English Language Learners
11/5/2012
English Language Learners: Language Barrier Disability or Both?
Ana Sainz de la Peña Educational Consultant Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network November , 2012
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
PaTTAN’s Mission The mission of the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) is to support the efforts and initiatives of the Bureau of Special Education, and to build the capacity of local educational agencies to serve students who receive special education services. 2
1
11/5/2012
PDE’s Commitment to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Recognizing that the placement decision is an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team decision, our goal for each child is to ensure IEP teams begin with the general education setting with the use of supplementary aids and services before considering a more restrictive environment. 3
The population of English language learners in Pennsylvania has increased 114% in the past 10 years (OELA Report, 2010). The purpose of this presentation is to address the academic, linguistic and cultural needs of English language learners (ELLs), including ELLs in Special Education, with the intention of building capacity among educators, school administrators, and other professionals who work with ELLs and their families. The content of the presentation has been developed to inform, support and empower educators to embrace the beliefs that all teachers must take responsibility for providing an equitable education for all children, acknowledge that each English language learner has a unique set of academic, linguistic and socio-cultural strengths and needs, and that it is our responsibility to figure out how to use these competencies and skills to lead them to academic success.
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
2
11/5/2012
Important Acronyms
• ELL
English Language Learner (Student)
• ESOL
English to Speakers of Other Languages (Program)
• ESL
English as a Second Language (Program)
• LEP
Limited English Proficient (Student)
Now We Know! • AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (Title III Accountability) • Title III No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students • ELPS
English Language Proficiency Standards
3
11/5/2012
Now We Know
• L1 • L2 • W-APT
First language Second Language WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test™
• ACCESS for ELLs Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
Outcomes To identify the legal and educational components of ESL Programs in Pennsylvania. Understand the manner in and degree to which cultural and linguistic factors can systematically attenuate test score performance for individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Identify a systematic process to examine ELLs language and academic development.
4
11/5/2012
Survey on ELLs 1. I feel comfortable evaluating ELLs for SLD 2. I have access to bilingual staff. 3. I am familiar with the process of second language acquisition. 4. I have access to bilingual measures. 5. I think bilingual measures are useful. 6. I am familiar with the concept of acculturation. 7. I am fluent in a second language.
Questions about ELLs and ESL Programs?
What is an ESL Program? What do ESL teachers teach? Do ELLs have specific assessments of English language development? How do we use the information collected to make data-driven decisions regarding educational programs for ELLs ? Who has this information? How is it shared? How do we set appropriate linguistic and academic goals for ELLs? What do we need to know about ELLs to provide appropriate instruction and interventions?
5
11/5/2012
Federal Definition of ELLs According to the federal government, an
LEP/ELL is an individual:
(A)who is aged 3 through 21;
(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; (C) (i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant;
Federal Definition of ELLs OR (ii) 1- who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of outlying areas, and (ii) 2 - who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; (iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant;
6
11/5/2012
Federal Definition of ELLs AND (D) whose difficulties speaking, reading, writing and understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual: (i) the ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments as described in section 1111(b)(3); (ii) the ability to achieve successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society.
Who are our ELLs There are 47,894 ELLs in PA English Language Learners (ELLs) are a
heterogeneous group:
200 different languages The largest group (70%) are Spanish speakers ELL enrollment has increased 114% in the last ten years The ten most commonly spoken languages are: Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Arabic, Korean, Khmer, Gujarati, French, Creole & Pidgins What is the country of origin for the majority of ELLs in PA?
7
11/5/2012
Top 10 LEAs by ELL Enrollment 55% of the Total ELL Population LEA Name Philadelphia City SD
No. of ELLs 13,986
Reading SD
3,190
Allentown City SD
2,980
Lancaster SD
2,340
Bethlehem Area SD
1,980
York City SD
1,670
Hazleton Area SD
1,275
Erie City SD
990
Upper Darby SD
822
Harrisburg City SD
827
In Pennsylvania, 189 districts and charter schools currently have fewer than 10 ELLs.
Educating Students With Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) and English Language Learners
State regulation, 22 Pa. Code § 4.26, declares: Every school district shall provide a program for each student whose dominant language is not English for the purpose of facilitating the student's achievement of English proficiency and the academic standards under § 4.12 (relating to academic standards). Programs under this section shall include appropriate bilingual-bicultural or English as a second language (ESL) instruction. 16
8
11/5/2012
Basic Education Circular • Educating Students With Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and English Language Learners (ELL) • 22 Pa. Code §4.26 • DATE OF ISSUE: July 1, 2001 • DATE OF REVIEW: April 14, 2009 www.pde.state.pa.us
ESL Program (1) planned instruction by a qualified ESL /Bilingual teacher (2) adaptations/modifications in the delivery of content instruction by all teachers based on the student’s language proficiency level and the Pennsylvania Language Proficiency Standards (PA ELPS) for ELLs as well as the Pennsylvania academic standards.
9
11/5/2012
ESL Program
19
CORE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REFERENCE CHART REQUIREMENTS 1.
Identify
LEGAL REFERENCE OCR 1970 Memo Lau v Nichols 1974 Supreme Court decision
PROGRAM
Home language survey
Train intake staff
Classroom survey
Appropriate proficiency test
Determine need for services
Gomes v
Multiple criteria for placement
Place in appropriate services
Board of Education 1987
Identify home language proficiency
Diagnose mathematics skills
2.
Assess
Office of Civil Rights 1970 Memo
Court of Appeals, 7* Circuit
3. Provide services Designed for students' needs
Castaneda v Pickard 1981
Court of Appeals, 5"1 Circuit
Direct, appropriate, sufficient
Equal Education Act 1974
Develop Instructional Plan -
Schedules for service
-
Who provides service Assessment plan
Based on current practices
Titles VI& yil of Civil Rights Act 1964
-
Appropriate staffing
Rios v Read 1977
Appropriate materials
-
Current ESL teaching practices
Cintron v Brentwood 1977, 1978
-
Identify appropriate materials
Gomez v Illinois State
-
Identify what is taught
Board of Education i987
-
Describe adjunct services
Court of Appeals, 7lh Circuit
The Provision of an Equal Education
Train educators and administrators
to Limited English Proficient Students OCR, 1992 Titles VI & YII of Civil Rights Act 1964 Equal Education Act 1974 Office of Civil Rights 1970 Memo Lau v Nichols 1974 Supreme Court decision
4. Ensure integration Instructional integration Social integration
5. Reassess for ending services
6. Document
Castaneda v Pickard 1981
Services Successful effect on students academic and linguistic development Modifications if needed
OCR 1970 Memo Rios v Read 1977 Cintron v Brentwood 1977,1978 Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
The Provision of an Equal Education to Limited English Proficient Students OCR, 1992
Describe access to programs and services Develop policies for grading Identify how integrated with same-age peers
Specific multi-criteria reclassification
Develop Program Guide/Handbook
Develop record keeping plan
procedures
Appoint team to implement evaluation Plan (Monitoring)
20
10
11/5/2012
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals The Court determined that in order to comply with Section 1703(f) school districts have two basic obligations toward students who are not proficient in English: 1) To provide a language development program through which these students can learn the English language skills of comprehension, speaking, reading and writing necessary for learning and achieving in English-only instruction with their English-speaking peers; 2) To ensure that these same students do not suffer academic losses or setbacks because of their lack of English and that they be given equal access to the same substantive knowledge conveyed through the school/district curriculum provided to that of their English-speaking peers.
OCR September 1991, Office for Civil Rights' Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP students) (1991)—discusses OCR policy on conducting compliance reviews regarding the issue of placement of LEP students into special education programs where there are indications that LEP students may be inappropriately placed in such programs, or where special education programs provided for LEP students do not address their lack of English proficiency.
11
11/5/2012
OCR Office for Civil Rights' Booklet: The Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity to Limited English Proficient Students (1992)--recommends steps for preventing misplacement of LEP students in special education due to limited English skills rather than an exceptionality; these include assessing in student's primary or home language and ensuring that accurate information regarding the student's language skills in English and the student's primary language is taken into account in evaluating assessment results.
ELLs in Special Education
6,270 ELLs in Special Education (2009) 1 of 8 ELLs has an IEP and receives Special Education services
12
11/5/2012
In Pennsylvania • The largest numbers of ELLs who receive Special Education are in the Learning Disability category. • The percentages of ELLs with IEPs are greater in districts with fewer than 20 English language learners.
This trend is not happening only in PA "Special education had become the default intervention for ELLs." "Special education was seen as the place with the answers, without taking into consideration what the long-term implications were going to be for the students.” Sonia Picos, Program Manager Special Education Department, San Diego School District
13
11/5/2012
National Data National research done within the last decade, including a 2003 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, found that over identification occurred more commonly in districts with small numbers of ELLs (fewer than 99 such students), and under identification was more common in districts with larger English language learner populations.
National Data Less than 20% of public school teachers in the U.S. who have at least one ELL in their class are certified to teach ELLs
(Waxman, Tellez & Walberg, 2004).
Thus, most teachers lack the training, expertise, and experience in teaching reading and other subjects to ELLs.
14
11/5/2012
National Data Most multidisciplinary school teams charged with making special education eligibility decisions for ELLs also lack the training and experience in differentiating second language acquisition from a learning disability. (Collier, 2001; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Ortiz, 1997).
How are ELLs assessed? ELLs are assessed using state-mandated English language proficiency assessments: Placement: WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) Measure Progress: ACCESS for ELLs Both assessments are aligned to the Pennsylvania English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) http://www.wida.us/
15
11/5/2012
ACCESS for ELLs Measures progress in the development of English language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Five Proficiency Levels: 1. Entering 2. Beginning 3. Developing 4. Expanding 5. Bridging
ACCESS for ELLs The testing window is between the months of January and February Results are distributed to LEAs no later than May Scores are used to: document student progress, exit ELLs from ESL Program, evaluate the effectiveness of the ESL Program, for accountability NCLB Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
16
11/5/2012
The ELP Standards • Standard 1 –Social & instructional Language (SIL) • English language learners communicate for social and instructional purposes in the school setting. • Standard 2 – Language of Language Arts (LoLA) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Language Arts. • Standard 3- Language of Mathematics ( LoMA) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Math. • Standard 4-Language of Science (LoSC) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Science. • Standard 5-Language of Social Studies (LoSS) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Social Studies.
17
11/5/2012
Questions about ELLs and ESL Programs?
What is an ESL Program? What do ESL teachers teach? Do ELLs have specific assessments of English language development? How do we use the information collected to make data-driven decisions regarding educational programs for ELLs ? Who has this information? How is it shared? How do we set appropriate linguistic and academic goals for ELLs? What do we need to know about ELLs to provide appropriate instruction and interventions?
What happens if a student is not making progress? Factors to consider prior to referral for an evaluation – ESL instruction is sufficient in quantity and quality. – The core ESL instructional program is effective and aligned to the proficiency level of the student, and the English Language Proficiency Standards. – Planned instruction in the content areas is delivered according to the English language proficiency level of the student and the English Language Proficiency Standards, and appropriate ESL-related adaptations/modifications are provided by content teachers. – Collaboration exists between the ESL and content
teachers.
– Instruction and home-school communication is culturally responsive.
18
11/5/2012
Linguistic Backgrounds
“Second languages develop under an extremely
heterogeneous set of conditions, far more diverse than
the conditions under which children learn their first
language (Bialstok & Hakuta, 1994, p. 2).”
ELLs may not have the opportunity to develop their first language (L1) fully before adding the second language (L2) Level of English language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing measured by W-APT and ACCESS for ELLs (Entering, Beginning, Developing, Expanding, Bridging)
Linguistic Background English dominant with limited academic vocabulary Strong social language (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills-BICS) Limited academic language (Cognitive Academic Language Skills-CALP) Literacy proficiency in L1 Student speaks an indigenous language in addition to dominant language in his/her country (some students who come from rural areas in Central and South America are not native speakers of Spanish)
19
11/5/2012
Background Experience Country of Origin -More than 80% of ELLs are born in U.S.
(second and third generation)
-Less than 15% are foreign born (first
generation)
-Differences in generational language patterns
have been identified (Valdes &7 Figueroa,
1994)
-Immigration pattern
-Migration patterns
Background Experience Rural vs. urban environments Refugee experience Students with limited formal schooling School year calendar (When does school start and when does it end?) School day length (some countries only offer half day schedules in elementary)
20
11/5/2012
“The time spent in asking specific questions about a student’s background will yield benefits in planning assessment and instruction. The formal and home literacy experiences of ELLs will also provide insights about their instructional needs.” A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners
Know your core instructional programs, including ESL core program Opportunity to Learn All students are provided with scientifically validated instruction delivered with a high degree of fidelity to the curriculum, and thus all children are provided with an equal opportunity to learn. Have you ever “shadow” an ELL for a day to find out about his/her instructional program at your school?
21
11/5/2012
Opportunity to Learn Although there is a growing body of research on effective reading instruction for ELLs with and without disabilities (Artiles & Klingner, 2006; Linan-Thompson, Bryant, Dickson, & Kouzekanani, 2005), it appears that not all ELLs are receiving appropriate literacy instruction (D’Angiulli, Siegel, & Maggi, 2004; Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Why?
What needs to Happen? (a) a systematic process for examining the specific background variables or ecologies of ELLs that impact academic achievement in a U.S. classroom; first and second language proficiency, educational history including bilingual models, interrupted education, rural schools, length of school year and day, immigration pattern, socioeconomic status, and cultures
22
11/5/2012
What needs to Happen? (b) examination of the appropriateness of classroom instruction and the classroom context based on knowledge of individual student factors; Are classrooms culturally responsive? Are accommodations, supports and interventions aligned to students’ level of English language proficiency and the PA English Language Proficiency Standards? How do ESL and content teachers collaborate in instruction, assessment and grading decisions? How does the administration make sure this is happening?
What needs to Happen? (c) information gathered through informal and formal assessments; Are formal assessment tools valid and reliable for ELLs? Are W-APT and ACCESS for ELLs scores part of the discussion when gathering data to make decisions? Are the English Proficiency Standards used to develop instruction and assessments for ELLs?
23
11/5/2012
(d) nondiscriminatory interpretation of all assessment data. Is student progress monitored in all areas of instruction, including ESL instruction? Are supports, interventions and accommodations included when setting rigorous goals to meet grade-level standards? Is “growth” frequently evaluated, increasing intensity of instruction when growth is less than expected? Are data of true peers included to determine whether instruction is effective? Are most teachers in the Data Team knowledgeable of the process of second language acquisition? Is the ESL teacher part of the Data Team?
Could the ELL have a disability?
24
11/5/2012
Turn and Talk: • How is an ELL evaluated for special education in your District? • What is the role of the ESL teacher if the ELL is being evaluated for Special Education eligibility and/or receiving Special Education services? • Can both ESL instruction and Special Education services be provided for an ELL? • What is the criteria for an ELL to exit ESL?
ELLs may be eligible for Special Education Services • All procedures for the screening, evaluation, IEP, and the provision of services and/or instruction must be in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and PA Chapter 14 Regulations. • The IEP team must consider the need for ESL instruction as they address all students’ needs related to the provision of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). In determining the student’s needs, IEP teams must consider both special education services and ESL instruction simultaneously, as appropriate.
25
11/5/2012
What is the ESL teacher’s role in the evaluation process? The ESL teacher is a vital member of the evaluation and IEP team. • Fills the requirement of a member who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results • Has administered the ACCESS for ELLs, observed classroom behaviors, understands the process of second language acquisition, has parent communication, provides information for present levels of performance
Should a bilingual psychologist conduct testing for ELLs? A bilingual psychologist will: • Help determine if problems are related to second language acquisition or a disability • Be trained in the assessment of ELLs at all levels of English language proficiency • Understand the process of second language acquisition Remember: • A bilingual psychologist is NOT just a psychologist who happens to be bilingual, but one who is trained to assess ELLs and understand their linguistic, academic, cultural and social needs.
26
11/5/2012
A complete profile of the ELL is NECESSARY Has the student received any instruction in the native language? What is the student’s dominant language? How many years of instruction has the student had in English? How is the student progressing in ESL instruction? How is the student progressing in comparison to other ELLs (like peers)…not compared to native speakers of English.
Evidence Implicates Two Dimensions of Standardized Tests That Influence Performance and May Undermine Validity • Tests are culturally loaded: – the majority of tests used by psychologists were developed and normed in U.S. and inherently reflect native anthropological content as well as the culturally bound conceptualizations of the test developers themselves. Many tests require specific prior knowledge of and experience with mainstream U.S. culture • Tests require language (communication): – linguistic factors affect administration, comprehension, responses, and performance on virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that reduce oral language requirements continue to rely on effective communication between examiner and examinee in order to measure optimal performance • Tests vary on both dimensions: – Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are culturally loaded as well as the degree of language required Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand
Low
Moderate
High
27
11/5/2012
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and Standardized Testing IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TESTS •Reliable and valid testing of culturally and linguistically diverse children requires specialized training and knowledge in the application of systematic, theoretically-based, and empirically grounded procedures in all aspects of the evaluation process, especially in testing. •Being able to communicate in an individual’s native language is valuable, but secondary consideration. Simple language matching does not ensure fair or equitable assessment. Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005)
What is fundamental to equitable
assessment?
“Knowledge of the psychometric properties of tests, cultural influences on test performance, language proficiency and development, instructional methodology for English learners, and competency in being able to integrate these factors within sound, theoretically-guided and empirically supported practices in a systematic way, is fundamental to equitable assessment.” Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005)
28
11/5/2012
SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS VIA DATA CONVERGENCE AND MULTIPLE INDICATORS Once an assessment is completed, it is imperative that knowledge of both the individual’s cultural and linguistic experiences be used to frame the patterns seen in the data. Frequently, in bilingual assessment, only linguistic considerations are made and cultural considerations are all but ignored. Remember, linguistically appropriate assessment is only a small part of the equation. Cultural knowledge on the other hand forms the necessary context for understanding performance. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007)
SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS VIA DATA CONVERGENCE AND MULTIPLE INDICATORS Evaluate cultural and linguistic differences (large differences = more adverse effect on performance) Evaluate inhibiting factors (many inhibiting factors = more adverse effect on performance) Evaluate non-discriminatory data (is child capable of learning normally if given the chance?) Evaluate opportunity for learning (less opportunity = lower probability of disability) Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007)
29
11/5/2012
SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS VIA DATA CONVERGENCE AND MULTIPLE INDICATORS Look for data and multiple indicators that converge to provide solid evidence for any conclusions or inferences that are drawn from the assessment. Stick with the null hypothesis that functioning is normal until and unless the data clearly demonstrate otherwise. Base decisions on the preponderance of the available data. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007)
Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures 1. Assess for the purpose of intervention 2. Assess initially with authentic and alternative procedures 3. Assess and evaluate the learning ecology 4. Assess and evaluate language proficiency 5. Assess and evaluate opportunity for learning
Integration of RtII Within General Education Framework
6. Assess and evaluate relevant cultural and linguistic factors 7. Evaluate, revise, and re-test hypotheses 8. Determine the need for and language(s) of formal assessment 9. Reduce bias in traditional assessment practices 10. Support conclusions via data convergence and multiple indicators Pre-referral procedures (1-8) Post-referral procedures (9-10)
30
11/5/2012
What happens if an ELL is identified as being eligible for Special Education? • Both ESL instruction and Special Education services can be part of the student’s educational program. • The ESL teacher is part of the IEP team until the time when the student exits the ESL program. • If an ELL has significant cognitive abilities and/or limited English acquisition, the IEP team will consider the benefits of the student’s participation in ESL instruction.
When developing the IEP can the team deviate from the ESL guidelines for direct instruction? Yes Level 1&2 3 4 5
Hours of Instruction 2 hours 1-2 hours 1 hour up to 1 hour
(Based on the Basic Education Circular)
31
11/5/2012
The Guidelines to consider when planning direct instruction are just thatGuidelines! Ultimately the IEP team which includes the ESL teacher determines the amount of time for direct instruction in the ESL program based on the ELL’s needs.
More on ESL Participation
• The IEP team can determine that the student should not participate in the ESL program. • However the student is NOT exited from the ESL program.
32
11/5/2012
How does an ELL exit the ESL program? •
Other than students with significant cognitive disabilities and/or limited English acquisition, ELLs exit the ESL program when they meet the state exit criteria. – Score of BASIC on the annual Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). –
Scores of 5.0 on a Tier C ACCESS for ELLs assessment
Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures 1. Assess for the purpose of intervention 2. Assess initially with authentic and alternative procedures 3. Assess and evaluate the learning ecology 4. Assess and evaluate language proficiency 5. Assess and evaluate opportunity for learning
Integration of RtII Within General Education Framework
6. Assess and evaluate relevant cultural and linguistic factors 7. Evaluate, revise, and re-test hypotheses 8. Determine the need for and language(s) of formal assessment 9. Reduce bias in traditional assessment practices 10. Support conclusions via data convergence and multiple indicators Pre-referral procedures (1-8) Post-referral procedures (9-10)
33
11/5/2012
In Closing “Our future rests on the promise of the next generation. Accordingly, we must develop the capacity to respond to an increasingly diverse student population, and ensure that these and all children develop to their fullest potential. By building on the cultural wisdom and linguistic knowledge students bring with them, we can help all children succeed.” A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners
34
11/5/2012
Resources Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A practical approach. New York: Guilford. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007). Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition. New York: Wiley. Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V., & Mascolo, J. (2006). The Achievement Test Desk Reference (ATDR): A guide to Learning Disability Assessment, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley.
Resources RTI Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/ Quality Teaching for English Learners http://www.wested.org/cs/tqip/print/docs/qt/resources. htm National Center on Response to Intervention http://www.rti4success.org The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRES) www.nccrest.org/professional/culturally_responsive_re sponse_to_intervention.html
35
11/5/2012
Contact Information
www.pattan.net
Ana Sainz de la Peña
Educational Consultant
[email protected]
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett, Governor Pennsylvania Department of Education Ronald J.Tomalis, Secretary Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed. D., Deputy Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education John J.Tommasini, Director Bureau of Special Education Patricia Hozella,Assistant Director Bureau of Special Education
36
English Language Learners: Language Barrier Disability or Both?
Ana Sainz de la Peña Educational Consultant Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network November , 2012
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
PaTTAN’s Mission The mission of the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) is to support the efforts and initiatives of the Bureau of Special Education, and to build the capacity of local educational agencies to serve students who receive special education services. 2
1
11/5/2012
PDE’s Commitment to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Recognizing that the placement decision is an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team decision, our goal for each child is to ensure IEP teams begin with the general education setting with the use of supplementary aids and services before considering a more restrictive environment. 3
The population of English language learners in Pennsylvania has increased 114% in the past 10 years (OELA Report, 2010). The purpose of this presentation is to address the academic, linguistic and cultural needs of English language learners (ELLs), including ELLs in Special Education, with the intention of building capacity among educators, school administrators, and other professionals who work with ELLs and their families. The content of the presentation has been developed to inform, support and empower educators to embrace the beliefs that all teachers must take responsibility for providing an equitable education for all children, acknowledge that each English language learner has a unique set of academic, linguistic and socio-cultural strengths and needs, and that it is our responsibility to figure out how to use these competencies and skills to lead them to academic success.
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
2
11/5/2012
Important Acronyms
• ELL
English Language Learner (Student)
• ESOL
English to Speakers of Other Languages (Program)
• ESL
English as a Second Language (Program)
• LEP
Limited English Proficient (Student)
Now We Know! • AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (Title III Accountability) • Title III No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students • ELPS
English Language Proficiency Standards
3
11/5/2012
Now We Know
• L1 • L2 • W-APT
First language Second Language WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test™
• ACCESS for ELLs Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
Outcomes To identify the legal and educational components of ESL Programs in Pennsylvania. Understand the manner in and degree to which cultural and linguistic factors can systematically attenuate test score performance for individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Identify a systematic process to examine ELLs language and academic development.
4
11/5/2012
Survey on ELLs 1. I feel comfortable evaluating ELLs for SLD 2. I have access to bilingual staff. 3. I am familiar with the process of second language acquisition. 4. I have access to bilingual measures. 5. I think bilingual measures are useful. 6. I am familiar with the concept of acculturation. 7. I am fluent in a second language.
Questions about ELLs and ESL Programs?
What is an ESL Program? What do ESL teachers teach? Do ELLs have specific assessments of English language development? How do we use the information collected to make data-driven decisions regarding educational programs for ELLs ? Who has this information? How is it shared? How do we set appropriate linguistic and academic goals for ELLs? What do we need to know about ELLs to provide appropriate instruction and interventions?
5
11/5/2012
Federal Definition of ELLs According to the federal government, an
LEP/ELL is an individual:
(A)who is aged 3 through 21;
(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; (C) (i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant;
Federal Definition of ELLs OR (ii) 1- who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of outlying areas, and (ii) 2 - who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; (iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant;
6
11/5/2012
Federal Definition of ELLs AND (D) whose difficulties speaking, reading, writing and understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual: (i) the ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments as described in section 1111(b)(3); (ii) the ability to achieve successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society.
Who are our ELLs There are 47,894 ELLs in PA English Language Learners (ELLs) are a
heterogeneous group:
200 different languages The largest group (70%) are Spanish speakers ELL enrollment has increased 114% in the last ten years The ten most commonly spoken languages are: Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Arabic, Korean, Khmer, Gujarati, French, Creole & Pidgins What is the country of origin for the majority of ELLs in PA?
7
11/5/2012
Top 10 LEAs by ELL Enrollment 55% of the Total ELL Population LEA Name Philadelphia City SD
No. of ELLs 13,986
Reading SD
3,190
Allentown City SD
2,980
Lancaster SD
2,340
Bethlehem Area SD
1,980
York City SD
1,670
Hazleton Area SD
1,275
Erie City SD
990
Upper Darby SD
822
Harrisburg City SD
827
In Pennsylvania, 189 districts and charter schools currently have fewer than 10 ELLs.
Educating Students With Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) and English Language Learners
State regulation, 22 Pa. Code § 4.26, declares: Every school district shall provide a program for each student whose dominant language is not English for the purpose of facilitating the student's achievement of English proficiency and the academic standards under § 4.12 (relating to academic standards). Programs under this section shall include appropriate bilingual-bicultural or English as a second language (ESL) instruction. 16
8
11/5/2012
Basic Education Circular • Educating Students With Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and English Language Learners (ELL) • 22 Pa. Code §4.26 • DATE OF ISSUE: July 1, 2001 • DATE OF REVIEW: April 14, 2009 www.pde.state.pa.us
ESL Program (1) planned instruction by a qualified ESL /Bilingual teacher (2) adaptations/modifications in the delivery of content instruction by all teachers based on the student’s language proficiency level and the Pennsylvania Language Proficiency Standards (PA ELPS) for ELLs as well as the Pennsylvania academic standards.
9
11/5/2012
ESL Program
19
CORE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REFERENCE CHART REQUIREMENTS 1.
Identify
LEGAL REFERENCE OCR 1970 Memo Lau v Nichols 1974 Supreme Court decision
PROGRAM
Home language survey
Train intake staff
Classroom survey
Appropriate proficiency test
Determine need for services
Gomes v
Multiple criteria for placement
Place in appropriate services
Board of Education 1987
Identify home language proficiency
Diagnose mathematics skills
2.
Assess
Office of Civil Rights 1970 Memo
Court of Appeals, 7* Circuit
3. Provide services Designed for students' needs
Castaneda v Pickard 1981
Court of Appeals, 5"1 Circuit
Direct, appropriate, sufficient
Equal Education Act 1974
Develop Instructional Plan -
Schedules for service
-
Who provides service Assessment plan
Based on current practices
Titles VI& yil of Civil Rights Act 1964
-
Appropriate staffing
Rios v Read 1977
Appropriate materials
-
Current ESL teaching practices
Cintron v Brentwood 1977, 1978
-
Identify appropriate materials
Gomez v Illinois State
-
Identify what is taught
Board of Education i987
-
Describe adjunct services
Court of Appeals, 7lh Circuit
The Provision of an Equal Education
Train educators and administrators
to Limited English Proficient Students OCR, 1992 Titles VI & YII of Civil Rights Act 1964 Equal Education Act 1974 Office of Civil Rights 1970 Memo Lau v Nichols 1974 Supreme Court decision
4. Ensure integration Instructional integration Social integration
5. Reassess for ending services
6. Document
Castaneda v Pickard 1981
Services Successful effect on students academic and linguistic development Modifications if needed
OCR 1970 Memo Rios v Read 1977 Cintron v Brentwood 1977,1978 Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
The Provision of an Equal Education to Limited English Proficient Students OCR, 1992
Describe access to programs and services Develop policies for grading Identify how integrated with same-age peers
Specific multi-criteria reclassification
Develop Program Guide/Handbook
Develop record keeping plan
procedures
Appoint team to implement evaluation Plan (Monitoring)
20
10
11/5/2012
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals The Court determined that in order to comply with Section 1703(f) school districts have two basic obligations toward students who are not proficient in English: 1) To provide a language development program through which these students can learn the English language skills of comprehension, speaking, reading and writing necessary for learning and achieving in English-only instruction with their English-speaking peers; 2) To ensure that these same students do not suffer academic losses or setbacks because of their lack of English and that they be given equal access to the same substantive knowledge conveyed through the school/district curriculum provided to that of their English-speaking peers.
OCR September 1991, Office for Civil Rights' Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP students) (1991)—discusses OCR policy on conducting compliance reviews regarding the issue of placement of LEP students into special education programs where there are indications that LEP students may be inappropriately placed in such programs, or where special education programs provided for LEP students do not address their lack of English proficiency.
11
11/5/2012
OCR Office for Civil Rights' Booklet: The Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity to Limited English Proficient Students (1992)--recommends steps for preventing misplacement of LEP students in special education due to limited English skills rather than an exceptionality; these include assessing in student's primary or home language and ensuring that accurate information regarding the student's language skills in English and the student's primary language is taken into account in evaluating assessment results.
ELLs in Special Education
6,270 ELLs in Special Education (2009) 1 of 8 ELLs has an IEP and receives Special Education services
12
11/5/2012
In Pennsylvania • The largest numbers of ELLs who receive Special Education are in the Learning Disability category. • The percentages of ELLs with IEPs are greater in districts with fewer than 20 English language learners.
This trend is not happening only in PA "Special education had become the default intervention for ELLs." "Special education was seen as the place with the answers, without taking into consideration what the long-term implications were going to be for the students.” Sonia Picos, Program Manager Special Education Department, San Diego School District
13
11/5/2012
National Data National research done within the last decade, including a 2003 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, found that over identification occurred more commonly in districts with small numbers of ELLs (fewer than 99 such students), and under identification was more common in districts with larger English language learner populations.
National Data Less than 20% of public school teachers in the U.S. who have at least one ELL in their class are certified to teach ELLs
(Waxman, Tellez & Walberg, 2004).
Thus, most teachers lack the training, expertise, and experience in teaching reading and other subjects to ELLs.
14
11/5/2012
National Data Most multidisciplinary school teams charged with making special education eligibility decisions for ELLs also lack the training and experience in differentiating second language acquisition from a learning disability. (Collier, 2001; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Ortiz, 1997).
How are ELLs assessed? ELLs are assessed using state-mandated English language proficiency assessments: Placement: WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) Measure Progress: ACCESS for ELLs Both assessments are aligned to the Pennsylvania English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) http://www.wida.us/
15
11/5/2012
ACCESS for ELLs Measures progress in the development of English language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Five Proficiency Levels: 1. Entering 2. Beginning 3. Developing 4. Expanding 5. Bridging
ACCESS for ELLs The testing window is between the months of January and February Results are distributed to LEAs no later than May Scores are used to: document student progress, exit ELLs from ESL Program, evaluate the effectiveness of the ESL Program, for accountability NCLB Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
16
11/5/2012
The ELP Standards • Standard 1 –Social & instructional Language (SIL) • English language learners communicate for social and instructional purposes in the school setting. • Standard 2 – Language of Language Arts (LoLA) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Language Arts. • Standard 3- Language of Mathematics ( LoMA) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Math. • Standard 4-Language of Science (LoSC) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Science. • Standard 5-Language of Social Studies (LoSS) • English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Social Studies.
17
11/5/2012
Questions about ELLs and ESL Programs?
What is an ESL Program? What do ESL teachers teach? Do ELLs have specific assessments of English language development? How do we use the information collected to make data-driven decisions regarding educational programs for ELLs ? Who has this information? How is it shared? How do we set appropriate linguistic and academic goals for ELLs? What do we need to know about ELLs to provide appropriate instruction and interventions?
What happens if a student is not making progress? Factors to consider prior to referral for an evaluation – ESL instruction is sufficient in quantity and quality. – The core ESL instructional program is effective and aligned to the proficiency level of the student, and the English Language Proficiency Standards. – Planned instruction in the content areas is delivered according to the English language proficiency level of the student and the English Language Proficiency Standards, and appropriate ESL-related adaptations/modifications are provided by content teachers. – Collaboration exists between the ESL and content
teachers.
– Instruction and home-school communication is culturally responsive.
18
11/5/2012
Linguistic Backgrounds
“Second languages develop under an extremely
heterogeneous set of conditions, far more diverse than
the conditions under which children learn their first
language (Bialstok & Hakuta, 1994, p. 2).”
ELLs may not have the opportunity to develop their first language (L1) fully before adding the second language (L2) Level of English language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing measured by W-APT and ACCESS for ELLs (Entering, Beginning, Developing, Expanding, Bridging)
Linguistic Background English dominant with limited academic vocabulary Strong social language (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills-BICS) Limited academic language (Cognitive Academic Language Skills-CALP) Literacy proficiency in L1 Student speaks an indigenous language in addition to dominant language in his/her country (some students who come from rural areas in Central and South America are not native speakers of Spanish)
19
11/5/2012
Background Experience Country of Origin -More than 80% of ELLs are born in U.S.
(second and third generation)
-Less than 15% are foreign born (first
generation)
-Differences in generational language patterns
have been identified (Valdes &7 Figueroa,
1994)
-Immigration pattern
-Migration patterns
Background Experience Rural vs. urban environments Refugee experience Students with limited formal schooling School year calendar (When does school start and when does it end?) School day length (some countries only offer half day schedules in elementary)
20
11/5/2012
“The time spent in asking specific questions about a student’s background will yield benefits in planning assessment and instruction. The formal and home literacy experiences of ELLs will also provide insights about their instructional needs.” A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners
Know your core instructional programs, including ESL core program Opportunity to Learn All students are provided with scientifically validated instruction delivered with a high degree of fidelity to the curriculum, and thus all children are provided with an equal opportunity to learn. Have you ever “shadow” an ELL for a day to find out about his/her instructional program at your school?
21
11/5/2012
Opportunity to Learn Although there is a growing body of research on effective reading instruction for ELLs with and without disabilities (Artiles & Klingner, 2006; Linan-Thompson, Bryant, Dickson, & Kouzekanani, 2005), it appears that not all ELLs are receiving appropriate literacy instruction (D’Angiulli, Siegel, & Maggi, 2004; Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Why?
What needs to Happen? (a) a systematic process for examining the specific background variables or ecologies of ELLs that impact academic achievement in a U.S. classroom; first and second language proficiency, educational history including bilingual models, interrupted education, rural schools, length of school year and day, immigration pattern, socioeconomic status, and cultures
22
11/5/2012
What needs to Happen? (b) examination of the appropriateness of classroom instruction and the classroom context based on knowledge of individual student factors; Are classrooms culturally responsive? Are accommodations, supports and interventions aligned to students’ level of English language proficiency and the PA English Language Proficiency Standards? How do ESL and content teachers collaborate in instruction, assessment and grading decisions? How does the administration make sure this is happening?
What needs to Happen? (c) information gathered through informal and formal assessments; Are formal assessment tools valid and reliable for ELLs? Are W-APT and ACCESS for ELLs scores part of the discussion when gathering data to make decisions? Are the English Proficiency Standards used to develop instruction and assessments for ELLs?
23
11/5/2012
(d) nondiscriminatory interpretation of all assessment data. Is student progress monitored in all areas of instruction, including ESL instruction? Are supports, interventions and accommodations included when setting rigorous goals to meet grade-level standards? Is “growth” frequently evaluated, increasing intensity of instruction when growth is less than expected? Are data of true peers included to determine whether instruction is effective? Are most teachers in the Data Team knowledgeable of the process of second language acquisition? Is the ESL teacher part of the Data Team?
Could the ELL have a disability?
24
11/5/2012
Turn and Talk: • How is an ELL evaluated for special education in your District? • What is the role of the ESL teacher if the ELL is being evaluated for Special Education eligibility and/or receiving Special Education services? • Can both ESL instruction and Special Education services be provided for an ELL? • What is the criteria for an ELL to exit ESL?
ELLs may be eligible for Special Education Services • All procedures for the screening, evaluation, IEP, and the provision of services and/or instruction must be in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and PA Chapter 14 Regulations. • The IEP team must consider the need for ESL instruction as they address all students’ needs related to the provision of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). In determining the student’s needs, IEP teams must consider both special education services and ESL instruction simultaneously, as appropriate.
25
11/5/2012
What is the ESL teacher’s role in the evaluation process? The ESL teacher is a vital member of the evaluation and IEP team. • Fills the requirement of a member who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results • Has administered the ACCESS for ELLs, observed classroom behaviors, understands the process of second language acquisition, has parent communication, provides information for present levels of performance
Should a bilingual psychologist conduct testing for ELLs? A bilingual psychologist will: • Help determine if problems are related to second language acquisition or a disability • Be trained in the assessment of ELLs at all levels of English language proficiency • Understand the process of second language acquisition Remember: • A bilingual psychologist is NOT just a psychologist who happens to be bilingual, but one who is trained to assess ELLs and understand their linguistic, academic, cultural and social needs.
26
11/5/2012
A complete profile of the ELL is NECESSARY Has the student received any instruction in the native language? What is the student’s dominant language? How many years of instruction has the student had in English? How is the student progressing in ESL instruction? How is the student progressing in comparison to other ELLs (like peers)…not compared to native speakers of English.
Evidence Implicates Two Dimensions of Standardized Tests That Influence Performance and May Undermine Validity • Tests are culturally loaded: – the majority of tests used by psychologists were developed and normed in U.S. and inherently reflect native anthropological content as well as the culturally bound conceptualizations of the test developers themselves. Many tests require specific prior knowledge of and experience with mainstream U.S. culture • Tests require language (communication): – linguistic factors affect administration, comprehension, responses, and performance on virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that reduce oral language requirements continue to rely on effective communication between examiner and examinee in order to measure optimal performance • Tests vary on both dimensions: – Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are culturally loaded as well as the degree of language required Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand
Low
Moderate
High
27
11/5/2012
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and Standardized Testing IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TESTS •Reliable and valid testing of culturally and linguistically diverse children requires specialized training and knowledge in the application of systematic, theoretically-based, and empirically grounded procedures in all aspects of the evaluation process, especially in testing. •Being able to communicate in an individual’s native language is valuable, but secondary consideration. Simple language matching does not ensure fair or equitable assessment. Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005)
What is fundamental to equitable
assessment?
“Knowledge of the psychometric properties of tests, cultural influences on test performance, language proficiency and development, instructional methodology for English learners, and competency in being able to integrate these factors within sound, theoretically-guided and empirically supported practices in a systematic way, is fundamental to equitable assessment.” Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005)
28
11/5/2012
SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS VIA DATA CONVERGENCE AND MULTIPLE INDICATORS Once an assessment is completed, it is imperative that knowledge of both the individual’s cultural and linguistic experiences be used to frame the patterns seen in the data. Frequently, in bilingual assessment, only linguistic considerations are made and cultural considerations are all but ignored. Remember, linguistically appropriate assessment is only a small part of the equation. Cultural knowledge on the other hand forms the necessary context for understanding performance. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007)
SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS VIA DATA CONVERGENCE AND MULTIPLE INDICATORS Evaluate cultural and linguistic differences (large differences = more adverse effect on performance) Evaluate inhibiting factors (many inhibiting factors = more adverse effect on performance) Evaluate non-discriminatory data (is child capable of learning normally if given the chance?) Evaluate opportunity for learning (less opportunity = lower probability of disability) Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007)
29
11/5/2012
SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS VIA DATA CONVERGENCE AND MULTIPLE INDICATORS Look for data and multiple indicators that converge to provide solid evidence for any conclusions or inferences that are drawn from the assessment. Stick with the null hypothesis that functioning is normal until and unless the data clearly demonstrate otherwise. Base decisions on the preponderance of the available data. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007)
Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures 1. Assess for the purpose of intervention 2. Assess initially with authentic and alternative procedures 3. Assess and evaluate the learning ecology 4. Assess and evaluate language proficiency 5. Assess and evaluate opportunity for learning
Integration of RtII Within General Education Framework
6. Assess and evaluate relevant cultural and linguistic factors 7. Evaluate, revise, and re-test hypotheses 8. Determine the need for and language(s) of formal assessment 9. Reduce bias in traditional assessment practices 10. Support conclusions via data convergence and multiple indicators Pre-referral procedures (1-8) Post-referral procedures (9-10)
30
11/5/2012
What happens if an ELL is identified as being eligible for Special Education? • Both ESL instruction and Special Education services can be part of the student’s educational program. • The ESL teacher is part of the IEP team until the time when the student exits the ESL program. • If an ELL has significant cognitive abilities and/or limited English acquisition, the IEP team will consider the benefits of the student’s participation in ESL instruction.
When developing the IEP can the team deviate from the ESL guidelines for direct instruction? Yes Level 1&2 3 4 5
Hours of Instruction 2 hours 1-2 hours 1 hour up to 1 hour
(Based on the Basic Education Circular)
31
11/5/2012
The Guidelines to consider when planning direct instruction are just thatGuidelines! Ultimately the IEP team which includes the ESL teacher determines the amount of time for direct instruction in the ESL program based on the ELL’s needs.
More on ESL Participation
• The IEP team can determine that the student should not participate in the ESL program. • However the student is NOT exited from the ESL program.
32
11/5/2012
How does an ELL exit the ESL program? •
Other than students with significant cognitive disabilities and/or limited English acquisition, ELLs exit the ESL program when they meet the state exit criteria. – Score of BASIC on the annual Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). –
Scores of 5.0 on a Tier C ACCESS for ELLs assessment
Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures 1. Assess for the purpose of intervention 2. Assess initially with authentic and alternative procedures 3. Assess and evaluate the learning ecology 4. Assess and evaluate language proficiency 5. Assess and evaluate opportunity for learning
Integration of RtII Within General Education Framework
6. Assess and evaluate relevant cultural and linguistic factors 7. Evaluate, revise, and re-test hypotheses 8. Determine the need for and language(s) of formal assessment 9. Reduce bias in traditional assessment practices 10. Support conclusions via data convergence and multiple indicators Pre-referral procedures (1-8) Post-referral procedures (9-10)
33
11/5/2012
In Closing “Our future rests on the promise of the next generation. Accordingly, we must develop the capacity to respond to an increasingly diverse student population, and ensure that these and all children develop to their fullest potential. By building on the cultural wisdom and linguistic knowledge students bring with them, we can help all children succeed.” A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners
34
11/5/2012
Resources Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A practical approach. New York: Guilford. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007). Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition. New York: Wiley. Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V., & Mascolo, J. (2006). The Achievement Test Desk Reference (ATDR): A guide to Learning Disability Assessment, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley.
Resources RTI Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/ Quality Teaching for English Learners http://www.wested.org/cs/tqip/print/docs/qt/resources. htm National Center on Response to Intervention http://www.rti4success.org The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRES) www.nccrest.org/professional/culturally_responsive_re sponse_to_intervention.html
35
11/5/2012
Contact Information
www.pattan.net
Ana Sainz de la Peña
Educational Consultant
[email protected]
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett, Governor Pennsylvania Department of Education Ronald J.Tomalis, Secretary Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed. D., Deputy Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education John J.Tommasini, Director Bureau of Special Education Patricia Hozella,Assistant Director Bureau of Special Education
36
