Transcript Document

Appropriate Eligibility Determinations
for English Language Learners Suspected of
Having Reading-related Learning Disabilities:
Linking Student, Schooling,
Early Intervention,
Referral, and Assessment Data
alba
Cheryl Y. Wilkinson
Alba A. Ortiz
Phyllis Robertson-Courtney
The University of Texas at Austin
Millicent I. Kushner
University of Maryland
Field Initiated Study: Best Practices in Oral Language
and Reading Instruction for Bilingual Exceptional
Students (BESt Practices Project)
Primary purposes of this longitudinal study:
-Describe characteristics of Spanish-speaking
students identified as having reading-related learning
disabilities
-Make recommendations regarding best practices in
referral, assessment, and instruction for these students
*The project was funded by the U. S. Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitation Services. This does not suggest an
endorsement of the results nor does it reflect the position of
OSERS.
P
Participating School District
•Urban district in Central Texas with an ideal
configuration
of services:
L
-Well-established bilingual education
programs
-Bilingual assessment personnel
-Bilingual special education classrooms
Participants
•Parent permission obtained for 70 of the 90 ELLs with
reading-related LD in the district’s 10 BSE classrooms
(73%)
•Eligible students had IEPs that documented amount of
time allocated to reading instruction in a BSE
classroom
•These students followed several paths to an LD
classification:
-LD
-LD/Speech Impaired
-Speech Impaired to LD
-Early Childhood Intervention to LD
Subgroup Sample: “Pure
LDs”
•21 students initially classified as LD who
continued to be served as LD only
11 (52%) males
10 (48%) females
•Half were born in Mexico
•Spanish was the primary language
DI Language Proficiency Data
6 (29%) Fluent Spanish Speaking
12 (57%) Limited Spanish Speaking
3 (14%) Non-Spanish Speaking
18 (86%) Non-English Speaking
3 (14%) Limited English Speaking
Grade at Referral
Grade at referral (n=20; missing data for 1
student)
1st
2nd
3rd
4 (19%)
9 (43%)
7 (33%)
Data Sources
•Cumulative folders
•Bilingual education eligibility committee
records
•Special education records
Two categories of results:
•District’s
•
eligibility determinations
•Eligibility determinations based on an
Expert Panel Review
Standardized Assessment Instruments:
IQ
18 (86%) Non-verbal IQ
11 Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal
Intelligence (CTONI)
5 Non-verbal Scale of the Kauffman
Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC)
2 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-2)
3 (14%) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
All scores were reported as within the normal range.
Achievement Testing
16 (76%) Batería Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas de
aprovechamiento-Revisada
4 (19%) Combination of the Woodcock Language
Proficiency Battery--Revised and the
math
subtest of the older version of Batería.
1 (5%) The Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational
Battery-Revised
IQ-Achievement Discrepancies
•All students' FIEs documented one or more
significant discrepancies between intelligence and
achievement.
[In Texas, a difference of 16 or more points using a scale
with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15]
.
•Discrepancies were documented in basic reading,
reading comprehension, written expression, math
calculation and math reasoning.
Dis
Multidisciplinary
Team
Eligibility Determination
•Discrepancies between IQ and achievement
appeared to be the basis for eligibility
determinations.
•Even though a second option which allowed the
eligibility determination to be based on other, less
formal, criteria was available, this option was not
used.
•All of the students met the legal criteria for
classification as LD.
Expert Panel Review
Student data were reviewed by three
university-level bilingual special education
faculty who independently gave their
opinion as to whether the 21 participants
qualified as LD.
1 Ph.D.
2 Ph.D
School Psychology
Special Education
Average 19 years of BSE experience
Data Analysis
Each expert conducted an independent review of
student records and made an eligibility
recommendation (Qualify/Do not qualify).
Panel members reached the same eligibility
decision for 13 students (62%).
For the other 8 cases, the panel met as a group to
reach consensus, and documented the reasons
for their mutual decision.
Expert Panel Eligibility Determinations
When information other than IQ-achievement
discrepancies was considered, students could be
divided into three distinct groups:
-Students with LD (n=6)
-Students with disabilities, but for whom an LD
classification was questioned (n=6)
-Students with significant learning problems, for
whom an LD classification was questioned based
on the presence of other factors that could
explain the difficulty (n=9)
Characteristics of Students
with Reading-related LD (n=6)
In addition to significant IQ-achievement
discrepancies, other evidence was presented to
eliminate competing factors or hypotheses that
might explain learning problems:
Characteristics of Students
with Reading-related LD, continued
-Students had had consistent schooling, but
achievement was still substantially below grade level;
-Significant reading difficulties were documented
over time;
-Referrals occurred after specialized interventions in
the context of general education failed to resolve
reading difficulties.
Characteristics of Students
with Reading-related LD, continued
-Multiple data sources corroborated reading difficulties
(e.g., results of the FIE corroborated reasons for
referral; results of formal and informal assessments
consistent)
-Teachers reported that students exhibited behaviors
commonly associated with LD (e.g., poor fine motor
skills, disorganization, inability to work independently,
difficulty completing tasks, etc.).
-Parents reported similar problems at home (e.g.,
cannot follow directions, forgets, inappropriate
Characteristics of Students for Whom an LD
Classification was Questioned (n=6)
Expert Panel agreed with the MDTs that this
group of students qualified for special education
services.
But, additional assessment and data gathering
was needed to confirm or refute an LD
classification.
Characteristics of Students for
Whom an LD Classification was
Questioned (continued)
There was significant variation on a caseby-case basis among this group of
students.
For example,
-the teacher requested a speech and
language evaluation but it was not
conducted.
-the student had experienced a head
trauma, but nothing in the records
indicated a medical follow-up to eliminate a
diagnosis of traumatic brain injury.
Characteristics of Students for Whom an
LD Classification was Questioned
(continued)
While the panelists recognized that a disability
label does not dictate the type of services
students are provided, without an accurate
diagnosis, students might not receive the
services needed to address the root of the
problem.
Characteristics of Students whom the Panel did
not Qualify for Special Education
The panel did not concur with MDT eligibility decisions
in 9 of the 21 cases (43%).
The issues that led the expert panel to question
eligibility decisions can be grouped into the following
categories.
Missing or Incomplete Data
•Information in student records was simply
insufficient for the panel to reach an eligibility
decision.
•The data most likely to be missing or
incomplete were health, social, and school
histories (over time)
•Language dominance and proficiency data
were inconsistent, out of date, or unavailable.
Significant
Life Events
Some students had experienced significant life events
that could have impacted their performance. Records
did not indicate that these factors were considered.
-divorce
-separation from parents who immigrated to
U.S.
-death of a parent
L Prereferral Intervention
•Prereferral interventions were not documented.
•When documented,
-information about the outcomes of
interventions was not recorded; or,
-successful general education interventions
were abandoned in favor of special education
referral.
Assessments
•Conducted in English, although the student was
receiving reading instruction in Spanish.
•Conducted entirely in Spanish, even though student
had been transitioned to English reading instruction.
•Eligibility recommendation based on a barely
significant discrepancy in one area, with all other
scores at/above grade level or commensurate with IQ.
Exclusionary Clause
•Participants in referral, assessment, and MDT
processes did not document how they had ruled
out special factors as required by Federal and
state law under the exclusionary clause (IDEA
Amendments, 1997).
-limited English proficiency
-environmental factors
-lack of opportunity to learn
Limitations of the Study
•Panel's conclusions were based solely on written records.
Important data, not recorded, may have been available to
these committees, but not the expert panel.
•Panelists were not present when referral committees and
MDTs deliberated evidence and made an eligibility
determination.
Nonetheless, the results suggest ways in which the
processes used in prereferral, referral, assessment, and
eligibility determinations involving ELLs can be improved.
And, they suggest important research and training needs.
Con
Main Conclusion
•Identifying learning disabilities among
thi ELLs is a complex task even under “ideal”
circumstances.
•You don’t want to even think about what
happens in less than ideal situations.
Participants in prereferral, referral,
assessment, and multidisciplinary team
processes had difficulty distinguishing
among:
•ELLs whose academic problems can be
directly attributed to deficiencies in the
teaching-learning environment
•ELLs whose learning problems become more
serious over time because instruction is not
modified to address educational needs
•ELLs with disabilities
•ELLs with LD and ELLs with other disabilities
•It is easy to say that assessments should be
nondiscriminatory and that MDTs should rule
out factors such as limited English
proficiency, cultural differences, and lack of
opportunity to learn as the cause of learning
problems
•It is far more difficult to make an eligibility
decision that results in an improved and
appropriate instructional placement when one
or more of these descriptors applies to an
individual student.
The focus on factors at one level ignores
factors at another level (Rueda, today).
•Data-gathering focuses on special education
requirements for eligibility determinations.
the
However, the data gathered at the point of
referral may not be the data needed to answer
question, “Is is a difference or is it a disability?”
•The answer may be found several years back in the
student/family/school history.
•Without this “look back in time”, special education
will continue to be a dumping ground for significant
issues that are not disability-related.
Need for Centralized Data
There is a tremendous volume of information collected on
ELLS over the course of their school careers.
However, it is recorded on many different forms, forms are
kept in many different files, and records are kept in many
different locations.
Consequently, neither bilingual education nor special
education committees have access to all the data they need
when they make decisions about eligibility, and program
placements, or develop instructional interventions.
To make an appropriate eligibility
determination, a multiplicity of factors must
be considered, including
-parent input
-home language,
-oral language proficiency in L1 and L2
-literacy levels in both languages,
-prior instruction,
-type, duration, quality of special language
programs
-teacher variables
-FIE results
ETC.
Given the multiplicity of factors, and the volume of
data, we need mechanisms that help teachers,
assessment personnel, and prereferral, referral,
and multidisciplinary teams focus on information
and factors that seem to be most critical to
making accurate decisions.
For example, the factors that distinguished the LD
group from other students in this substudy.
Checklist for Determining the Presence of
a Learning Disability among ELLs:
Early Intervention:
I. What is the student's present level of
performance?
II. Based on the above information, how was
instruction modified and what were the results?
Checklist: Campus-based Problem-solving
III.
What interventions did the problem-solving team,
in cooperation with the teacher and family, decide
to implement and what procedures were identified
for analyzing and documenting effectiveness?
IV. What were the results of the intervention and do
any difficulties remain?
If difficulties persist despite well-implemented
interventions, determine whether additional
problem-solving is needed or determine whether a
special education referral is warranted.
Checklist: Referral Committees
V. The referral committee reviews early intervention efforts
and considers factors, other than the presence of a
disability, that may explain academic and behavioral
difficulties (e.g. exclusionary clause).
VI. The committee explores other alternatives that should
be considered to resolve the difficulties before
requesting a full and individual evaluation (FIE).
VII. The referral committee identifies unresolved questions
and concerns. They share these with assessment
personnel to direct the assessment process away from
a focus on “legitimating the label”.
Checklist: Assessment Personnel
VIII. When an FIE is recommended, what procedures will
be used to address the issues identified by the referral
committee? What additional procedures may be needed
to
establish eligibility?
IX. Conduct the FIE incorporating best practices with
regard to the assessment of English Language Learners.
X. Correlate FIE outcomes with referral concerns.
XI. Identify student's strengths and weaknesses.
Checklist: Multidisciplinary Team
XII. Does the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT)
include members who can facilitate the
following:
involve parents meaningfully
interpret for parents
etc.
XIII. Does the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) have
any remaining questions after FIE results have
been considered? If so, specify the additional
action and/or information needed to resolve
them.
XIV. The Multidisciplinary Team (MDT)
determines that all potential factors contributing
to the student's difficulties have been
considered as FIE results are interpreted and
documents data that addresses the
exclusionary clause.
XV. The MDT determines eligibility based on the
referral and assessment information. Data other
than the presence of an IQ-achievement
discrepancy support the decision.
Massive Training Implications
•Cross-disciplinary training for all
-Teachers
-Assessors
-Teams (Prereferral and MDT)
-Administrators
Need for Integrated versus Parallel Expertise
•Having bilingual personnel is a necessary, but
not sufficient condition, for accurate diagnoses.
•Dual certification (i.e., bilingual education and
special education or bilingual education and
assessment certification) is also insufficient.
Who will provide this integrated
training?
•There is a critical need for
-expertise among University faculty and
professional development specialists;
-collaboration among bilingual
education, English as a second language,
general education, and special education in
providing cross-disciplinary training (and in
making decisions).
While there is a critical need for more
research in these areas, it would certainly
help to implement what we already know.