English Language Learner or Learning Disabled Exploring the Differences

1. English Language Learner or Learning Disabled? Exploring the Differences Jacqueline A. Iribarren, Ph.D. Title III, ESL & Bilingual Education Consultant Department of Public Instruction March 21, 2007

2. Today�s Agenda Review legal background & responsibilities Defining ELLs Understanding Second Language Acquisition Assessment Process Tests: Problems & Limitations Appropriate Learning Disabilities identification Understanding the difference

3. Sit Back and Relax

4. Legal Background

5. Legal Responsibilities� Whether or not a district receives bilingual or English as a second language (ESL) State categorical aid for serving limited-English proficient (LEP) students, both federal and state legal obligations exist to ensure equal educational opportunity for LEP students. Districts are required to establish, sustain, and improve learning environments which alleviate the barrier caused by not being able to communicate fully and effectively in English, the language used within the classroom. These legal obligations apply even in schools or classes where only one LEP student is present.

6. �No state shall deny equal education opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by�failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome the language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs� [Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 1974, PL 93-380]

7. Legal Responsibilities: Educational Equity and Nondiscrimination �No person in the United States, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Education� [Title VI, Civil Rights Act, 1964]

8. Public school are prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a free public education (K-12) on the basis of their immigrant status. Educators are not involved in enforcing federal immigration laws. [Plyer vs. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Supreme Court]

9. �Where inability to speak and understand the English excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students� [OCR Policy Memorandum 1970]

10. Bilingual/Bicultural Program Requirements If any school, within a school district in Wisconsin, has 10 LEP students speaking the same non-English language at grades K-3, 20 students at grades 4-8, or 20 students at grades 9-12, the district must design a program and prepare a formal plan of services (PI-1849) to meet the needs of these students. The statute requires all such programs to be staffed by licensed bilingual teachers. When bilingual licensed teachers are not available, ESL licensed teachers may be used with bilingual teacher aides except in programs serving Spanish speakers. The obligation to maintain a state approved bilingual-bicultural program (WI State Statute 115.97) for students begins when any one of the three grade cluster �trigger� numbers is reached within a single school building. Districts may combine student numbers across different schools to meet the minimum threshold for state-assistance, but this is not an obligation.

11. Pupil Non-Discrimination Under this law, no student may be denied admission to any public school, be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any school-related activity or program on the basis of the student's sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability.�� This law, like its federal counterparts, requires that every student receive an equitable educational opportunity. In order to meet this requirement, language barriers must be overcome or removed

12. Summary: Federal Law 1964 � Civil Rights Act, Title VI �No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin . . . be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance� (emphasis added). 1974 � Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) �No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex or national origin, by . . . the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs� (emphasis added).

13. 2001 � No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ACT, Title I �The purpose of this Title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.� (Sec. 1001) This includes meeting the educational needs of limited English proficient children.� 2001 � No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, Title III The purpose of the Title III Part A is to help ensure that children and youth who are limited English proficient, Native American and/or immigrants, attain English language proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging State academic standards that all children are expected to meet.

14. U.S. Supreme Court Rulings 1974 � Lau v. Nichols Equality of educational opportunity is not achieved by merely providing all students with �the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.� 1982 � Plyler v. Doe The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying a free public education to undocumented immigrant children regardless of their immigrant status. The Court emphatically declared that school systems are not agents for enforcing immigration law and determined that the burden undocumented aliens may place on an educational system is not an acceptable argument for excluding or denying educational services to any student. Therefore, school districts are prohibited from requiring U.S. passports, social security numbers, residency permits known as �green cards,� or any documentation or inquiry that would indicate whether a child or family was or was not a legal resident or citizen of the United States.

15. Key Points from Federal Rulings: Districts must provide �appropriate language assistance� services for the same challenging academic material as all other students. Programs must meet the linguistic, cultural, and academic needs of LEP students while not segregating them unnecessarily from English-speaking peers. Bilingual-bicultural instructional approaches should be used, to the extent possible, to ensure that students do not fall behind academically. Districts must pursue and implement a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or legitimate. The language assistance program must be evaluated and produce positive results for the LEP students who are being served. Results must include both increased English proficiency and increased academic competence to the same rigorous standards expected of all students.

16. State Laws The Wisconsin Constitution (Article X, � 3) Through Article X, � 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, every Wisconsin student has a fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. An equal opportunity for a sound basic education has been defined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as "one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally," Vincent v. Voight, 236 Wis. 2d 588, 614 N.W.29 388 (2000).

17. The Wisconsin Pupil Nondiscrimination Law (s. 118.13, Wis. Stats. and PI 9) Under this law, no student may be denied admission to any public school, be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any school-related activity or program on the basis of the student's sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability. This law, like its federal counterparts, requires that every student receive an equitable educational opportunity. In order to meet this requirement, language barriers must be overcome or removed.

18. The Wisconsin Bilingual-Bicultural Statute (s. 115.95, Wis. Stats. and PI 13) The bilingual-bicultural statute creates certain obligations for all districts, regardless of the number of LEP students. Each district must annually complete a census to identify language minority students; assess their language proficiency; and classify each by language, grade level, age, and English language proficiency level. Once students are classified as LEP, districts must provide them with appropriate services and report English proficiency gains.

19. Bottom Line� "There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.� Lau v. Nichols (1974)

20. Why are we here today? The controversy began in 1968 when a disproportionate number of culturally diverse children where identified as �mentally ill� in special education Two landmark cases: Diana v. California 1970 and Larry P. v. Riles, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1986

21. �Historically, special education has too often been a place�a place to segregate minorities and student with disabilities�To the extent that minority students are misclassified, segregated, or inadequately served, special education can contribute to a denial of equality of opportunity, with devastating results in communities throughout the nation�. Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (pg. 1, 2002)

22. Bottom Line� These cases brought national attention of the inappropriate placement of culturally and/or linguistically diverse children in special education programs

23. Any Questions?

24. Thoughts & Comments

25. Defining ELLs

26. ELLs in Wisconsin Over 29,000 across the state Top 5 Languages: Spanish, Hmong, Lao, Russian & Albanian Over 67,000 teacher only 33% taught ELLs Nationally: Accounts about 10% of total student population and the fastest growing student population

28. DPI English Proficiency Levels: LEVEL 1: Beginning/Preproduction LEVEL 2: Beginning/Production LEVEL 3: Intermediate LEVEL 4: Advanced Intermediate LEVEL 5: Advanced LEVEL 6: Full English Proficiency

29. Classification Language LEP - Limited English Proficient ELL - English Language Learner ESL - English as a Second Language

31. Service Delivery Models Instruction in general ed. classroom with ESL/bilingual support ESL academic content class ESL newcomer class Bilingual instruction

32. How about your School? What does ESL instruction look like? Can you articulate your ESL service delivery model? How are you serving ELLs?

33. Questions

34. Understanding Second Language Acquisition

35. Stages of Second Language Acquisition� Silent Period Code switching/mixing Native language loss Language dysfluencies (lack of vocabulary, word-finding difficulties, and/or anxiety/tension) Receptive vs Expressive Language

36. continued� Variations in acquisition (i.e. different language groups, different types of learners, different types of sounds, etc.) Differences between oral and literacy development

37. Understanding First Language First language influence on English learning Transfer Interference Characteristics of students� language Why do some language groups learn English faster? Importance & relationship of L1 in academic and literacy development

38. Understanding the English language difficulty�

40. ACESS ELL Test New English Language Proficiency Test Yearly Test: Title III Funding 4 Domains: Speaking, Listening, Reading & Writing (Comprehension)

41. Continued� Given by Tiers/Grade Clusters: A, B, C & K-2, 3-5, 6-8 and 9-12 Also a �Screener� Mandated by state Trained administrator & test coordinator

42. Questions?

43. Assessment Process

44. Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) Class action suit alleging disproportionate representation of bilingual students in a program for the mentally retarded A classic example of the harmful effects of inappropriate assessment practices and failure to account for linguistic differences

45. �Informed Parental Consent� Definition: Included in the meaning of �consent� is the requirement that the parent be fully informed, in his or her native language or other mode of communication, of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought. Knowledgeable, Legally Competent & Voluntary

46. Recommendations to fully inform parents: 1. procedures to better understand the rights & responsibilities 2. the purpose of the assessment process 3. the sequential steps in the process 4. the timeline of activities 5. possible outcomes

47. Considerations for Special Education Referral Language level Academic history Cultural/Socioeconomic differences Acculturation Provision of services & support Pre-referral interventions (i.e. curriculum, instructional, behavioral)

48. Possible Challenges� Strong and consistent pre-referral policies and practices? Lack of instructional strategies to support ELLs Lack of ongoing inservice training/p.d.

49. Biggest Challenge� �Limited English Proficiency� Testing Measures Assessment Practices: 1. inadequate trained examiners 2. inappropriate assessment practices 3. failure to comply with federal and/or state guidelines (Rhodes, Ochoa & Ortiz, 2005)

50. Biggest Challenge.. Lack of native language & cultural support � We don�t have an ESL program here� Lack of consultation & collaboration among staff

51. Questions?

52. Tests: Problems & Limitations

53. Limitations with Various Tests: Language of test Norm Sample Sample identification Use of interpreters? Does it measure English language proficiency vs. content?

54. Challenges with Interpreters: Cultural & linguistic expertise? Knowledge of critical issues? Neutrality and Confidentiality? Understanding terms?

55. Which tests to use? Limited availability Valid? Purpose and Restriction of standardized testing

56. Inherent Test Bias� �When we test students using a standardized device and compare them to a set of norms to gain an index of their relative standing, we assume that the students we test are similar to those on whom the test was standardized; that is, we assume their acculturation is comparable, but not necessarily identical, to that of the students who made up the normative sample for the test� (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1991, p. 18)

57. Questions?

58. Appropriate Eligibility Determination for ELLs and Learning Disabilities

59. Framework Linking Student, Schooling, Early Intervention, Referral, and Assessment Data

60. Final Regulations� Solidify the need for strong pre-referral process The 2006 final IDEA Part B regulations clarify that lack of �appropriate instruction� can�t be used as the sole eligibility factor for special education Factors to consider when evaluating students with limited English ability: Former learning Environments Family Factors Developmental History Length of time in country (The Special Educator, September, 2006)

61. Non-BiasedMulticultural Assessment Approach: Distinguishing between factors associated with second language acquisition and disability (e.g. SLD) is a complex process!!!

62. Characteristics of typically Reading-Related LD� Students have had consistent schooling, but achievement is still substantially below grade level Significant reading difficulties are documented over time Specialized reading interventions in the context of general education have failed to improve reading under achievement

63. continued� Multiple data sources corroborate reading difficulties (i.e. results of formal/informal assessments consistency) Parents report similar problems at home in either language (Wilkinson , Ortiz & Kushner, 2001)

64. Conducting the referral: Complete student records (health, social, family and school histories) Language dominance and proficiency data (both languages if necessary) Outcomes of interventions tried and their effect on progress

65. Non-BiasedMulticultural Assessments Selection of the language to use for testing Primary language, second language, both? Need for trained interpreter?

66. Limitations of Formal Language Measures Weak psychometric properties Lack of Spanish & other language Norms Norms obtained from monolinguals in other countries (versus bilinguals) Problems occurs when tests are translated (i.e. item difficulty)

67. Continued�. Assumes that language is utilized the same across cultures� �One-word labeling of objects is not emphasized in the same manner or frequency across all cultural/language groups� (Pena et. al 1992, p. 271) Instead, some cultures emphasize the �functions� of the object�therefore, ELLs from these cultures appear weak in vocabulary skills

68. continued� Formal language measures assess one, some or all of the structural components of language (i.e. phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary); �different tests give different proportional weights to the various components of language�pronunciation, comprehension, grammatical structure & vocabulary� (De Valenzuela & Cervantes, 1998, p. 156) Thus, different scores can result given these variances

69. Informal Methods Observations Questionnaires Teacher Rating Scales Storytelling Story Retelling Language Samples

70. Bottom line with Language Measurements� Their sole use to assess language proficiency is not recommended for ELLs Creates a strong rationale for utilizing informal measures (measuring language abilities across different settings and reflective of situations in which she/he is expected to use both BICS & CALP) to supplement formal measures

71. Language Proficiency� The concept of �Dominance�: indicates only that one language is better developed than the other but reveals nothing about overall proficiency in either language ...Dominance does not dictate the course of assessment; rather it is the absolute level of proficiency in each language that governs the path of evaluation (Ochoa & Ortiz, 2005 p. 148)

72. Bottom Line: Non-BiasedMulticultural Assessments Use a comprehensive assessment model Developmental history, observations, family interviews, instructional information, criterion-referenced tests

73. Using Tests� Standardized vs. non-standardized tests Valid and reliable?

74. Currently in Wisconsin� As a result of the New IDEA 2004 provisions, Wisconsin will use 2 methods for determining LD: 1. Old Model: Classroom achievement, Significant Discrepancy & Information Processing Deficit 2. RTI data driven model-An LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures. [614(b)(6)]

75. Bottom Line� Both sets of data must conclude in a deficiency for the student to be identified as LD

76. That means� Pre-referral interventions must have been tried, documented and provide rich data. Must Answer: How was instruction modified and what were the results? Still need an IQ/Academic achievement score

77. Assessment Team Considerations� Is the team ready to involve parents meaningfully? Interpret for Parents?

78. Break it Down: RTI Most useful: related to instruction Curriculum based assessment Criterion-referenced

79. IQ/Achievement Testing: Special Factors to be Considered� Is there a proficient language? Exposure to English & native language Age of student Length in the United States Educational history

80. Achievement Tests�. Achievement: Spanish/English or both? Linguistic Demand? Cautions: Emphasis on speed (i.e. reading fluency, math fluency, heavy emphasis on language skills & verbal ability Spanish Translations: U.S. based focus (i.e. U.S. currency); norm samples

81. Intellectual Assessments� Verbal/ Non-Verbal: Cultural Loading Linguistic Demands (Receptive language; Auditory Processing difficult to measure independent of language)

82. Have we gathered enough data & Information on: Work samples Curriculum based data Intervention results Rate of Learning

83. Can we answer the basic question in assessment: �Are the student�s observed learning problems due to cultural or linguistic differences disorder?

84. Don�t forget�.. Interpreting results Primary language impairment Exclusionary factors Is there a need for Special Education services?

85. A Multiplicity of Factors must be Considered: Parent Input Oral language proficiency in L1 & L2 Literacy levels in both languages Prior Instruction Type, Duration & Quality of Language Programs Teacher Variables

86. Determination Eligibility: Decision is based on the referral and assessment information Data other than the presence of an IQ-Achievement discrepancy supports the decision

87. If found to be student with a LD, then� Is there a need for Special Education? IEP Documents needs in both: ESL/Bilingual education and Special Education Services

88. If not eligible, then what? Retention? Holmes (1989) and House (1989) �research data indicate that simply repeating a grade does not generally improve achievement� (Heubert & Hauser, 1999, p. 121). The biggest indicator of dropping out is that a student is older than his/her peers.� Those of us who are responsible for monitoring what happens to students over the long term are frequently the biggest critics of retention.�� �

89. Retention�. McLaughlin (2005) sums up this view with the cutting saying, �The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.� Student Silent Voice and emotional trauma

90. Retention� The problem is most likely due to a lack of English proficiency instead of an inability to grasp academic content.� �We know that cognitive ability is not linked to language proficiency.� We also know when language is the reason that a student is not getting the content� (McLaughlin, 2005).��

91. Retention�. The Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision (1974) made it clear that students with limited English proficiency must be granted equal opportunity in education, and may not be discriminated against because of their lack of English.

92. If not eligible, then what? ESL/Bilingual Education Programming Double Dosing Creative Interventions Progress Monitoring

93. Questions & Comments?

94. Best Instructional Practices

98. Questions?