Presentation on theme: "Assessing ELLs for LD within an RTI framework"— Presentation transcript:
1 Assessing ELLs for LD within an RTI framework Jennifer Venegas, M.A.Alicia Hoerner, Ph.D.
2 ELLs and LD eligibility History of overrepresentation and underrepresentation of ELLs as LD due to linguistic and cultural differences and inappropriate assessment and instruction. (Ochoa, Ortiz, Rhodes, 2005; Donovan & Cross, 2002)sConsiderable demands in parsing out academic difficulties that are due to a learning disability versus difficulties due to factors related to English proficiency. (Wilkinson, Alba, Robertson & Kushner, 2006)Most referred group of ELLs is that exhibiting reading difficulties.Over 50% of ELLs score in the bottom 3rd of reading achievement (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005)
3 Approaches for determining eligibility: Discrepancy model Measurement of IQ/achievement gapUtah Estimator: at least 93 percent confident there is a severe discrepancy between the student's expected achievement score and the obtained achievement score.Criticisms : “wait-to-fail model”Use of discrepancy models for determining LD contribute to the disproportionate minority representation in special education. (Donovan & Cross, 2002)
4 Approaches for determining eligibility: Response To Intervention Response to intervention (RTI) model has been proposed as an alternative approach to determining eligibility for special education.Not primarily a system for eligibility requirement but an intervention delivery system.Expectation that RTI approaches to determining SLD eligibility will be more culturally sensitive to issues of disproportionality for minorities with LD. (Linan-Thompson, Cirino, & Vaugh, 2007)Variation from district to districtDifferent states are at different stages about how detailed RTI data needs to by
5 Approaches for determining eligibility: Response To Intervention Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson & Francis (2005) say: “At the current time, it is very difficult to actually implement this model with ELLs because efficacy of various interventions has not been tested with this population.”Esparza (2008) states “The main problem with RTI and ELLs is the same as that with standardized assessment- what is the appropriate standard, expectation for growth or baseline to use?”Haager (2007) cautions that it is not feasible or desirable to have separate sets of tools and procedures for non-ELLs and ELLs.Studies shown to be efficacious with non-ELLs should be replicated with ELLs to determine dual utility of instructional tools and practices.Richardson (2009) found that assessment of ELLs with CBM measures yield different trend lines and slopes.What is to be expected? What is progress? What is response to intervention?
6 English learner oral language proficiency and its impact on growth trajectories in reading: A three- year longitudinal study (Richardson, 2009)Limitations: didn’t have data for all ELLS’s only included data for kids that had all three yearsOral language mediated the outcome of ELLs on CBM measures (DIBELS)Dual discrepancy approachConsider level and rate of progress, continue to monitor progress compared to grade levelLower expectationSample size: EO=545; FES=138; LES=167; NES= 59Yellow Line: below 20% chance of passing language arts CRTs; above is 50%Green Line: above is 80% chance of passing language arts CRTs
7 English learner oral language proficiency and its impact on growth trajectories in reading: A three- year longitudinal study (Richardson, 2009)Limitations: didn’t have data for all ELLS’s only included data for kids that had all three yearsOral language mediated the outcome of ELLs on CBM measures (DIBELS)Dual discrepancy approachConsider level and rate of progress, continue to monitor progress compared to grade levelLower expectationSample Size: EO= 357; FES= 163; LES= 38; NES= 16Yellow Line: below 20% chance of passing language arts CRTs; above is 50%Green Line: above is 80% chance of passing language arts CRTs
8 English learner oral language proficiency and its impact on growth trajectories in reading: A three year longitudinal study (Richardson, 2009)FindingsELLs were not found to be reading at the same level as non-ELLs; however, ELLs demonstrated variable oral English proficiency, which had a strong influence on reading proficiency level.ELLs appear to be catching up in the 4th through 6th grades, showing faster growth rates than their non-ELL peers.ELLs had similar rates of reading to non-ELLs, but different starting and ending points, depending on English proficiencyBest to identify how to help ELLs meet ambitious expectations rather than lowering expectations to meet status quo.ELLs with SLD in reading will likely present with low level of performance AND low rates of progress.Limitations: didn’t have data for all ELLS’s only included data for kids that had all three yearsOral language mediated the outcome of ELLs on CBM measures (DIBELS)Dual discrepancy approachConsider level and rate of progress, continue to monitor progress compared to grade levelLower expectation
9 ELLs and EligibilityWhen assessing ELLs it is beneficial to link together multiple sources of information.Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner (2006) suggest paying attention to four domains when determining eligibility.Early intervention (type, duration, outcomes)Alternatives explanations to referral questionAssessment (use of culturally and linguistically sensitive tests)Sensitivity of the multidisciplinary team to CLD factorsDevelopmental history, home environment, culture, language use, formal and informal testing methods need to be considered with respect to LD eligibility.Target bx to be intervened on is still an issue team may pick a target that is either too hard or too easy will affect if ‘response’ is madeEX.Student w/o basic phonemic awareness had target of sound blending vs. 6th grader who got goal of ‘R’ soundsZPDOral language impacts ELLs but may not be receiving support in that area
10 Data interpretation for eligibility Many school psychologists may find themselves unsure of how to go about incorporating data from curriculum based measures along with scores from standardized measures into their evaluation.SLCSD currently uses standardized measures along with CBM measures to determine eligibility for LD (“combined” approach).Evidence of appropriate instruction and documentation of repeated assessments to determine student progress in curriculumObservation in the area of concernStandardized measure of intellectual abilityStandardized tests in targeted areas of referralDiscrepancy report with at least 93% chance that there is a significant gap between achievement and intelligenceOur state is still using standardized measures along with CBM measuresSL District guidelines still includeAppropriate instruction with assessment to determine student progress in curriculumOR Tier 2 dataObservationStandardized test in targeted areas of referralDiscrepancy report with at least 93% chance that there is a significant gap between achievement and intelligence
11 Purpose of presentation Review two case studies to examine the application of a combined approach when determining LD eligibility for ELLsParticipants: Two ELLs in the third gradeReferral: Possible specific learning disability in reading fluency and comprehensionHistory and early interventionAssessment: CBM, rate of progress measurement, and standardized measuresInterpretation
12 SHAKIRA: Background information 9 years old, 3rd gradeBorn in MexicoCame to U.S.A. at 2 years with motherSpanish as first languageSpanish is used as the primary home languageParent reported head injury due to “low speed” car accident at age 2; reportedly well the next dayEducated in Utah since pre- school in English onlyEnglish is dominant language as per MotherTeacher referral for slow academic progress in reading and mathIPT: Oral language proficiency=limited; Reading= Non-English ReaderIPT= Idea proficiency test, district wide test to determine lang prof of ELLS
13 SHAKIRA: DIBELS Annual Performance Profile History and pre-referral informationTarget goal is the gray bar Not reaching expected level for her grade; consistently below expected level since third gradeTarget based on DIBELS normsBlack dots are BENCHMARKS: everyone benchmarkedWhite are PROGRESS MONITORING: some in second gradeReceived English language development (oral language development) in 1st grade and some tier two interventionBegan receiving SPED at the Feb of third grade increased slope in Fourth grade, closer to 4th grade target
14 SHAKIRA: Targeted Intervention Intervention with reading specialist with instruction in phonics for reading fluency and reading comprehension (Anita Archer Phonics for Reading)45 minutes daily for eight weeks in a small groupBaseline:13 wpm on 3rd grade level DIBELS92 wpm expected for 3rd gradeTarget: Increase oral reading fluency and reading comprehensionBefore intx she was getting core instruction Story Town is now the district wide reading curriculum core
15 SHAKIRA: Progress Monitoring Data Anita Archer programNORMS: should have gained 8 words over 8 weeksUsed Tukey’s to calculate rate of progress Median points for first and last third of data, and then divided by the number of weeks of data points minus 1First grade level: not making progress, and very low at the third grade very low
16 SHAKIRA: Standardized Testing Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)STANDARD SCOREPERCENTILEPRIMARY SCALESMemory Quotient10358thReasoning Quotient79*8thSECONDARY SCALESSymbolic Quotient9742ndNonsymbolic Quotient8516thFULL SCALE SCORE9025thREASONING WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN MEMORY SKILLS reasoning is relative weakness*Teacher had reported that she was slower at grasping concepts than other students
17 SHAKIRA: Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised CLUSTERSTANDARD SCORECALPENGLISHSPANISHOral Language90873-4Picture Vocabulary7991--Verbal Analogies100Reading70501Letter-Word Identification7854Passage Comprehension63Broad Language Ability72582Both English and Spanish are developed evenlyNot reading well in either language, but her oral language average to low average* Oral language includes CALP, and should be support the Reading moreReading is not commensurate with oral language; below what would be expected given the level of oral language proficiencyCBM helps to look at the progress and interpret these results
18 SHAKIRA: Selected tests from WJ-III Achievement CLUSTERSTANDARD SCORERELATIVE PROFICIENCY INDEXINSTRUCTIONAL LEVELBroad Reading621/901.4Basic Reading Skills785/901.9Reading Comprehension7114/901.6RPI: All material is extremely difficult for ShakiraBROAD READING: L-W, Reading Fluency and Passage Comp.STANDARD SCORES: Low range to Very LowSUBTEST Relative Prof Index %ileLetter-Word= /90 3rdReading Fluency= <KPassage Comp= 77 12/90 6thWord Attack= 87 36/90 20thReading Vocab= 76 17/90 5thSound Awareness= 80 46/90 9th
19 SHAKIRA: Estimator Discrepancy Report Ability(UNIT)Achievement(WJ-III)PercentConfidentSignificantDiscrepancyFSIQ= 90Basic Reading SS = 7890NOReading Comp SS = 7197YESUtah State Office of Ed requires a discrepancyUsed the reading compAs per district, discrepancy doesn’t need to be met, but RTI data does have to show deficitsDiscrepancy isnt the determining factorIQ might not be good estimate of cognitive functioning b/c of discrepancyUnit: multidimensional test allows us to see performance across areas related to learning and see variabilityvariability linked to processing deficits and linked to learning disabilityRTI: allowed us to see this lower rate of learningShowed rate of progress and level (first grade instructional level)Team decision: both sources of data helped conclude that lower levels of performance not related to language proficiency
20 LUIS MIGUEL: Background information 8 years old, 3rd gradeBorn in UtahBoth parents and sister migrated from MexicoSpanish as first languageSpanish is used at the primary home languageDescribed as “late talker” by motherEnglish is reported as dominant language as per MotherEducated in U.S.A. in English since KindergartenTeacher referral for slow academic progressPoor reading fluency and reading comprehensionIPT (2nd grade): Oral Language= Limited; Reading= Non-English ReaderFamily moved back to Mexico after evaluation*Academics: poor reading fluency,
22 LUIS MIGUEL: Targeted Intervention Intervention with reading specialist with instruction in phonics for reading fluency and reading comprehension (Anita Archer Phonics for Reading)45 minutes daily for eight weeks in a small groupBaseline:21 wpm on 3rd grade level DIBELS92 wpm expected for 3rd gradeTarget: Increase oral reading fluency and reading comprehension* Core reading curriculum is research based and district wide
23 LUIS MIGUEL: DIBELS ORF Data Anita Archer programA lot of variability on the first grade level** Used Tukey’s to calculate rate of progress Median points for first and last third of data, and then divided by the number of weeks of data points minus 1
24 LUIS MIGUEL: Standardized Testing Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)STANDARD SCOREPERCENTILEPRIMARY SCALESMemory Quotient10050thReasoning Quotient85*16thSECONDARY SCALESSymbolic Quotient9742ndNonsymbolic Quotient8821thFULL SCALE SCORE9127th
25 LUIS MIGUEL: Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised CLUSTERSTANDARD SCORECALPENGLISHSPANISHOral Language72713Picture Vocabulary6960--Verbal Analogies8185Reading835821Letter-Word Identification84Passage Comprehension52Broad Language Ability7459Mixed results with regard to dominant languageClearly English in reading,Has difficulty in vocabulary in both languagesNot spanish, espcially for academics b/c he cant read in spEnglish for academics, but variability across domains, and is limited
26 LUIS MIGUEL: Selected tests from WJ-III Achievement CLUSTERSTANDARD SCORERELATIVE PROFICIENCY INDEXINSTRUCTIONAL LEVELBroad Reading85--2.2Basic Reading Skills912.4Reading Comprehension7614/901.5RPIConcerns: SS=91 is technically in the average range, but looking at RPI, sill one year behind instructionally* Would expect better sustained growth from intervention given intensityBROAD READING: L-W, Reading Fluency and Passage Comp.STANDARD SCORES:SUBTEST Relative Prof Index %ileLetter-Word= thReading Fluency= thPassage Comp= 84 12/90 15thWord Attack= 93 36/90 32ndReading Vocab= 76 17/90 5thSound Awareness= 89 46/90 24th
27 LUIS MIGUEL: Estimator Discrepancy Report Ability(UNIT)Achievement(WJ-III)PercentConfidentSignificantDiscrepancyFSIQ= 91Basic Reading SS = 9163NOReading Comp SS = 7193YESUtah State Office of Ed requires a discrepancyUsed the reading compAs per district, discrepancy doesn’t need to be met, but RTI data does have to show deficitsDiscrepancy isnt the determining factorTEAM:Resource teacher: intervention included aspects of reading comprehension no response, the student qualifiesIn an intervention that emphasizes oral langOral lang scores are low while reading scores were higher mixed scores, not consistent within subtestsLevel and Rate: not retaining skills on a first grade level, not showing consistent progress
28 ConclusionsRepeated assessment of student performance allowed us to obtain a more comprehensive perspective than ‘snapshots’ from standardized assessment.Inclusion of data showing progress on instructional and grade level contributed to a better understanding to student’s response to intervention.Level of performance AND growth rate were helpful indicators when attempting to make predictions of learning.Decisions regarding ELL’s eligibility for SPED need to include data on oral language.Standardized measures of language proficiencyParent interviewsRepeated district wide measures of oral languageRTI for oral language?Level and performance indicators are consistent with Richardson’s recommendations
29 Conclusions (cont.)When using eligibility approaches that combine CBM and standardized measures, some inconsistency can be expected.e.g. Luis Miguel’s low ORF scores, yet average Basic Reading (SS=91)Lack of a significant discrepancy on the Estimator for basic reading for both students.Training and varied amount exposure to RTI and ELLs among school psychologists and IEP team members may be related to significant differences in interpretation and eligibility outcomes.Authors felt that eligibility decisions based on combined sources of data remain subjective.
30 LimitationsAlthough intervention reportedly targeted reading comprehension, no progress monitoring data were collected on this area.Difficult to make conclusions regarding response to intervention in this domain.No information on fidelity of intervention implementation.Other potential mediating factors intervening on reading measures were not addressed (e.g., ADHD, motivation, compliance).Intervention might have been mediated by behavioral factors
31 Future DirectionsNeed for ongoing support to teachers as they implement academic interventions.Does intervention need to continue for 8 weeks if initial data is showing inconsistent response?Schools report a need for additional training on RTI.Additional guidance at the state and district level on making eligibility determinations based on approaches incorporating RTI data.Understanding the CBM data for traditionally trained psychologists may be challengingLittle guidance on how to synthesizeELL growth rates and slopes
32 Acknowledgements Salt Lake City School District University of Utah Rebecca RobbinsUniversity of UtahJaniece L. Pompa, Ph.D.Mary Beth Lindsay Pummel
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.