ELAssessment - California Association of School Psychologists

Transcript ELAssessment - California Association of School Psychologists

Assessing English Language Learners: Pre-Referral, Process, Pathways, and Evaluation

Pedro Olvera, PsyD, LEP California Association of School Psychologists Sacramento, California April 18, 2013 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 1

Evaluation

Traditional and Emerging Models

Pathways

Nonverbal, Modified, English, and Native Language, Combination.

Process

(Language of Assessment, Instrument Selection, etc).

Pre-Referral

(Intervention, SST, RTI, Etc.) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 2

Phase 1: Pre-Referral Considerations in Assessing ELLs Olvera, P. CASP 2013 3

Objectives

• • • • • • • • Developing Knowledge of Bilingualism/English Language Learners (ELL) Effective General Education Teaching Strategies for ELLs ELL and Reading Development (Normal v. Abnormal) ELLs and Written Language (Normal v. Abnormal) Evidence-Based Interventions for Reading and Writing for ELLs Overview of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) Overview of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) and the Impact on Learning Assessing Primary Language for Assessment Purposes Olvera, P. CASP 2013 4

Terms

• English Language Learner (ELL): “An active learner of the English language who may benefit from various types of language support programs. This term is used mainly in the U.S. to describe K–12 students”.

• ESL (English as a Second Language): “Formerly used to designate ELL students; this term increasingly refers to a program of instruction designed to support the ELL. It is still used to refer to multilingual students in higher education”.

• LEP (Limited English Proficiency): “Employed by the U.S. Department of Education to refer to ELLs who lack sufficient mastery of English to meet state standards and excel in an English-language classroom” (NCTE; 2008, p. 3).

(NCTE; 2008, p. 3).

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 5

Terms

• Native Language (IDEA, 1997) :  The language normally used by the child and not the parents if there is a different between the two.  In your contact with the child, the language most used by the child in the home or learning environment.  For a child who is deaf or blind or has no written language, the mode of communication most used by the child (sign language, Braille, or oral communication). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 6

Terms

Primary Language: A student's primary language is identified by the Home Language Survey as the language first learned, most frequently used at home, or most frequently spoken by the parents or adults in the home. Primary language is also referred to as L1. (R30-LC; CDE) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 7

Terms

Primary Language v. Native Language • Primary Language (L1)- what student learned first.

• Native Language (L1 or L2)- What the student speaks in the present.

** If there is a difference between the two**

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 8

Myths

Ten Myths Regarding ELLs Olvera, P. CASP 2013 9

Myths (NCTE, 2008)

Myth #1

Many ELLs have disabilities, which is why they are often overrepresented in special education (SPED).

Truth

Lack of support and inappropriate assessment practices is why ELLs are placed in SPED. Early intervention and good teaching can prevent overrepresentation. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 10

Myths (NCTE, 2008)

Myth #2

Children learn a second language quickly and easily.

Truth

Can take anywhere from 7-10 years to acquire full proficiency in a second language (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 11

Myths (NCTE, 2008)

Myth #3

When an ELL is able to speak English fluently (orally), he or she has mastered it.

Truth

Need to assess language in order to determine depth and breadth fluency. Oral language skills to do not necessarily translate to academic skills – BICS & CALPS (Cummins, 1984). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 12

Myths (NCTE, 2008)

Myth #4

All ELL students learn English in the same way.

Truth

Best approaches involve individualized approaches. Integration of vocabulary, visuals, native language ,a and language modulation (Gersten & Baker, 2000). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 13

Myths

Myth #5

All ELLs are immigrants and no English is spoken in the home.

Truth

In truth, ELLs consist of heterogeneous populations. One study demonstrated that 57% were US born. Of these, 27% are second generation and 30% are third generation (NCTE, 2008). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 14

Myths

Myth #5

All ELLs are low SES, have limited education, and usually have lower academic expectations.

Truth

ELLs are from diverse populations and represent various levels of SES, educational, and linguistic backgrounds (NCTE, 2008). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 15

Myths

Myth #6

Learning two or more languages simultaneously will negatively impact a child’s fluency in both languages and thus impact academic performance.

Truth

Students with little to no academic or cognitive development in primary language tend to fall behind after fourth grade (Thomas and Collier, 2002). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 16

Myths

Myth #7

All children from minority language home (non English) learn in the same manner.

Truth

Amount of L1 exposure in L1 was greatest predictor of the ELL’s second language academic success. (Thomas and Collier, 2002). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 17

Myths

Myth #8

Native English speakers (L1) will lag academically and linguistically if they are enrolled in two way immersion programs (dual immersion).

Truth

In addition to learning an L2 language, children from English (L1) homes maintained their L1 and tested at above the 50 2002). th % on English tests. In addition, gains were made in L2 each successive year. No evidence was found that suggested that two-way immersion programs impeded the academic ability of native English speakers (Thomas and Collier, Olvera, P. CASP 2013 18

Myths

Myth #9

ELLs tend to be overrepresented in special education in all districts.

Truth

Nationally, overrepresentation tends to occur in smaller districts (<10,000). This seems to be due to lack of appropriate language support programs/resources (NCT, 2008). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 19

Myths

Myth #10

ELL families are uninterested and/or passive in their children’s education.

Truth

Most immigrant parents, Mexican/Latino in particular, see themselves as the purveyor of morality and manners (bien educados). Education is seen as a specialist’s job (Sparks, 2009). Latino parents tend to see themselves in a supportive role in the home environment (Olvera & Olvera, 2012). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 20

Guidelines

We will integrate key California regulations with regards to children that are English Language Learners (ELL’s) as outlined in (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006) and by Olvera as appropriate. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 21

Guidelines

Education Code (EC) 56303: “A pupil shall be referred for special education instruction and services only after the resources of the regular education program have been considered, and when appropriate, utilized” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 22

Guidelines

Section 56303, Education Code (described):

The absence of documented attempts to modify the student's general education class program precludes any placement in special education. Because each student is guaranteed the right of an education in the LRE, evidence shall be presented which shows that attempts have been made to continue the student in a general education classroom. Special education shall not act upon a referral without documented program modifications. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 23

Effective Classroom Teaching Strategies Olvera, P. CASP 2013 24

Effective Instruction

• Five critical instructional factors for teaching ELLs in classroom settings (Gersten &Baker, 2000): • • • • • Vocabulary as a curricular anchor (connecting what they know with new knowledge). Visuals to reinforce concepts and vocabulary Cooperative learning and peer tutoring strategies (PALS). Native language used strategically (L1 & L2) Modulation (regulation) of cognitive and language demands (with support for these demands) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 25

Effective Instruction

• National Council of La Raza & Education Alliance at Brown University Recommend the Following (NCLR, 2005): • • • • • • • • Pre-Teaching the Language (preview of language that will be used for lesson) Provide Meaningful Experience (connect with student) Record the Experience (writing, drawing, etc.).

Model Experience (show what is expected) Group Students with other Learners (ELL w/non-ELL) Pairing of Students (PALS) Monitor Comprehension (Non-Threatening) Verbal Elaboration of Short-Answer (To increase language) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 26

Effective Instruction

• The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, 2008) recommends the following: • • • • • Present ELLs with challenging curricular content (authentic, challenging, and rigorous) Set high expectations for ELLs Use technology effectively Recognize and value socio-cultural factors Position native languages and home environments as resources (bridge home-school gap) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 27

Effective Instruction

• Other Programs (Wendling & Mather, 2009) that have demonstrated efficacy for ELLs: – Success for All: successforall.net

– Reading Mastery: http://www.mcgraw hill.co.uk/sra/readingmastery.htm

– Read Well: http://store.cambiumlearning.com/read-well/ – Peer Assisted Learning Strategies: http://store.cambiumlearning.com/read-well/ Olvera, P. CASP 2013 28

•

Response to Intervention (RTI)

US Department Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Publication: Effective Literacy and English Language

Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary

Grades (Gersten et al., 2001) offers five recommendations: 1. Screen for reading and monitor progress 2. Provide intensive small-group reading intervention 3. Provide extensive vocabulary instruction 4. Develop academic English 5. Peer-assisted regular learning opportunities Olvera, P. CASP 2013 29

Response to Intervention

• Six recommendations for implementing an effective program for ELLs (English Instruction +Other Instruction; Brown-Chidsey, Bronaugh, & McGraw, 2009, p. 132): 1. Screen in order to identify language development in L1 & L2. 2. Provide English (ELD) instruction as well as other skills (content): (ELD+ L2 Reading Instruction) 3. Monitor progress in English (development) and other skills being taught. 4. Adapt English instruction and assess progress 5. Adapt skills instruction (based on data) 6. Consider learning difficulties in both languages.

Possible referral for SPED Assessment

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 30

Response to Intervention

• Reading Interventions (Tier 1; Butterfield, 2010): • Teach essential skills and strategies.

• • • • • Provide differentiated instruction based on assessment results and adapt instruction to meet students' needs. Provide explicit and systematic instruction with lots of practice with and without teacher support and feedback, including cumulative practice over time.

Provide opportunities to apply skills and strategies in reading and writing meaningful text with teacher support. Don't just "cover" critical content; be sure students learn it.

Monitor student progress regularly and reteach as necessary. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 31

Response to Intervention

• Resources for ELLs (Brown-Chidsey, Bronaugh, & McGraw, 2009, p. 137): • • AIMS Web Spanish Version Fostering Academic Success for English Language Learners: What do we Know? www.wested.org/policy/pubs/fostering • • Indicadores Dinamicos del Exito en la Lectura (DIBELS Spanish) Teaching Literacy in English to K-5 English Learners dww.ed.gov/priority_area/priority_landin.cfm?PA_ID

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 32

Summary

In Summary, “For ELLs, in order for instruction to be effective the assessment as well as instruction must be both linguistically and culturally appropriate” (Butterfield, 2010, p. 20) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 33

Pre-Referral Considerations

Key Features for Success: • • • • • • • Schoolwide Commitment to High Expectations Using L1 & L2 (intervention and skills building) Students working together (PALS) ELD + Core Content Evidenced-based Instruction/Intervention Progress Monitoring SPED Assessment/consideration after all other resources have been exhausted Olvera, P. CASP 2013 34

SPED Assessment Considerations Olvera, P. CASP 2013 35

Guidelines

CA Regs. 56320 (b)(1):

• Tests are to be provided and administered in the pupil’s primary language unless clearly not feasible. • Primary language = The language the student first learned, or the language which is spoken in the person’s home.

” (CA Regs. 3001(x)) • Key Issues: • •

Have they been instructed in the primary language or has primary language been used to teach academic content (ELD)?? Is CALP (i.e, BVAT or CELDT) developed in their primary language?

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 36

Primary Language Assessment

• Case Study: • Johnny is a 2 nd grade student referred for assessment due to concerns in reading (fluency and comprehension). • He grew up in a Spanish-speaking home. His parents are from Mexico and speak only Spanish. • His CELDT Score (Overall) indicates a level 3 (Intermediate). He is still an ELL paper. • He has been educated in English-only and speaks in English to his friends with the occasional Spanish word (so his teachers will not understand what he is saying). •

Please identify primary and native language and his CALP score.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 37

Identifying your ELL Student

The Bilingual Student ( Not all Bilinguals are Created Equal ) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 38

A Ab Ab Ab Ab

Type Stage

Bilingualism (Adapted from Valdes & Figueroa, 1994, p. 16)

Language Usage

First Generation-Foreign Born Newly Arrived Understands little English. Learns a few words and phrases. Type 1 Type 2 Preschool School Age After Several years of residence Understands enough English to take care of essential everyday needs. Speaks enough English to make self heard. Is able to function capably in the work domain where English is required. May still experience frustration in expressing self fully in English. Uses immigrant language in all other contexts. Second Generation U.S. Born Acquires immigrant language first. May be spoken to in English by by relatives or friends. Will normally be exposed to TV in English. Acquires English. Uses it increasingly to talk to peers and siblings. Views English TV extensively. Maybe literate only in English if schooled exclusively in English. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 39

Identifying your ELL Student

• Types of Bilinguals: • Limited Bilingualism (Subtractive Bilingualism/Arrested Development)- When first language is replaced by new language (English). • Also referred to as semilingualism (Diaz, 1983). Students develop limited levels of academic proficiency in both L1 & L2. • Assessment Implications: Can seem SLI & LD. When assessed in both languages is low in both (False Positive). Rule out SLI. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 40

Identifying your ELL Student

• Types of Bilinguals: • Partial Bilingualism: Students reached native like proficiency in one of their languages (English). Limited in primary (L1). No positive or negative effects in regards to learning in L2 (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). • Assessment Implications: Assess in Native Language (L2). Assessment in L1 may be biased. • Semlingualism: Students are limited in both languages (L1 &L2). May be “stuck” at a level 2 CALP in both languages. • Assessment Implications: Assess in Native Language (L2) and English (L2). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 41

Identifying your ELL Student

• Types of Bilinguals: Proficient Bilingualism (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002): High levels of proficiency in L1 & L2. Also known as Additive bilingualism (opposite of subtractive bilingualism). Byproduct of Dual Immersion programs. Assessment implications: No need to assess in L1. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 42

Identifying your ELL Student

•

Most students in my experience have been the following:

– Parent born in another country.

– Educated in the U.S. (English) – Prefer to Speak in English •

We tend to treat them like:

– They were born in another country – – Educated in their primary language Prefer to speak L1 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 43

Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency Skills (CALPS)

How we measure language proficiency

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 44

BICS

• Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) • Socially acquired and exercised • • • Precursor to CALP Context embedded Face to face/playground/lunch time communication • Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency • Academic in nature (Reading, writing, academic discussions, etc.) • • Subsequent to BICS Context Reduced Olvera, P. CASP 2013 45

CALP

Cognitive – Instruction is cognitively challenging and requires students to use higher order thinking abilities rather than the low-level memorization and application skills that are tapped by typical worksheets or drill and practice computer programs (Grigorenko, 2005, p. 39). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 46

CALP

Academic - academic content (science, math, social studies, art, etc.) should be integrated with language instruction so that students acquire the specific language or registers of these academic subjects (Grigorenko, 2005, p. 39). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 47

CALP

Language - the development of critical language awareness should be fostered throughout the program by encouraging students to compare and contrast their languages (e.g. phonics conventions, grammar, cognates, etc.) and by providing students with extensive opportunities [to practice] (Grigorenko, 2005, p. 40). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 48

Academic (Content)

CALP

Cognitive (Higher Order Thinking) Language (Language Embedded) Proficiency Olvera, P. CASP 2013 49

Language Acquisition Stages (Jim Cummins, 1984) CALP Language Acquisition Stages: • • • • • Stage I: Pre-production (0-6 months) Stage II: Early production (6-months- 1 year) Stage III: Speech emergence (1-3 years) Stage IV: Intermediate fluency (3-5 years) Stage V: Advanced Fluency (5-7 years) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 50 50

CALP Examples (Olvera & Cerrillo-Gomez, 2011) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 51

Language Development

• CALP Levels

correspond

to California English Development Test (CELDT) and BVAT, WMLS, and WJ III

CALP level

CALP Level 1:

CELDT* Level

Beginning

BVAT/WMLS**/WJ III

Negligible-Very Limited Preproduction CALP Level 2: Early Production CALP Level 3: Speech Emergence CALP Level 4: Intermediate Fluency Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Very Limited-Limited Limited to Fluent Fluent to Advanced CALP Level 5: Advanced Fluency Advanced Advanced

*California English Language Development Test (CELDT)/ WMLS- Suggests 6 CALP Levels.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 52

Language Development

• • Why does CALP in L1 Matter for Bilinguals? Threshold Hypothesis: “Children must attain a critical level, or threshold, of linguistic proficiency in order to avoid cognitive deficit and allow their bilingualism to their cognitive growth.” (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002, p.42). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 53

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 54

CALP

• • • Small scale study (N=23) demonstrated that increasing CALP has been linked to significant increases in reading standardized test scores Study included SPED students. (Grigorenko, 2005). Interestingly, the SPED students did not benefit. The point: CALP significantly impacts reading scores. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 55

CALP

• • • Another study (N=77) demonstrated that the best predictor of L2 reading growth was primary language development. Furthermore, the higher language proficiency in L1 the tendency to have higher L2 proficiency (Laija-Rodriguez, Ochoa,& Parker, 2006). Point 1: Correlation of L1 & L2 Reading Point 2: Higher L1= Higher L2 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 56

CALP

• • • • Thomas & Collier (1997) looked at a data set of ELL Reading Scores across five states (N= 42, 317). Looked at long-term effectiveness of various types of programs serving ELLs. Programs included: • • Two-way immersion (TWI) • • • • One-Way Immersion Developmental + Content (OWD) Transitional Bilingual Education + Content ESL (TBE + CESL) Transitional Bilingual Education + Traditional ESL (TBE + TESL) English as a Second Language + Content (ESL + Content) ESL Pullout- Traditional Grades: K-12 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores (mean of Native English= 50). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 (cont’d) 57

• • • • • •

CALP

Thomas & Collier (1997) Results: All programs demonstrated steady upward progress in regards to reading scores up to around fourth grade. By fifth grade, only TWI had hit NCE 50. By 9 th grade, only TWI & ODE had surpassed the NCE of 50. TWI had achieved 61 and ODE 52. All other programs demonstrated either stagnate or declining performance after the fifth grade. Implications: – – All demonstrated initial success through the first four years of schooling. However, those programs that used primary CALP to learn English, had better long-term outcomes. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 58

California Department of Education (Language Policy and Leadership Office) Two-Way BE

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Late-Exit BE + Content ESL Early-Exit BE + Content ESL Early-Exit BE + Trad. ESL ESL thru Academic Content ESL Pullout-Trad.

K 2 4 8 10 12

Native English Speakers Olvera, P. CASP 2013 59

CALP

• • • Thomas & Collier (2002) N= 5 School Sites ( Maine, Oregon, Texas, and Florida) Looked at the academic performance of ELLs in different types of bilingual programs.

– Standardized Tools: • Iowa Test of Basic Skills • Stanford 9 • • • Terra Nova California Test of Basic Skills SABE (Spanish Achievement) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 60

CALP

• • Programs that were analyzed: – Immersion (EO) – – Transitional Bilingual Maintenance – Dual Immersion Results of NCE Scores (Mean= 50) – – Immersion- NCE= 25 by 11 th grade Content Based ELL- NCE= 35 by 12 th grade Olvera, P. CASP 2013 61

CALP

• Implications From Study: – Replicated the findings from the 1997 study.

– Positive results from maintenance and dual immersion programs.

– English (L1) students scored above the national average for English achievement and learned a second language. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 62

Possible Reasons for Low CALP

• Possible reasons for low CALP Scores:  Can the student’s difficulty in acquiring English proficiency be attributed to his or her insufficient development in his or her first language?  Can the student’s academic difficulties or failure in an English-only academic setting be attributed to his or her not having attained CALP in English?  Was the student given ample instructional time in his or her first language to (1) develop CALP in this language and (2) demonstrate ability somewhat within the average range of academic performance? (Rhodes et al., 2009, p. 73) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 63

Supports to Build CALP

Given the importance of CALP, how do we go about increasing CALP in English? •

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA):

Incorporates explicit teaching of learning strategies within content areas. The goal is to enrich academic language while teaching academic subjects (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). • Total Physical Response (TPR): Based on the association of language and body movement (Asher, 1982). • Content Based ELD: ELD Lessons are organized around academic content.

How are we building CALP??

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 64

Guidelines

CA Regs 3023 (a): • Assessment must done by someone who is competent in the oral and written skills of the individual’s primary language and who has a knowledge and understanding of the cultural and ethnic background of the pupil? • If not available, an interpreter must be used. • • Does your report document it? Does report indicate that validity may have been affected?

NASP Recommended Practices for Working with Interpreters (NASP- Emilia C. Lopez)

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 65

What you will observe in ELL’s with Reading Problems (A Review of the Literature) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 66

Academic and Learning Problems That ELLs may Experience • Possible Characteristics of ELLs with learning disabilities (Gopaul McNicol & Thomas-Pressword, 1998): • Discrepancies between verbal and nonverbal learning. • Perceptual disorders- alphabetic home language versus non alphabetic (L1 & L2).

• Language Disorders- processing language, following directions, and processing complex language (L1 & L2). • Metacognitive Deficits- Slow language/information processing (low CALP in L1 & L2)) • Motor Disorders- Lack of previous experience may impact graphomotor skills (pencil).

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 67

Academic and Learning Problems That ELLs may Experience • Possible Characteristics of ELLs with learning disabilities (Gopaul-McNicol & Thomas-Pressword, 1998): • Social Emotional Functioning- Academic frustration and low self-esteem. Can lead to low self-esteem and social skill problems. • Difficulty attending and focusing- distractibility, short attention span, high motor activity (finger tapping, fidgety, etc.). Due to

cognitive overload from immersion in another language.

• Culture/Language Shock- Long term-acculturation stress, withdrawal, anger, or sadness. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 68

Academic and Learning Problems That ELLs may Experience • Possible Characteristics of ELLs with learning disabilities (Gopaul-McNicol & Thomas-Pressword, 1998): • Reading:  Low skills due to low interest  Slow oral reading  Short perceptual span (reading word by word)  Omission, substitution, and words in oral reading  Lack of comprehension  Lack of interest in reading overall Olvera, P. CASP 2013 69

Understanding Warning Signs

• What are the warning signs (predictors) that an ELL may have a reading disability (Gorman 2009, p. 252) ? • • • • • History of speech/language delay or impairment in the native language (L1).

Communication difﬁculties at home (L1). Signiﬁcant family history of learning disability/reading

disability.

Difﬁculty developing literacy skills in the native language despite instruction (L1). Limited progress compared with similar peers despite high-quality intervention (L1 & L2). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 70

Cross Linguistic Indicators of Reading Disability • What are common core cross-linguistic processing indicators of a reading disability (Gorman, 2009, p. 250)? • Phonological processing (Ga) deﬁcits appear to be the most robust diagnostic indicators of RD across languages and grade levels.

• In addition to word reading, working memory (Gsm), syntactic awareness (Gc), and rapid naming (Glr) measures also contribute to identiﬁcation of RD.

• Of skills measured in kindergarten, the single best predictor of ELLs’ word reading and reading comprehension skills in later grades appears to be phonological processing skills (Ga), followed by letter identiﬁcation. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 71

Academic and Learning Problems That ELLs may Experience • • Possible Characteristics of ELLs with learning disabilities (Roserberry-McKibben 2007): Writing:  Difficulties with spoken language can interact with writing.  Problems with following narrative (verbal) and reproducing those narratives in written form.  The interaction of spoken language and reading problems will impact writing as student progresses in school (e.g., debates, expressing opinions, reading to learn). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 72

ELL Learning Difficulties

Learning Issue (CAPPELL, 2011, P. 11) Reason Difficulty Seen in Typical ELLs

Academic Learning difficulties Language disorder ELLs often have difficulty with grade-level academic language and concepts because it takes at least five years for nonnative speakers to display native speaker like functioning in academics. Lack of fluency and correct syntax is a natural part of learning a new language. Students may require more “wait time” as they process an utterance in one language and translate into another. This “wait time” may be misinterpreted as a language processing issue. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 73

ELL Learning Difficulties

Learning Issue (CAPPELL, 2011, P. 11) Reason Difficulty Seen in Typical ELLs

Attention and memory problems Withdrawn behavior ELLs may have difficulty paying attention and remembering if they cannot relate new information to their previous experiences in their respective cultures. ELLs may also be experiencing exhaustion due to the task of learning in a language in which they are not yet proficient. When students are learning new language and adapting to a new culture a “silent period” is normal. Also, this behavior might be appropriate in the student’s behavior. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 74

ELL Learning Difficulties

Learning Issue (CAPPELL, 2011, P. 11) Reason Difficulty Seen in Typical ELLs

Aggressive behavior Social and Emotional problems The student may not understand appropriate school behavior and language in the USA. Also this behavior may be appropriate in the student’s culture. When students are learning to live in a new culture and using a new language, social and emotional problems often develop. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 75

Difference or Disorder

Area ELL (Examples) LD/SLI (Examples)

Cognitive Ability Academic Progress Achievement is usually commensurate with measured cognitive ability and length of school experience. Generally better on nonverbal Progress in L1 is based upon appropriateness of language of instruction. During L2 transition period English may slow down. Achievement is below cognitive potential in some areas. Uneven learning ability (all over the map.) May show progress in some areas and lag in others. May make uneven patterns of progress. Language Social-Emotional L1 is age appropriate . All nonverbal communication is culturally appropriate. May not know word, but knows concept. Sentence structure is appropriate to L1. May be socially isolated due to difference in culture. May prefer to interact with own culture. Communication is socially appropriate. Adapted from Larry P. Task Force Report (CDE, 1989). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 Difficulties w/auditory processing, vocabulary, and difficulties transferring concepts to everyday language. May be socially inadequate. May lack confidence.

The Process: Determining Appropriate Language of Assessment Olvera, P. CASP 2013 77

Evaluation

Discrepancy, PSW, Larry P., Etc.

Pathways

Nonverbal, Modified, English, and Native Language, Combination.

Process

(Language of Assessment, Instrument Selection, etc).

Pre-Referral

(Intervention, SST, RTI, Etc.) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 78

Outcomes

• • • • • • • Reviewing the SST file and Interventions for Appropriate Referrals Assessing Exclusionary Factors (Cultural, Environmental and Economic

Disadvantage)

Review key California guidelines that must be included in all ELL psychoeducational reports Selecting Appropriate for Language of Assessment (L1 & L2)- Introduction to the Multidimensional Assessment Model for Bilingual Individuals (Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz, 2005). Brief Overview of Appropriate use of Interpreters Introduce and Practice the Cultural Language Test Classifications (C-LTC) & Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix (CLIM)- (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, 2007) Present Case Studies that Incorporate California Guidelines for Assessing ELL’s and C-LTC & CLIM. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 79

(Olvera & Cerrillo-Gomez, 2011) Test Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (Munoz-Sandoval, Cummins, Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998). Arabic, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), English, French, German, Haitian-Creole, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese.

Woodcock Johnson III (Verbal)/Bateria III (Verbal) English and Spanish Basic Inventory of Natural Languages (Herbert, 1986). Arabic , Armenian , Cambodian , Cantonese , Chinese Creole , Dutch , English , Farsi , French , German , Greek , Hindi , Hmong , Ilocano , Inupiaq , Italian , Japanese , Korean Laotian , Navajo Pilipino , Polish Portuguese , Russian Spanish , Tagalog , Taiwanese , Toishanese , Ukranian , Vietnamese Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey – Update (Woodcock & Sandoval, 2001). California English Language Development Test (CDE, 2009). IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (Dalton, 1991) English and Spanish English English and Spanish

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 80

Case Study #1

• • • Sergio is a 12-year-old student in the 7 th grade. He arrived to the United States from Mexico as a 6th grader. He is the youngest of three siblings and lives with both of his parents. His language arts teacher is concerned that he is making minimal progress in reading and writing, for which reason she referred him to the pre-referral problem-solving team. At the meeting, the parents inform the school that Sergio had received average to above average grades across all academic areas while attending elementary school in Mexico. The pre-referral team requested that English-language proficiency be administered in both Spanish (L1) and English (L2) to establish language dominance. The Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey was administered by the bilingual specialist and the following was obtained: Applied Language Proficiency (ALP) score in Spanish equivalent to a CALP level of 5 out of 6 and the English ALP equivalent to a CALP level of 2 out of 6. The team determined that Sergio demonstrated advanced level proficiency in Spanish and very limited proficiency in English as evidenced by his performance. Because of his advanced proficiency in his primary language, the team concluded that Sergio needed more intensive English as a Second Language (ESL) services and agreed to meet again in 3 months to assess his progress. The language assessment clarified that a special education referral would not be appropriate.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 81

Case Study #2

Suzy is currently is a third grade student and is classified as ELL. She was born in the United States to Peruvian-born immigrant parents. Her educational records indicate that she speaks Spanish at home and has been educated in English only. She has been having difficulties in language arts. Specific problems include poor phonemic awareness and fluency. According to her pre-referral file, she has been receiving interventions and has been part of the response to intervention program for the past year and a half. Suzy has made limited progress. The pre-referral team recommended that she be assessed by the IEP team. Because she is still classified as an English Language Learner (ELL), the school psychologist administered the Oral Language sections of the WMLS (English & Spanish). The results indicated the following: English CALP = 3 (Limited) & Spanish CALP = 1 (Negligible). Although Suzy’s assessment results indicated that her English skills are limited, she is more English-proficient than Spanish. Her negligible results in Spanish indicated that she has minimal conversation skills in that language. The results led the school psychologist to proceed with assessment in English. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 82

Remember!!

Select Most Appropriate Language

Multidimensional Assessment Model for Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI)- Ochoa & Ortiz, 2005, p. 171

See attached Attachment 1- MAMBI Handout .

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 84

Select Most Appropriate Language

• Using the MAMBI (Ochoa & Ortiz, 2005): • Looks at the following variables: • Program history (ESL, bilingual, EO).

• • Grade (K-7 th ) CALP Level (Language Proficiency) • • • Minimal Proficiency (CALP 1-2) Emergent (CALP 3) Fluent (CALP 4-5) • Helpful in determining the most appropriate language of assessment. • Nonverbal (NV) • L1 (Primary) • • L2 (Second language) Bilingual (L1 & L2) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 85

Select Most Appropriate Language

• Interpreting the MAMBI: – O= Optimal mode of assessment – √= Secondary or optional mode of assessment – √*= Not recommended for K-2 but may be informative for 3-4 (results may be underestimated).

– √#= Not recommended for K-1 but informative for 2-4 (may be underestimated). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 86

Select Most Appropriate Language

• • • What would you recommend for:

Student A:

 Student that has received bilingual education  Low L1 and Emerging 2?  3 rd Grade

Student B:

 Student has received EO (no ELD/ESL)  Low L1 & Low L2  5 th Grade Olvera, P. CASP 2013 87

Select Most Appropriate Language

•

Student C:

Student that has received EO (No ESL) Low L1 and Fluent 2? 7 th Grade •

Student D:

Previously in Bilingual (now receiving ELD/ESL) Fluent in L1 and Emerging in L2 2 nd Grade Olvera, P. CASP 2013 88

Key Guidelines

• Key California guidelines that must be included in all ELL through your assessment pre-referral and reports. • See attached:

Bilingual Template Evaluation Rubric

(Olvera, 2012; Handout #2) •

We will be reviewing this later.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 89

Exclusionary Factors

Relevant Exclusionary Factors (EF): A child will not be learning disabled IF his/her learning problems are: “ Primarily the result of Environmental, Cultural or Economic Disadvantage.

” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 90

Exclusionary Factors

How do we define EFs? “There is very limited information or research about how this federal requirement is to be implemented” (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, p. 34). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 91

Exclusionary Factors

Is it easy to establish the impact of EFs? “A thorough assessment of the impact of environmental, cultural, and economic factors on a student’s performance is a difficult task and requires consideration of of multiple factors” (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, p. 51). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 92

Exclusionary Factors

Furthermore, “it is important to note that as the number of cultural and linguistic differences in a student ’s background increase, the greater the likelihood that poor academic performance is attributable primarily to such differences rather than a disability ” (Mascolo & Flanagan, 2011). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 93

Additionally,

Exclusionary Factors

“The test [exclusionary factors] is not failed when such external factors are present or when they may be contributing to poor performance. The test is failed only when those factors are determined to be primarily responsible for the academic performance deficit” (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 94

Exclusionary Factors

My conclusion: It is clinical judgment!

Our job is to analyze, address, and assess in order determine impact of the exclusionary factor and determine if it is the primary reason for academic/cognitive difficulties. See Attached Exclusionary Factor Checklist (See Handout #3)

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 95

Accounting for Language of Assessment in your Report (Possible Statements) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 96

Select Most Appropriate Language

Sample Statements for Language of Assessment Rationale: Assessment Mode: L1 & L2 “Student is currently identified as an English Language Learner (ELL); however, he prefers to speak English. He has a history of receiving bilingual instruction at Jones Elementary. In addition to an overall CELDT levels of Intermediate , Johnny has demonstrated English and Spanish CALP levels of 3/5 (WJ III & Bateria 3) on standardized assessment. Therefore, assessment will be conducted in English, Spanish, and Nonverbal modalities by a bilingual school psychologist”. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 97

Select Most Appropriate Language

Sample Statements for Language of Assessment Rationale: Assessment: In L2 (English) “Johnny, whose home language is Portuguese, has been R-FEP since 3 rd grade. He has a history of receiving English-only instruction at Jones Elementary. In addition to an overall CELDT level of Intermediate, student demonstrated an English CALP level of 3/5 (BVAT ELP = 90) and a Bilingual (English + Portuguese) Verbal Ability (BVA) of 90 (SS) . Given Johnny’s FEP status and current CALP scores, assessment will be conducted in English.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 98

Select Most Appropriate Language

Sample Statements for Language of Assessment Rationale: Assessment: Native Language Assessment “Johnny, a 3 language is Spanish, has been educated in El Salvador from K 2 nd rd grade student at Jones Elementary, whose home grade. He has been classified as an English Language Learner (ELL). In addition to an overall CELDT level of Early Intermediate, Johnny demonstrated English CALP levels 1/5 (WJ III) and a verbal CALP score of 4/5 (Bateria III). Given his demonstrated Spanish dominance and a history of Spanish academic instruction, all cognitive and academic assessment will be conducted Spanish” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 99

Select Most Appropriate Language

Sample Statements for Language of Assessment Rationale: Assessment: Interpreter and Nonverbal “Student is currently identified as an English Language Learner (ELL). His home language is Tagalog. Although he has BICS level English, his academic English is limited. He has a history of English academic instruction. In addition to an overall CELDT level of Early Intermediate, language dominance exams were administered and the following was obtained: English CALP 2/5 (BVAT ELP = 83) and his Bilingual Verbal Ability (BVA) SS= 103). Given Johnny’s CALP levels, assessment will be conducted in a nonverbal manner and verbal parts of the assessment will be interpreted by qualified/certified fluent interpreter.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 100

Interpreters

• According to the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Manual- 4 th Edition (CELF-4; Semel,Wiig, Secord, 2006), the following should be considered when utilizing interpreters: • • • Training varies widely (university, court, community, etc). Rigorous training required to interpret assessment (SLI/Psycho-ed). Training should include: Language development, Psych-Ed issues, testing practices, cultural factors, behavior management, scoring, prompting, cueing, etc. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 101

Interpreters

Please remember  “It is not appropriate to enlist the aid of a school staff member,

parent, or sibling at the last minute to administer a test as comprehensive as CELF-4 Spanish without training in these

issues.” (Semel,Wiig, & Secord, 2006, p. 12) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 102

Evaluation

Discrepancy, PSW, Larry P., Etc.

Pathways

Nonverbal, Modified, English, and Native Language, Combination.

Process

(Language of Assessment, Instrument Selection, etc).

Pre-Referral

(Intervention, SST, RTI, Etc.) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 103

Assessment Pathways: Given the RIOT data and language assessment determination, various assessment pathways will be discussed. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 104

Outcomes

• • • • • Review Assessment Pathways Pros and Cons of the Abovementioned Assessment Pathways Review Key California Guidelines that Must be Included in all ELL Psychoeducational Reports Review Commonly Used Assessments with ELLs Case Study Review Olvera, P. CASP 2013 105

Five Primary Pathways of Assessment: • Modified/Adapted/Accommodations • Nonverbal/Language-Free/Language-Reduced Assessment • Native Language/Primary Language (L1) • English Only Testing • Flexible/Dynamic (Bilingual) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 106

Pathways to Assessing ELLs

Option #1: Modified/Adapted/Accommodations

Examples: repeating instructions, accepting responses in both languages, removing time, using interpreter, translation of documents, rewording terms, and allowing extra explanation, Pros: Cons: Other Considerations: Ensure understanding, more sensitive to individualized needs, accommodate non-Spanish ELL’s. Violate standardization and thus validity/reliability of assessment. Always report all modifications and adaptations in your report and how they may impact test results. You may only want to report raw scores. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 107

Pathways to Assessing ELLs

Option #2 Language-Free/Language Reduced Assessment

Examples: Nonverbal instruments (UNIT, Leiter, KABC, WNV, Etc.). Pros: Cons: Reduce Language and more universal in that it can apply to a wider linguistic audience. Limited in range of abilities tested. Language is still present See Attachment 4 -CHC Coverage Handout (See Attachment #5). : Other Considerations Most disabilities are verbal in nature. You can never totally reduce language.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 108

Pathways to Assessing ELLs

Option #3: Native Language Testing (Primary Language)

Examples: Assessing student with Spanish (or other language) norms. Test publishers like the BVAT, WISC IV, and Bateria 3.

Pros: Cons: Other Considerations: Ensure linguistic appropriateness of the assessment . When student has received instruction in another language. Maintain standardization of assessment. Adequate norm representation. Instruction in the language of assessment. Remember that bilingualism is complex and thus capturing your exact student can be challenging. Cultural factors. Other than Spanish, finding other native language assessment may be difficult. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 109

Pathways to Assessing ELLs

Option #4: English-Only- Testing using English testing modalities.

Examples: Although student is ELL, all assessment is conducted in English.

Pros: Most research in this area, most of our ELL’s have been instructed in this language. Cons: Other Considerations: We can predict that as the verbal demand increases scores will be lower than English-speaking peers. We can predict that as the visual demand increases scores will be comparable to English-speaking peers. Testing may be perceived as bias and eligibility may not be based on numbers alone. Try not to taint assessment by modifying. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 110

Pathways to Assessing ELLs

Native language and English Nonverbal and Native Language

Option #5 (Olvera): Flexible/Dynamic Approach

Bilingual instruction, Dual Immersion, and English Instruction. Instruction in another country and you have minimal access to instruments in that language. Modified/Accommodation s and Nonverbal Working with interpreter and have to translate items/instructions and also want to consider standard administration of items. English and Modified/Accommodation s Nonverbal, Native Language, and English Working with interpreter and also want to administer items in students language of instruction (English). Bilingual instruction, Dual Immersion, and English Instruction. Also, if you are concerned about language impairment. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 111

Assessment Pathways

Modifications/Ad apted/Accommo dations Native Language Nonverbal English Only Mitigate the effects of test bias for CLD children. When student has received instruction/ exposure in L1 When you do not have access to the student’s L1 When instruction has only been in English Flexible and Dynamic Olvera, P. CASP 2013 112

C-LTC/C-LIM Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso (2007) Tools to help you select appropriate tools and interpret findings: • • Cultural Language Test Classifications (C-LTC) Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix (C-LIM) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 113

(Gc) (Glr)

Broad Ability

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Crystallized Abilities Long Term-Retrieval

Catell-Horn Carroll (CHC) Definition

The ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures. A good predictor of intelligence The breadth and depth of a person ’ s acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate this knowledge (verbally) and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures).

The generation, perception, analysis, synthesis, storage retrieval, manipulation, and transformation of visual patterns and stimuli. Other skills involved include mental rotation and perception of spatial configurations.

Batteries

WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS; CELF; CASL; PPVT; EVT; CREVT; RO-WPVT; TOLD WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP; WRAML Visual Processing (Gv) Auditory Processing (Ga) Short Term Memory (Gsm) Processing Speed (Gs) The ability to store information and efficiently retrieve it later.

The ability to apprehend, and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it in a few minutes.

The perception, analysis, and synthesis of patterns among auditory stimuli as well as the discrimination of subtle differences in patterns of sound and speech when presented under distorted conditions. Important in the development of speech/language abilities. Mostly encompasses phonological awareness/processing abilities. WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS WJ, CTOPP, TAPS; TOLD WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP; WRAML; CELF; TOLD; The ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, an aspect of cognitive efficiency. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP 114

CHC Broad Ability

English

WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS; Gc Glr

Spanish

Bateria & WECH WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS; CELF; CASL; PPVT; EVT; CREVT; RO-WPVT; TOLD WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP; WRAML; Bateria; WECH; CELF; PPVT; Bateria NA Leiter

CTONI; KABC, DAS; UNIT Gv Ga Gsm Gs WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS Bateria & WECH CTONI; KABC, DAS; UNIT WJ, CTOPP, TAPS; TOLD Bateria & TAPS NA WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP; WRAML; CELF; TOLD; Bateria, TAPS; WECH; CELF; KABC, UNIT, WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP Bateria & WECH Leiter and UNIT Olvera, P. CASP 2013 NA

Instructions in Spanish

KABC & DAS KABC KABC & DAS TAPS KABC & DAS DAS 115

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso 2007) • Cultural Language Test Classifications (C-LTC) • • • • • Data driven method to help establish validity of assessment profile/profile. Based on evidence of ELD students and English cognitive assessment performance. Addresses the issue of Difference v. Disorder Uses CHC Theory Used to help practitioner select tools that are lower in culture and language demand. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 116

Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix (Flanagan, et al., p. 177) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 117

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso 2007) • How do you use the C-LTC?

• Find the assessment/instrument that you will you or can potentially use.

• Look at the patterns of linguistic and cultural loading as you select and/or interpret assessment profile. • Helpful in selecting parts/aspects of test, according to CHC, in a cross battery assessment model. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 118

Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix (Flanagan, et al., p. 369) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 119

LOW Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix (Flanagan, et al., p. 371) KABC 2

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND

MODERATE HIGH TRIANGLES (Gv-SR,Vz) Hand Movements (Gsm-MS; Gv MV)* Pattern Reasoning (Gf-I, Gv-Vz)* Face Recognition (Gv-MV) Atlantis (Glr-MA, L1) Atlantis Delayed (Glr-MA, L1) NUMBER RECALL (Gsm-MS) Block Counting (Gv-Vz) Rebus (Glr-MA) Rebus Delayed (Glr-MA, L1) Conceptual Thinking (Gv-Vz; Gf-I)* Rover (Gv-SS; Gf-RG)* WORD ORDER (Gsm-MS, WM) Gestalt Closure (Gv-CS) Story Completion (Gf-I, RG; Gc-K0, Gv-Vz)* Expressive Vocabulary (Gc-VL) Riddles (Gc-VL, LD; Gf-RG)* Verbal Knowledge (Gc-VL, K0) KABC 2 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 120

LOW D EMAND C LASSIFICATIONS OF THE (O RTIZ , 2005) CELF-4 MODERATE HIGH

Number Repetition-Forward (Gsm) Number Repetition-Backward (Gsm) Familiar Sequences (Gsm) Concepts and Following Directions (Gc/Gsm) Recalling Sentences (Gsm) Sentence Structure (Gc-LS) Word Structure (Gc) Semantic Relationships (Gc) Word Definitions (Gc) Expressive Vocabulary (Gc) Word Classes-Expressive (Gc) Word Classes-Receptive (Gc) Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (Gc) Formulated Sentences (Gc) Sentence Assembly (Gc) CELF 4 See Handout p. 32 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 121

Matrix of Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand Classifications of the CASL (Ortiz, 2005) LOW MODERATE HIGH

Grammatical Morphemes (Gc-MY) Grammaticality Judgment (Gc-MY) Syntax Construction (Gc-MY, OP) Paragraph Comprehension (Gc-LS) Sentence Comprehension (Gc-LS) Sentence Completion (Gc-LD) Basic Concepts (Gc-VL) Antonyms (Gc-VL) Idiomatic Language (Gc-LD, ) Nonliteral Language (Gc-LD, ) Meaning from Context (Gc-LS) Inference (Gc-LS) Ambiguous Sentences (Gc-VL) Pragmatic Judgement (Gc-LD, K0) Synonyms (Gc-VL) CASL See Handout p. 34 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 122

D EMAND C LASSIFICATIONS OF THE (O RTIZ , 2005) CTOPP LOW MODERATE

Memory for Digits (Gsm-MS) Nonword Repetition (Gsm-MS)

HIGH

Rapid Digit Naming (Glr-NA) Blending Nonwords (Ga-PC:S) Sound Matching (Ga-PC:A) Rapid Color Naming (Glr-NA) Rapid Letter Naming (Glr-NA) Blending Words (Ga-PC:A) Segmenting Nonwords (Ga-PC:A) Phoneme Reversal (Ga-PC:A, Gsm-MW)* Elision (Ga-PC:A) Rapid Object Naming (Glr-NA) Segmenting Words (Ga-PC:A) CTOPP See Handout p. 35 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 123

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 124

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso 2007) What is the C-LIM?

Helps determine if excessive bias exists within a given assessment profile. Helps assess the validity of the assessment profile with respect to cultural and linguistic loadings. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 125

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) • How do you interpret findings (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007, p. 180): 1.

Is the uppermost left-hand corner (Low/Low)- The highest average score (when compared to the rest)? 2.

Is the lowermost (right-hand) corner (High/High)- the lowest average (when compared to the rest)? The the other cell average fall between the highest cell (Low/Low) and the lowest cell (High/High) and follow a declining pattern (from the top left to the bottom right)? 4.

If yes, test results may indicate high cultural and linguistic impact. Results may be invalid. If no, the results may be valid and cultural and linguistic factors may not be an issue.

ALWAYS USE IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER DATA (RIOT).

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 126

Is Low/Low Highest?

YES Is High/High NO YES Are all other scores between Low/Low & High/High?

YES Possible cultural and linguistic impact. cultural and linguistic may not be impacting. 127

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 128

C-LIM/C-LTC

Sample Statement: “Student’s profile does not follow a descending pattern as would be expected in cases in which culture and language may have impacted cognitive performance. Therefore, this examiner has concluded that these test results appear valid and reliable”. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 129

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 130

C-LIM/C-LTC

Sample Statement: “Student’s profile follows a descending pattern as would be expected in cases in which culture and language may have impacted cognitive results. Therefore, it is in examiner’s opinion that cognitive assessment results may not be valid and reliable for this student.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 131

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 132

C-LIM/C-LTC

Sample Statement: “Student’s profile does not follow a descending pattern as would be expected in cases in which culture and language may have impacted cognitive performance. Therefore, this examiner has concluded these test results appear valid and reliable.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 133

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) • Let’s Practice: WISC IV

Composite

Verbal Comprehension Perceptual Reasoning Working Memory Processing Speed

Score

Similarities = 5 Vocabulary= 4 Comprehension= 6 Block Design = 9 Picture Concept=13 Matrix Reasoning= 10 Digit Span= 3 Letter-Number= 4 Coding= 6 Symbol Search=7 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 134

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 135

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) • •

Composite

Receptive Language Let’s Practice: CELF 4 Expressive Language= Core Language

Score

Concepts and Following Directions= 6 Word Classes= 11 Sentence Structure= 4 Word Structure= 6 Recalling Sentences= 7 Formulated Sentences= 7 Concepts and Following Directions= 6 Word Structure= 6 Recalling Sentences= 7 Formulated Sentences= 7 Language Content Concepts and Following Directions= 6 Word Classes= 11 Expressive Vocab= 9 Language Structure Olvera, P. CASP 2013 Sentence Structure= 4 Recalling Sentences= 7 Formulated Sentences= 7 Sentence Structure= 4 136

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 137

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) Let’s Practice: CAS

Composite

Planning

Score

Matching Numbers= 8 Planned Connections= 8 Attention Simultaneous Successive Expressive Attention= 13 Number Attention=11 Nonverbal Matrices= 8 Verbal Spatial Relations=4 Word Series=6 Sentence Repetition=4 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 138

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 139

Putting it All Together Program History?

Assess Language (L1 & L2) MAMBI Olvera, P. CASP 2013 Consult C-LTC C-LIM Interpretation 140

C-LTC/C-LIM (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso (2007) •

In an advanced Cross Battery Model:

– The C-LTC can be used to select all abilities/constructs (Gv, Gc, Ga….) that have the lowest degree of culture and language.  For example: WISC and KABC  Goal would be to hit all 7 abilities with the lowest degree of culture and language demands.  Recommendations for this: District In-service on Cross Battery Assessment (process). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 141

CHC Broad Ability

English

WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS; Gc Glr

Spanish

Bateria & WECH WJ; WECH; KABC; SB; CAS; CELF; CASL; PPVT; EVT; CREVT; RO-WPVT; TOLD WJ; KABC; CAS; CTOPP; WRAML; Bateria; WECH; CELF; PPVT; Bateria NA Leiter

Instructions in Spanish

KABC & DAS KABC KABC & DAS TAPS KABC & DAS DAS 142

Cross Battery Website

Cross Battery Assessment Website

http://www.crossbattery.com/ Olvera, P. CASP 2013 143

Key Issues

• In summary, • We discussed five pathways to assess ELLs.

• • Assessing ELLs is a fluid and dynamic process. District language designation, CALP, history of instruction, country of origin, and home language/exposure will generally guide you in determining language of assessment. • • Recommend using CHC as cognitive model. C-LTC/C-LIM is a tool to help you interpret findings based on clinical studies of ELL performance on that particular test. Must be interpreted in context of other factors. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 144

Evaluation

Discrepancy, PSW, Larry P., Etc.

Pathways

Nonverbal, Modified, English, and Native Language, Combination.

Process

(Language of Assessment, Instrument Selection, etc).

Pre-Referral

(Intervention, SST, RTI, Etc.) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 145

Evaluation of ELL-related Psychoeducational Case Study Data: Traditional and Emerging Models Olvera, P. CASP 2013 146

Intended Outcomes

• • • • • • • Review ELL-related due process cases Review the Bilingual Evaluation Rubric Review validity and reliability for commonly used instruments with ELLs Compatibility of School Psychology (SP) and Speech and Language Pathologist (SLP) Assessment Review different identification approaches (Evaluation) Review case studies which incorporate Assessment

Pathways

Systemic implications and review Olvera, P. CASP 2013 147

ELL Related Due Process Cases: What can we Learn?

Disclaimer: Reviewing of these cases does not imply legal counsel. Please discuss issues with your district administration and attorneys. Review of cases strictly for educational purposes.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 148

Due Process Cases

OAH Case #: 2009010744 Facts: • • • • • • 15 year old Student is ELL and was born in Mexico.

Has been in US since 6 years old. Enrolled in an English-immersion program. Spanish spoken at home. Speaks in English and Spanish at school. Answers in English during class work. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 149

Due Process Cases

• Issues: – Did district appropriately assess in all areas of suspected disability (psychoeducational and speech/language)? – Should district fund an IEE (psychoeducational and speech/language) – “Student contends that the District’s assessments were inappropriate because the District did not administer them to her in Spanish, which is her native language”. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 150

Due Process Cases

• School Psychologist (Monolingual English): – – – – – – Classroom observation No interpreter used Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 2 nd Edition (KABC 2)- Mental Processing Index (MPI)- (Minimal English) Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI 2). VMI 5 Supplemented findings with parent, teacher, and classroom observations due to student’s ELL status. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 151

Due Process Cases

• Examiner Provided: – Redirection – Repetition – Provided Clarification • • Psychologist noted that student understood during testing. English Academics- WJ III Achievement Olvera, P. CASP 2013 152

Due Process Cases

• Two Speech and Language Pathologists (SLP): – – – Monolingual and Bilingual Observed Reviewed records • • Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)- English Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT)- English • Bilingual SLP: – – Observations, teacher interviews, language samples (English & Spanish).

No problems noted in either language. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 153

Due Process Cases

Conclusions: “The District met its burden of showing that its cognitive development assessment, sensory motor processing assessment, speech and language assessment, academic achievement assessment, and social/emotional/behavioral assessment were appropriate.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 154

Due Process Cases

OAH Case #: 2010050822 • • • • • • • Facts: 19-year old Student is ELL and was born in rural Central America.

Has been in US since 16-years old. Attended school in Honduras from K-5 th grade. Has lived in foster homes. When arrived in district and placed in 11 th grade. Beginning in English (CELDT) & LDA (Limited in Primary & Non Literate). Grades in 11 th and 12 th ranged from F-B (ELD & Art). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 155

Due Process Cases

• Issues (Expert Witness Opinion): – District did not assess cognitive abilities appropriately. – District did not assess in all areas of suspected disability (psychoeducational and speech/language). – District engaged in cultural bias by assuming that low test scores were indicative of limited educational background. – District failed to gather information from family. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 156

Due Process Cases

• School Psychologist (Bilingual): – RIOT – – BVAT- Very Limited in ELP and BVA CTONI (Composites Borderline-Low Average) – – – – Vineland (TRF)- Borderline VMI- Borderline TAPS (Bilingual)- Low Average to Average (across composites). BASC- No major concerns (Teacher & Student). Socialization at the at-risk. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 157

Due Process Cases

• School Psychologist (Bilingual): – Bateria III (Ach)- Composites ranged from 60’s to 70’s. Consistent with classroom grades and achievement. – Conclusion: No severe discrepancy in scores. – SP stated: “(Student’s) limited school experience cannot be ruled out as a primary factor in his performance of standardized tests of intellectual achievement, psychological processing, and academic achievement.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 158

Due Process Cases

• Expert Witness: Bilingual Clinical Neuropsychologist. – Opinion Regarding Assessment: – CTONI- Not valid due to composite scatter (borderline low average) and thus district could not establish a significant discrepancy. – Expert stated that scatter was due to executive functioning, attention, and memory problems. More

testing should have been completed.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 159

Due Process Cases

• Expert Witness: Bilingual Clinical Neuropsychologist. – Opinion Regarding Assessment: – TAPS Bilingual: Scattered scores render scores inaccurate. Claimed scatter was due to executive functioning, attention, and memory. More testing should

have been completed.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 160

Due Process Cases

• Judges statements regarding Expert Opinion (EO): – – – – – –

Credentials render him an excellent witness. EO relied only on scores and not a variety of sources (interview, observations, etc.) EO did not assess student Did not observe student in class.

“Did not address the impact that Student’s limited educational background had on his intellectual abilities, psychological processing, and academic achievement.”

Did not reconcile that student, though MR/ID-borderline level scores, was making progress academically in the classroom and state scores.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 161

Due Process Cases

• Speech and Language Pathologist (Bilingual): – – – – – – RIOT CELF 4 (Spanish)- Composites ranged from Borderline to Low average. Overall Score Borderline Range (Limited Schooling). Social Deficits (Clasificacion Pragmatica). CELF was not

administered in its ’ entirety.

Expressive One Word (Spanish/Bilingual)- Informal Administration- Low level scores due to limited schooling. Receptive One Word (Spanish/Bilingual)- Informal Administration Low level scores due to limited schooling. Interpersonal Communication Checklist- Age appropriate levels. Clinical Discourse Analysis- Immature skills. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 162

Due Process Cases

• Speech and Language Pathologist (Bilingual): – Conclusion “Student was not eligible for special education as a pupil with a speech and language disorder.” – Any deficits in skills were due to limited schooling. – Deemed a very credible witness by the judge. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 163

Due Process Cases

• Expert Witness: Bilingual Clinical Neuropsychologist. – Opinion Regarding SLP Assessment: – Should not have administered parts of the test (CELF).

– EOWPVT (Bilingual) & ROWPVT (Bilingual) should not be used informally. – “He wanted [SLP] to use instruments normed for Student, but he could not name any such assessments”.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 164

Due Process Cases

• Judges statements regarding Expert Opinion (EO): – “Did not offer any persuasive evidence against the appropriateness of the District speech-language assessment of Student.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 165

Due Process Cases

• Conclusions: – Was district’s assessment appropriate? – SP utilized an assessment battery that was appropriate. The battery consisted of technically sound instruments, including the CTONI-2, the BVAT, the Vineland II TRF, the Beery VMI tests, the TAPS-3:SBE, the BASC-2, and the Bateria III. Where appropriate, [SP] expressed caution with the interpretation of

test results when Student was not included in the normative

population of the assessment instrument. The battery consisted of assessments and materials that were valid for the intended purpose of the particular instrument. SP utilized the assessment instruments in accordance with the instructions provided by the test producers.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 166

Due Process Cases

• Conclusions: – Was district’s assessment appropriate? • SP utilized an assessment battery that was free of bias and that was designed to yield accurate information on Student’s academic, developmental and functional skills. Except for the BVAT, SP conducted the psychoeducational assessment of Student in Spanish which is his dominant language.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 167

Due Process Cases

• Conclusions: – Did district failed to gather information from family? • Student was 18 at the time of assessment and the attorney did not allow parent contact. – Did district appropriately assess in all areas of suspected disability (psychoeducational and speech/language)? • SP performed a global assessment of Student that covered his intellectual functioning, psychological processing and academic achievement.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 168

• Conclusions:

Due Process Cases

– What about SLP evaluation? • The speech-language assessment performed was appropriate. This evaluation satisfied the procedural requirements for an initial evaluation of a pupil referred for possible special education assistance.

• SLP utilized a variety of assessment tools and strategies in his speech language evaluation of Student.

• Very qualified and experienced SLP. • Student failed to present evidence showing the need for SLP to administer every subtest in the CELF-4:Spanish. In this regard, SLP was entitled to

exercise his professional judgment in conducting the speech language assessment of Student.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 169

Due Process Cases

Order: “The psychoeducational assessment and speech language assessment of Student performed by the District were appropriate. Student is not entitled to receive at public expense independent education evaluations regarding such assessments.” Olvera, P. CASP 2013 170

Due Process Cases

• What can we learn? – Language dominance was established. – An ELL student was assessed in English based on English education (English Immersion). Student spoke primarily in English. – – – – – – – Several sources of information were considered (RIOT) in the context of standard scores. Verbal and Nonverbal measures were considered.

Nondiscriminatory assessments were recognized. Examiners were qualified and trained. Examiners were allowed to use formal and informal measures. Examiners disclosed statements about validity and reliability when non standardized instruments were used. Examiners were allowed to use professional discretion! Olvera, P. CASP 2013 171

Brief Overview Commonly Used Assessments: Reliability and Validity Issues Related to ELLs. (Peer Reviewed Perspectives)

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 172

Test

Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (BVAT) Ages 5 90+

Commonly Used Instruments

Language

English & 16+ Languages

Norm Sample

8,818

Reliability

Subtests (.80 .90).

Validity

Good validity with other measure of language.

Miscellaneous

Allows demonstration of home language.

Few bilinguals in sample. Lack of control for acculturation factors. Untranslatable words were not included. Muñoz -Sandoval, Cummins, Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 173

Test

Commonly Used Instruments

Language

Woodcock Muñoz Language Survey Revised (WMLS-R) Ages 2 years to Adult. English and Spanish

Norm Sample

8,782

Reliability

Subtests (.76 .97) Composites (.88-.98)

Validity

Good correlations with other tests of language.

Miscellaneous

CALP in English and Spanish Comprehensive (includes academics) Can be time consuming Spanish version not clear about SES, gender, and/or geographic location of sample. Alvarado, Ruef, and Schrank, 2005 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 174

Commonly Used Assessments

Cognitive Measures Verbal Olvera, P. CASP 2013 175

Commonly Used Instruments

Test

Bateria III Ages 2 yrs to 90+

Language

Spanish Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Venezuela, and one unreported location

Norm Sample

1,413 1, 293 (USA) 120 from Latin America

Reliability

Subtest (Median= .80-.93) Cluster (All Ages= .86 .95).

Validity

Confirmatory Factor Analysis supports strong support for the CHC Model.

Schrank, McGrew, Ruef, Alavardo, Muñoz -Sandoval, Woodcock, 2005

Olvera, P. CASP 2013

Miscellaneous

Normed on native Spanish speakers both in and outside USA.

How do you factor in bilingual students? Helpful in comparing English v. Spanish CALP. 176

Test

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 4 th IV Spanish) Spanish (WISC Ages 6-0 to 16 11

Commonly Used Instruments

Language

Spanish Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and Central and South America.

Norm Sample

851 (ELLs that had been educated in the US <5 years).

Reliability Validity

Subtest ( .74-.90). Cluster (.82-.97).

Good concurrent validity (UNIT & CELF).

Miscellaneous

Direct translation of the English. < 5 years of US education. Bilingual Spanish speakers in sample. Equated norms not actual separate Spanish norms. However, percentiles are based on parent education & years of schooling (student).

Practice effect when administering English and Spanish.

Clinton, 2007

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 177

Test

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 2 nd Edition (KABC 2) Ages 3-18

Commonly Used Instruments

Language

Mental Processing Index (MPI) (Minimal Language)

Norm Sample

3, 025 across USA.

Reliability Validity

Internal reliability (split half)= .72- .92 for all ages. Test- Retest = .72-.82. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrates good measures of Gf, Gsm, Gv, Gc, and Glr.).

Miscellaneous

Neuropsychological model (Luria). Processing oriented. Recommended for bilingual ELLs.

Good correlations with WISC IV & WJ III. Translated directions are a direct translation of the English. Not based on ELL samples. Criticism about lack of utility for educational planning. 178

Commonly Used Assessments

Language-based Measures Olvera, P. CASP 2013 179

Commonly Used Instruments

Test Language

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamenta ls 4 th Edition (Spanish) CELF-4 Spanish Spanish Cuba, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Central and South America, and other. Ages 5-21

Semel, Wiig, and Secord, 2006.

Norm Sample

1,100

Reliability Validity

Subtest Test – Retest: .68-.91 (All ages). Cluster: .79-.88 Demonstrate appropriate levels of validity for interpretation of Spanish scores, validity of constructs, and correlations with other similar measures. Olvera, P. CASP 2013

Miscellaneous

Bilingual children with Spanish being primary language. 30% lived in homes that spoke a language other than Spanish as follows: 96% English 3.2 % Other (French, Italian, and Portuguese). 180

Test

Expressive One Word (Spanish Bilingual Edition) Expressive One Word Ages 4-12:11

Commonly Used Instruments

Language Norm Sample

Spanish 1,050 (bilingual) Approximated U.S. Hispanic population

Reliability Validity

.92-.98 Good content validity (rigorous item selection procedure).

Very good construct validity.

Miscellaneous

Co-Normed with ROWPVT Excellent reviews.

Considers dialectical nuances (normed on Hispanics in US). Slight overrepresentation of Mexican Americans.

Manual claims that it can be used as an intelligence test (solely verbal). Should not be used in that manner. 181

Brownell, 2001

Olvera, P. CASP 2013

Test

Receptive One Word (Spanish Bilingual Edition)

Language

Spanish & English (combined language). Expressiv e One Word Bilingual Test Ages 4 12:11

Commonly Used Instruments

Norm Sample

1,050 (bilingual) Approximated U.S. Hispanic population

Reliability Validity

.92-.95 Good content validity (rigorous item selection procedure).

Very good construct validity.

Miscellaneous

Co-Normed with the EOWPVT Excellent reviews. “Very good measure of bilingual receptive ability.” Slight overrepresentation of Mexican Americans.

Spanish uses ‘Tu” And “usted” which may confuse some. 182

Krach, 2005

Olvera, P. CASP 2013

Test

Test of Auditory Processing Skills 3 Bilingual (TAPS 3 Bilingual ) Ages 5-0- 18 11

Commonly Used Instruments

Language Norm Sample Reliability Validity Miscellaneous

English & Spanish 851 Spanish (bilingual children) in the US and Puerto Rico. .53-.90 (index level). Test-retest .60-.95 (14 Days). Validity is well documented. Good construct validity. Not a direct translation. Data regarding subcategories of Hispanics not provided.

West Coast USA (N= 671). Good predicative validity of academic scores (WJ III) Norm sample does not exactly approximate US population. Good reviews of overall utility. Reviewers indicated that other factors are measured as well (verbal ability). Good attention to dialectical differences.

Vetter, 2010.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 183

Commonly Used Instruments

Test

Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) Ages 2-6 16-11

Language Norm Sample

Spanish (Mexican and Puerto Rican) Mexican Version= 1, 219 (Mexico City) Puerto Rican Version = 1, 488

Reliability Validity

Manuel does not state reliability. Established content, construct, and concurrent validity. All reliability studies based on the PPVT (English). Good correlations with other receptive vocabulary assessments Indicates that it is similar to English.

Gonzalez, 2001

Miscellaneous

Uses dialectically appropriate Mexican and Puerto Rican Spanish. Good norm sample.

Good reviews for receptive language measure. Need to update norms (1986). Olvera, P. CASP 2013 184

Commonly Used Assessments

Non-Verbal Measures Olvera, P. CASP 2013 185

Commonly Used Instruments

Test

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)

Language Norm Sample Reliability Validity

Nonverbal & Mediated Language Tasks 2,100 Universal Gestures ELLS & Bilingual Education Subtests (.64- .91). Composites (.83-.93). Strong concurrent validity with WISC III & Bateria R.

Miscellaneous

Limited range of CHC abilities (non verbal). No evidence of predicting achievement mentioned in manual.

Bracken & McCallum, 1998 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 186

Test

Leiter-R

Commonly Used Instruments

Language Norm Sample

Nonverbal 1,719

Reliability Validity Miscellaneous

Nationally Represent ative.

(Included ELLs). Subtests (.69-.90) Composites (.80s to .90s) for 11-20 years olds. Good validity demonstrated when compared against the WISC III. Studies of bias at the subtest have demonstrated few significant differences between Caucasian and Hispanic samples.

Based on CHC Model. Good predictor of academics. Excellent peer reviews. Roid & Miller, 2002 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 187

Commonly Used Instruments

Test

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 2 Edition (KABC 2) nd

Language

Nonverbal & MPI (Minimal Language)

Norm Sample

3, 025 across USA.

Reliability Validity Miscellaneous

Internal reliability= ..72- .92 for all ages. Test- Retest = .72-.82. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrates good measures of Gf, Gsm, Gv, Gc, and Glr.). Direct Translation of the English. Not based on ELL samples. NVI subtests can be administered with gestures. Good correlations with WISC IV & WJ III. Criticism about lack of utility for educational planning. NVI correlates best with math (.60-.67), reading (.60), and writing (.50-.60), and oral language (.50-.60) Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman, 2005 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 188

Commonly Used Instruments

Test Language

Comprehensiv e test of Nonverbal Intelligence 2 nd Edition (CTONI 2). Ages 6-89 years. Nonverbal Instructions English, Spanish, Chinese, French, Tagalog, Vietnamese, German and Korean.

Norm Sample

2, 827

Reliability Validity Miscellaneous

Composite reliability ranged from .90-.95 (internal consistency) , 80 (or greater) for test retest, and interscorer= .95. Good construct and criterion prediction validity. Decreases language and motor demands. Good predictor of intelligence and achievement scores. Multiple languages (directions). Not standardized using the non-English languages. Possible bias on test items ( i.e., American football). Delen, Kaya, & Ritter, 2012 Olvera, P. CASP 2013 189

Commonly Used Instruments

• What did I learn?

– There are no perfect tests.

– Know limitations – Know Strengths – Interpret within the context of outside data (RIOT) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 190

Is SP and SLP Assessment Compatible from a CHC Perspective? Olvera, P. CASP 2013 191

Is SP and SLP Assessment Compatible from a CHC Perspective?

TAPS CELF WRAML VMI CHC Area /Battery

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Crystallized Abilities (Gc) Long Term Retrieval (Glr) Visual Processing (Gv) Auditory Processing (Ga) Short Term Memory (Gsm) Processing Speed (Gs)

KABC 2

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Olvera, P. CASP 2013 192

Is SP and SLP Assessment Compatible from a CHC Perspective?

CTOPP TOLD 4 CAS VMI CHC Area /Battery

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Crystallized Abilities (Gc) Long Term Retrieval (Glr) Visual Processing (Gv) Auditory Processing (Ga) Short Term Memory (Gsm) Processing Speed (Gs)

WISC IV

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Olvera, P. CASP 2013 193

Is SP and SLP Assessment Compatible from a CHC Perspective?

CTOPP CASL WRAML VMI CHC Area /Battery

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Crystallized Abilities (Gc) Long Term Retrieval (Glr) Visual Processing (Gv) Auditory Processing (Ga) Short Term Memory (Gsm) Processing Speed (Gs)

WJ III

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Olvera, P. CASP 2013 194

Is SP and SLP Assessment Compatible from a CHC Perspective?

WJ III/WISC IV

Understanding Directions

CELF -4

Concepts/Followi ng Directions Sentence Recall Similarities Picture Vocabulary Vocabulary Recalling Sentence Word Classes Expressive Voc Word Definitions Story Recall Understanding Spoken Paragraph Sound Awareness Phonological Awareness Olvera, P. CASP 2013 195

Is SP and SLP Assessment Compatible from a CHC Perspective?

WJ-III WISC-IV/WIATIII

Picture Vocabulary Vocabulary Receptive Voc (WIAT III) Sentence Mem (wiat iii) Auditory Attention Sound Awareness Similarities

TOLD-P:4

Picture Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary Syntactic Understanding Sentence Imitation Word Discrimination Phonemic Analysis Word Articulation Relational Vocabulary Morphological Completion 196

ELL Case Studies: Evaluation of the Data (Traditional and Emerging Approaches)

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 197

Discrepancy Tradition Model IQ/ACH Discrepancy

Different Identification Approaches (Traditional and Emerging Models)

PSW (Third Method) RTI Psychological Processing (CA-Larry P) Academic Skills Non-IQ based assessment of basic psychological processes Cross Battery Approach Cognitive Hypothesis Testing (Hale) Discrepancy- Consistency (Naglieri) Looks at performance in cognitive abilities to related academic areas.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 198

Different Identification Approaches

Traditional Discrepancy:

• A specific learning disability is revealed through a severe discrepancy between the pupil’s intellectual ability and academic achievement. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (j)(4)(A).) •

Plus or minus 4 points (SEM).

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 199

Different Identification Approaches

Pattern of Strengths of Weaknesses (PSW): “a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to intellectual development, that is determined by the team to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability” ( Applegate, et al., 2010).

Criteria

Criteria #1:Does the student demonstrate a weakness (SS= <80*) in academic performance (CA Standards below peers) and/or achievement relative to age or grade level standards?

Criteria #2: Does the student have a weakness (SS= 80*) in one or more of the basic psychological processes (verified by more than one data source)? Criteria #3: Is the identified basic psychological process related to the area of academic underachievement? Criteria #4: Are identified weaknesses (SS= <80*)present in an otherwise typical pattern (SS= >90*) of functioning (i.e. the student also demonstrates strengths in some areas of achievement and psychological processing)? If yes to the above, then the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability. 200

Different Identification Approaches

• CHC Operational Definition (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2011).

Criteria

Criteria #1: Difficulties in one or more areas of academic achievement ( 7 IDEA Areas). Criteria #2: Review of Exclusionary Factors. Criteria #3: Disorder (SS= <80) in one or more of the basic psychological processes.

Criteria #4: Unexpected Underachievement- learning skill profile exhibiting significant variability indicating processing areas of strength and weakness Criteria #5: Specific learning disability has an adverse impact on educational performance. If yes to the above, then the student has a learning disability. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 201

•

Different Identification Approaches

Larry P. Psychological Processing Approach (CDE, 1989, p. 66) ; Section 3030j (b) & (c)).

Criteria (the following factors must be discussed).

1. Patterns of current achievement are not commensurate with intellectual/cognitive functioning. 2. Achievement levels are below the expected range of norms for the current classroom.

3. Rate of achievement has become more disparate from peers as increasingly complex tasks are introduced 4. Documented have not been successful? 5. Teacher, parent, and pupil reports identify problem area and impact pupils achievement at home and at school 6. Cognitive/Intellectual functioning is established as within the average range and achievement levels are significantly below expectancy.

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 202

Case Studies

We will be reviewing various case studies. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 203

Case Studies

• Five Pathways Have Been Discussed. • • • • • Modified/Adapted/Accommodations Nonverbal/Language-Free/Language-Reduced Assessment Native Language/Primary Language (L1) English Only Testing Flexible/Dynamic (Bilingual) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 204

Examples

• Case #1: Jose Bilingual • Case #2: Sally • Case #3: Andy L1 & L2 • Case #4: Suzie “Nonverbal” • Case #5: Andy L1 & L2 (see Handout #5) Olvera, P. CASP 2013 205

In Closing

PRE-REFERRAL

•

How are we teaching our ELLs in the General Educational Setting (Tier 1):



Are they receiving effective instruction?



Has it been grounded in research and is it evidence-based?

•

How about ELD instruction?



Is it connected to the core?



Does it build CALP?

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 206

In Closing

PRE-REFERRAL

•

Intensive Interventions (Tier 2):



Is there a school-wide commitment to high expectations for all ELLs?



Are they evidenced-based?



Are we progress monitoring?



Is it culturally and linguistically appropriate?



Is SPED the very last consideration after all other options have been exhausted?

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 207

In Closing

Process

–

Determining Language of Assessment

•

Have you determined language of assessment?

• •

Have you used a standardized assessment (BVAT, CELDT, Etc.)? Have you determined BICS and CALP (L1 & L2).

• •

Are able to or do you have a competent assessor? Is your assessor trained?

•

Do you document who and how the student was assessed?

–

Does the student exhibits patterns which would be expected in ELL children with learning difficulties?

•

Academics

•

Language?

•

Classroom observation?

• 208

In Closing

Process

•

Selecting Language of Assessment:

– MAMBI – Clinical Judgment! – Exclusionary Factors Olvera, P. CASP 2013 209

In Closing

Systemic Perspectives What we ’ ve Learned in our Journey Together

Pathways

•

SPED Assessment (Tier 3):

•

Assessment Methods

– – – – – Modified/Adapted/Accommodations Language-Free/Language-Reduced Assessment Native Language/Primary Language English Only Testing 210

In Closing

Pathways

•

Tools to help you analyze and interpret data:

– – – Cultural Language Test Classifications (C-LTC) Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix (C-LIM) Do you have a theory/approach that you all follow which will help with using a common language? Olvera, P. CASP 2013 211

In Closing

Systemic Perspectives: What we ’ ve Learned in our Journey Together

Pathways

•

SPED Assessment (Tier 3):

•

Assessment tools

– – –

Do you select tools that are low in culture and language demand? Do SPs and SLPs sit down together and jointly select and discuss tools?

Is there a committee composed of SPs and SLPs that collaborate and work together and make test purchase recommendations?

Olvera, P. CASP 2013 212

In Closing

Systemic Perspectives: What we ’ ve Learned in our Journey Together

Evaluation of Case Data

•

Evaluation of Assessment Data:

– How do you evaluate your data and make diagnostic decisions?

• • Discrepancy? Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses? • • CHC Operational Definitions? Alternative? – Is there a district team that can organize and make recommendations as to how determine eligibility? Should include SPs, SLPs, SPED, Admin, etc. Olvera, P. CASP 2013 213

In Closing

Evaluation of Case Data

•

Report Format:

– Is there a standard report that you use for ELLs? – Is there a district group that can recommend a format? – – Should be made up of SPs, SLPs, SPED, etc. See Bilingual Evaluation Rubric Olvera, P. CASP 2013 214

The End: Questions or Comments? [email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.neuroedclinic.com/ Olvera, P. CASP 2013 215