Separating Difference from Disability

Why Are We Here?

Comparison2005-2006

350 ELLs33 languages

2012-2013

762 ELLs62 languages

We are Growing

2012 20110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

# of Languages

# of Languages

2012 20110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

# of Students

# of Students

Spanish

Chinese Unspecified

KoreanRussian

Vietnamese

Japanese

Chinese-Mandarin

Arabic

Hindi

Romanian

Telugu

Chinese -Can-tonese

TagalogMalayalam

MarathiUrdu

FrenchTamil

Other

Students by Language

2011-2012 DataCount of Special Ed  

Grade N Y Grand Total Percent in Special Ed

1 140 5 145 3.45%

2 73 7 80 8.75%

3 54 4 58 6.90%

4 33 10 43 23.26%

5 32 12 44 27.27%

6 33 18 51 35.29%

7 18 9 27 33.33%

8 12 8 20 40.00%

9 19 1 20 5.00%

10 9 4 13 30.77%

11 7 1 8 12.50%

12 8 8 0.00%

K2 145 6 151 3.97%

Grand Total 583 85 668 12.72%

Do You See What I See?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 K20

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

NY

Building the Foundation

A Quote from ResearchOne of the most common reasons for referrals to special education has been limited English proficiency (Maldonado-Colón, 1986). This is the case despite the fact that limited English proficiency, when it stems from the presence of a non-English language in the child's home, has, in and of itself, no negative effects on learning. […] When, however, no accommodations are made to a child's lack of proficiency in the language of the EC [early childhood] setting, children are left without means of understanding what is being said or expressing what they need to say. Their performance then becomes similar to that of children with disabilities.

SOURCE: Barrera, Isaura (1995). To Refer Or Not to Refer: Untangling the Web of Diversity,"Deficit," and Disability. In: New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal v10 p54-66, Summer 1995

“We acquire language one way-when we understand it (comprehensible input in a low- anxiety environment)”.

Stephen Krashen

L 2

Abi

lity

Listening

Speaking

ReadingWriting

WLPT 1 WLPT 3WLPT 2 WLPT 4

ELD Beginning/ Advanced Beginning

ELD: Intermediate ELD: Advanced ELD: Transitional

Time

Natural Progression of Language AcquisitionDe Avila

BICS vs. CALP

Social Language Listening and Speaking

6mo-2years

Academic LanguageListening, Speaking, Reading, and

Writing3-9 years

BICS

CALP

Proficiency Levels

Beginning/Ad.. Beginning

• Use native language as much as possible (in all four domains)

• Use TPR • Use realia and

visuals• Modeled reading

(books on CDs, read aloud, shared reading)

• Advanced graphic organizers

• Yes/No, Either/Or Questions

• Daily listening and speaking activities

Intermediate• Use native

language as needed

• Use realia and visuals

• Shared reading, guided reading, independent reading

• Advanced graphic organizers

• What, When, Where, Why, How, Either/Or questions

• Daily listening and speaking activities

Advanced• Use native

language as needed

• Use realia and visuals

• Guided reading, independent reading

• Advanced graphic organizers

• Higher level thinking questions

Top to Bottom ModelText Level •Background Knowledge

•Oral Language/Vocabulary•Thinking Skills

Sentence Level •Grammar/Sentence Frames•Phrasing/Fluency

Word Level •Letters vs. Sounds (what we see vs. what we hear)•Discovering patterns-decoding•Using the patterns to read new words (encoding)

Peer Analysis Tool

Quote from SpEd OSPI document

A formal referral to special services is only justified after it has been determined that a child’s behavior and performance cannot be explained solely by language or cultural differences, the acculturation process, or the learning environment. - pg. 22, OSPI pamphlet

To whom is the ELL student being compared?

•A peer analysis is critical in determining if the student’s performance is atypical.

•The ideal peer group are ELLs, same language background, same time in program, same grade of entry in school.

•Scour district longitudinal data and find as large a peer group as possible

When children are learning English as a second language:

When children have a language impairment or disorder:

• it is typical for their skills in English vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and comprehension to be less well- developed than their peers who only speak English.

• errors or limited skills in vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and comprehension interfere with communication in their first language (L1), compared to peers from the same language group.

• they will acquire English in a predictable developmental sequence, similar to younger children who are beginning to learn English.

• their English skills are delayed in comparison to peers from the same language group who have been learning English for the same length of time.

• reduced opportunities to use their first language may result in loss of competence in L1 before becoming proficient in English.

• their communication is impaired in interactions with family members and others who speak the same language.

• they may switch back and forth between L1 and English, using their most sophisticated skills in both languages within single utterances.

• skills in their first language will be limited, inappropriate, or confused in content, form, or use.

• results from assessments conducted in English are unlikely to reflect the child’s true skills and abilities in most domains.

• assessments conducted in English will be unable to discriminate between language acquisition and language disorder.

(Source: OSPI Pamphlet, p. 12)

•ELL 3rd grader to all 3rd graders?

•ELL to all ELLs in the district?

•ELL Spanish speaker to all ELL Spanish speakers?

•ELL to older or younger sibling?

Appropriate Comparison or Not?

Questions

Separating Difference from Disability:

A Matrix for Supporting Quality GT Decisions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

BLENDING GUIDANCE FROM:

KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Matrix• Provides a structure for organizing

information about the student which should be considered prior to referral

• Visually organizes the information which supports referral and/or supports more intervention

• Focuses team on “Red Flag” issues• Designed to be used by a team – at

both data gathering and decision making

The Matrix: 16 Data Driven Decision Points

• Data supports referral• Between Neutral and Supports

Referral• Neutral• Between Neutral and More

Intervention• Data Supports More Intervention

The Matrix: Decision Point #1Student’s Primary Language

• Take into consideration transparent or non-transparent nature of the primary language. If primary language is transparent (phonetically predictable) it is more difficult to become accustomed to non-transparent language like English.

See LanguageTransfer resource by Rigby.

The Matrix: Decision Point #2Other Languages Spoken by Student

If student has multiple languages that he/she speaks, it is reasonable to expect average to above average learning of English.

The Matrix: Decision Point #3Multiple Languages Spoken in Home

If student is experiencing multiple languages spoken in the home, and is 6 years or younger, it can have an impact on usage of language. If student is older and still struggling between languages, place a mark to indicate evaluation may be necessary.

The Matrix: Decision Point #4Expected Years of Education

in Primary Language

If student has not received expected years of education in the primary language the student will not (in all likelihood) have the structures of language relative to academic learning and the experience of how to function in a school setting.

The Matrix: Decision Point #5Parental Education

in Primary Language

Parental education in primary language can impact the student’s vocabulary and language structures. If parent has limited literacy in primary language, more intervention may be warranted.

The Matrix: Decision Point #6Did Student Learn

to Read in Primary Language

If student did not learn to read in primary language, we are trying to teach the process of reading while teaching a new language.

The Matrix: Decision Point #7Years Learning English

The research in clear that a student who is receiving a strong ELL program takes an average of 5-7 years to have academic language needed to compete / learn in the education setting at a rate similar to non-ELL students. If student has less than 5-7 years, more supportive data is needed to indicate an evaluation is warranted.

The Matrix: Decision Point #8Attendance History

3 or more unexcused absences per year or a total of 15 absensces per year is outside the norm and negatively impacted learning.

The Matrix: Decision Point #9Approach to ELL Services

Has the student had consistent access to intensive and consistent ELL services? SIOP or GLAD strategies? This Decision Point addresses the quality and consistency of Tier One services for ELL students.

The Matrix: Decision Point #10Peer Analysis of WLPT/WELPA

• How is the student progressing relative to other students of similar age, same language background, and similar length of time learning English and receiving ELL services.

• Team should consider referral question, for example, is student progressing in language and literacy at expected rate, but not math.

• WLPT vs WELPA

Future training for psychologists on how to access state data base.

The Matrix: Decision Point #11Intervention Description

• Have there been targeted interventions with base line, progress monitoring, and post intervention data?

• This decision point focuses on Tier 2 supports.

The Matrix: Decision Point #12Expectations in the Gen Ed Classroom

• All students should be expected to complete assignments, regardless of language development, at a level appropriate to current skills.

• If the students has had consistent output and learning rate is still atypical, an evaluation may be indicated.

The Matrix: Decision Point #13Academic Engagement

• If student is actively engaged in learning process but continues to have atypical learning pattern, an evaluation may be warranted.

• If student is not engaged, a neutral mark is indicated, as lack of engagement is difficult to interpret.

The Matrix: Decision Point #14Comparison Student Data

• This consideration is similar to Decision Point 10, with a focus on progress monitoring data (as opposed to WLPT/WELPA data) collected for target student in comparison to other similar students who received a similar intervention.

The Matrix: Decision Point #15Parent Interview

• In totality, does parent provide information supportive of an evaluation, or suggestive of more intervention? Issues to consider include family history of learning difficulties, difficulties in early learning, expectations around learning in the culture.

• Are there factors present which might explain difficulties in learning – frequent moves, disruptions in the home, etc.

The Matrix: Decision Point #16Developmental History

• Is there a history of developmental delay? • How has child met developmental

milestones?

Sample Completed Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16X X X

X X X X

X X X X ? X

X X X

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

GROUP ACTIVITYWhat are the Pro’s, Con’s, and Practicalities of

implementing this model?• Using the worksheet provided, as a team, examine each

Issaquah Resource in your packet, and answer the questions on the worksheet.

• Are the Issaquah Resources sufficient to support completion of the Matrix? What additional resources, training, or administrative guidance are needed to effectively use this model?

• Prioritize the supports your teams needs to make referral decisions Difference vs Disability referral decision more effectively. Report back to group.