Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making

Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making Part 3: Evaluation for Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

Agenda: Part 3 Introduction A Review of General Education Interventions General Education Interventions for LEP Students Initial Evaluation for LEP Students Eligibility Determination Process for LEP Students

Introduction It is important to remember that LEP students are a very heterogeneous group It is important to remember that LEP students may not have had the opportunity to fully develop their primary language It is critical to understand the language and education background of students being considered for evaluation It is important to be familiar with the characteristics of the LEP program being provided to the student

An LEP student should be compared to LEP Peers • LEP Peers are defined as students with similar linguistic and educational backgrounds. For example: • Which LEP students speak the same language? • Which LEP students are of similar age? • Which LEP students entered the LEP program at about the same time? • Which LEP students have a similar family background? • Which LEP students have a similar history of schooling?

General education interventions

The Evaluation and Eligibility Process for All Students in School Begins with GEIs General Education Interventions (GEIs) are the way that Kansas implements the federal Child Find requirement. For children in kindergarten through age 21, Child Find is conducted through the use of General Education Interventions and should also ensure the early identification and assessment of disabilities in children.

General Education Interventions: A Review GEI • Kansas describes two models of GEI • MTSS (protocol interventions + systemic problem-solving) • Individual problem-solving • In both models the school must carry out interventions and document the child’s progress • The interventions and progress monitoring data will provide information about the child’s needs, including • the intensity of instruction needed • the support required for the child to be successful

Universal screening and the diagnostic process is used to determine student intervention. Interventions are refined & intensified based on the progress monitoring data and the steps for adjusting instruction. If student growth is insufficient, individual student problem-solving is conducted by grade level collaborative teams. Collaborative teams have charts and intervention logs that show the results from all the steps above. GEI Using MTSS

GEI UsingIndividual-Student Problem Solving GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams meet to conduct individual problem-solving. Progress monitoring data are used to refine interventions. GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams have charts and meeting notes or intervention logs that show the results from the steps above.

A Review: Documentation Needed Prior to Referral for Evaluation • That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, • What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, • The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, • That parents have been provided the results • The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate

Common Elements of Both Methods Of GEI • Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: • high quality instruction in general education • evidence-based interventions that are matched to child needs • progress monitoring during intervention process • evaluation data are reliable and valid (Lichtenstein, 2008)

IES Recommendations for ELL Literacy Instruction

More Research about Literacy Instruction for ELLs (English Language Learners) • ELLs benefit from high-quality literacy instruction that both increases the student’s oral proficiency in English and provides substantial coverage of the key components of literacy: phonemic awareness, decoding, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing • Instructional approaches effective with native English speakers are successful with ELLs, but have a smaller impact • ELLs, with appropriate instruction, can perform at the same level in word-level skills (such as decoding). However, they often fall behind on text-level skills (such as comprehension). (Learning Point Associates, 2009)

See the Handout Information to Consider for LEP Student during Initial Evaluation and Special Education Eligibility Determination • Background information • Home language, changes in home language, siblings, etc. • Location of birth, moves, pre-school education, etc. • Developmental history • Previous schooling in primary language/in English • Tracking of English acquisition over time • Baseline and current English proficiency • Results of any progress monitoring of English acquisition • Compare rate and level of English acquisition with LEP peer(s) • LEP instruction provided • Review information on ILP • Is student being taught in English or primary language or both? • What is the type of LEP program being provided? • How has that program been adjusted to meet individual student needs? • Results of universal screening • Is student being taught to read in English or primary language or both? • Is screening being conducted in English or primary language or both? • What GEIs have been provided? • Are you repeatedly linking to L1 in the classroom? • What were the results of progress monitoring? • How do results of GEIs for targeted student compare to results of GEIs for other LEP students?

GEI Data Collection for LEP Students • Home language/changes in home language/where born • Developmental history • Previous schooling in primary language • Previous schooling in English • Tracking of English acquisition over time • Baseline English proficiency • Current English proficiency • Results of any progress monitoring of English acquisition • Compare rate and level of English acquisition with LEP peer(s)

Difference between Oral and Academic Language • Cummins: BICS and CALP • BICS: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills. Mastery of listening and speaking skills in a second language • CALP: Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency. Academic language skills, such as processing information, reading, knowledge of sophisticated content-area vocabulary, and writing. • Some current research shows that oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years, while academic language takes 4 to 7 years to develop (Hakuta, et al., 2000).

GEI Data Collection for LEP Students • Review information on student’s ILP (Individual Learning Plan) • Is the student able to access content in native language? • Is the student able to perform grade level tasks in native language? • Is the student on grade level social-wise? • Cummins recommends that teachers repeatedly link information and instruction to the student’s L1 in the classroom as an important GEI until academic language proficiency is achieved.

GEI Data Collection and Intervention for LEP Students • LEP instruction provided • Is the student being taught in English or primary language or both? • What is the type of LEP program being provided? • How has that program been adjusted to meet the individual student’s needs? • Are you planning instruction to teach for transfer between languages/cultures? • What other adjustments could be made to intensify language instruction?

GEI Data Collection and Intervention for LEP Students • Results of academic screening and progress monitoring • Is student being taught to read in English or primary language or both? • Is reading screening being conducted in English or primary language or both? • What targeted interventions have been provided to the student in reading and/or math? • How can interventions be intensified to better meet this student’s needs?

AIMSWEB ROI For Progress Monitoring

Select English Language Proficiency Profile:Profile 1:English Language Proficiency Level 1Profile 2: English Language Proficiency Level 2Profile 3: English Language Proficiency Level 3Profile 4: English Language Proficiency Level 4Profile 5: English Language Proficiency Level 5

What does GEI progress monitoring data show? • Is the student making an adequate rate of progress? • With language skills? • With academic skills? • Compared to LEP peers? • When is a referral for an initial evaluation warranted? • When you suspect the presence of an exceptionality • When you think the student may need special education as the result of an exceptionality

Initial evaluation

Key Aspects of Initial Evaluation • Determine additional data needed • What, if any, additional assessment is needed? • What, if any, additional intervention is needed? • Obtain informed parent consent, then collect needed data • Collect and analyze data in ways that are nondiscriminatory for LEP students • Are there any other areas of functioning that need to be evaluated?

See the Handout • For RTI evaluations, consider dual discrepancy for target student compared to LEP peer(s) with regard to skill development • Does target student differ from LEP peer(s) with regard to level of performance? (based on screening data) • Does target student differ from LEP peer(s) with regard to rate of learning? (based on progress monitoring data) • Consider input of experienced LEP teacher regarding (a) and (b) • For Patterns (PSW) method of evaluation, conduct non-biased assessment (e.g., Samuel Ortiz, 2002). • For either method of evaluation, consider conducting nonverbal assessment with low cultural loading • Multi-dimensional tests: the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT), the Leiter-Revised, and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II (KABC-II) when administering the nonverbal subtests using the pantomimed administration specified by the test authors. • Uni-dimensional tests: the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Third Edition (TONI-III), the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (C-TONI), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM). • How do student’s needs differ from that of other LEP students? • Apply two-prong test of eligibility to data collected (see Indicators Document)

For RTI Method of Evaluation • Consider language for screening and progress monitoring • Generally language of assessment should match language of instruction • Consider assessing in both primary language and English to provide more information to help interpret results • Consider results of universal screening and GEI progress monitoring. • How does student compare to grade-level peers? • How does student compare to LEP peers? • Consider results of any diagnostic assessment • Consider what other assessment may be needed

For PSW Method of Evaluation What language should be used for nondiscriminatory assessment? What types of tests should be used for nondiscriminatory assessment? Consider both the language demand and cultural load of any assessment under consideration for a component of the evaluation Review recommendations from researchers specializing in evaluation of LEP students

Data That May Be Needed Within Either Method of Evaluation • Consider conducting nonverbal assessment with low cultural loading • Multi-dimensional tests: • the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) • the Leiter-Revised • the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II (KABC-II) when administering the nonverbal subtests using the pantomimed administration specified by the test authors • Uni-dimensional tests: • the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Third Edition (TONI-III) • the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (C-TONI) • the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) • Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM)

Questions to Help Identify Any Additional Data Needed What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student? How are this student’s needs different from those of other LEP students?

Eligibility determination

Outline of Eligibility Determination Process • Conduct two-prong test of eligibility, using Eligibility Indicator Document • Consider Prong 1 (exceptionality) • Consider Prong 2 (need for special education) • Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report

Steps to Answering Prong 1 Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? Do any exclusionary criteria apply? Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality?

Exclusionary Factors An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or

Exclusionary Factors (continued) lack of appropriate instruction in math; or limited English proficiency; and the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality

Exclusionary Criterion for LEP • Limited English proficiency will always be a factor in a student’s learning difficulties • You can show that the student’s limited English proficiency is not the primary cause of the student’s learning difficulties by • Showing that appropriate interventions (for language and academic skill needs) were implemented and adjusted based on the effectiveness of the intervention, and • Showing the the student’s progress is different from LEP peers

Eligibility Indicators for the Exclusionary Criterion for Limited English Proficiency Show evidence that the student was provided with appropriate accommodations and interventions to address limited English proficiency. Consider whether the student’s rate of learning is different from those of similar language background and educational experience. If in spite of appropriate accommodations and interventions, the student’s learning difficulties persist, this factor is ruled out.

Dual Discrepancy Indicator • Consider dual discrepancy for target student compared to LEP peer(s) with regard to skill development • Does target student differ from LEP peer(s) with regard to level of performance? (based on screening data) • Does target student differ from LEP peer(s) with regard to rate of learning? (based on progress monitoring data) • Consider input of experienced LEP and general education teachers regarding (a) and (b)

Steps to Answering Prong 2 • Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. • What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? • Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum?

Steps to Answering Prong 2 What is needed for the student to access and progress in the general curriculum? Is there a need for specially designed instruction beyond the services provided by the LEP program? Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education? How do this student’s needs differ from those of other LEP students?

Eligibility Determination • If the team has data to show that the information regarding the student • matches the definition of an exceptionality, • shows that exclusionary factors are not the primary cause of the learning difficulties, and • shows that the student exhibits a need for special education and related services, then the student is eligible. • Two-prong test: Exceptionality + Need = Eligibility

If the Student is Eligible, Analyze Data For Use in IEP Development How do this student’s needs differ from those of other students in special education? How do this student’s needs differ from those of other LEP students? Use answers to questions and all data collected to write PLAAFPs of IEP

REFERENCES AIMSweb ELL Sample Report 2012. Retrieved from:http://www.aimsweb.com/wp-content/uploads/AIMSweb_ELL_SampleReport_2012.pdf Brown, J. E., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center on Response to Intervention. Available at:http://www.rti4success.orgresourcetype/rti-english-language-learners-appropriately-using-screening-and-progress-monitoring-tools Cummins, J. (1981), Language, power and pedagogy, Cambrian Printers Ltd. Cummins, J. (1981). “The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students.” In Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework, edited by the California State Department of Education Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Cummins, J., and M. Swain. (1986). Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Policy. London: Longman.

References, cont. Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from:http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides Hakuta, Kenji, Butler, Yuko Goto, and Witt, Daria (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, Policy Report 2000 – 1. Learning Point Associates (2009). Connecting Research about English Language Learners to Practice, an introductory guide for educators, August, 2009. Malarz, Lynn, Bilingual Education: Effective Programming for Language-Minority Student, available online at: http://www.ascd.org/publications/curriculum_handbook/413/chapters/Bilingual_Education@_Effective_Programming_for_Language-Minority_Students.aspx Ortiz, Alba (2001). English language learners with specials needs: Effective instructional strategies, ERIC Digest EDO-FL-01-08. Ortiz, S. O. (2002). Best Practices in Nondiscriminatory Assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best Practices in School Psychology IV. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making