Considerations for Language Assessment of ELLs

1. Considerations for Language Assessment of ELLs Gorman, B.K. (2014)

2. ELLS in Special Education • Overrepresentation • Underrepresentation • Reliance on English measures (Caesar & Kohler, 2007; Williams & McLeod 2012)

3. ELLS in Special Education • English speakers generally identified as having reading disabilities in 2nd or 3rd grade • ELLs often not until 4th or 5th(Donovan & Cross, 2002) • Overreliance on teacher ratings for identifying struggling readers have been shown to have low sensitivity, with overreliance on English proficiency as an indicator of ability (Limbos & Geva, 2001).

4. Importance of Early Identification • 70% of poor readers had a history of language deficits in kindergarten (Catts et al., 1999)

5. Cross-disciplinary collaboration • Importance of SLP-Teacher communication • ELLs with reading disabilities may previously have been identified and served by SLP. • Importance of early identification and awareness of likelihood for concomitant reading difficulties.

6. IDENTIFICATION: Expertise in assessment requires enhanced understanding about the language, literacy, and cognitive development of children Learning More than one language

7. Understandingbilinguals While at Baskin-Robbins Older: How many scoops are in a double? Younger: Two. Older: How many are in a triple? Younger: Three. Me: How about in a quadruple? Younger: Cuatro.

8. A beneficial resource Early bilingual exposure (0-3 years) appears to have a positive impact that may actually ameliorate the negative effect of low SES on literacy (Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008)

9. IDEA 2004 • ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.—Procedures to ensure that testing and evaluation materials and procedures utilized for the purposes of evaluation and placement of children with disabilities for services under this title will be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shall be provided and administered in the child’s native language or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child.

10. 2006 IDEA Final Regulations • Requires that assessment and other evaluation materials are administered “in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally.” • i.e., variance from standard testing procedures, when necessary

11. Consideration of what we are evaluating ≠ ≠

12. Consideration of who we are evaluating Language experience classification (Peña, Gillam, Bedore, & Bohman, 2011) • Functional monolingual English (FME) • 80% or more English input-output • Bilingual English dominant (BED) • 60%–80% English input-output) • Balanced bilingual (BL) • 40%–60% input-output in each language • Bilingual Spanish dominant (BSD) • 60%–80% Spanish input-output) • Functional monolingual Spanish (FMS) • 80% or more Spanish input-output.

13. Language Input & Output hrs hear L1 hrs hear L1 % input hrs speak L1 hrs speak L2 % output Average to calculate total

14. Example: Cristian • A Spanish-English male, 5;3 • Mexican Spanish in the home, all-English at school (2 years) • Parents concerned that his language was developing more slowly than his siblings’. • Teacher notes difficulty and attributes it to ELL status

15. Language Experience: • Birth to 3;0: Spanish • 3;0 to present: Spanish and English • Cristian is considered to be a sequential bilingual learner

16. Input: Wakes up 6am, Bedtime at 8pm (13 hour days) 7 hours/day Monday-Friday: Spanish 6 hours/day Monday-Friday: English 10 hours/day Weekends: Spanish 3 hours/day Weekends: English Input Spanish: 60% , Input English: 40% Output 6 hours/day Monday-Friday: English 7 hours/day Monday-Friday: Spanish 11 hours/day Weekends: Spanish 2 hours/day Weekends: English Output Spanish: 63% , Output English: 37%

17. Input Spanish: 60% , Input English: 40% Output Spanish: 63% , Output English: 37% Average: Spanish 62%, English 38%

18. Discussion • What are the three tests you most often use with your bilingual learners? • What is the language experience of the majority of the normative sample? • Are the norms representative of a child like Cristian?

19. Define the standard for comparison

20. Reference IDEA

21. Using Standardized Measures Better

22. Assessment Resources

23. Observation Assessment Framework (R. Gillam) Functions & Activities Interviews Language Samples Dynamic Assessment Participation Portfolios Naturalistic Observations (home, school) Contextual Curriculum-Based Decontextual Standardized Tests Measurement

24. Dynamic Assessment Methods and Research Activity

25. Observation Diagnosis Look for:Converging Evidence -Parent/Family -Teacher -Clinician Participation Portfolios Naturalistic Observations (home, school) Functions & Activities Interviews Language Samples Dynamic Assessment Contextual Curriculum-Based Decontextual Standardized Tests Measurement

26. www.rti4success.org Effective Literacy Practices for Instructing English Language Learners Within the Response to Intervention (RTI) Framework

27. Traditional models of special education: children referred after they experience failure • RtI: Major paradigm shift in assessment and intervention practices for struggling learners triggered by the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

28. Key principles (see Fuchs, Mock, Morgan & Young, 2003, for a review) • identify and intervene with at-risk children before they fail. • measurement of children’s response to targeted instruction effectively distinguishes students with true disabilities from those whose low achievement is due to inadequate previous instruction.

29. RtI and CLD Students • May be particularly useful for identifying and meeting the needs of children from diverse backgrounds including ELLs (Vaughn et al., 2006a, 2006b). • ELLs with RD often identified after being exited from ELL programs (Zehler et al., 2003). • Teacher ratings overreliance on English proficiency as an indicator of ability (Limbos & Geva, 2001).

30. www.rti4success.org

31. Data-Based Decision Making • Communication and collaboration • Instructional effectiveness • Intervention effectiveness • Student response data • Movement within tiers • Identification of disability (Disability identification (in accordance with state law) Adapted from www.rti4success.org

32. Summary • Sufficient background knowledge about dual language learning • Use assessment measures appropriately • Examine all four quadrants with multiple sources of data • e.g., Dynamic Assessment, RtI • Look for converging evidence • Imperative that early signs of language and literacy disability are identified as early as possible.

33. Helpful Resources • www.asha.org/public/speech/development/bilingualchildren.htm • www.rti4success.org • www.ideapartnership.org

34. brenda.gorman@elmhurst.edu

35. Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.

36. Kovelman, I., Baker, S.A., & Petitto, L.A. (2008). Age of bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 11(2), 203–223. • Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Bedore, L. M., & Bohman, T. M. (2011). Risk for poor performance on a language screening measure for bilingual preschoolers and kindergarteners. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 20, 302–314. • Williams, C.J., & McLeod, S. (2012). Speech-language pathologists’ assessment and intervention practices with multilingual children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(3), 292-305.