1. How to avoid misclassification of English Language Learners with Disabilities Presented at: Supporting English Language Learners with Disability Symposium Jamal Abedi University of California, Davis 5/3/2016

2. How to Avoid Misclassification of English Language Learners With Disabilities Focusing on Learning Disabilities Misclassification of ELLs at the lowest level of English proficiency spectrum as students with learning disability is a major issue Such misclassification will seriously impact students’ entire academic career The main question is how to distinguish between Lack of English Language proficiency and a true Learning Disability?

3. English Language Learners: Issues and Challenges They are faced with dual challenges: Learning a new language and showing progress Learning the content knowledge in the language they are still struggling to learn ELLs are the only subgroup that have to go through two accountability/assessment systems Accommodations used for these students are questionable in terms of effectiveness and validity

4. Reliabilities of a state assessment data for Grade 9 students

5. Students with Disabilities (SWD): Issues and Challenges Their disabilities prevent them from fully participating in classroom activities and assessments Assessments created for mainstream students may not be accessible to these students Accommodations used for these students may not be effective and valid

6. Classification Issues for Both ELL and SWD ELL: ELP content standards ELP assessments and scoring Use of multiple criteria SWD: Lack of objective criteria for classification of some groups of students with disabilities

7. English Language Learners with Disabilities (ELLWDs) These students are faced with the most challenging academic career in terms of classification, instruction, and assessments

8. Normal Curve Equivalent Means and Standard Deviations for Students in Grades 10 and 11, Site 3 School District Reading Science Math MSD M SD M SD Grade 10 SD only16.412.725.513.322.511.7 ELL only24.016.432.915.336.816.0 LEP & SD16.311.224.8 9.323.6 9.8 Non-ELL/SD 38.016.042.617.239.616.9 All students36.016.941.317.538.517.0 Grade 11 SD Only14.913.221.512.324.313.2 ELL Only22.516.128.414.445.518.2 ELL & SD15.512.726.120.125.113.0 Non-ELL/SD 38.418.339.618.845.221.1 All Students36.219.038.218.944.021.2 Note. ELL = English language learners. SD = students with disabilities.

9. Why classifications of ELLWD is so complex? Some forms of disabilities with medical signs and symptoms can be diagnosed more objectively ( e.g., deafness, blindness, traumatic brain injury ) Learning disabilities and some other categories are not associated with clear medical diagnoses (Wagner et al., 2005)

10. Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individual with Disabilities Education Act U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2015)

11. Inconsistencies between states and districts in classification of ELL/LD In Utah, 11% of non-ELLs are classified as LD, as compared with 21% of ELLs. In New Mexico, 11% of non-ELLs are LD as compare with 19%.

12. Unequal Percentages of ELL/Non- ELL are identified as LD In a study (Abedi, et al, 2010), 738 student were randomly selected from grade 8 Of the total 738, 117 were diagnosed as students with learning disabilities Of the 117 students with learning disabilities, 79 (68%) were ELLs 38 (32.5%) were non-ELLs

13. Approaches in identifying ELLs with Learning Disabilities IQ-Achievement Discrepancies Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Linguistic complexity approach using multiple criteria

14. IQ-Achievement Discrepancies The IQ-achievement discrepancy model focuses on the differences between a student’s scores on an intelligence test such as Wechsler test and student’s achievement test score If a student’s score on the IQ test is substantially higher than his or her scores on an achievement test, the student is diagnosed as having a learning disability Literature cites major concerns about this approach (see for example, Velluntino et al., 2000)

15. What is Intelligence? Capacity for learning, reasoning, and understanding Mental alertness or quickness of understanding Manifestation of high mental capacity The faculty or act of understanding

16. What is Intelligence Quotient (IQ)? Mental Age divided by chronological age multiplied by 100 The concept of mental age is relatively old. Currently IQ scale score is used Test score is converted to IQ scale by multiplying Z-score by SD of 16 and adding (subtracting) it to the mean of 100.

17. Intelligence: Heredity Or Environment? Is there enough empirical evidence to make a judgment one way or another? What is your personal/professional view on this issue? Do you think more research is needed to make a judgment?

18. A Review of Existing Research on Intelligence (Vernon, 1972)  Harrell and Colleagues assigned pregnant women in a poor neighborhood randomly into two groups, then provided good nutrition to one. After 4 years, 5 IQ score differences  Stock studied two groups of children in their first two years of life. One group received good nutrition, their IQ was increased by 15.7 points  According to Piaget, more interaction with rich environment leads to a better cognitive development  Hebb studied the impact of rich environment on dogs: those living in a richer environment exhibited higher learning potentia.l

19. A Review of Existing Research on Intelligence (continued...) Dennis used the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test on children from two different countries/cultures: For the first group of students, he obtained an average IQ of 53 For the second group he got an average IQ of 280.

20. Response to Intervention Promising practice for early intervention Less evidence available in how it supports struggling populations Differing proficiency in L1 and L2 may complicate intervention strategies

21. Impact of Language Factors on ELL Students’ Academic Career The highest priority for ELLs at entering school is receiving language instruction ELLs at the highest level of intelligence without sufficient language knowledge cannot function academically in English only academic environments These students will be at risk of misclassification and failure

22. Multiple Criteria: Linguistic complexity approach We propose the use of multiple criteria to measure different aspects of students’ cognitive domain such as scholastic aptitude, objective and relevant measures of intelligence and variety of content achievement measures The key point in this approach is the the content of instruction and assessment should not be confounded with unnecessary linguistic complexities Below are examples to elaborate on this concept

23. The focal construct of IQ test in intelligence (whatever that might be) not language proficiency Students at the lowest level of language proficiency (in whatever language the test is presented) may fail IQ test questions This failure may not be due to low IQ but to complex linguistic structure (would you explain the question to me?) Unnecessary linguistic complexity in some of the currently used IQ & achievement tests

24. Wechsler intelligence scale for children, a sample item 1. Do you see these 4 boxes? In the top row the pictures go together in a certain way. Now look at the bottom row. Do you see the empty box? Which of the 4 pictures on the side goes with the picture in the bottom box the same way the 2 pictures in the top row go together? https://www.testingmom.com/free-wisc-iv-practice-questions/

25. Wechsler intelligence scale for children 3. Do you see these 4 boxes? In the top row the pictures go together in a certain way. Now look at the bottom row. Do you see the empty box? Which of the 4 pictures on the side goes with the picture in the bottom box the same way the 2 pictures in the top row go together? https://www.testingmom.com/free-wisc-iv-practice-questions/

26. Rather than linguistically loaded IQ tests, use tests that are culture free with reduced linguistic complexities, for example, Raven Progressive Matrices Test https://www.google.com/search?q=raven+progressive+matrices&biw=1097&bih=736&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source= univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix9PfNqqPMAhVGeSYKHYwDCzkQsAQIMw&dpr=1

27. Linguistically modified assessments to reduce unnecessary linguistic complexity Unnecessary complex linguistic features slow down the reader, make misinterpretation more likely, and add to the reader’s cognitive load; thus interfering with concurrent tasks. These features include: Concrete vs. abstract or impersonal presentations Concrete vs. abstract or impersonal presentations Item length Item length Unfamiliar Vocabulary Unfamiliar Vocabulary Nominal heaviness Nominal heaviness Relative clause Relative clause Conditional clause Conditional clause Passive voice Passive voice Long noun phrases Long noun phrases Subordinate clauses Subordinate clauses

28. Sample Original and Revised Item Below is an example of a test items that deemed to be linguistically complex and a linguistically modified version of the items. Original: If Y represents the number of newspapers that Lee delivers each day, which of the following represents the total number of newspapers that Lee delivers in 5 days? A) 5 + Y B) 5 x Y C) Y + 5 D) (Y + Y) x 5 Modified: Lee delivers Y newspapers each day. How many newspapers does he deliver in 5 days? (Adopted from Abedi, Lord & Plummer, 1997, p. 21, see also Abedi, 2015)

29. Linguistically Complex/non-Complex Discrepancies  Use both linguistically complex and non-complex assessments (academic content and scholastic aptitudes, intelligence tests, etc.) and determine the difference  A Major difference suggests the impact of language factors  Students with high level of discrepancies should be identified for receiving further language services

30. Highlights and Recommendations In classification of ELLs, SWDs, particularly ELLWLD multiple reliable and valid criteria should be used Using a single criterion will result in high level of measurement error and wrong classification decisions These students should be assessed multiple times using multiple criteria Criteria used for classifications ELLs, SWDs and ELLWLD should be considered as HIGH STAKES criteria and should go through rigorous validation process.