Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities"— Presentation transcript:

1 Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities 2014-2015
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. Santa Barbara County SELPA Director Website: SBCSELPA.org 1

2 What the research says……
Research demonstrates that English language learners with the least amount of language support are most likely to be referred to special education ELLs receiving all of their instruction in English were almost 3X as likely to be in special education as those receiving some native language support Artiles & Ortiz 2002 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 2

3 What the research says Cont’d.
As per Goldenberg’s (2008) research for effective practices in ELL instruction: The majority of ELLs students (60%) receive all-English instruction. About 12% receive no ESL/ELD services. More primary language (L1) instruction over time leads to higher academic achievement in English. In other words, teaching students to read in L1 promotes higher reading achievement in English. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 3

4 What the research says Cont’d.
All-English immersion does NOT lead to rapid English fluency, in contradiction to some state policies (e.g., California, Arizona). ELL students need explicit language instruction and opportunities to speak for genuine communication in a separate ESL/ELD block. Process approaches to learning showed mixed results; explicit instruction in skills and sub-skills is what is needed for ELLs to make gains. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 4

5 Presentation agenda Introduction and Background of ELs
CELDT & Statewide Testing for ELs New EL Standards & Smarter Balance for ELs Intervention / Pre Referral for ELs Assessment of English Learners for Special Education IEP Development for English Learners Programs & Services for English Learners in Special Education Reclassification to RFEP of English Learners Questions and Answers ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 5

6 Introduction and Background of Els
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 6

7 Primary Language Determination
California EC Section requires LEAs to make A primary language determination for all students in K-12 upon first enrollment in a California public school. A student’s home language is identified through a Home Language Survey (HLS). Note: If a language other than *English is indicated on: Any of the first three questions – student is tested with CELDT Fourth question, student may be tested on the CELDT at the LEA’s discretion (alternate assessment may be utilized) * American Sign Language (ASL), in and of itself, is not considered a “language other than English” for purposes of CELDT testing ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 7

8 Initial Identification of English Learners Cont’d.
Students in grades K-12 take the CELDT if questions #1-3 on the HLS survey are answered “yes” The criteria for determining proficiency upon entry is different for grades K-1 than grades 2-12 Note: K includes “transitional K students” since they are technically kindergarteners See The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 8

9 The testing of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students (who use American Sign Language [ASL])
“The individualized education program (IEP) team should consider CELDT testing—with appropriate variations, accommodations, modifications, or alternate assessment(s)—for a student who uses ASL for communication due to deafness or hearing impairment and for whom there is another primary language other than English indicated on the student’s HLS. Hearing students of deaf parents who use ASL as the primary means to communicate upon entering school, and who have been exposed to a language other than English by another adult such as a grandparent or a caregiver, may be considered for CELDT testing. The LEA or an IEP team may consider CELDT testing in addition to other appropriate language assessments to determine if the child may benefit educationally from ELD instruction. The LEA or an IEP team should base its decision to administer the CELDT on whether the student has been exposed to another language other than English, not on the basis of whether the hearing student of deaf parents uses ASL in the home.” ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 9

10 The testing of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students (who use American Sign Language [ASL]) Cont’d.
If the student does not use ASL, the IEP team would still determine which domains of the CELDT are/are not appropriate for an individual student. See The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide pp. 9 &10 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 10

11 ELs in Charter Schools “Like all public schools, charter schools MUST take “affirmative steps” to help English-language learners overcome language barriers so that they can participate meaningfully in their schools’ educational programs. A charter school must timely identify language-minority students who have limited proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, or understanding English, and must provide those students with an effective language instruction educational program that also affords meaningful access to the school’s academic content “ See US Dept. of ED / OCR Letter dated ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 11

12 Initial Identification of English Learners With Moderate - Severe Disabilities
Sample Scenario…. A student with a moderate-severe disability takes The Initial CELDT upon entry and scores as LEP yet the LEA feels the results may not be a true reflection of the students English language skills. What are the options? As per the CDE SPED/ Language & Assessment Divisions the LEA may review other sources of data (tests, work samples, interviews, observation notes, etc.) to determine if the student is proficient in English if there is a concern that the student’s disability may have impacted the results of the CELDT testing. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 12

13 Statewide English Language Proficiency Testing Updates
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 13

14 CELDT The CELDT assesses public school students in K–12 in four domains: Listening Speaking Reading, and Writing The CELDT currently is aligned to the 1999 English language development (ELD) standards* Alignment study completed with CCCSS & CELDT – indicates there is only about a 26% correlation between CELDT and the new ELD standards ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 14

15 ELPAC The new assessment that will replace CELDT will be the ELPAC
ELPAC has a targeted administration date of The ELPAC will potentially be a spring administration ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 15

16 New SBAC Assessment System and ELS Supports Relevant to ELS
“Universal tools” - for all (spell check, ruler, etc.) “Desiginated Supports” - includes ELs and students with 504 Plans and IEPs” – may be designated by an IEP team or other educator “Accommodations” – Must be designated in IEP or 504 Plan (ELs with disabilities) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 16

17 New California EL Standards
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 17

18 New California ELD Standards Philosophy
Language acquisition is treated as a non-linear linguistic and social process Based on theory, research, and best practices Understandable and usable Asset vs. deficit approach (literacy foundational skills target varying profiles of ELs, tapping linguistic resources ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 18

19 New ELD Standards Language Domains
Three modes of communication: Collaborative (engagement in dialogue with others), Interpretive (comprehension and analysis of written and spoken texts), and Productive (creation of oral presentations and written texts). ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 19

20 New CA ELD Standards Cont’d.
Proficiency Category Descriptors in each Domain Collaborative, Interpretive & Productive: Emerging listening, speaking, reading and writing Expanding listening, speaking, reading and writing Bridging listening, speaking, reading and writing ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 20

21 Pre Referral Strategies and Research
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 21

22 Categories of EL Students Who Experience Academic Difficulties
Those with deficiencies in their teaching or learning environment; lack of effective ELD instruction and support Those experiencing academic difficulties not related to a learning disability; interrupted schooling, limited formal education, medical problems, low attendance, high transiency, etc. True ELs with disabilities and in need of Special Education ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 22

23 Pre Referral Steps for ELs
Step 1: School Environment Determine if there is appropriate curriculum & instruction for ELs being implemented Step 2: Pre referral intervention or RtI Determine if pre referral interventions have been implemented and documented over time Step 3: Referral to Special Education Assess in native language & English and other best practices for bilingual assessment to rule out language difference versus disability ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 23

24 What the research says….
Provide ELD instruction with fidelity Continue ELD instruction until student reaches a level 4 and possibly through level 5 (upper end of intermediate on CELDT on all areas) A separate, daily block of time should be devoted to ELD instruction (SEI or ELM in California) ELD should emphasize listening & speaking, and emerging research says reading & writing Saunders & Marcelleti, 2013 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 24

25 What the research says About ELD Instruction
ELD instruction should explicitly teach linguistic elements of English (vocabulary, syntax, grammar, functions, and conventions) ELD should integrate meaning and communication via explicit, direct teaching of language (academic & conversational) ELD instruction should include interactive activities among students that are carefully planned and carried out Saunders & Marcelleti, 2013 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 25

26 Best Practices for Preventing Over Identification of ELs for SPED
Screen for reading or other academic problems and monitor progress early & provide intensive, small group reading instruction Provide extensive & varied vocabulary instruction Develop academic and conversational English by providing daily ELD services with fidelity Schedule regular, peer-assisted learning opportunities Gersten, 2007 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 26

27 Multiple-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)
California Department of Education Definition of MTSS: “MTSS ensures equitable access and opportunity for all students to achieve the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). MTSS includes Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2) as well as additional, distinct philosophies and concepts” ….These include the interventions within the RtI2 processes, supports for Special Education, Title I, Title III, support services for English Learners”.. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 27

28 RtI Research for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (Els)
ELLs without learning difficulties have been shown to demonstrate gains in phonemic awareness and phonics skills when provided systematic Tier 2 instruction in foundational literacy skills (Vaughn et al., 2006). ELLs also need sufficient time to develop comparable levels of language proficiency beyond phonology and generally need support for years as part of general education. Students who are ELLs require ongoing and sustained instruction in English language, ELD, as part of the core areas for as long as possible Dixon, Zhao, & Shin, 2012 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 28

29 Pre Referral RTI/MTSS Strategies for English Learners
Three recommended components of RtI2 for ELs: Universal screening of academics 2) High quality, evidence-based instruction that is multi-tiered based on individual need 3) Progress Monitoring of English development and academic performance over time; data driven REMINDER: Mandated ELD Services are not intervention And should not occur in lieu of RtI2 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 29

30 Sample Multi-tiered RtI2 Intervention Model for Els
Referral To Special Education •Frequent, intensive, Evidence-based intervention •Lower student/teacher ratio •Frequent progress monitoring •Longer duration Tier III ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 Tier II •Research based intervention •Small groups •Progress monitoring/ data tracking Tier I Monitor & track academic & language acquisition growth 30 Conduct universal screening to determine student risk levels Provide core research based reading program & ELD services

31 Questions to Ask Regarding Tier 1 for Els
Is there adequate instruction in reading and math, including in the five critical areas of literacy (phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary development; reading fluency/ oral reading; and reading comprehension strategies? Is the core curriculum for EL students reflective of academic standards specific to bilingual education and ELD programs? (e.g., World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment standards) Is there evidence of differentiation in the core Tier 1 curriculum by classroom teacher and ELD teacher? Is the core instruction of high quality and delivered with fidelity? Is there a difference in the student’s performance by subject area? Are the universal screening and progress-monitoring instruments that have been selected culturally responsive for the learners who will be taking them? ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 31

32 Questions Regarding Tier 2 and 3 for Els
Was the instruction/intervention implemented in a culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate manner? Does the intervention include explicit academic intervention in the area(s) of learning difficulty? Is there evidence that interventions were implemented with high fidelity as intended (i.e., by a qualified educator the specified number of times, for the time allotted, the number of weeks, and with regular progress monitoring)? Do Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions supplement core instruction not replace it)? If students did not make sufficient progress with Tier 2 intervention, are the Tier 3 interventions delivered with higher intensity (i.e., qualified educator, more frequency, longer duration, smaller group delivery? ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 32

33 How is “Intensive” Defined in Research:
Number one factor found to impact successful RtI outcomes was EXPERIENCE OF TEACHER Tilly & Van Der Heyden; LRP Presn. 2011 Intensive Defined by: Frequency of intervention Duration Adult to pupil ratio Vaughn, et. al., “Why Intensive Interventions are Necessary For Students With Severe Reading Difficulties” RTI/MTSS Cont’d. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 33

34 Communication Across Disciplines for Els with Disabilities
LEAs/districts must encourage communication and collaboration across disciplines and reference all applicable laws and regulations governing both SPED and Els (e.g., a special education IDEA and Title III laws and regulations) Provide inclusive professional development to address the educational needs of all students, teams are more likely to be aware of and incorporate each other’s areas of expertise. RTI/MTSS Cont’d. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 34

35 “Rule Out” Legal Requirement for Identifying ELs for Special Education
”A pupil shall be referred for special education services only after the resources of the regular education program have been considered, and when appropriate, utilized.” E. C The normal process of 2nd language acquisition, as well as manifestations of dialect and sociolinguistic variance shall not be diagnosed as a handicapping condition. CCR, Title (b) A child may not be determined to be eligible for SPED…if the determinant factor for eligibility determination is…1) lack of instruction in reading or math, or 2) limited English proficiency… CFR ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 35

36 Prereferral Checklist for ELs
Has the student received appropriate core curriculum instruction that is appropriate for EL students? Has the student received intensive evidence-based interventions in the area of academic weakness implemented with fidelity over time and demonstrated little or no progress? Extrinsic factors have been considered (Physical, personal, cultural, learning environment) Has the team consulted with the parent regarding learning patterns and language use in the home? Prereferral Checklist for ELs ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 36

37 Prereferral Checklist for ELs Cont’d.
Does the team have data to support that the difficulties (academic, social-emotional, or in speech & language) are most likely due to a disability versus a language difference? Are the error patterns seen in L1 similar to the patterns seen in L2 See Pre Referral Checklist by J. Butterfield Prereferral Checklist for ELs Cont’d. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 37

38 RtI for Els References / Resources
tinetwork.org/getstarted/sld-identification-toolkit/ld-identification-toolkit-considerations-for-ells Council for Exceptional Children, 2014; International Reading Association, 2002 Collier, 2011; A. A. Ortiz & Artiles, 2010; Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005). Colorado Department of Education Exceptional Student Services: SLD Topic Brief: Cultural and/or Linguistic Diversity & SLD Connecticut Department of Education: Scientific Research-based Interventions for English Language Leaners: Handbook to Accompany Connecticut’s Framework for RTI Oklahoma State Department of Education: Identifying and Assessing English Language Learners with Disabilities Vermont Department of Education: English Language Learners in Vermont: Distinguishing Language Difference from Disability: A Resource Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 38

39 If answers to questions on previous page are “YES,” a referral to special education may be appropriate ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 39

40 Assessment & Determining Eligibility of English Learners for Special Education
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 40

41 Identification of English Learners for Special Education
Federal regulations require that students in Pre K through age 22 be identified as EL for purposes of special education (ie. assessment for special education procedures, linguistically appropriate goals in IEPs, etc.) Note: California Education code does not formally identify students as EL until kindergarten. CELDT is not administered until grade K. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 41

42 California Ed Code Requirements for Identification & Assessment of English Learners for Special Education Assessment materials and procedures used for the purposes of assessment and placement of individuals with exceptional needs are selected and administered so as not to be racially, culturally, or sexually discriminatory. Pursuant to Section 141(a) (6)(B) of Title 20 of the United State Code, the materials and procedures shall be provided in the pupil’s native language or mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. EC 56320(a) & 56001(j) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 42

43 California Ed Code Requirements for Identification & Assessment of English Learners for Special Education Cont’d. (b) Tests and other assessment materials meet all of the following requirements: Are provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the pupil knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to so provide or administered required by 1414(b)(3)(A)(ii) of Title 20 of United States Code EC 56320(b)(1) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 43

44 Requirements for Identification & Assessment of English Learners Who are Infants/Toddlers
For assessment to determine eligibility for infants and toddlers, the assessment shall “be conducted in the language of the family’s choice or other mode of communication unless it is not feasible to do so.” CCR 52082(b) & 52084(d) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 44

45 Identification & Assessment Requirements for ELs
Assessments shall be administered by qualified personnel who are competent in both the oral or sign language skills and written skills of the individual’s primary language or mode of communication and have a knowledge and understanding of the cultural and ethnic background of the pupil. If it clearly is not feasible to do so, an interpreter must be used, and the assessment report shall document this condition and note that the validity may have been affected CCR Title 5: 3023 A variety of assessment tools and strategies will be used to gather relevant functional and developmental information, including information provided by the parent. EC 56320 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 45

46 Identification & Assessment Requirements for ELs
It is best practice to use the following four sources of information in order to address all socio-cultural factors related to ELs: Comprehensive, norm-referenced assessments in English and native language (if native language assessments are available), to include non-verbal assessments – cross-battery recommended in all areas of suspected disability 2) Information from multiple contexts (i.e. Criterion referenced tests; classroom- based assessments/work samples) 3) Systematic observation in educational environments 4) Structured interviews (i. e. student, parent, teachers) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 46

47 Why Assess in English & the Student’s Native Language?
It provides comparative data to the IEP team about how the student performs in the primary language versus English. The assessor can determine if similar error patterns are seen in both the primary language and English (listening, speaking, reading or writing) in order to discern if the students is having academic difficulty due to a language difference or a disability. Many students acquire BICS level English speaking skills and are stronger in English academics but think at a CALPs level in their“native language”. Confirmation of findings in English assessment can be validated through native language assessment.

48 Assessment of ELs Best Practices to Guide Assessment Decisions:
An assessor fluent in both languages should assess to determine which language the student is most proficient in at both the BICS and CALPS level (both academically & cognitively) to guide the assessment team regarding types of assessment to be performed by using like instruments in English and the student’s native language when feasible. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 48

49 Assessment ELs Cont’d. Examples of When it May Not “be feasible” to assess in the students primary language: The student has moderate to severe disabilities and lacks the communication or other skills to be able to be assessed accurately in L1. When Primary language assessments are unavailable. Note: If primary language assessments are not available, it is best practice for assessors to use non language measures such as observations and structured interviews with teachers and family, as well as non verbal tests of ability to inform identification decisions. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 49

50 Assessment of ELs Best Practices
Assessment ELs Best Practice Heirarchy Assessment of ELs Best Practices 1st Best Option – Engage in the following: Administer cross cultural, non-discriminatory full or partial bilingual assessment in English and the native language using bilingual assessors Use of structured interviews with parents and staff Engage in observation of student in varied environments Collect data from curriculum based assessment measures Engage in structured interviews (staff and family)

51 Assessment of ELs Best Practices
Assessment ELs Best Practice Heirarchy Assessment of ELs Best Practices 2nd Best Option – Engage in the following: If there is no assessor available in the native language; engage in steps # 2-5 on slide 50 and, Assess in English and use an interpreter, administer the assessment in the native language under the supervision of school licensed assessors – document limitations in assessment report

52 Assessment ELs Best Practice Heirarchy
3rd Option – Engage in the following: If there is no assessor available in the native language; engage in steps # 2-5 on slide #50 and, If there are no assessment tools available in the native language, assess in English and use an interpreter who speaks the native language to provide an oral translation of assessments normed and written in English – document limitations in assessment report (do not use standard scores – this is to confirm information regarding patterns of strengths and weaknesses only)

53 Assessment ELs Best Practice Heirarchy
Worse Case Scenario Option – Engage in the following: If there is no assessment tool or interpreter available in the native language engage in #2-5 on slide #50 and, Assess in English, to include non-verbal areas of cognition

54 Use of Interpreters in Bilingual Assessment
Briefing Procedures (assessor and interpreter or translator review together): The general purpose of the assessment session Which assessment instruments or questions will be administered or asked Share information about the student, family, culture Review of appropriate testing protocol/behavior Allow time for the translator or interpreter to organize materials, re-read the test procedures, and ask for clarification if needed Carefully observe interpreter behavior during assessment ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 54

55 Use of Interpreters in Bilingual Assessment Cont’d.
Debriefing/follow-up Procedures: Ask interpreter to go over each of the test or interview question responses without making clinical judgment. Go over any difficulties relative to the testing process. Go over any difficulties relative to the interpretation or translation process. Go over any other items relevant to assessment process. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 55

56 EL ASSESSMENT RESOURCES
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students:Strategies for Teaching and Assessment; by Grass & Barker. Sage Publications Ortiz, Samuel, Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Assessing Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide. Practical Intervention in the Schools Series; by Rhodes, Ochoa, Hector, & Ortiz. Guilford Publications. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 56

57 EL ASSESSMENT RESOURCES CONT’D.
Ochoa, S. H., Rhodes, R., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sotelo-Dynega, M., Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Chaplin, W. (2013). English language proficiency and test performance: Evaluation of bilinguals with the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 781–797. Valdes, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Figueroa, R. A. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: Is it nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 206–214. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 57

58 IEP Development for English Learners
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 58

59 IEP Notices for English Learners
IEP Notices should: Note if an interpreter will be at the IEP (if appropriate) Be provided in primary language of parent Indicate the parent has a right to have copy of IEP in primary language (if feasible) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 59

60 Limited English Proficient Parents’ Participation in IEP Meeting
IDEA requirements: Parents must be allowed to “meaningfully participate in IEP meeting Must provide Parent who is LEP same access to IEP information as non LEP parents Free Interpreter Services Free Translation Services 34 CFR § 34 CFR § (b) (1) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 60

61 IEP Development for ELs
Also, as per EC the regulations state: “For individuals whose native language is other than English, linguistically appropriate goals, objectives, programs, and services” shall be included in the IEP contents” Note: This does not require placement in a specific classroom ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 61

62 Upon Determination of Eligibility the IEP include the following:
A statement addressing the IDEA exclusionary requirements (i.e. ELD, environmental, health, access to core curriculum, etc.) An eligibility statement that justifies the need for special education services A statement that addresses least restrictive environment (LRE) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 62

63 Critical Steps to IEP Planning for Els
Questions to be asked prior to IEP planning programs and services for ELs: How will we coordinate to meet the complex needs of this student? What are the language needs of this child? What is the student’s disability and how do the two interact? Who will be involved in meeting the language and the special education related needs of this child? How will collaboration between general ed and SPED take place and where will ELD be provided? Who will monitor progress for ELD? ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 63

64 EL IEP Content Checklist
The results of CELDT (ELP assessment) or alternate assessment in order to document ELP and develop linguistically appropriate goals If the student requires accommodations or modifications on CELDT (state ELP test), or If the student requires an alternate assessment How English language development (ELD) needs will be met and who will provide those services “programs, services, and instruction” If the student needs primary language support and what language should be the language of instruction Linguistically appropriate goals to meet English language development needs EC Section 60810; CCR Chapter 3 subchapter 1(t)(2); EC 311(c) 34 CFR § See Jarice Butterfield’s IEP Checklist ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 64

65 Results of CELDT/ELP Assessment
The results of CELDT (ELP assessment) or alternate assessment in order to document ELP and develop linguistically appropriate goals As per Titles I and III of the ESEA states must ensure that all ELs, including those with disabilities participate in the annual State ELP assessment (CELDT or alternate) IEP team must use the ELP assessment to consider the language needs of the child as those needs related to the IEP 34CFR § ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 65

66 Statewide Assessment of ELs with Disabilities
“Both Titles I and III of the ESEA require States and LEAs to annually assess the English proficiency of all ELs in the State enrolled in public schools in grades kindergarten through twelve in the domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing (sections 1111(b)(7) and 1123(b)(3)(D) of the ESEA). Accordingly, as part of a general State assessment program, all ELs with disabilities must participate in the annual State ELP assessment with or without appropriate accommodations or by taking an alternate assessment, if necessary, consistent with their IEPs.” OSEP / OCR Question and Answer Guidance Document, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 66

67 Statewide Assessment of ELs with Disabilities on CELDT
Most students with disabilities are able to participate effectively in the CELDT. For those students whose disabilities preclude them from participating in one or more domains of the CELDT, their IEP teams may recommend accommodations, modifications, or an alternate assessment. (See EC Section ) Since modifications and alternate assessments fundamentally alter what the CELDT measures, students receive the lowest obtainable scale score (LOSS) on each domain affected and overall. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 67 See The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide

68 Alternate ELP Assessment
The IEP team must consider the following prior to determining if student requires an alternate ELP assessment: Why the child cannot participate in the CELDT Why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for child IEP Team must make this determination on a case by case basis IEP Team must consider the student’s language needs to determine appropriate accommodations IEP must contain a statement of the individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary Accommodations should not invalidate scores Accommodation should be the same as those used in the classroom as per the IEP Must assess in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (CELDT or alternate) 34 CFR § (a) (6) (i) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 68

69 Alternate Assessment Cont’d.
It is recommended that IEP teams use the CDE Alternate Assessment Checklist to determine if it is Appropriate to designated that a student take an alternate to CELDT in one or all of the four domains of listening, speaking, reading, or writing See the CELDT Information Guide page 17 for Participation Criteria Checklist for Alternate Assessments ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 69

70 Alternate Assessment Cont’d.
Alternative Assessments to CELDT The charts on the following pages provide examples of assessment tools that various LEAs in California have utilized as an alternative ELPA to CELDT for students functioning at the CAPA Level in one or more domains: Listening Speaking Reading Writing ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 70

71 Resource List for Potential Alternate Assessments to CELDT
Test Name Skills Assessed Organization or Publisher Contact Information *Alternative Language Proficiency Instrument (ALPI) Listening Speaking Orange County Dept.of Education *Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) San Jose Unified School District *Basics 2 (Checklist for functional reading and writing) Listening, Speaking Reading, Writing Lakeshore *Sandi Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing (Developed by Riverside COE) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 71

72 Resource List for Possible Alternate Assessments to CELDT Cont’d.
Test Name Skills Assessed Organization or Publisher Contact Information *Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BINL) Listening Speaking in 30 different languages CHECpoint Systems, Inc. (800) *Norm referenced & Criterion referenced Brigance IED II (B-7yrs) Brigance CIBS II (Pre K –9) Listening & Speaking Reading & Writing literacy Curriculum & Associates *VCCALPS (adapted ALPI with Reading & Writing) Listening, Speaking, Reading & Writing Ventura County SELPA ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 72 *Note recent guidance indicates alternatives to state ELD assessment must be aligned to State ELP standards

73 Resource List for Possible Alternate Assessments to CELDT Cont’d.
Test Name Skills Assessed Organization or Publisher Contact Information Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BINL) Listening Speaking in 30 different languages CHECpoint Systems, Inc. (800) Norm referenced & Criterion referenced Brigance IED II (B-7yrs) Brigance CIBS II (Pre K –9) Listening & Speaking Reading & Writing literacy Curriculum & Associates VCCALPS (adapted ALPI with Reading & Writing) Listening, Speaking, Reading & Writing Ventura County SELPA

74 Documenting Programs, Services & Instruction on IEP
How English language development (ELD) needs will be met and who will provide those services Programs: Indicate on IEP what type of EL program the student will be in such as SEI, ELM, or alternate program (see upcoming slide for details) Services: Indicate on the IEP if the student needs primary language support or other services to be successful Instruction: Indicate where the instruction will take place (SPED classroom, general education, etc.) and if the instruction will be in English or primary language (see EC 311 part 2) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 74

75 Linguistically Appropriate Goals
Linguistically appropriate goals should: Align to the student’s present levels of performance in English (taken from CELDT or alternate assessment) Be drafted in the student’s areas of disability that may be impacted by being an English learner Note: This may be accomplished through alignment of the student’s academic goals in ELA (listening, speaking, reading, or writing as relevant to the student’s English proficiency level (as per CELDT or other indicators of ELP aligned to the new ELD standards ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 75

76 Sample Linguistically Appropriate Goal 1 (aligned to CELDT/Prior Standards)
Domain: Reading Strand: Word Analysis Sub Strand: Concepts about Print, Phonemic Awareness, and Vocabulary and Concept Development Level: Early Intermediate Grade: 3-5 Goal: By (date) , (student) , while reading aloud a short passage of lines at grade level, will recognize and produce English phonemes that do not correspond to phonemes he or she already hear and produces with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive trials as demonstrated by data tracking records. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 76

77 Sample Linguistically Appropriate Goal 2 (aligned to New ELD Standards/Common Core)
Current ELD Levels Proficiency Level: Exit Emerging Participates in simple, face‐to‐face conversations with peers and others Appropriate ELD and IEP Target Level Proficiency Level: Early Stage Expanding Initiate simple conversations on social and academic topics Sample Goal: By (date), (student) will records initiate simple conversations (3 to 5 word utterances) on social and academic topics with peers or adults; on 2 consecutive trials as demonstrated by classroom observation and data tracking records. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 77

78 Partner/Group Activity
Review of IEP for English Learner ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 78

79 Programs and Services for Els with Disabilities
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 79

80 ELD Program & Services in California
“ELD” for ELs in California: English Language Development (ELD) Programs English Language Mainstream (ELM) Structured English Immersion (SEI) Alternative Programs Instruction is provided in primary language (L1) Methodology / Services Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) Primary language support ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 80

81 Programs & Services for ELs in SPED
Placement Requirements for English Learners: English learners are placed in the instructional setting which can best address their individual language acquisition needs and help them learn English. All pupils are placed in English-language programs unless a parental exception waiver has been granted for an alternative program. Based on LEA criteria of reasonable fluency, English learners are placed in structured English immersion (SEI) or in English-language mainstream (ELM) program settings. English learners who do not meet the LEA criteria for participation in an ELM are placed in an ELM program if the parent or guardian so requests (parent may waive SEI). EC 305, 306, 310, 311; 5 CCR 11301 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 81

82 ELD Programs & Services in California
SEI •Structured English Immersion (most intensive ELD instruction) •For students with “less than Reasonable Fluency” or scoring at beginning or early intermediate on CELDT Program Components •Intensive English Language Development (ELD) aligned to ELD goals and students’ CELDT levels •May be pull out or a group within the general education class •For students with an IEP the IEP team determines the appropriate instructional setting for the student to receive ELD as well as the staff responsible (EL or SPED). Program Delivery •Classroom instruction is primarily in English •Intensive ELD support is provided daily •SDAIE is provided via class •Primary language (L1) support is provided ELM •English Language Mainstream (less intensive) •For students with “Reasonable Fluency” Scoring Intermediate or above on CELDT •Less intensive English Language Development (ELD) aligned to ELD goals and students’ CELDT levels •Daily ELD instruction is usually provided in the context of the regular classroom SDAIE is provided via class •Alternative Programs (Bilingual Programs) •The IEP team also determines the extent to which primary language support/instruction is needed. •Classroom instruction is in primary language (L1) •Academic instruction in English (SDAIE) via class ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 82

83 ELD Programs & Services for ELs in SPED
Ways SEI (ELD) services may be provided to ELs With IEPS: Targeted ELD instructional groups held within the context of a classroom taught by a special educator Instruction in a general education classroom during a portion of the day when English language development (ELD) instruction is provided by a general education teacher or staff In a collaborative model where special educators team with the general education staff to provide EL services ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 83

84 Integrated ELD Versus Designated ELD
Integrated ELD – all teachers with ELs in their classroom use the CA ELD Standards in tandem with theCCSS ELA literacy and other content standards (heterogeneous grouping, focus on foundation literacy and academics) Designated ELD – is a protected time during the regular school day in which teachers use the CA ELD Standards as the focal standards in ways that build into and from content instruction in order to develop critical language skills (dedicated time of day, grouped by language level, and emphasis is on oral language development CDE – ELA/ELD Framework – July 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 84

85 Services for ELs in SPED Cont’d.
Primary Language Support: The IEP team should address how primary language support will be provided to help student access the core curriculum. It may be provided in the following ways: By SPED or general education bilingual teacher By a bilingual instructional assistant By a volunteer or parent/relative By a peer or cross-age coach By providing materials in the primary language ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 85

86 SDAIE 3 Areas of Support Strategies
Linguistic Support Graphic Support Kinesthetic/Visual Support Key vocabulary definitions Use of charts Modeling and demonstration of procedures Modify verbal input/speech (shorter phrases; slower; pauses) Use of tables Use of gestures/facial expressions Use of Repetition & rephrasing Use of graphs Use of real objects, photographs, or multi-media/videos Provide opportunities for Interaction Use of word walls Use of manipulatives Use variety of input materials (songs, poetry, etc.) Use of semantic webs Use of diagrams or models ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 86

87 Promising Practices for Teaching English Language Development
Systematic ELD (Susana Dutro) Provides a time for English learners to learn and practice language they need in natural contexts in order to navigate rigorous content instruction and a myriad of adult and peer interactions, such as discussions and collaborative work. Student Centered Approach The four instructional approaches described in this section represent student-centered approaches that are supported by research: Promote interaction among learners Use the native language when possible and appropriate Connect instruction with learners’ lives Teach learning strategies explicitly ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 87

88 “Systematic ELD” Systematic ELD challenges students to explore language in compelling and playful ways, continually growing their ability to use English flexibly, fluently, and accurately – to have agency over their own language use. Ultimately, the goal of Systematic ELD is for English to be a bridge to academic success rather than a barrier Puts language learning and exploration …. in the foreground Groups students by assessed proficiency level as determined by multiple sources (Susana Dutro, 2013) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 88

89 “Systematic ELD” Cont’d.
Systematic ELD provides a time for English learners to learn and practice language they need in order to navigate rigorous content instruction and a myriad of adult and peer interactions, such as discussions and collaborative work. Uses a functional language approach organized around essential purposes for communication. Language tasks are highly applicable to real world and academic interactions ….. (EL Achieve, Susana Dutro, 2013) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 89

90 “Systematic ELD” Cont’d.
Provides an organized method of language instruction to help prevent gaps and fill existing gaps in language knowledge that can hinder students’ achievement…… Is explicitly taught, emphasizing oral language development through structured, purposeful interaction EL Achieve Susana Dutro 2013 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 90

91 Critical Steps to Planning Services for ELs with Disabilities
What we do know: ELs learn best when learning activities that build on their home language and culture ELs learn best when learning language in natural, meaningful contexts ELs need explicit instruction in “academic” as well as “conversational” English Artiles & Ortiz 2002’; Susana Dutro 2013 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 91

92 Critical Steps to Planning Services for ELs with Disabilities Cont’d.
What we do know: EL learning occurs best in an education context Rich in language input (varied vocabulary) With multiple forms of literacy With various types of organizational structures (Cooperative, Dyad, and Individual) With multiple forms of instructional strategies (Interactive, Socratic and Lecture) Artiles & Ortiz 2002’; Susana Dutro 2013 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 92

93 Best Practices for Teaching New
Academic Vocabulary Teach pronunciation of words Explain vs. define Provide real life examples Deepen understanding through authentic activities Review new vocabulary with student (provide individual coaching for students with processing difficulties) Kate Kinsella 2012 Essential - Teach New Vocabulary ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 93

94 Strategies for Making Meaning of English - Comprehension
Use of questioning Making predictions Use of summarizing Writing extended responses to texts read Writing to pen pals Personal reactions to text CDE-ELA/ELD Framework-July, 2014 Essential - Teach New Vocabulary ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 94

95 The CDE Reclassification Guidelines & Reclassification of ELs in SPED
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 95

96 Definition of Reclassification
Defined as the process by which students who have been identified as English learners (EL) are reclassified as fluent English Proficient (RFEP) when they have demonstrated that they are able to compete effectively with English-speaking peers in mainstream classes. EC 313(d) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 96

97 CA Reclassification Guidelines
Reclassification Criteria: The reclassification procedures developed by the California Board of Education (CBE) require districts to utilize multiple criteria to reclassify a pupil as proficient in English. EC 313(d) ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 97

98 Reclassification Guidelines Cont’d.
The following four reclassification criteria are required by the CDE to reclassify all EL students: Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, the ELD test pursuant to EC Section (i.e., the CELDT) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the pupils curriculum mastery Parental opinion and consultation Student performance on a statewide assessment of basic skills in English EC 313(d) / The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 98

99 Reclassification Guidelines Cont’d.
The following four reclassification criteria are required by the CDE to reclassify all EL students: Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, the ELD test pursuant to EC Section (i.e., the CELDT) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the pupils curriculum mastery Parental opinion and consultation Student performance on a statewide assessment of basic skills in English EC 313(d) / The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 99

100 1. Assessment of Language Proficiency Using an Objective Assessment Instrument
CELDT is used as the primary criterion for the “objective assessment”. Students should be considered for reclassification whose overall proficiency level is early advanced or higher and: Listening is intermediate/higher Speaking is intermediate/higher Reading is intermediate/higher Writing is intermediate/higher ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 100

101 “Those students whose overall proficiency level is in the
Assessment of Language Proficiency Using an Objective Assessment Instrument Cont’d. “Those students whose overall proficiency level is in the upper end of the intermediate level also may be considered for reclassification if additional measures determine the likelihood that a student is proficient in English (use most recent test data available).” Note: Alternate assessment to CELDT may be designated by the IEP Team if appropriate; this IEP designated alternative measure can be used to inform the first criteria.” ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 101 The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide

102 Assessment of Language Proficiency Using an Objective Assessment Instrument Cont’d.
Definition of the English proficiency level for K–1 students on the CELDT, to require an overall score of Early Advanced or Advanced, with the domain scores for Listening and Speaking at the intermediate level or above. The domain scores for Reading and Writing would not need to be at the Intermediate level. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 102 The CDE’s CELDT Information pg. 18

103 2. Teacher Evaluation Examples of criteria general and special
education teachers may use to determine English language Proficiency Curriculum based measures (CBM) Progress towards IEP goals Observations with peers in class Classwork and homework samples Note: if incurred deficits in motivation and academic success *unrelated to English language proficiency do not preclude a student from reclassification *A disability may be a factor that contributes to low academic achievement and is unrelated to “English language proficiency” CDE CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 103

104 3. Parent Opinion and Consultation
Provide notice to parents or guardians of their rights and encourage them to participate in the reclassification process Provide an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting with parents or guardians Seek alternate ways to get parent input if face to face contact is not possible Seek information from parent about student performance in English at home and in community ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 104

105 4. Comparison of Performance In Basic Skills
“Performance in basic skills” means the score and/or performance level resulting from a recent administration of an objective assessment of basic skills in English, such as the California English-Language Arts Standards Test (CST for ELA) and the California Modified Assessment for ELA (CMA for ELA) “Range of Performance” means range of scores on the assessment of basic skills in English that corresponds to a performance level or a range within a performance level “Students of the same age” refers to student who are enrolled in the same grade as the student who is being considered for reclassification The CDE CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 105

106 Comparison of Performance In Basic Skills for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities Cont’d.
As per the CDE CELDT Information Guide ….. “The IEP team can use an alternate assessment of language proficiency for reclassification purposes. (See EC sections and 56345[b].)” ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 106

107 Comparison of Performance In Basic Skills for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities Cont’d.
As per the CDE CELDT Information Guide pg. 20….. “The IEP team can use an alternate assessment of language proficiency for reclassification purposes.” EC sections and 56345[b] ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 107

108 Comparison of Performance In Basic Skills Cont’d.
As per the CDE’s CELDT Information… “For students scoring below the cut point (e.g., the CST or CMA ELA), the LEAs should attempt to determine whether factors other than English language proficiency are responsible for low performance on the test of basic skills and whether or it is reasonable to reclassify the student.” ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 108

109 Advisement from OSEP and OCR 2014
“An EL with a disability can be “exited” from EL status when he/she no longer meets the definition of an EL. This occurs when the student meets the State’s definition of “proficient” in English……. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 109

110 Advisement from OSEP and OCR 2014 Cont’d.
“The IEP Team may have input into the decision of whether a student is proficient in English……However, there is no provision in IDEA that would authorize the IEP Team to remove the “EL” designation before the student has attained English proficiency…other LEA or school personnel do not have the authority under Federal Law to remove a student’s EL designation before the student has been deemed proficient in English solely because the student has an IEP.” OSEP and OCR Questions and Answers Regarding Inclusion of English Learners with Disabilites…. Significant Guidance 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 110

111 CDE Guidance on Reclassification of ELs with Disabilities
“Students with disabilities are to be provided the same opportunities to be reclassified as students without disabilities. Therefore, local IEP teams may determine appropriate measures of English language proficiency and performance in basic skills, in accordance with local and SBE approved reclassification guidelines.” CDE CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 111

112 Issues With Reclassification of EL Students In Special Education
It is more difficult to clear the CST-ELA hurdle than the CELDT criterion Testing results and reclassification decisions feed into the Title III accountability system imposed by NCLB that may either reward of punish school districts; students with disabilities often do not meet goal targets due to a disability versus language difference and districts receive sanctions. A large gap exists across grades on CELDT scores for ELs in SPED versus non SPED ELs. This suggests that few ELs in SPED will reach the minimum CELDT score required for consideration to be reclassified. Fetler, 2008 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 112

113 Reclassification Scenario
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 113

114 RECLASSIFICATION SCENARIO 1 Enrique
Enrique – Student with autism who takes alternate assessment to CELDT Enrique is a 6th grade student who has autism. He has an a low average to below average ability level. He is verbal; however, a lot of his speaking is more echolalia or repetitive of what he hears. His pragmatic and comprehension skills are low in both languages. He functions at approximately the 2nd grade level in math and K-1 grade level in reading and writing. He was classified as an English Learner upon entering school in kindergarten. The IEP team has designated that Enrique will take the ALPI (Listening/Speaking) combined with the Basics 2 Checklist (Reading/Writing) as an alternate assessment to CELDT. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 114

115 RECLASSIFICATIONSCENARIO 1 Enrique
Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument Since Enrique took an alternate assessment to CELDT, the reclassification team used the data from the alternate measures of Basics 2 & ALPI to determine if Enrique meets this criteria. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 115

116 Basics 2 Checklist Data Skill Area Yes No Pre Writing X
Communicates in Writing Responds to Auditory Stimuli Receptive Language (Verbal) Expressive Language (Verbal) Articulation Receptive Language (Non Verbal) *X Words Independently Attends to Printed Material Reading Readiness Basic Reading Skills Reading Comprehension Overall Indication Student is Fluent in English ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 116

117 ALPI Assessment Data Primary Language Skill Areas (Primary Language)
Points (0-5 pt) I. Receptive Language 1. 4 2. 3. 5 4. 5. 6. Total Points (0-30) 26/30 II. Expressive Language 2 1 3 Total Points (0-14) 10/14 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 117

118 ALPI Assessment Data English
Skill Areas (English) Points (0-5 Pt) I. Receptive Language 1. 4 2. 3. 4. 5 5. 6. Total Points (0-30) 27/30 II. Expressive Language 2 3 Total Points (0-14) 9/14 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 118

119 RECLASSIFICATION SCENARIO Enrique Cont’d.
Note: that even though Enrique received an overall “no” in the receptive language and reading comprehension areas on the Basics 2; the team felt that since the scores on the ALPI indicate the he has comparable skills in his primary language and English in receptive language, the relative weaknesses were due to his autism (language disabilities) versus his language development. The multi-disciplinary reclassification team (including SPED and EL staff members) determined that the he was fluent in English since the data indicates he has acquired comparable skills in both listening and speaking in the primary language and English on the ALPI, and his functional academics in English are proficient. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 119

120 SCENARIO 1 Enrique Cont’d.
Criteria 2: Teacher Evaluation Remember: Incurred deficits in motivation & academic success unrelated to English language proficiency do not preclude a student from reclassification. Enrique’s teachers indicated that they feel he has developed English language proficiency as evidenced by his day to day classroom performance (not related to his autism or disability)? ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 120

121 SCENARIO 1 Enrique Cont’d.
Criteria 3: Parent Opinion and Consultation Enrique’s parent(s) feel he has acquired the English skills needed to be successful in school. They see him spontaneously answering the phone in English. They indicate that he watches television in English and prefers to communicate with friends and in the community in English. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 121

122 SCENARIO 1 Enrique Cont’d.
Criteria 4: Comparison of Performance in basic skills “Performance in basic skills” means the score and/or performance level resulting from a recent administration of an objective assessment of basic skills in English, such as the SBAC or Other Objective Measure such as WJIII or WIAT ELA or appropriate alternate “Objective Measure“. Enrique took an “alternate assessment” for his 6th gr. level versus SBAC per his IEP so the LEA / IEP team analyzed his performance to determine his level of performance in “basic skills”. The team took into consideration Enrique’s cognitive ability levels and determined that yes, since he scored in the “basic” or above range on his alternate assessment and mastered English at his “functional level”. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 122

123 SCENARIO 1 Cont’d, Should Enrique be reclassified?
Yes, in this scenario the reclassification team felt that Enrique met the LEA’s established reclassification policy based on the four criteria outlined in CDE’s CELDT Information Guide Note: LEA’s make final decisions about reclassification based on data that best informs the four criteria. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 123

124 Partner / Group Activity Reclassification Scenario for EL in SPED
©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 124

125 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 125

126 Q & A May the parent opt a student out of taking CELDT?
Answer: No, A parent may not opt a student out of taking CELDT. A parent may waive an ELD program only ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 126 The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide

127 Q & A If a student is EL and in special education, are they required by law to have an ELD class? Answer: No, a student does not have to be placed in an “ ELD class”; however, the student must receive appropriate EL instruction and services. How those services will be Provided should be addressed in the IEP. They may be provided in a special or regular education setting as long as they are appropriate to the student’s level of EL needs, are provided by qualified staff, and will help the student progress towards their linguistically appropriate goals and objectives. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 127

128 Q & A 3) What are the Federal requirements for including ELs with disabilities in the annual State ELP (ELD) assessment? Answer: The IDEA and its regulations require that all Students with disabilities be included in all general State assessment programs, including assessments described under section 1111 of the ESEA, with appropriate accommodations and alternate Assessments, if necessary, as indicated in their respective IEPs (section 612(a)(16)(A) of the IDEA, 34 CFR § (a), and section 1111(b) of the ESEA). ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 128

129 Q & A 4) What are the ways that ELs with disabilities can participate in the annual State ELP (ELD) assessment? Answer: In the regular State ELP assessment without accommodations (in the same way as ELs without disabilities take the assessment); In the regular State ELP assessment through the use of one or more appropriate accommodations as indicated in the student’s IEP; or In an alternate assessment aligned to State ELP standards, if the IEP Team determines that the student cannot participate in the regular State ELP assessment, with or without appropriate accommodations. ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 129

130 Q & A 5) What is the responsibility of the IEP Team in determining how ELs with disabilities participate in the annual State ELP assessment? Answer: Decisions about the content of a student’s IEP, including whether a student must take a regular State assessment (in this case, the ELP assessment), with or without appropriate accommodations, or an alternate assessment in lieu of the regular ELP assessment, must be made by the student's IEP Team. If the IEP Team determines that the child must take an alternate assessment instead of a particular regular State or district-wide assessment of student achievement, a statement of why— (A)The child cannot participate in the regular assessment; and (B) The particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child; IEPs for ELs with disabilities must comply with all of the other IDEA requirements in 34 CFR §§ ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 130

131 Q & A 6) Should IEP Teams for ELs with disabilities include persons with expertise in second language acquisition? Answer: Yes. It is important that IEP Teams for ELs with disabilities include persons with expertise in second language acquisition and other professionals, such as speech-language pathologists, who understand how to differentiate between limited English proficiency and a disability The IDEA regulation in 34 CFR § (a) specifies that the participants on each child’s IEP Team include:……… “At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate” ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 131

132 Q & A 6) Cont’d. Answer: “It is important that IEP Teams for ELs with disabilities include a public agency representative, as described previously, who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of ELs with disabilities. This representative should be knowledgeable about the availability of agency resources needed to enable ELs with disabilities” ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 132

133 Q & A 7) Can an IEP Team determine that a particular EL with a disability should not participate in the annual State ELP assessment? Answer: No. All ELs, including those with disabilities, must participate in the annual State ELP assessment, with or without accommodations, or must take an appropriate alternate assessment, if necessary (section 1111(b)(7) of the ESEA and section 612(a)(16)(A) of the IDEA). (see question 3) ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 133

134 Q & A 8) How can an IEP Team determine whether an EL with a disability should take an alternate assessment instead of the regular ELP (ELD – CELDT) assessment? Answer: An IEP Team must make this determination on a case-by case basis in light of the particular needs of an EL with a disability. If an IEP Team for a particular EL with a disability determines that the student cannot participate in the regular State ELP assessment, even with individual appropriate accommodations, then the IEP Team would determine that the student needs to take an alternate assessment to the regular ELP assessment. In this situation, the Team must include in the child’s IEP a statement of: (1) Why the child cannot participate in the regular ELP assessment; and (2) Why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child (34 CFR § (a)(6)(ii)). ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 134

135 Q & A 9) If a student participates in the ELP Assessment (ELD - CELDT) with test variations, accommodations, or modifications will they “pass”? Answer: Yes; however, if the student takes alternate assessments for sections of the CELDT, they will get the lowest obtainable score of LOS for the sections of the test in which they took alternate assessments Title 5 Regulations Section 11510; The CDE’s CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 135

136 Q & A 10) When and how can an EL with a disability be exited from EL status? Answer: An EL with a disability can be “exited” from EL status when he/she no longer meets the definition of an EL. This occurs when the student meets the State’s definition of “proficient” in English. Depending on the State’s definition of proficiency, the LEA, school personnel, and/or the IEP Team may have input into the decision of whether a student is proficient in English. However, there is no provision in the IDEA that would authorize the IEP Team to remove the “EL” designation before the student has attained English proficiency. In addition, other LEA and/or school personnel do not have the authority under Federal law to remove a student’s EL designation before the student has been deemed proficient in English solely because the student has an IEP. ELs with Disabilities OSEP Title III, 2014 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 136

137 Q & A 11) Is reclassification to RFEP the responsibility of the IEP team for EL students in special education? Answer: Each LEA must establish policies and procedures to designate which staff or the team members are responsible for reclassification of EL students. It might very well be most appropriate for the IEP team to make reclassification decisions for ELs with disabilities as long as an professional with second language acquisition (EL) expertise participates on the IEP team. Remember: It is best practice for English learner and special education staff members to work together collaboratively to make reclassification decisions for students with disabilities regardless of whether or not the IEP team makes this decision. 5 CCR § 11303 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 137

138 Q & A 12) Are districts required to assess an English
learner with moderate to severe disabilities in their native language in order to qualify them for special education? Answer: The regulations state you must assess in the Native Language unless it is “clearly not feasible to do so”. Based on the severity and type of disability or lack of assessment materials in the native language, it may not be feasible to assess in the native language. Assessors should refer to the legal regulations and determine the type of assessments that are most appropriate. EC (a) & 56001(j); Section 141(a (6)(B) of Title 20 of the United State Code ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 138

139 Q & A 13) What is the recommended or required amount
of time an English learner must receive intervention (RtI / MTSS) before making a referral for special education? Answer: It is best practice for English learners to receive high quality, research-based interventions over a period of time long enough to determine the following: Is the student struggling academically due to a disability or language difference? Can the student’s academic needs be met through RTI versus special education? ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 139

140 Q & A 14) May the parent waive the requirement for a
student to be assessed for special education in their native language? Answer: There is no specific provision for a parent to waive assessment in the primary language. A parent may decline assessment in part or in whole; however, the assessors determine the language for the assessments to Be administered in. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 140

141 Q & A 15) May a school designate a student who uses American Sign Language (ASL) as FEP even though they are EL based on the home language survey? Answer: For purposes of taking CELDT, although ASL is considered a language separate from English, students who use ASL in and of itself, are not required to take the CELDT; however, if the HSL survey indicates that a language other than English (and ASL) is spoken in the home based on the first three questions or possibly 4th, the student should take CELDT or alternate assessment to determine proficiency in English. A student who uses ASL as their primary language in the above scenario may be identified as EL. 5 CCR § 11303 ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 141

142 Q & A 16) For the fourth reclassification criteria “comparison of performance in basic skills”, may the reclassification team use data from the CAPA assessment since the student does not take CST or CMA? Answer: Yes. The LEA may utilize to determine the student’s “comparison of performance in basic skills” at a their functional level. The CDE CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 142

143 Q & A 17) May a school classify a student that has severe
disabilities and is non-verbal as FEP upon entry? Answer: No, there is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative criteria” to classify a student as FEP upon entry if it is deemed that the student may be an English learner based on the home language survey. The LEA must attempt to give the student the CELDT (or alternative if an IEP team determines the student is unable to take the CELDT). Then, once the student takes CELDT, and it is deemed the scores are invalid, the LEA may use their discretion and use other data to determine the likelihood of the student being proficient in English and designate the student accordingly. 5 CCR § 11303; CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 143

144 Q & A 18) For the fourth reclassification criteria
“comparison of performance in basic skills”, may the reclassification team use data from the CAPA or other alternate assessment since the student does not take SBAC? Answer: Yes. The LEA may utilize to determine the student’s “comparison of performance in basic skills” at a their functional level. The CDE CELDT Information Guide ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 144

145 Q & A 19) May a school EL reclassification team use
“alternative criteria” to reclassify a student who is EL to RFEP? Answer: No, there is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative reclassification criteria”. LEAs must follow the LEA’s policies and procedures for reclassification based on the four criteria established by the State Board of Education (SBE). However, within the four established reclassification criteria the SBE have recommended flexibility in the way the way teams apply the guidelines that may be relevant to students with disabilities. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 145

146 Q & A 20) Do ELs that are in post secondary programs
(past age 18 have to take CELDT or the Alternate to CELDT? Answer: No. Students in grades K-12 take CELDT. The IEP team would still need to write a linguistically appropriate IEP if the team believes the student is an English learner. ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 146

147 CDE Resources and Guidance
The CDE CELDT Information Guide the 2) 1999 ELD Standards that align to CELDT at this ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 147

148 Resources/References
Artiles & Ortiz, 2002, English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction Fetler, 2008, Unexpected testing practices affecting English language learners and students with disabilities under No Child Left Behind Gersten, R., Baker, S., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., Scarcell, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades Goldenberg, C. (2008, Summer). TeachingEnglish language learners: What the research does – and does not – say Saunders & Marcelleti, 2013, The gap that can’t go away: The Catch-22 of reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners Revised ©Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. 2014 148


Download ppt "Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google