native language, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student did learn to read in their native language, place a mark toward referral

The Matrix: Decision Point #7Parental Education in the Native

Language

• Parental education in native language can impact the student’s vocabulary and language structures.

If the parent has limited literacy in their native language, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the parent is well educated and literate in their native language, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #8Parent Interview

• The parent interview provides information regarding where they were born, when the student began school, years of education, the student’s performance in school (if applicable), retentions, previous areas of difficulty, the family history of learning, and behavioral norms for students/children.

If the information shows the student is a capable learner historically, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student has a history of learning issues, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #9 Years Learning English

• The research in clear that a student who is receiving a strong ELL program takes an average of 5-7 years to have academic language needed to compete / learn in the education setting at a rate similar to non-ELL students.

If the student has less than 5-7 years learning English, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student has more than 5-7 years learning English, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #10Attendance History

• Any student who has three or more unexcused absences per year or a total of 15 excused or unexcused absences per year is outside the norm and this negatively impacts their learning.

If the student has poor attendance, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student has good attendance, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #11Approach to ELL Services

• Has the student received direct ELL support, indirect support, or no support within the general classroom? Has the student received supplemental support beyond the classroom? What was the intensity of the services? Does the school have strong overall usage of GLAD or SIOP strategies?

If the services have not been consistent and/or intensive, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student has had intensive and consistent ELL services, place a mark toward referral

The Matrix: Decision Point #12Intervention Description

• Have there been targeted interventions with pre-assessment, progress monitoring, and post-assessment data?

If the interventions have not been targeted to a specific need, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the interventions have been targeted, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #13Intervention Based Comparison Student

Data

• Consider the comparison of the growth curves from the targeted interventions.

If the curve is similar to the other students or indicates better growth, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the curve indicates notably slower growth, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #14Classroom Observation

• If the student has a history of being engaged in the learning process yet is not appearing to learn at the rate of their peers, then that provides data to support a learning difficulty. However, a lack of engagement does not provide any specific data.

If the student is disengaged and lacks in effort, place a mark toward neutral or more interventions.

If the student is engaged and making efforts, place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #15Expectations in the Gen Ed Classroom

• All students should be expected to complete assignments, regardless of language development, at a level appropriate to current skills.

• If the students has had consistent output and learning rate is still atypical, an evaluation may be indicated.

If the student hasn’t had consistent expectations of work production, place a mark toward more interventions.

If the student has had consistent work production (not just expectation), place a mark toward referral.

The Matrix: Decision Point #16Like Peer Analysis

• The student should be compared to other students of a similar age, language background, and length of time learning English and receiving ELL services, with regard to rate of growth on the WELPA and performance on the state assessments. Is this growth rate significantly different than that of peers?

If data indicates performance that is above or same as peers, place a mark toward more interventions.

If data indicates performance that is significantly below peers or is inconsistent the mark goes more toward referral.

• ELL 3rd grader to all 3rd graders?

• ELL to all ELLs in the district?

• ELL Spanish speaker to all ELL Spanish speakers?

• ELL to older or younger sibling?

Appropriate Comparison or Not?

Completed Matrix Sample

GROUP ACTIVITYRevise to go with practice with matrix

Share out


FormativeStep 2:




Team









administered1



of need to target


4-6 weeks




(OR)














Questions

BLENDING GUIDANCE FROM:

KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Documents

Separating Difference from Disability Credit to Dr. Catherine Collier