Transcript IEP Team Meetings

SES Spring 2010
Spotlight on Practice:
The English Language Learner
And
Special Education
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Referral and Identification
Assessment Plans and Procedures
Eligibility Considerations
IEP Team Meetings
Current Issues
ELL in California
• 1.6 million of the 6.25 million California
students are considered ELL
• ELL students speak more than 50 different
languages
• 10-12 percent of ELL students are also
students with disabilities
Referral and Identification
• Who is identified as ELL/LEP?
– Aged 3-21
– Enrolled/preparing to enroll in an elementary
or secondary school
– Not born in the U.S. or native language not
English
– And …
cont.
Referral and Identification
• Who is identified as ELL/LEP?
– English difficulties sufficient to deny student
• ability to meet proficiency level on tests;
• ability to achieve successfully in Englishspeaking classroom; OR
• opportunity to participate fully in society
Referral and Identification
• “Native language” is defined as:
– The language normally used by that
individual, or, in the case of a child, the
language normally used by the parents of the
child
– In all direct contact with a child, the language
normally used by the child in the home or
learning environment
Referral and Identification
• How is a school district notified of second
language issues?
– Home language survey completed
– If a language other than English is spoken in
the home CELDT administered to determine
ELL needs
Referral and Identification
• Referral of ELL students follows normal
process
• Be sure referral is not based on limited
English language acquisition
Practice Pointer
Staff members may want to consult with an
ELL teacher prior to referring an ELL student
for special education
Practice Pointer
As with all students with disabilities, make
sure that the ELL student’s general
education teacher has implemented
effective instructional strategies, such as
using repetition, paraphrasing, etc., prior
to referral
Assessment Plans
• Districts must provide a proposed
assessment plan in the native language of
the parent/guardian -“unless to do so is clearly not feasible”
Assessment Plans
“Clearly not feasible” is not defined
Practice Pointer
Make sure parents of ELL student
understand the purpose of special
education in the U.S.; this may dispel
misconceptions.
Assessment Plans
• Districts must include the student’s
primary language and language
proficiency status on any proposed
assessment plan
Assessment Procedures
• Assessments
– Cannot be discriminatory on a racial or
cultural basis
– Used for the purposes for which assessments
or measures are valid and reliable
– Administered by trained and knowledgeable
personnel
– Administered in accordance with any
instructions provided by the producer of the
assessments
Assessment Procedures
• Provide and administer assessments and
other evaluation materials
– In the student’s native language
– In the form most likely to yield accurate
information
“unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or
administer”
Practice Pointer
Review a student’s CELDT and other
assessments in listening, speaking,
reading, and writing to decide whether
English or another language is
appropriate
Assessment Procedures
Qualified Personnel
• Competent in both the oral, or sign
language skills, and written skills of the
primary language; and
• Have a knowledge and understanding of
the cultural and ethnic background of the
student
Assessment Procedures
Interpreter
• If it is not feasible to administer the
assessment in the primary language, an
interpreter must be used and this condition
must be documented in the report
– Note whether validity may have been affected
– Include a statement that interpreter
administered under supervision of the
assessor
Practice Pointer
Use non-traditional methods to gather
assessment information if necessary, such
as reviewing student work samples and
seeking parental feedback about the student
Assessment Reports
• Assessment reports must address the
effects of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage
• Particularly important for ELL student to
avoid over-identification
Assessment Reports
• It is not clear whether districts must
provide a written translation of assessment
reports
• However, doing so may help demonstrate
that a parent has been fully informed and
has had the opportunity to participate in
his child’s education
Eligibility Considerations
• Limited English proficiency cannot be the
primary determining factor for special
education eligibility
• IEP teams must rule out cultural factors,
environmental or economic disadvantage,
and limited English proficiency in
determining whether a student has a SLD
IEP Team Meetings
• Parent Participation
– State and federal law contain requirements
designed to ensure the participation of
parents whose primary language is other than
English
• E.g., notice of IEP team
meetings, copies of IEPs to
parents, etc.
IEP Team Meetings
• Districts must ensure that
parents understand the
proceedings of IEP team
meetings, including
providing an interpreter
when necessary
Practice Pointer
Insure that interpreters have sufficient
training to help parents participate in an
IEP team meeting, including the ability to
translate special education terminology
IEP Team Members
• The IEP team may require particular
expertise in ELL issues, such as
– Staff member who can interpret the results of
CELDT testing
– Staff trained in second language acquisition
able to determine and write linguistically
appropriate goals
Access to ELD Programs
• California law requires that all ELL
students, including students with
disabilities, have access to ELD programs
• This is problematic if disability affects
second language acquisition
Access to ELD Programs
• If student’s potential for learning a second
language is severely limited -IEP team may
consider requesting
a parental waiver
from an ELD
program
IEP Team Meetings
• IEP teams must consider the language
needs of the student as those needs relate
to his or her IEP
Practice Pointer
Add the requirement to include linguistically
appropriate goals, objectives, programs, and
services as a separate agenda item to
ensure that the language development
needs of the ELL student are discussed
IEP Team Meetings
• IEPs for ELL students must include
“linguistically appropriate goals, objectives,
programs, and services”
• This means:
– Activities which lead to the development of
English language proficiency
– Instructional systems which meet the
language development needs of the ELL
student
Practice Pointer
At the IEP team meeting, directly address
the need for ELD or bilingual services.
Include such issues as:
– the appropriate school placement to allow
access to needed ELD services
– the appropriate language for speech and
language therapy services
– the need for bilingual aide services
CELDT Accommodations
• The IEP team should consider what
accommodations and modifications the student
might need to participate in CELDT testing.
• Students unable to participate in the CELDT with
variations, accommodations or modifications
may take an alternative assessment
• These decisions should be documented in the
IEP
Practice Pointer
IEP teams should ask whether a student has a
unique educational need to have his special
education program delivered in English only, or in
another language
OAH, ELL and FAPE
• Student v. Los Angeles USD (OAH 2006)
– 5th grader
– Eligible under OHI
– At the initial IEP team meeting, the IEP team
discussed ELD based on observations, ELD
standards, and assessments of Student’s work
– IEP team designed a program to meet his unique
needs in the area of ELD
– District prevailed on all issues heard
– The fact that District discussed ELD and that ELD
was a component of Student’s program likely added
to the weight of the evidence in the District’s favor
OAH, ELL and FAPE
• Clovis USD v. Student (OAH 2009)
– 12-year-old boy
– Eligible under autism
– Parents alleged that District failed to include ELD
goals and ELD program in IEP
– OAH found in favor of District
– ALJ stated that “ELL standards are state-mandated
and, once Student was assessed and determined to
still be eligible for ELD services, they were provided
pursuant to the state mandate, irrespective of whether
he had an IEP”
OAH, ELL and FAPE
• Student v. Rialto USD (SEHO 2002)
FACTS:
– Six-year-old girl
– Eligible under speech and language
– Parents alleged that she was not receiving
appropriate ELD academic support because
her IEP did not include any ELD goals
– District argued that she received appropriate
ELD services and that ELD services had no
bearing on her special education program
cont.
OAH, ELL and FAPE
• RULING:
– SEHO agreed with the District
– SEHO found that student’s status as an ELL
student and placement in an ELD program
was unrelated to any disability
– Her IEP, therefore, did not require any goals
related to her participation in the ELD
program
(Student v. Rialto USD (SEHO 2002).)
Practice Pointer
Just because a student is identified as an
ELL student and participates in an ELD
program does not mean that she must have
IEP goals related to her participation in the
ELD program. This is an IEP team decision.
Current Issues
• Data Collection and Analysis
– ELL students are the fastest growing
subgroup of children in the public schools
– Little data, however, exists regarding the link
between ELL and special education students
Current Issues
• Improper Designation
– Approximately 3 out of 4 ELL students in
special education are improperly placed
– In order to identify whether proper disability
identification for ELL students is occurring,
school districts need access to data
highlighting the link between ELL and special
education students
Current Issues
• Communication and Collaboration
Between Special Education and EL Staff
– IEP teams need an understanding
• Not only of individual students’ language
needs
• But also of how the student might be
included in state-mandated ELD instruction
cont.
Current Issues
• Communication and Collaboration
Between Special Education and EL Staff
– Districts may want to consider policies
• Ensuring staff trained in ELD instruction
and services are members of IEP teams
• Promoting ELD training for special
education staff
Q&A