Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students: How to Meet Their Needs

1. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students: How to Meet Their Needs Stephanie Dahlke, School Psychologist, stephaniedahlke@yahoo.com, Pocatello School District in partnership with the Idaho Division of Special Education

2. To review and make connections to the Idaho Toolkit. Purpose **Disclaimer: With exception of the Idaho Toolkit (LEP/SPED), the materials, authors and references used today are representative of the districts’ best practices and are not endorsements from the SDE. They are considered best practice.

3. CLD Roadmap - It’s not yes or no; it’s which way to go • Culturally Competent Assessments • The question isn’t CAN we get to the destination, the question is did we take the right road. • There is no set path. • Teams must learn to consider the right information.

4. So Where’s the Map? • The Idaho Toolkit gives districts the needed guidance. • Trainings can be scheduled through the SDE by contacting Dr. Fernanda Brendefur at FMBrendefur@sde.idaho.gov

5. Why the Toolkit? • The Idaho State Department of Education saw a need for districts to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of school-wideprogramsserving English Learners (i.e., core, Title I-A, Title I-C, Title III, etc.) before referring ELs for eligibility to special education. • They also saw a need for districts and schools to develop effective collaboration between special education, general education, and LEP programs. • The toolkit was developed as a response to ongoing district requests for more guidance in the area of special education as it pertains to ELs.

6. The Toolkit… • Is NOTa quick fix with easy answers. • Is NOT a “one-size-fits-all” training. It is very district-specific. • Is NOT an easy step-by-step process to get ELs into special education programs. There are no cut and dry answers! • Is a systemic and comprehensive approach to ensuring districts are serving ELs with high-quality English language development (ELD) and core instructional programs. • Is aligned to Idaho’s Response to Intervention model.

7. Learn to Fish . . . • Understanding needs will lead to individual assessment plans for students. • School personnel will be able to identify a protocol, rather than follow a protocol. • Schools will be able to self-assess how they are servicing EL students school-wide.

8. Modules and Topics • Module 1: Foundations • Module 2: Language and Culture • Module 3: Family and Community • Module 4: Effective Curriculum and Instruction • Module 5: Assessing ELs • Module 6: Determining Special Education Eligibility

9. Type 3 Errors – Solving the Wrong Problem • All six topics must be addressed to ensure the right issue has been identified. • Academic remediation does not equal language support. • Specific EL needs should be addressed long before special education referral is considered.

10. Foundations, Culture, and Language • CLD is more than learning to speak a new language. • Within native English speaking groups, culture can still be an issue. • Important Question: What does CLD look like for your population? What should you consider?

11. Things to consider • Background Information: • Family’s socio-economic status and composition • Numbers of years in country and student’s birth place • Educational history (e.g., time spent in American schools, type of English Learner programs) • Family background • Transience • Cultural and linguistic background

12. What Can We Do Immediately? • Educational Learning Plans (ELPs) • Is student receiving accommodations while they acquire the language? • Are all parties who work with students involved in the ELP process? • An ELP provides students with accommodations for classroom and statewide testing.

13. Effective Curriculum and Instruction • Consider the Core • Does it have a language building component? • Are CLD students being successful in it? • Is core effectiveness data being disaggregated to assess each core curriculum?

14. Effective Curriculum and Instruction • Consider English Learner (EL) Curriculum • Is it language based and not specific skill remediation? • Is it being used at the recommended frequency and duration? • Is it proving effective for the majority of participants?

15. Interventions • Considering individual student information, which interventions appear most appropriate? • Collaboration is key.

17. Assessing ELs • What if interventions are not working? • BEFORE a student is referred for special education evaluation, all the data should be revisited and evaluated.

19. Assessing ELs • After reviewing the data, a collaborative team determines “which way to go.” • If a Special Education Evaluation is agreed upon, the team determines the most appropriate protocol.

20. Defining What Preponderance Looks Like • A preponderance of evidence is required. What might that preponderance look like? • Different for each student • Language proficiency assessments • Formal and informal measures – achievement and intellectual • Language and skill intervention data • Peer comparisons • Functional observations – what do they look like in the classroom?

21. Determining Special Education Eligibility How to interpret the data… Teresa Fritsch, Psy.S., NCSP School Psychologist, Meridian School District in partnership with the Idaho Division of Special Education fritsch.teresa@meridianschool.org

22. Purpose • To explain the evaluation process for CLD students.

23. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) “Begin with the assumption that there exist an infinite number of reasons for why any given child is having learning difficulties and that a given disability only represents but one of those reasons. In other words, try first to eliminate all other potential reasons for learning difficulties, particularly those related to culture or the process of second language acquisition before entertaining the idea of testing for the presence of a suspected internal disability. Utilize ecological and ecosystems approaches to frame the child’s school performance within the context of any cultural, linguistic, or other external factor that may be affecting the learning process.” (Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D., St. John’s University, 2008)

24. Reminder: Data Collection Includes Background Information: Family’s socio-economic status and composition Numbers of years in country and student’s birth place Educational history (e.g., time spent in American schools, type of English Learner programs) Family background Transience Cultural and linguistic background Current Data: Academics - Parent Interview Behavior - State/District test scores Attendance - Student work Interventions attempted - Classroom observations Curricula used

28. Psychological Processing Evaluation * Reliability and Validity - 4 General Approaches to Testing related to CLD: - Modified or Adapted Testing - Nonverbal Testing - Native Language Testing - English Language Testing - Other factors: - student’s age - level and type of prior education - current language of instruction - type of instructional program - test’s norm sample * Flanagan & Alfonso, 2011

29. Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM) Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment-2nd Ed. by Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007 Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students, by Rhodes, Ochoa, Ortiz, 2005 Degree of cultural and linguistic loading (low, medium, high) Does it match the typical pattern of a student who is CLD? Difference or disorder?

31. Steps to Use in Determining the Pattern of Scores Derived from the C-LIM (pg. 180): “Is the highest Cell Average in the uppermost left-hand corner (the Low/Low cell classification? Is the lowest Cell Average in the lowermost right-hand corner (the High/High cell classification? Do the remaining Cell Averages fall between the highest and lowest scores and follow a relative decline in value from the upper-left cells to the lower-right cells? If the answer to all questions is “yes,” then it is very likely that the test results are invalid and reflect lack of acculturation and limited English proficiency more so that true ability. If the answer to any question is “no,” then the data may be valid and uncompromised by cultural or linguistic factors and can be used, in conjunction with other converging data, to support hypotheses regarding the presence of a disability.” (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)

32. Psychological Processing Emphasis on: • Patternof strengths and weaknesses. • Linkthe psychological normative weakness to the academic area of concern.

34. Review • Curricula appropriate and completed with fidelity • Utilize formal and informal assessments, observations, interviews, file review, etc. as you gather data • Language proficiency/Language dominance • Intensive interventions – language-based interventions as well as skill based – with comparison peer data • Progress monitoring in area(s) of concern – comparison peer data • Academic achievement testing • Psychological processing evaluation – pattern of strengths & weaknesses and linking to academic deficit

35. www.idahotc.comTraining and Technology for Today’s Tomorrow • Website to link school professionals and parents with special education training opportunitiesand resourcesacross the state • Supported By: • Idaho State Department of Education (ISDE), Special Education • Project Team: • Cari Murphy • Shawn Wright

36. Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies, BSU Gina Hopper, Carol Carnahan, Associate Director Statewide Consultant ginahopper@boisestate.educarolcarnahan@boisestate.edu 208.426.4363 208.426.3257 Statewide Special Education Technical Assistance (SESTA)

37. www.sde.idaho.gov/site/isee

38. Contact Information: Stephanie Dahlke, School Psychologist Pocatello School District stephaniedahlke@yahoo.com Teresa Fritsch, School Psychologist Meridian School District Fritsch.teresa@meridianschools.org Richard Henderson, Director Special Education rhenderson@sde.idaho.gov