1 / 62

Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. / Santa Barbara County SELPA Director Email: jariceb@sbceo

Best Practices for Assessment & Reclassification of ELs with Disabilities California Department of Education Accountability Leadership Institute 2012. Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. / Santa Barbara County SELPA Director Email: jariceb@sbceo.org Website: SBCSELPA.org. Challenges for Educators.

crwys
Download Presentation

Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. / Santa Barbara County SELPA Director Email: jariceb@sbceo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Best Practices for Assessment & Reclassification of ELs with DisabilitiesCalifornia Department of Education Accountability Leadership Institute 2012 Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. / Santa Barbara County SELPA Director Email: jariceb@sbceo.org Website: SBCSELPA.org

  2. Challenges for Educators • “…far too often, children from diverse backgrounds who fall behind in their learning are inappropriately labeled as needing special education. What they may really need is academic support and the opportunity to learn in a culturally responsive environment...” • (R. Weaver, 2008 Former President of NEA)

  3. Disproportionality Occurs When….. Disproportionality occurs when some students “are inappropriately referred, diagnosed, classified and placed for special education” Stephanie Graham-Rivas, Author of Culturally Proficient Inquiry Presentation at State SELPA Organization Meeting 12-1-11

  4. 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

  5. Presentation Topics • CELDT Testing • Eligibility & Assessment of English Learners for Special Education • Reclassification to RFEP of English Learners • Questions and Answers

  6. CELDT The CELDT has three purposes: • To identify students who are limited English proficient or English learners • To determine the level of English language proficiency of EL students • To assess the progress of EL students in acquiring the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing English

  7. CELDT Testing Accommodations & Modifications Students may have accommodations and/or Modifications on CELDT as specified in their IEP. An accommodation is: Any variation in the assessment environment or process that does not fundamentally alter what the test measures or affect comparability of Scores. Accommodations may include variations in scheduling, setting, aids, equipment, and presentation format A modification is: A variation in assessment environment or process that fundamentally alters what test measures or affects comparability of scores

  8. Alternate Assessment to CELDT Alternate Assessment: IEP Teams may designate an alternate assessment to CELDT “Students with disabilities may take an alternate assessment if their IEP team determines that they are unable to take one or more parts of the CELDT even with variations, accommodations, and/or modifications.”

  9. Alternate Assessment Cont’d. Alternate Assessment is: “An alternate way of measuring English language proficiency of pupils with disabilities whose IEP Team has determined they are unable to participate in CELDT even with accommodations, variations, or modifications.” Note: The IEP team must determine if the student is to be assessed with an alternate assessment in each of the four domains listening, speaking, reading &

  10. Alternate Assessment Cont’d. Alternative Assessments to CELDT • At this time, the California Department of Education does not have a designated alternative assessment to CELDT for students whose IEP team determines that the student may not be able to take all or parts of CELDT to determine level of English language proficiency. • The IEP team must determine the alternate assessment(s) to be administered for each student and which domains (listening, speaking, reading, or writing) the student will be administered an alternative assessment to CELDT. • See the CDE’s Participation Criteria Checklist for Alternate Assessment to CELDT in the 2012-2013 CELDT Information Guide Page 14-17

  11. Resource List for Potential Alternate Assessments to CELDT

  12. Resource List for Possible Alternate Assessments to CELDT Cont’d.

  13. Assessment & Determining Eligibility of English Learners for Special Education

  14. Identification of English Learners 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.

  15. California Ed Code Requirements for Identification & Assessment ofEnglish 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)

  16. California Ed Code Requirements for Identification & Assessment ofEnglish 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)

  17. Requirements for Identification & Assessment ofEnglish 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)

  18. Identification & Assessment Requirementsfor 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

  19. Identification & AssessmentRequirements 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: Norm-referenced assessments, to include non-verbal and other areas of cognition in English and native language if native language assessments are available (cross-cultural, non-discriminatory assessment preferred) 2) Criterion-referenced tests 3) Systematic observation in educational environments 4) Structured interviews (with student, parents/guardians, teachers, etc.)

  20. Assessment of ELs Best Practices • Best Option – Engage in the following: • Administer cross cultural, non-discriminatory full or partial bilingual assessment in native language and English 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 • 2nd Best Option – Engage in the following: • If there is no assessor available in the native language; engage in steps # 2-4 above and, • Using an interpreter, administer the assessment in the native language under the supervision of school licensed assessors – document limitations in assessment report

  21. Assessment of ELs Best Practices Cont’d. • 3rd Option – Engage in the following: • If there is no assessor available in the native language; engage in steps # 2-4 on previous slide and, • If there are no assessment tools available in the native language, 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 • Worse Case Scenario Option – Engage in the following: • If there is not assessment tool or interpreter available in the native language engage in #2-4 on previous slide and, • Assess in non-verbal areas of cognition and administer English only assessment

  22. Assessment of ELs Why Assess in the Student’s Primary 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 difficult 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”.

  23. 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 primary language and English when available. • Assessors should assess in the students primary language when feasible to do so.

  24. Assessment ELs Cont’d. Examples of When it May Not “Be Feasible” to Assess in the Student’s 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.

  25. Use of Interpreters for Bilingual Assessment Ways interpreters and translators are used in bilingual assessment: Interpreters – Interpreters may be used to orally translate information given by the student or parent/ guardian in their native language into English; interpreters may also be used to read test materials in the native language and interpret student Responses into English 2) Translators – Translate written text in English into the native language

  26. Use of Interpreters or Translators in Bilingual Assessment Cont’d. Best practice briefing Procedures prior to using an Interpreter: • 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

  27. Use of Interpreters in Bilingual Assessment Cont’d. Debriefing/follow-up Procedures: • Ask interpreter or translator 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.

  28. BILINGUAL ASSESSMENTRESOURCES • http://www.crossbattery.com • Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students: • Strategies for Teaching and Assessment; by Grass & Barker. Sage Publications. http://www.sagepub.com/home.nav • Ortiz, Samuel, Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Studenthttp://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/ortiz.pdf • Assessing Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Students: A • Practical Guide. Practical Intervention in the Schools Series; by Rhodes, Ochoa, Hector, & Ortiz. Guilford Publications.

  29. Reclassification of ELs in SPED

  30. Reclassification of EL Students in SPED 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)

  31. Reclassification of EL Students in SPED Cont’d. 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)

  32. Reclassification of EL Students in SPED 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 60810 (i.e., the CELDT) • 2) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of • the pupil’s curriculum mastery • 3) Parental opinion and consultation • 4) Student performance on a statewide assessment of basic skills in English • EC 313(d) / The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

  33. Reclassification of EL Students in SPED Cont’d. Assessment of Language ProficiencyUsing 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

  34. 1. Assessment of Language ProficiencyUsing an Objective Assessment InstrumentCont’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; this IEP designated alternative measure can be used to inform the first criteria. Personal Communication with the CDE CELDT & SPED Division 11-30-11 The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

  35. 1. Assessment of Language ProficiencyUsing an Objective Assessment Instrumentfor Students Taking Alternate Assessment: “The IEP team can use an alternate assessment of language proficiency for reclassification purposes. (See EC sections 56342 and 56345[b].) An alternate assessment is the measure of the student’s English language proficiency on any or all four domains in which the student cannot be assessed using the CELDT” Personal Communication with the CDE CELDT & SPED Division 11-30-11 The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide pg. 20

  36. 2. Teacher Evaluation Sample Criteria Used by Special and General Education Teachers: • 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” The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

  37. 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, as well as possible comparison to other siblings

  38. 4. Performance in Basic Skills • Definitions: • “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’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

  39. 4. Performance in Basic Skills Cont’d. As per the CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 12: “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.”

  40. 4. Comparison of Performance In Basic Skills Cont’d. As per the CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 21: “According to EC Section 313(f), LEAs must use, but are not limited to, the four criteria. In accordance with federal and state law, the local IEP team may address the individual needs of each English learner with a disability using multiple criteria in concert with the four reclassification criteria in law. The LEA may be able to reclassify the English learner with a severe disability even though, for example, the CELDT performance is not at the level suggested for reclassification in the SBE’s guidelines due to the identified disability. Therefore, it is recommended to use other language assessments to ensure the student receives appropriate services”

  41. Issues With Reclassification of EL Students In Special Education • It is more difficult to clear the CST-ELA hurdle than the CELDT criterion. For example, in the 11th grade in 2007, 21 percent of ELLS scored Basic or better on the CST-ELA, compared to 41 percent scoring EA or better on CELDT. • 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

  42. Maria – Student with autism who takes alternate assessment to CELDT Maria is a 6th grade student who has autism. She has an a low average to below average ability level. She is verbal; however, a lot of her speaking is more echolalia or repetitive of what she hears. Her pragmatic and comprehension skills are low in both languages. She functions at approximately the 2nd grade level in math and K-1 grade level in reading and writing. She was classified as an English Learner upon entering school in kindergarten. The IEP team has designated that Maria will take an alternate assessment to CELDT.

  43. RECLASSIFICATIONSCENARIO 1 “Maria” Cont’d. Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument Since Maria took an alternate assessment to CELDT, the reclassification team used the data from the alternative measures of Basics 2 & ALPI to determine if Maria meets this criteria.

  44. Basics 2 Checklist Data

  45. ALPI Assessment Data

  46. ALPI Assessment Data

  47. RECLASSIFICATIONSCENARIO 1 MARIA Cont’d. Note: that even though the student 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 student has comparable skills in her primary language and English in receptive language, the relative weaknesses were due to her autism versus her language development. The multi-disciplinary reclassification team (to include special educators and EL staff members) in this scenario determined that the student was fluent in English since the data indicates the student has acquired comparable skills in both listening and speaking in the primary language and English on the ALPI, and her functional academics in English are proficient. 47

  48. SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D. Remember: Incurred deficits in motivation & academic success unrelated to English language proficiency do not preclude a student from reclassification. Maria’s teachers indicated that they feel she has developed English language proficiency as evidenced by her day to day classroom performance (not related to her autism or disability)?

  49. SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D. Criteria 3: Parent Opinion and Consultation Maria’s parent(s) feel she has acquired the English skills needed to be successful in school. They see her spontaneously answering the phone in English. They indicate that she watches television in English and prefers to communicate with friends and in the community in English.

  50. SCENARIO 1 MARIA 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 CST or CMA in ELA or other appropriate alternate objective measure” Maria took CAPA Level IV (for her 6th grade level) versus CST as indicated in her IEP so the LEA / IEP team analyzed her performance to determine her level of performance in “basic skills”. The team took into consideration Maria’s cognitive ability levels and determine that yes, since she scored “basic” or above on the CAPA IV she demonstrated that she had acquired basic skills in English at her functional level.

More Related