1 / 18

IIPM and Cultural & Linguistic Diversity

IIPM and Cultural & Linguistic Diversity. by the 4J CLD/SPED Team Ana Arias & Karen Apgar 29 October 2012. Learning Objectives. The nature of CLD learners How instruction and intervention can be made more effective for CLD students Making the evaluation decision for CLD students.

ulf
Download Presentation

IIPM and Cultural & Linguistic Diversity

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. IIPM andCultural & Linguistic Diversity by the 4J CLD/SPED Team Ana Arias & Karen Apgar 29 October 2012

  2. Learning Objectives • The nature of CLD learners • How instruction and intervention can be made more effective for CLD students • Making the evaluation decision for CLD students

  3. Why a CLD/SPED Team? CLD Team will consult with IIPM teams re: • Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction in the core and ELD curricula, • Differentiated and targeted instruction meets individual learner needs, • Progress monitoring in the general education classroom and in the ELD program. Why? To make sure kids are getting everything they can out of our instruction!

  4. You should know… Pre-referral and instructional intervention may resolve 70% or more of the special education referrals of CLD students (Ortiz, 1999) and reduce the number of students inappropriately considered for special education eligibility and services (Fuchs, 2008).

  5. What is culture?

  6. Decision rule: 12 weeks/6 data points Trendline/Aimline analysis Change targeted &/or Referral for Evaluation Instructional Intervention & Progress Monitoring Decision rule: 6 weeks/3 data points Trendline/Aimline analysis Decision rule: <20th Percentile on screening assessments Apgar & Potts, Eugene School District, 2010

  7. CLD in Tier One Comprehensive Core Reading instruction, at grade-level (approx. 60 min/day) • Content objective • Language objective (pre-teach vocab) • Supplemental materials • Explicitly link concepts to students’ background & experiences • ELD instruction is usually in addition to this Tier I instruction.

  8. CLD in Tier Two Comprehensive Core Reading instruction at Instructional Level, small group (usually 30 min/day) • Still in the General Education classroom • Progress monitoring: on grade-level • After a minimum of 12 weeks (6 data points), can determine if Tier 3 is needed • ELD instruction is on-going

  9. Differentiated vs. Targeted • Differentiated instruction is when the curriculum offers several different learning experiences within one lesson to meet students’ varied needs or learning styles. • Targeted instruction has a narrow focus on a specific skill area and is delivered in an explicit manner.

  10. CLD in Tier Three Targeted Instructional intervention, small group, explicit, direct instruction (additional 30–60 min/week) • Instruction matched to skill deficits • Phonics screener • Stages of reading acquisition

  11. Reading Acquisition • Phonemic awareness (rhyming, blending, segmenting, deleting) • Phonics skills (sound-symbol correspondence, decoding) • Fluency (word-level, passage-level) • Vocabulary • Comprehension Are we targeting & monitoring the right area?

  12. Special Education evaluation After a minimum of 18 weeks of progress monitoring, consult with CLD Team to discuss potential SpEd evaluation. Review data: instructional interventions (Gen Ed & ELD), progress monitoring, ELPA level, parent interview, developmental history, school history, behavior, health, etc. *We will suggest changes!*

  13. Why not just test and find out? “Probably no test can be created that will entirely eliminate the influence of learning and cultural experiences. The test content and materials, the language in which the questions are phrased, the test directions, the categories for classifying the responses, the scoring criteria, and the validity criteria are all culture bound.” Jerome M. Sattler, 1992

  14. Before an evaluation: • Parent involvement • Developmental History • Review of family/cultural stressors • Review of previous school experience • Review BICS/CALP and ELPA level • Discuss assimilation/acculturation • Explore affective filter • Review intervention effectiveness and appropriateness

  15. B B B B I I I I C C C C S S S S C C C C A A A A L L L L P P P P Parallel Processes in Development:Education follows Maturation LANGUAGE COGNITIVE ACADEMIC ACQUISITION DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTION Preproduction Knowledge Ortiz, S. (2008) Best Practices in Culturally Competent Assessment Early Production Comprehension Pre-Readiness Training Emergent Speech Application Readiness Training Beginning Fluent Analysis Basic Skills Training Intermediate Fluent Synthesis Early Conceptual Development Advanced Fluent Evaluation Advanced Conceptual Development Appropriate Instruction/Assessment CULTURAL CONTEXT

  16. Special Education eligibility • “Exclusionary Factors”

  17. Contact Info • Ana Arias, Speech-Language Pathologist • quintero-arias_a@4j.lane.edu • 541-790-7838 • Karen Apgar, School Psychologist • apgar_k@4j.lane.edu • 541-790-7820

More Related