Transcript ELL & LD - Maine Association of School Psychologists

Comprehension: It’s a squishier thing
• Code-based skills are discrete/concrete and are therefore
fairly susceptible to explicit instruction and guided practice
in a relatively short period of time
• Meaning-related skills, in contrast, are far more associated
with such person-specific and somewhat ephemeral
characteristics such as prior knowledge, vocabulary,
knowledge of text structure, interest, and personal
relevance
• Comprehension is also generally less mastery-based
Determination of English Language
Proficiency
1. Proficiency Interview (or ‘Home Language Survey’)
* What language did the child first learn to speak?
* What language does he/she speak best now?
* How many years has he/she been exposed to spoken and
written English?
* What language is spoken the most by individuals in the home?
* What language does the child speak at home most of the
time?
2. Standardized English Language Proficiency Test
* WIDA Access Test (‘ACCESS for ELLs’)
* LAS (Language Assessment Scales)
WIDA ACCESS Test
• ACCESS for ELLs® is a large-scale test used to
assess English language proficiency (ELP). It
does not assess content area knowledge such
as math or social studies. Four language
domains are assessed: listening, speaking,
reading, and writing. ACCESS for ELLs®
composite scores are used to assign an ELP
level as indicated:
ELP Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Descriptio
n
Entering
Beginning
Developin
g
Expanding
Bridging
Reaching
Composit
1.0 - 1.9
2.0 - 2.9
3.0 - 3.9
4.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 5.9
6
How long does it take ELL kids to
develop reasonable English
proficiency?
• Oral language: 3 – 5 years
• Academic English: 4 – 10 years
• There is great variability in how quickly ELL
students learn English and in the type of
proficiency they reach in conversational and
literacy situations.
Hahta, Butler and Witt, 2000 (Stanford University Study)
Federal Definition of SLD
Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of
the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or
in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself
in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell,
or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such
as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific
learning disability does not include learning problems that are
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
From the Maine Sped Regs
(Chapter 101)
Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child
under this section . .
(a) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a
racial or cultural basis;
(b) Are provided and administered in the child’s native language or other
mode of communication and form most likely to yield accurate
information on what the child knows and can do academically,
developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to so provide or
administer;
(c) Are used for purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid
and reliable.
Page 44
More Chapter 101
The child scores 1.5 or more standard deviations below the
mean for the child ’s age on tests in one area of psychological
processing, or 1 or more standard deviations below the mean
in two or more areas of psychological processing.
Instruments used for determining processing disorders must
have peer reviewed, scientific research documentation,
independent of that provided in the test manual, that
supports a correlation between the processing problem and
the academic deficit; Such tests may include measures of
memory, phonological skills, processing speed as well as
other measures which explicitly test psychological processing.
Page 80
The reality . .
• There are NO cognitive processing measures
that are standardized on English Language
Learners(non-native English speakers).
• That means that there are NO standardized
tests of processing that can be considered
reliable and valid for use with ELL kids.
Chapter 101
For children in grades 4-12, the following criteria
must also be met: The child obtains a composite
standardized score that is no lower than 1.5
standard deviations below the mean on at least one
index/scale of cognitive functioning from a
standardized measure of general cognitive ability.
The index/scale must include at least 3 subtests and
the score must be interpretable according to the test
used.
Page 80
The reality . .
• There are a few nonverbal intellectual assessment
measures that are standardized on some ELL
populations:
1. Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)
2. Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNS)
3. Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second
Edition (KABC-2)
4. Differential Abilities Scale, 2nd Edition
But none of these are standardized on African and Asian populations for the
purpose of identifying cognitive processing disorders.
The Bottom Line:
The standardized assessment of cognitive
processing disorders can only be done with
native English speakers.
It simply cannot be fairly (ethically, reliably,
validly) done with ELL/non-native English
speakers.
Some consolation . .
We can use any instruments
we want to in a NONSTANDARDIZED manner.
Chapter 101
The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet
State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas,
when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the
child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards:
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(ff)
(gg)
(hh)
Oral expression.
Listening comprehension.
Written expression.
Basic reading skill.
Reading fluency skills.
Reading comprehension.
Mathematics calculation.
Mathematics problem solving.
Page 81
The reality . .
• There are NO standardized/individualized
measures of academic achievement that have
been standardized on ELL/non-native English
speakers.
• The WIAT-III and KTEA-2 manuals explicitly state
that non-native English speaking populations
were purposefully excluded from the
standardization sample/population.
If the WIAT-III or similar instruments
are used with ELL kids:
• Only raw score derived scores (e.g., age and
grade equivalent scores) should be computed
• Since these scores provide an indication of the
amount of English-based academic skill a student
has amassed in his/her time in this country (not
from a standardized perspective, but simply from
a ‘how much has the kid learned?’ perspective).
Chapter 101
The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age
or State approved grade-level standards in one or more
of the areas identified in paragraph (i)(I) of this section
when using a process based on the child’s response to
scientific, research-based intervention; or the child
exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in
performance, achievement, or both, relative to age,
State-approved grade level standards, or intellectual
development, that is determined by the group to be
relevant to the identification of a specific learning
disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with
§§300.304 and 300.305[Section V].
Page 81
Even More Maine Sped Regs:
The group determines that its findings under paragraphs
(i)(I) and (II) of this section are not primarily the result of—
(aa) A visual, hearing, or motor disability;
(bb) Mental retardation (now known as intellectual disability);
(cc) Emotional disturbance;
(dd) Cultural factors;
(ee) Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
(ff)
Limited English proficiency.
Page 83
The most sane/reasonable way
forward with regard to SLD
assessment of ELL kids:
• Assessment methods that avoid the use of
standardized intellectual, processing, and
academic achievement methods and that
instead center on . .
• Response to intervention/multi-tiered
problem-solving based approaches (i.e.,
Minneapolis’ SNAP model – Student in Need
of Alternative Programming)
It’s a S.N.A.P.
The Minneapolis problem-solving model (MPSM) is a
problem-solving model that includes collaborative
consultation. It is designed as a three-tier process to
measure Response to Intervention (RTI) and is used in the
special education eligibility process. Marston, Muyskens,
Lau, and Canter (2003) identified four themes driving district
implementation:
1. The inappropriateness of intelligence tests and the IQ–
achievement discrepancy for determination of eligibility;
2. Bias in assessment;
3. Allocation of school psychologist time;
4. Linking assessment to instruction through curriculumbased measurement (CBM).
RTI Network
More on the Minneapolis Model
Within this model, intervention assistance teams
(IATs) are responsible for problem solving and
consist of the general education teacher, special
education personnel, the school psychologist, and
other specialists and administrators as needed. The
IATs use a four-step system for identifying and
supporting students with academic difficulties: a)
describing with specificity the student’s problem, b)
generating and implementing strategies for
instructional intervention, c) monitoring student
progress and evaluating effectiveness of instruction,
and d) continuing this cycle as necessary.
RTI Network (rtinetwork.org)
Not ‘SLD,’ but SNAP
Students found eligible for special education
services under this alternative model are
identified on their IEP’s as ‘S.N.A.P.’
That is, as a Student in Need of Alternative
Programming (it’s essentially a non-categorical
classification).
What is it???
AIMSweb is a benchmark and progress monitoring system
based on direct, frequent and continuous student assessment.
The results are reported to students, parents, teachers and
administrators via a web-based data management and reporting
system to determine response to intervention.
Sped eligibility
and progress
monitoring
Small group
progress
monitoring
Universal
benchmarking
CBM data
informs the
eval process