INTRODUCTION TO NONBIASED ASSESSMENT OF MULTICULTURAL STUDENTS WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT

1. INTRODUCTION TO NONBIASED ASSESSMENT OF MULTICULTURAL STUDENTS WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT

2. ** • There are a lot of demonstrations on my youtube channel • Just go to youtube and type in Celeste Roseberry—demo videos are there

3. I. DIAGNOSTIC PIE** (p. 240) • Language is a system of symbols used to represent concepts formed through exposure and experience • Students’ experiences may differ from mainstream school expectations • If teachers refer ELL students for testing, there may be a difference, not disorder, because of experiential differences • LI=disorder in both L1 and English!!

4. 4 quadrants in the “Diagnostic Pie”** (p. 240) • Quadrant 1==typical language learning ability, adequate background • Quadrant 2==typical language learning ability, limitations of linguistic experience, environmental exposure • Quadrant 3==LI, adequate background • Quadrant 4==LI, limitations of linguistic experience, environmental exposure

5. Dr. Ron Gillam (CSHA)

6. II. INDICATORS OF LI** • Compared to SIMILAR PEERS, learn slowly in L1 and L2 • Communication problems at home and/or with similar peers • Slower development than siblings (of same gender)

8. Please know Table 11.1 on p. 244 for the exam** • Universal Indicators of Language Impairment • That and the Diagnostic Pie (p. 240) are the only charts or tables from chapter 11 that you need to know for the exam

9. III. LEGISLATION: IDEA 2004** • We must evaluate in a nondiscriminatory manner • Tests must be administered in most proficient communication mode • Testing cannot reflect limited English; must reflect child’s ability in area tested

10. The IDEA does not require that standardized measures are used** • Traditionally, many special educators have used standardized tests because they believe that a quantitative score is mandated by federal law; however, the law does not exclude subjective or qualitative measures. It leaves the choice of measurement tools and criteria to the educator.

11. IDEA (2004) does not specify use of either** • formal or informal tools for assessment. • Says: use a variety of assessment tools, and that determination of disability should not rely on a single test or measure.

12. Every Student Succeeds Act** • English language proficiency is considered an academic indicator of accountability • In an ELL’s second year in school here in the U.S., the state has to incorporate math and reading results using some measure of growth • In an ELL’s 3rd year, his or her proficiency scores in math and reading will be treated like those of any other student • Because CALP can take 5-10 years to develop, we may get more special ed referrals

13. IV. PRE-EVALUATION PROCESS** • Before doing formal testing, it is extremely important to carry out the following: • 1. Language proficiency testing • 2. Ethnographic interviewing and case history • 3. Teacher evaluation of student’s classroom performance

14. Language Proficiency Testing (p. 255 definitions)** • Primary language? • Dominant language? • Interview parents, teachers, interpreters who have worked with the student

15. Use language measures** • California  CELDT (California English Language Development Test) • Ask re: oral and written skills in both langs

16. ** • As of July, 2018, the CELDT is replaced by the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) • ELPAC designed to align with CA’s 2012 English Language Development Standards, which were developed to correspond to the 2010 California Common Core State Standards

17. The ELPAC has 2 separate assessments:

18. Be careful of the label “English Proficient”** • Usually means adequate ORAL English skills (BICS) • However, the child still may not be able to read, write adequately in English, and take standardized tests competently (CALP)

19. Youtube video: ** • Channel Celeste Roseberry • Assessment of ELLs with Language Impairment: Gathering Case History Through Interviews • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2myRI8XZ0g

20. V. TESTING IN THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE** • Problem: great heterogeneity within languages (dialects) • Problem: Limited data on normal development in other languages

22. NEVER Translate an English test into the child’s L1 and use the norms:** • Normative data is invalid • ELL student has different life background experiences than norming sample • Some items are not directly translatable

23. VI. SELECTING ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS** • A. Appropriateness of Test Content • Many potentially unfamiliar items

24. B. Adequacy of norms • C. Possible Examiner Bias

25. VII. NONBIASED ASSESSMENT: CONSIDERATIONS IN STANDARDIZED TESTING** • A. Introduction • Standardized, formal tests are commonly used with ELL students • Many speech-language pathologists and other special educators operate from the belief that we must always obtain quantitative data such as percentile ranks and standard deviations • However, the IDEA permits the use of qualitative, subjective measures which we will discuss more in the next section

26. **The Native Americans have a saying: When you are riding a horse and it dies, dismount--and find a new one. But many of us keep wanting to revive the old horse of standardized testing with ELL students.

27. Typical referral and assessment procedures** (p. 246)

28. B. Pitfalls of using Standardized Tests with ELL Students—Formal Test Assumptions** • There are very few standardized tests in most languages • Most standardized tests are developed from a Western, literate, middle class framework

29. These tests assume that students will:** • Cooperate to the best of their ability • Attempt to respond even when test tasks don’t make sense • Understand and successfully perform artificial, potentially unfamiliar tasks such as fill-in-the-blanks

30. They also assume that students will:** • Have been exposed to info and experiences assumed by test • Be comfortable with an unfamiliar adult and willing to talk with him or her readily • Be proficient in verbal display of knowledge

31. Bias in Standardized Testing: Potentially Unfamiliar Items** • Household objects • Vehicles • Sports • Musical instruments • Types of clothing • Professions/occupations • Historically related events and people • Foods • American nursery rhymes • Geography • Games

32. An ELL student may not recognize things like American fruits and vegetables**

33. In many countries, soccer is called football**

34. Holidays and seasons differ from country to country**

35. Many immigrant and refugee students are unfamiliar with items involving snow…**

36. VIII. Modifying Standardized Tests

37. Give the student extra time to respond** • If the student gives a “wrong” answer, ask her to explain it and record her explanation; score it as correct if it would be correct in her culture • Repeat items when necessary

38. I will often have 2 columns: ** • First attempt Second attempt • - + • - + • - - • - + • - -- • -- +

39. What I don’t want to see: ** • First attempt Second attempt • - - • - - • - - • - - • - -

41. IX. CONSIDERATIONS IN TEST INTERPRETATION** Don’t identify a student based solely on formal test scores Ascertain if the student’s errors are typical of other students with similar backgrounds Interpret overall results as a team In assessment reports, include disclaimers about departure from standard testing procedures