Presentation on theme: "English Language Learners and Special Education: Who? What? When?Where? Why? How? Barbara Tedesco & Elizabeth Franks Roselle Public Schools."— Presentation transcript:
English Language Learners and Special Education: Who? What? When?Where? Why? How? Barbara Tedesco & Elizabeth Franks Roselle Public Schools
Concerns Over-identification –Diana v. California Board of Education. –Students classified due to language difference; inappropriate assessment. Under-identification –Schools are very sensitive to possibility of mis-classification. –As a result, ELLs with real special education needs are left behind.
IDEA 300.534 Determination of eligibility (b) A child may not be determined to be eligible under this part if –(1) The determinant factor for that eligibility determination is (i) Lack of instruction in reading or math; (ii) Limited English proficiency; If the severe discrepancy or low functioning is due to one of the above factors, the student is NOT eligible for special education.
Levels of Intervention Systemic Instructional Individual
Response to Intervention Model Three Tiered Model Systemic Instructional Individual
Systemic An acceptable and supportive school environment characterized by: academically rich, quality programs - ELLs have to catch up (15 month growth in 10 mos.) skilled use and training of teachers linguistic and cultural incorporation making AYP as measured on benchmarks based on NCLB legislation elimination of ineffective responses to failure: (retention, low level academics). programs that support interventions. Curriculum as window/mirror
Thomas-Collier Test for Equal Educational Opportunity 25-30 NCETypical size of initial achievement gap between ELL and native English speakers 25-30 NCE Expected NCE gains each year for: 0 NCEs Typical native English speakers 0 NCEs 1-3 NCEs Students in a typical ELL program 1-3 NCEs 4-6 NCEs Students in an effective ELL program 4-6 NCEs 7-9 NCEs Students in an outstanding ELL program 7-9 NCEs Does your ELL instructional program close the achievement gap and keep it closed in later years?Does your ELL instructional program close the achievement gap and keep it closed in later years?
Systemic Process Profile –Gather relevant data Attendance/educational gaps Grades Assessment of L1 Mobility Length of time in district/country Achievement in both languages Family dynamics Cultural characteristics
Instructional All teachers use instructional strategies effective for ELLs. Research-Based Effective Models: SIOP Reading First Initiatives CREDEs 5 pedagogical standards
Reading First Initiative Vocabulary development Text Comprehension Phonemic awareness Phonics instruction Fluency Motivation Literacy-rich environment; Sufficient instructional time; Careful lesson planning; School-wide assessment system; School-wide interventions for struggling readers; Sound instructional approaches; grouping, maximizing student learning School climate of collaboration, strong leadership, and evidence of commitment; High quality professional development; School partnerships.
Center for Research in Excellence, Diversity & Education (CREDE) Five pedagogical standards: –Joint productive activity. –Developing language and literacy across the curriculum. –Making meaning: connecting school to students lives. –Teaching complex thinking. –Teaching through instructional conversation.
Grouping and Classroom Management Vary grouping strategies –direct instruction, mixed ability grouping, pairs Provide for differentiated teaching and learning. Plan and promote positive interdependence and individual accountability. Provide increased opportunity to practice academic language. Promote a positive social climate.
Instructional The teacher uses a clinical teaching cycle in order to resolve the difficulty and/or validate the problem. Carefully sequenced, scaffolded instruction Assess Teach using significantly different strategies (learning styles, multiple intelligences) Informally monitor progress over time Document this process
If the problem is not resolved, seek support systems. * Consultation (PAC/I&RS) Gather relevant data from initial profile Gather current data Classroom observations (effective use of strategies; appropriate interventions) * Title I *Counseling * Community-based programs * One-on-one tutoring, identifying the exact weakness and using strategies that address that deficiency.
Factors Affecting Second Language Acquisition Intra-personalIntra-personal –Age –Motivation –Degree of L1 proficiency –Attitude toward target language community –Tolerance of learner for own errors ExternalExternal –Amount of exposure –Manner of acquisition –Availability of language models –Attitude of target language community –Tolerance of errors by the community.
Normal Processes of Second Language Acquisition Silent Period Interference Code switching Fossilization Language Loss
Language Loss An individuals change from the habitual use of one language to the habitual use of another. Language Loss symptoms resemble monolingual pathology: –poor comprehension; –limited vocabulary; –grammatical and syntactical errors; –expressive language. It may be a disorder for one child and/or lack of English proficiency for another.It may be a disorder for one child and/or lack of English proficiency for another.
Language Loss Loss in L1 is NOT matched by a corresponding replacement in L2. Loss can be much more rapid so that children will appear deficient in 2 languages. Investigate the childs earlier L1 capabilities. Long exposure with errors still present can indicate speech/language or learning problems.Investigate the childs earlier L1 capabilities. Long exposure with errors still present can indicate speech/language or learning problems.
If interventions do not solve problem A special education referral is initiated. A summary of all of the interventions and relevant data accompanies the referral. A child study team convenes to determine whether the child should be referred for a comprehensive evaluation.
Child Study Team Referral? If no, –Develop supportive plan in general education If yes,If yes, –Determine and document dominant language
Language Dominance and Proficiency (1) both Oral language proficiency assessment in both languages. If teacher is not fluent in both languages, train and use interpreter (see recommendations for training and use of interpreters) Some suggestions of instruments : –LAS, IPT, BVAT, Brigance Screening –If tests are unavailable in students native language, use informal assessment measures (language sample, oral story retelling, evaluation of receptive language ).
Language Dominance and Proficiency (2) If L1 dominant, consider English language skills in achievement. If English dominant, consider L1 in cognitive assessment. If bilingual with no clear dominance, assess in both languages.
Assessment Assessment personnel complete the comprehensive individual assessment Select assessment battery - native language (if available) - English language - formal and informal procedures - curriculum-based assessment
Adaptations Personnel - Hierarchy of Preferred Models Contract services of bilingual professional CST member Train bilingual education professional to assist. Train other bilingual professionals to assist Train community professionals to serve as interpreters. Train non-professionals in the district as interpreters. Train community non-professionals as interpreters. In all instances train assessment personnel (monolingual or bilingual).
Native Language NJAC 6A:14-2.4 Native Language (a) Written notice to the parent shall be provided and parent conferences required by this chapter shall be conducted in the language used for communication by the parent and student unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. 1. Foreign language interpreters or translators and sign language interpreters for the deaf shall be provided, when necessary, by the district board of education at no cost to the parent. (b) If the native language is not a written language, the district board of education shall take steps to ensure that: 1. The notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native language or other mode of communication; 2. That the parent understands the content of the notice; and 3. There is written documentation that the requirements of (b)1 and 2 above have been met
Characteristics of Interpreters Have excellent bilingual communication skills. Be able to relate to members of the cultural group. Understand their ethical responsibilities. Act in a professional manner. Be TRAINED for their roles.
Training of Interpreters Legal requirements and professional ethics. Goals of testing and/or meeting. Special education terminology relevant to their roles in working with family members. Role on the team. Procedures for administering tests, if applicable. Consideration of cultural differences in assessment. Strategies for interacting with families.
Use of Interpreters (1) Prior to the meeting, discuss the questions that will be asked with the interpreter. Interpreters should sit as close as possible to family members. Introduce family to everyone at the meeting. Speak in short units and avoid slang and professional jargon. Encourage the interpreter to translate the familys words without paraphrasing them.
Use of Interpreters (2) Look at the family rather than the interpreter when speaking. Observe the nonverbal behaviors of the family during the interview. Allow opportunities for family members to ask questions. Provide written information (translated) when appropriate. Tape record the interview if the family is comfortable.
Observation of Interpretation Session Observe the interpreter to prevent the following problems: –Prompting or giving clues –Using too many words –Giving directions that are too brief or too complicated –Over- or under-using reinforcement –Recording assessment data incorrectly, if applicable. Observe the student for the following behaviors: –Response delays –Uses of gestures to replace words –False starts, word repetitions, perseveration –Confusion –Inattention, distractibility –Language and articulation disorders
Responsibilities of CST Member in Use of Interpreters Allow interpreter to only complete the activities for which training has been provided. Show the interpreter how to use the tests and allow time to organize materials, read instructions and clarify areas of concern. Provide the interpreter with background information about the student who is to be tested. Debrief with the interpreter after the session. Ensure that the interpreter does not protect the student by hiding the extent of the limitations/disabilities.
Assessment Modifications Administer test according to protocol and score it. Re-administer with the following modifications: –Remove time limits –Vary the mode of response (read test questions to check receptive language; oral responses) –Translation/Interpreters –Simplification of language –Dynamic assessment: test; teach; retest Re-score and compare –Difference in score indicates 2 nd language acquisition process –No difference – possible learning disability
Intelligence/Cognition Must be conducted in the students most proficient language. (if NA consider nonverbal + informal measures). If not clearly proficient in one language, consider assessing in both languages. If very young, a developmental scale may be used.
Academic Evaluation An English evaluation should be attempted if English instruction has been given for 1+ years. If student has received native language instruction within a reasonable time period (1-2 years); a native language evaluation should be conducted. If native language assessment is NA, a functional assessment can provide information about students ability
NJAC 6A:14-3.4 Evaluation (d) An initial evaluation shall consist of a multi-disciplinary assessment in all areas of suspected disability. Such evaluation shall include assessment by at least two members of the child study team and other specialists in the area of disability as required or as determined necessary. Each evaluation of the student shall: 1. Include, where appropriate, or required, the use of a standardized test(s) which shall be: i. Individually administered; ii. Valid and reliable; iii. Normed on a representative population; and iv. Scored as either standard score with standard deviation or norm referenced scores with a cutoff score; 2. Include functional assessment of academic performance and, where appropriate, behavior.
Functional Assessment Functional Assessment Both languages Authentic assessment in the classroom Curriculum-based assessment Dynamic assessment – evaluate performance over time Questionnaires from various staff members Portfolio assessment Evaluate communication holistically and across settings Use natural language samples
Speech and Language Speech pathologists must use procedures, modifications and tests appropriate for diagnosis and appraisal in the language and speech of child. May include descriptive linguistic analysis Results indicating a language disorder should be handled with care. Language differences must be considered
Socio-cultural Acculturation pattern Family background/dynamics –Separation from parents Educational support at home Previous educational experiences Home country political/economic reality Behavior at home and prior to coming to U.S.
Indicators of Language Difference It is normal for ELLs to demonstrate a lower level of English proficiency than their monolingual peers. Second language acquisition follows a developmental course similar to first language acquisition. Language loss is a normal phenomenon when opportunities to hear and use L1 are minimized. Shifting from one language to another within utterances is not necessarily an indicator of language confusion (code switching). It is normal for second language acquirers to experience dysfluencies associated with lack of vocabulary, word finding difficulties and/or anxiety.
Indicators of Learning Disability Difficulty in learning language at a normal rate compared to learners from similar backgrounds, even with special assistance in both languages. Short mean length of utterances (in both languages). Auditory processing problems (e.g. poor memory, poor comprehension). Poor sequencing skills. Communication is disorganized, incoherent and leaves listener confused. Communication difficulties when interacting with peers from a similar background. Lack of organization, structure and sequence in spoken and written language; difficulty conveying thoughts.
Report Writing functionalUse adapted standardized test information as functional assessment.
Report Writing Document conditions of assessment –Describe the nature of the bilingual evaluations. –Level of evaluation model, language of test and deviations from standardized administration. –Language dominance and proficiency results. –Relevant behavioral information related to students academic functioning. –All relevant background information.
Evaluation NJAC 6A:14-3.4 Evaluation f) A written report of the results of each assessment shall be prepared. Each written report shall be dated and signed by the individual(s) who conducted the assessment and shall include:… 3. If an assessment is not conducted under standard conditions, the extent to which it varied from standard conditions. 4. When a student is suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility shall include a statement of:… –vii. The determination concerning the effects of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage;
Committee to determine eligibility NJAC:6A:14-3.4 Evaluation: (a) The child study team, the parent and the regular education teacher of the student who has knowledge of the students educational performance or if there is no teacher of the student, a teacher who is knowledgeable about the districts programs shall:…
Determination of eligibility for special education and related services NJAC 6A:14-3.5 Determination of eligibility for special education and related services (b) In making a determination of eligibility for special education and related services, a student shall not be determined eligible if the determinant factor is due to a lack of instruction in reading or math or due to limited English proficiency.
Eligibility and IEP Development The committee determines eligibility: –Reviews all data. –Determines if child has a legally defined disability. –Provides assurances that the determinant factor of the students problems are not primarily the result of language, culture or not having the opportunity to learn. The committee develops the IEP: –Includes present level of performance: L1 and L2 –Annual goals for L1 and L2 (if applicable). –Amount of time in each setting and duration of services –Evaluation criteria –Persons responsible for implementation –Strategies appropriate to disability and language and culture.
Individualized education program NJAC 6A:14-3.7 Individualized education program (c) When developing the IEP, the IEP team shall: … 4. In the case of a student with limited English proficiency, consider the language needs of the student as related to the IEP. 6A:14-6.2 Provision of programs and services provided under N.J.S.A. 18A:46A-1 et seq. and 18A:46-19.1 et seq (d) English as a second language shall be provided according to N.J.S.A. 18A:46A-2c.
all Placement and Services Services in the least restrictive environment that address all needs Be Creative General education program with ESL and/or inclusion services Bilingual/ESL with inclusion/resource room services Special education with bilingual/ESL services Bilingual Special Education And so on….
Collaborative Teaching Arrangements Complementary Instructions Two lessons are taught: functional (metacognitive) and content Important functional skills are modeled and practiced within class context Team teaching Instruction is provided alternately by each teacher. Uses each professionals strength. Opportunity for staff development. Supportive instruction Specialist develops specialized instruction, grouping or practice techniques. Enhancement is incorporated in future lessons. Students are supported. Parallel Instruction A small group is taught separately within the classroom. Teachers can informally observe each others activities.
Tips on Co-teaching Planning is the key. Discuss views on teaching and learning. Discuss testing and grading responsibilities. Attend to details. Prepare parents. Avoid the paraprofessional trap When disagreements occur – TALK. Go slowly.
Instructional adaptations for students with special needs Curriculum/ Instruction BooksClassroom Modifications Behavior Mastery of key concepts. Show a model of end product. Provide alternative books with same content; easier readability Reduce visual distractions. Arrange a check-in time to organize the day. Use marker to highlight important information Provide audiotapes of textbooks Seat student close to teacher or helpful peer. Arrange for time-out space and permission to leave room Use computer and/or calculator. Use visuals and Manipulatives. Provide two sets of books: home and school. Provide visual cues for routines and tasks. Be aware of behavioral changes related to medication and time of day. Use a study guide.Adapt reading selections. Give directions in small steps. Develop individualized rules.
Assessment Modifications for Special Needs ELLs Allow extra time Reword questions using simplified language Use bilingual dictionary or translation of items. Change percentage of work required for passing grade. Use rubric to grade students work. Refer to modifications on IEP.
Every day an old man walked a beach with a pail, picking up starfish that had been washed in by the tide, and throwing them back into the sea. One day, a young boy stopped the old man and asked, Why do you throw the starfish back ? It doesnt matter. They will only wash up on the shore again tomorrow? The old man picked a starfish out of his pail, threw it as far as he could into the sea, and replied, It mattered to that one.
Resources Cross-cultural Developmental Education Services Dr. Catherine Collier info @ crosscultured.com The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt) A. Artiles, Vanderbilt University and J. Klingner, University of CO at Boulder www.Nccrest.orgwww.Nccrest.org CEC Division for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners www.cec.sped.org www.cec.sped.org Center for Applied Linguistics www.cal.org www.cal.org National Literacy Panel www.cal.nlpwww.cal.nlp Office English Language Acquisition www.ed.gov/offices/oelawww.ed.gov/offices/oela
Resources Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services www.ed.gov/offices/osers National Institute of Child Health and Human Development www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/cdb.htm Intercultural Development Research Association www.idra.org National Association of Bilingual Education www.nabe.orgwww.nabe.org New Jersey Administrative Code for Special Education and Bilingual Education www.nj.gov/njded/code/
References August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language minority children. Washington, DC: National Research Council Institute of Medicine Collier, C. (1998). Cognitive learning strategies for diverse learners. Ferndale, WA: Cross Cultural Developmental Education Services Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, Eng: Multilingual Matters Echevarria, J, Vogt, M., Short, D. (2000). Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The siop model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gersten, R. & Jimenez, R (Eds.) (1998). Promoting learning for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Langdon, H (2000). Factors affecting special education services for ELLs with suspected language learning disabilities. Multiple Voices, 5 (1). 66-82. Mattes, L. & Omark, D. (1984). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual handicapped. San Diego: College Hill Press.
References Ortiz, A. & Ramirez, B. (Eds.) (1998). Schools and the culturally diverse exceptional student:Promising practices and future directions. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Ovando, C. & Collier, V. (1998). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill Roseberry-McKibbin, (1995). Multicultural students with special language needs. Tharp, R. et al. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Determining appropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: A self assessment guide for principals. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children