Transcript Understanding and Embracing the Needs of Our ELL Students

Separating Difference from
Disability
Why Are We Here?
Comparison
2005-2006
2012-2013
350 ELLs
33 languages
762 ELLs
62 languages
We are Growing
# of Languages
70
# of Students
900
800
60
700
50
600
40
500
# of Languages
# of Students
400
30
300
20
200
10
100
0
0
2012
2011
2012
2011
Students by Language
Other
Tamil
French
Urdu
Marathi
Malayalam
Tagalog
Spanish
Chinese -Cantonese
Telugu
Romanian
Hindi
Arabic
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese Unspecified
Japanese
Vietnamese
Russian
Korean
2011-2012 Data
Count of Special Ed
Grade
N
Y
Grand Total
Percent in Special Ed
1
140
5
145
3.45%
2
73
7
80
8.75%
3
54
4
58
6.90%
4
33
10
43
23.26%
5
32
12
44
27.27%
6
33
18
51
35.29%
7
18
9
27
33.33%
8
12
8
20
40.00%
9
19
1
20
5.00%
10
9
4
13
30.77%
11
7
1
8
12.50%
12
8
8
0.00%
K2
145
6
151
3.97%
Grand Total
583
85
668
12.72%
Do You See What I See?
160
140
120
100
N
80
Y
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
K2
Building the Foundation
A Quote from Research
One of the most common reasons for referrals to special
education has been limited English proficiency (MaldonadoColón, 1986). This is the case despite the fact that limited
English proficiency, when it stems from the presence of
a non-English language in the child's home, has, in and
of itself, no negative effects on learning. […]
When, however, no accommodations are made to a
child's lack of proficiency in the language of the EC
[early childhood] setting, children are left without means
of understanding what is being said or expressing what
they need to say. Their performance then becomes
similar to that of children with disabilities.
SOURCE: Barrera, Isaura (1995). To Refer Or Not to Refer: Untangling the Web of Diversity,"Deficit," and
Disability. In: New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal v10 p54-66, Summer 1995
“We acquire language one
way-when we understand
it (comprehensible input
in a low- anxiety
environment)”.
Stephen Krashen
Natural Progression of Language Acquisition
De Avila
WLPT 2
WLPT 3
WLPT 4
ELD Beginning/
Advanced Beginning
ELD: Intermediate
ELD: Advanced
ELD: Transitional
L 2 Ability
WLPT 1
Reading
Writing
Time
BICS vs. CALP
Social Language
Listening and Speaking
6mo-2years
Academic Language
Listening, Speaking, Reading, and
Writing
3-9 years
Proficiency Levels
Beginning/Ad..
Beginning
• Use native language
as much as possible (in
all four domains)
• Use TPR
• Use realia and visuals
• Modeled reading
(books on CDs, read
aloud, shared reading)
• Advanced graphic
organizers
• Yes/No, Either/Or
Questions
• Daily listening and
speaking activities
Intermediate
• Use native language
as needed
• Use realia and visuals
• Shared reading,
guided reading,
independent reading
• Advanced graphic
organizers
• What, When, Where,
Why, How, Either/Or
questions
• Daily listening and
speaking activities
Advanced
• Use native language
as needed
• Use realia and
visuals
• Guided reading,
independent reading
• Advanced graphic
organizers
• Higher level thinking
questions
Top to Bottom Model
• Background Knowledge
• Oral Language/Vocabulary
Text Level • Thinking Skills
• Grammar/Sentence Frames
Sentence • Phrasing/Fluency
Level
Word
Level
• Letters vs. Sounds (what we see vs. what we hear)
• Discovering patterns-decoding
• Using the patterns to read new words (encoding)
Peer Analysis Tool
Quote from SpEd OSPI document
A formal referral to special services is
only justified after it has been
determined that a child’s behavior and
performance cannot be explained solely
by language or cultural differences, the
acculturation process, or the learning
environment. - pg. 22, OSPI pamphlet
To whom is the ELL student
being compared?
•A peer analysis is critical in determining
if the student’s performance is atypical.
•The ideal peer group are ELLs, same
language background, same time in
program, same grade of entry in school.
•Scour district longitudinal data and find
as large a peer group as possible
When children are learning
English as a second language:
When children have a language
impairment or disorder:
•
it is typical for their skills in English
vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar,
and comprehension to be less welldeveloped than their peers who only
speak English.
•
•
they will acquire English in a
•
predictable developmental sequence,
similar to younger children who are
beginning to learn English.
•
reduced opportunities to use their
first language may result in loss of
competence in L1 before becoming
proficient in English.
they may switch back and forth
between L1 and English, using their
most sophisticated skills in both
languages within single utterances.
results from assessments conducted
in English are unlikely to reflect the
child’s true skills and abilities in
most domains.
•
•
•
•
•
errors or limited skills in vocabulary,
pronunciation, grammar, and
comprehension interfere with
communication in their first
language (L1), compared to peers
from the same language group.
their English skills are delayed in
comparison to peers from the same
language group who have been
learning English for the same length
of time.
their communication is impaired in
interactions with family members
and others who speak the same
language.
skills in their first language will be
limited, inappropriate, or confused in
content, form, or use.
assessments conducted in English
will be unable to discriminate
between language acquisition and
language disorder.
(Source: OSPI Pamphlet, p. 12)
Appropriate Comparison or Not?
•ELL 3rd grader to all 3rd
graders?
•ELL to all ELLs in the district?
•ELL Spanish speaker to all ELL
Spanish speakers?
•ELL to older or younger sibling?
Questions
Separating Difference
from Disability:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A Matrix for Supporting Quality GT Decisions
BLENDING GUIDANCE FROM:
The Matrix
• Provides a structure for organizing
information about the student which
should be considered prior to
referral
• Visually organizes the information
which supports referral and/or
supports more intervention
• Focuses team on “Red Flag” issues
• Designed to be used by a team – at
both data gathering and decision
making
The Matrix: 16 Data Driven
Decision Points
• Data supports referral
• Between Neutral and Supports
Referral
• Neutral
• Between Neutral and More
Intervention
• Data Supports More Intervention
The Matrix: Decision Point #1
Student’s Primary Language
• Take into consideration transparent
or non-transparent nature of the
primary language. If primary
language is transparent
(phonetically predictable) it is more
difficult to become accustomed to
non-transparent language like
English.
See LanguageTransfer resource by Rigby.
The Matrix: Decision Point #2
Other Languages Spoken by Student
If student has multiple languages
that he/she speaks, it is reasonable
to expect average to above average
learning of English.
The Matrix: Decision Point #3
Multiple Languages Spoken in Home
If student is experiencing multiple
languages spoken in the home, and is 6
years or younger, it can have an impact
on usage of language. If student is older
and still struggling between languages,
place a mark to indicate evaluation may
be necessary.
The Matrix: Decision Point #4
Expected Years of Education
in Primary Language
If student has not received expected
years of education in the primary
language the student will not (in all
likelihood) have the structures of
language relative to academic learning
and the experience of how to function in a
school setting.
The Matrix: Decision Point #5
Parental Education
in Primary Language
Parental education in primary language
can impact the student’s vocabulary and
language structures. If parent has limited
literacy in primary language, more
intervention may be warranted.
The Matrix: Decision Point #6
Did Student Learn
to Read in Primary Language
If student did not learn to read in primary
language, we are trying to teach the
process of reading while teaching a new
language.
The Matrix: Decision Point #7
Years Learning English
The research in clear that a student who
is receiving a strong ELL program takes
an average of 5-7 years to have academic
language needed to compete / learn in the
education setting at a rate similar to nonELL students. If student has less than 5-7
years, more supportive data is needed to
indicate an evaluation is warranted.
The Matrix: Decision Point #8
Attendance History
3 or more unexcused absences per year
or a total of 15 absensces per year is
outside the norm and negatively impacted
learning.
The Matrix: Decision Point #9
Approach to ELL Services
Has the student had consistent access to
intensive and consistent ELL services?
SIOP or GLAD strategies? This Decision
Point addresses the quality and
consistency of Tier One services for ELL
students.
The Matrix: Decision Point #10
Peer Analysis of WLPT/WELPA
• How is the student progressing relative to
other students of similar age, same
language background, and similar length of
time learning English and receiving ELL
services.
• Team should consider referral question, for
example, is student progressing in language
and literacy at expected rate, but not math.
• WLPT vs WELPA
Future training for psychologists on how to access state data base.
The Matrix: Decision Point #11
Intervention Description
• Have there been targeted interventions with
base line, progress monitoring, and post
intervention data?
• This decision point focuses on Tier 2
supports.
The Matrix: Decision Point #12
Expectations in the Gen Ed Classroom
• All students should be expected to complete
assignments, regardless of language
development, at a level appropriate to
current skills.
• If the students has had consistent output
and learning rate is still atypical, an
evaluation may be indicated.
The Matrix: Decision Point #13
Academic Engagement
• If student is actively engaged in learning
process but continues to have atypical
learning pattern, an evaluation may be
warranted.
• If student is not engaged, a neutral mark is
indicated, as lack of engagement is difficult
to interpret.
The Matrix: Decision Point #14
Comparison Student Data
• This consideration is similar to Decision
Point 10, with a focus on progress
monitoring data (as opposed to
WLPT/WELPA data) collected for target
student in comparison to other similar
students who received a similar intervention.
The Matrix: Decision Point #15
Parent Interview
• In totality, does parent provide information
supportive of an evaluation, or suggestive of
more intervention? Issues to consider
include family history of learning difficulties,
difficulties in early learning, expectations
around learning in the culture.
• Are there factors present which might
explain difficulties in learning – frequent
moves, disruptions in the home, etc.
The Matrix: Decision Point #16
Developmental History
• Is there a history of developmental delay?
• How has child met developmental
milestones?
Sample Completed Matrix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
3
4
5
X
X
6
7
8
14
X
X
X
13
X
?
9
10
X
15
16
X
X
X
11
12
13
14
15
16
GROUP ACTIVITY
What are the Pro’s, Con’s, and Practicalities of
implementing this model?
• Using the worksheet provided, as a team, examine each
Issaquah Resource in your packet, and answer the
questions on the worksheet.
• Are the Issaquah Resources sufficient to support
completion of the Matrix? What additional resources,
training, or administrative guidance are needed to
effectively use this model?
• Prioritize the supports your teams needs to make referral
decisions Difference vs Disability referral decision more
effectively. Report back to group.