Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. / Santa Barbara County SELPA Director

Email: jariceb@sbceo.orgWebsite: SBCSELPA.org

1

2

Challenges for Educators

“…far too often, children from diverse backgrounds who fall behind in their learning are inappropriately labeled as needing special education. What they may really need is academic support and the opportunity to learn in a culturally responsive environment...” (R. Weaver, 2008 Former President of NEA)

3

Disproportionality Occurs When…..

Disproportionality occurs when some students“are inappropriately referred, diagnosed,classified and placed for special education”

Stephanie Graham-Rivas, Author of Culturally Proficient InquiryPresentation at State SELPA Organization Meeting 12-1-11

4

What the Research says…..Research demonstrates that English language learners with the least amount of language support are most likely to be referred to special education

ELLs receiving all of their instruction in English were almost 3X as likely to be in special education as those receiving some native language support

Artiles & Ortiz 2002

5

Presentation TopicsCELDT Testing Eligibility & Assessment of English Learners for

Special EducationReclassification to RFEP of English LearnersQuestions and Answers

6

CELDT

The CELDT has three purposes:1) To identify students who are limited English

proficient or English learners

2) To determine the level of English language proficiency of EL students

3) To assess the progress of EL students in acquiring the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing English

7

CELDT Testing Accommodations & Modifications

Students may have accommodations and/orModifications on CELDT as specified in their IEP.An accommodation is: Any variation in the assessment environment or process that does not fundamentally alter what the test measures or affect comparability ofScores. Accommodations may include variations in scheduling, setting, aids, equipment, and presentation format

A modification is: A variation in assessment environment or process thatfundamentally alters what test measures or affects comparability of scores

8

Alternate Assessment to CELDT

Alternate Assessment:IEP Teams may designate an alternate assessment

toCELDT

“Students with disabilities may take an alternateassessment if their IEP team determines that they

areunable to take one or more parts of the CELDT

evenwith variations, accommodations, and/ormodifications.”

9

Alternate Assessment Cont’d.

Alternate Assessment is:“An alternate way of measuring English languageproficiency of pupils with disabilities whose IEP Team hasdetermined they are unable to participate in CELDT evenwith accommodations, variations, or modifications.”

Note: The IEP team must determine if the student is to be assessed with an alternate assessment in each of the four domains listening, speaking, reading &

10

Alternative Assessments to CELDTAt this time, the California Department of Education does not have a designated alternative assessment to CELDT for students whose IEP team determines that the student may not be able to take all or parts of CELDT to determine level of English language proficiency. The IEP team must determine the alternate assessment(s) to be administered for each student and which domains (listening, speaking, reading, or writing) the student will be administered an alternative assessment to CELDT.

See the CDE’s Participation Criteria Checklist for Alternate Assessment to CELDT in the 2012-2013 CELDT Information Guide Page 14-17

Alternate Assessment Cont’d.

11

Test Name Skills Assessed

Organization or

Publisher

Contact Information

Alternative Language Proficiency Instrument(ALPI)

Listening Speaking

Orange CountyDept.of Education

714-966-4120

Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM)

ListeningSpeaking

San Jose UnifiedSchool District

http://www.cal.org/twi/EvalToolkit/appendix/solom.pdf

Basics 2 (Checklist for functional reading and writing)

Listening, SpeakingReading, Writing

Lakeshore http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/home/home.jsp

Sandi Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing

Lakeshore(Developed by Riverside COE)

www.Lakeshorelearning.com

Resource List for Potential Alternate Assessments to CELDT

12

Test Name Skills Assessed

Organization or

Publisher

Contact Information

Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BINL)

Listening Speaking in 30 different languages

CHECpoint Systems, Inc.

(800)635-1235

Norm referenced & Criterion referencedBrigance IED II (B-7yrs)Brigance CIBS II (Pre K –9)

Listening & SpeakingReading & Writing literacy

Curriculum & Associates

http://www.curriculumassociates.com

VCCALPS (adapted ALPI with Reading & Writing)

Listening, Speaking, Reading & Writing

Ventura County SELPA

www.venturacountyselpa.com

Resource List for Possible Alternate Assessments to CELDT Cont’d.

13

Assessment & Determining Eligibility of English Learners for Special

Education

14

Identification of English Learners

Federal regulations require that students in Pre Kthrough age 22 be identified as EL for purposes ofspecial education (ie. assessment for specialeducation procedures, linguistically appropriate goalsin IEPs, etc.)

Note: California Education code does not formally identify

students as EL until kindergarten. CELDT is not administered until grade K.

15

California Ed Code Requirements for Identification & Assessment of

English Learners for Special Education

Assessment materials and procedures used for the purposesof assessment and placement of individuals with exceptionalneeds are selected and administered so as not to be racially,culturally, or sexually discriminatory. Pursuant to Section 141(a (6)(B) of Title 20 of the United StateCode, the materials and procedures shall be provided in thepupil’s native language or mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.

EC 56320(a) & 56001(j)

16

California Ed Code Requirements for Identification & Assessment of

English Learners for Special Education Cont’d.

(b) Tests and other assessment materials meet all of the

following requirements: Are provided and administered in the language and form most likely to

yield accurate information on what the pupil knows and can do academically, developmentally, and

functionally, unless it is not feasible to so provide or administered required by 1414(b)(3)(A)(ii) of Title 20 of United States Code

EC 56320(b)(1)

17

Requirements for Identification & Assessment of

English Learners Who are Infants/Toddlers

For assessment to determine eligibility for infants and toddlers, the assessment shall “be conducted in the language of the family’s choice or other mode of communication unless it is not feasible to do so.”

CCR 52082(b) & 52084(d)

18

Identification & Assessment Requirements

for ELsAssessments shall be administered by qualified personnel who are competent in both the oral or sign language skills and written skills of the individual’s primary language or mode of communication and have a knowledge and understanding of the cultural and ethnic background of the pupil. If it clearly is not feasible to do so, an interpreter must be used, and the assessment report shall document this condition and note that the validity may have been affected. CCR Title 5: 3023

A variety of assessment tools and strategies will be used to gather relevant functional and developmental information, including information provided by the parent. EC 56320

19

Identification & AssessmentRequirements for ELs

It is best practice to use the following four sourcesof information in order to address all socio-cultural factors related to ELs:1)Norm-referenced assessments, to include non-verbal and other areas of cognition in English and native

language if native language assessments are available (cross-cultural, non-discriminatory assessment preferred)2) Criterion-referenced tests3) Systematic observation in educational environments4) Structured interviews (with student, parents/guardians, teachers, etc.)

20

Assessment of ELs Best Practices

Best Option – Engage in the following:1) Administer cross cultural, non-discriminatory full or

partial bilingual assessment in native language and English using bilingual assessors

2) Use of structured interviews with parents and staff3) Engage in observation of student in varied

environments4) Collect data from curriculum based assessment

measures

2nd Best Option – Engage in the following:1) If there is no assessor available in the native

language; engage in steps # 2-4 above and, 2) Using an interpreter, administer the assessment in the

native language under the supervision of school licensed assessors – document limitations in assessment report

21

Assessment of ELs Best Practices Cont’d.

3rd Option – Engage in the following:1) If there is no assessor available in the native

language; engage in steps # 2-4 on previous slide and,

2) If there are no assessment tools available in the native language, use an interpreter who speaks the native language to provide an oral translation of assessments normed and written in English – document limitations in assessment report

Worse Case Scenario Option – Engage in the following:

1) If there is not assessment tool or interpreter available in the native language engage in #2-4 on previous slide and,

2) Assess in non-verbal areas of cognition and administer English only assessment

22

Assessment of ELsWhy Assess in the Student’s Primary Language?It provides comparative data to the IEP team about how the student performs in the primary language versus English.

The assessor can determine if similar error patterns are seen in both the primary language and English (listening, speaking, reading or writing) in order to discern if the students is having academic difficult due to a language difference or a disability.

Many students acquire BICS level English speaking skills and are stronger in English academics but think at a CALPs level in their “native language”.

23

Assessment of ELs

Best Practices to Guide Assessment Decisions:

An assessor fluent in both languages should assess to determine which language the student is most proficient in at both the BICS and CALPS level (both academically & cognitively) to guide the assessment team regarding types of assessment to be performed by using like instruments in primary language and English when available.

Assessors should assess in the students primary language when feasible to do so.

24

Assessment ELs Cont’d.Examples of When it May Not “Be Feasible” toAssess in the Student’s Primary Language:The student has moderate to severe disabilities and lacks the communication or other skills to be able to be assessed accurately in L1.

When Primary language assessments are unavailable.

Note: If primary language assessments are not available, it isbest practice for assessors to use non language measuressuch as observations and structured interviews with teachersand family, as well as non verbal tests of ability to informidentification decisions.

25

Use of Interpreters for Bilingual Assessment

Ways interpreters and translators are used in bilingual assessment:1)Interpreters – Interpreters may be used to orally translate information given by the student or parent/guardian in their native language into English;interpreters may also be used to read test materialsin the native language and interpret studentResponses into English

2) Translators – Translate written text in Englishinto the native language

26

Use of Interpreters or Translators in Bilingual Assessment Cont’d.

Best practice briefing Procedures prior to using an

Interpreter: The general purpose of the assessment session Which assessment instruments or questions will

be administered or asked Share information about the student, family,

culture Review of appropriate testing protocol/behavior Allow time for the translator or interpreter to

organize materials, re-read the test procedures, and ask for clarification if needed

Carefully observe interpreter behavior during assessment

27

Use of Interpreters in Bilingual Assessment Cont’d.

Debriefing/follow-up Procedures: Ask interpreter or translator to go over each of

the test or interview question responses without making clinical judgment.

Go over any difficulties relative to the testing process.

Go over any difficulties relative to the interpretation or translation process.

Go over any other items relevant to assessment process.

28

BILINGUAL ASSESSMENTRESOURCES

http://www.crossbattery.com

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students: Strategies for Teaching and Assessment; by Grass &

Barker. Sage Publications. http://www.sagepub.com/home.nav

Ortiz, Samuel, Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Studenthttp://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/ortiz.pdf

Assessing Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide. Practical Intervention in the Schools Series; by Rhodes, Ochoa, Hector, & Ortiz. Guilford Publications.

29

Reclassification of ELs in SPEDReclassification of ELs in SPED

Reclassification of EL Students in Reclassification of EL Students in SPEDSPED

30

Reclassification:Defined as the process by which students who havebeen identified as English learners (EL) arereclassified as fluent English Proficient (RFEP) whenthey have demonstrated that they are able to compete effectively with English-speaking peers in mainstream classes.

EC 313(d)

31

Reclassification Criteria:The reclassification procedures developed by the

CaliforniaBoard of Education (CBE) require districts to utilize

multiplecriteria to reclassify a pupil as proficient in English.

EC 313(d)

Reclassification of EL Students in Reclassification of EL Students in SPED Cont’d.SPED Cont’d.

The following four reclassification criteria are required by the CDE to reclassify all EL students:

1)Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, theELD test pursuant to EC Section 60810 (i.e., the CELDT)

2) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the pupil’s curriculum mastery

3)Parental opinion and consultation4) Student performance on a statewide assessment of

basic skills in English

EC 313(d) / The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

32

Reclassification of EL Students in Reclassification of EL Students in SPED Cont’d.SPED Cont’d.

33

CELDT is used as the primary criterion for the

“objective assessment”. Students should be

considered for reclassification whose overall

proficiency level is early advanced or higher and: Listening is intermediate/higher Speaking is intermediate/higher Reading is intermediate/higher Writing is intermediate/higher

Reclassification of EL Students in Reclassification of EL Students in SPED Cont’d.SPED Cont’d.

1. Assessment of Language ProficiencyUsing an Objective Assessment Instrument

1. Assessment of Language ProficiencyUsing an Objective Assessment InstrumentCont’d.

34

Personal Communication with the CDE CELDT & SPED Division 11-30-11The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

1. Assessment of Language ProficiencyUsing an Objective Assessment Instrumentfor Students Taking Alternate Assessment:

35

Personal Communication with the CDE CELDT & SPED Division 11-30-11The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide pg. 20

2. Teacher EvaluationSample Criteria Used by Special andGeneral Education Teachers: Curriculum based measures (CBM) Progress towards IEP goals Observations with peers in class Classwork and homework samplesNote: if incurred deficits in motivation andacademic success *unrelated to English languageproficiency do not preclude a student fromReclassification

A disability may be a factor that contributes to low academicachievement and is unrelated to “English languageproficiency”

The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

36

3. Parent Opinion and Consultation

Provide notice to parents or guardians of their rights and encourage them to participate in the reclassification processProvide an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting with parents or guardiansSeek alternate ways to get parent input if face to face contact is not possibleSeek information from parent about student performance in English at home and in community, as well as possible comparison to other siblings

38

4. Performance in Basic SkillsDefinitions:“Performance in basic skills” means the score and/or performance level resulting from a recent administration of an objective assessment of basic skills in English, such as the California English-Language Arts Standards Test (CST for ELA) and the California Modified Assessment for ELA (CMA for ELA) “Range of Performance” means range of scores on the assessment of basic skills in English that corresponds to a performance level or a range within a performance level“Students of the same age” refers to student who are enrolled in the same grade as the student who is being considered for reclassification

The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

4. Performance in Basic Skills Cont’d.

39

As per the CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT InformationGuide pg. 12: “For students scoring below the cut point (e.g., the CSTor CMA ELA), the LEAs should attempt to determinewhether factors other than English languageproficiency are responsible for low performance on thetest of basic skills and whether or it is reasonable toreclassify the student.”

4. 4. Comparison of Performance In Basic Skills Cont’d.

40

As per the CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT InformationGuide pg. 21: “According to EC Section 313(f), LEAs must use, but are not limited to, the four criteria. In accordance with federal and state law, the local IEP team may address the individual needs of each English learner with a disability using multiple criteria in concert with the four reclassification criteria in law. The LEA may be able to reclassify the English learner with a severe disability even though, for example, the CELDT performance is not at the level suggested for reclassification in the SBE’s guidelines due to the identified disability. Therefore, it is recommended to use other language assessments to ensure the student receives appropriate services”

41

Issues With Reclassification of EL Students In Special Education

It is more difficult to clear the CST-ELA hurdle than the CELDT criterion. For example, in the 11th grade in 2007, 21 percent of ELLS scored Basic or better on the CST-ELA, compared to 41 percent scoring EA or better on CELDT. Testing results and reclassification decisions feed into the Title III accountability system imposed by NCLB that may either reward of punish school districts; students with disabilities often do not meet goal targets due to a disability versus language difference and districts receive sanctions.A large gap exists across grades on CELDT scores for ELs in SPED versus non SPED ELs. This suggests that few ELs in SPED will reach the minimum CELDT score required for consideration to be reclassified. Fetler, 2008

42

Maria – Student with autism who takes alternate assessment to CELDTMaria is a 6th grade student who has autism. She has an a low average to below average ability level. She is verbal; however, a lot of her speaking is more echolalia or repetitive of what she hears. Her pragmatic and comprehension skills are low in both languages. She functions at approximately the 2nd grade level in math and K-1 grade level in reading and writing. She was classified as an English Learner upon entering school in kindergarten. The IEP team has designated that Maria will take an alternate assessment to CELDT.

43

RECLASSIFICATIONSCENARIO 1 “Maria” Cont’d.

Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument

Since Maria took an alternate assessment to CELDT, the reclassification team used the data from the alternative measures of Basics 2 & ALPI to determine if Maria meets this criteria.

44

Skill Area Yes No

Pre Writing X

Communicates in Writing

Responds to Auditory Stimuli X

Receptive Language (Verbal) X

Expressive Language (Verbal) X

Articulation X

Receptive Language (Non Verbal) *X

Words Independently X

Attends to Printed Material X

Reading Readiness X

Basic Reading Skills X

Reading Comprehension *X

Overall Indication Student is Fluent in English X

Basics 2 Checklist Data

45

Skill Areas (Primary Language) Points (0-5 pt)

I. Receptive Language

1. 4

2. 4

3. 5

4. 4

5. 4

6. 5

Total Points (0-30)

26/30

II. Expressive Language

1. 2

2. 1

3. 3

4. 2

Total Points (0-14)

10/14

ALPI Assessment Data

46

Skill Areas (English) Points (0-5 Pt)

I. Receptive Language

1. 4

2. 4

3. 4

4. 5

5. 5

6. 5

Total Points (0-30)

27/30

II. Expressive Language

1. 2

2. 3

3. 2

4. 2

Total Points (0-14)

9/14

ALPI Assessment Data

47

RECLASSIFICATIONSCENARIO 1 MARIA Cont’d.

Note: that even though the student received an overall “no” in the receptive language and reading comprehension areas on the Basics 2; the team felt that since the scores on the ALPI indicate the student has comparable skills in her primary language and English in receptive language, the relative weaknesses were due to her autism versus her language development. The multi-disciplinary reclassification team (to include special educators and EL staff members) in this scenario determined that the student was fluent in English since the data indicates the student has acquired comparable skills in both listening and speaking in the primary language and English on the ALPI, and her functional academics in English are proficient.

47

SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D.Remember: Incurred deficits in motivation & academic success unrelated to English language proficiency do not preclude a student from reclassification.

Maria’s teachers indicated that they feel she has developed English language proficiency as evidenced by her day to day classroom performance (not related to her autism or disability)?

48

SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D.

Criteria 3: Parent Opinion and Consultation

Maria’s parent(s) feel she has acquired the English skills needed to be successful in school. They see her spontaneously answering the phone in English. They indicate that she watches television in English and prefers to communicate with friends and in the community in English.

49

SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D.

Criteria 4: Comparison of Performance in basic

skills “Performance in basic skills” means the score and/orperformance level resulting from a recent administration

of anobjective assessment of basic skills in English, such as the

CSTor CMA in ELA or other appropriate alternate objectivemeasure”Maria took CAPA Level IV (for her 6th grade level) versus CST as

indicatedin her IEP so the LEA / IEP team analyzed her performance to

determine herlevel of performance in “basic skills”. The team took into considerationMaria’s cognitive ability levels and determine that yes, since she

scored“basic” or above on the CAPA IV she demonstrated that she hadacquired basic skills in English at her functional level.

50

SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.Should Maria be reclassified?

Yes, in this scenario the reclassification team felt that Maria met the LEA’s established reclassification policy based on the four criteria outlined in CDE’s 2012-2013 CELDT Information Guide

Note: LEA’s make final decisions about reclassification based on data that best informs the four criteria.

51

52

Q & A

The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

1) May the parent opt a student out of taking CELDT?

Response: No, A parent may not opt a student out oftaking CELDT.

Q & A

2) If a student is EL and in special education, are they required by law to have an ELD class?

Response: No, a student does not have to be placed in an “ELD

class”; however, the student must receive appropriate EL

instruction and services. How those services will be provided

should be addressed in the IEP. They may be provided in a

special or regular education setting as long as they are

appropriate to the student’s level of EL needs, are provided by

qualified staff, and will help the student progress towards their

linguistically appropriate goals and objectives.

53

Q & A

3) Is reclassification to RFEP the responsibility of the IEP team for EL students in special education?

Answer: Each LEA must establish policies and procedures to designate which staff or the team members are responsible for reclassification of EL students. It might very well be most appropriate for the IEP team to make reclassification decisions for ELs with disabilities as long as an professional with second language acquisition (EL) expertise participates on the IEP team.

Remember: It is best practice for English learner and special education staff members to work together collaboratively to make reclassification decisions for students with disabilities regardless of whether or not the IEP team makes this decision.

5 CCR § 11303 54

55

Q & A

1) May the IEP team designate a CELDT test variation thatis not listed in the Title 5 Guidelines Section 11516 or11516.5?

Response: Yes; however, the district must submit arequest for review of the proposed variations inadministering the test

1) If a student participates in CELDT with test variations,accommodations, or modifications will they “pass”?

Response: Yes; however, if the student takes alternateassessments for sections of the CELDT, they will getthe lowest obtainable score of LOS for the sections ofthe test in which they took alternate assessments

Title 5 Regulations Section 11510; The CDE’s 2012-2013 CELDT Information Guide

56

Q & A

6) Are districts required to assess an English learner with

moderate to severe disabilities in their primary language

in order to qualify them for special education?

Response: The regulations state you must assess in the native language

unless it is “clearly not feasible to do so”. Based on the severity and type

of disability or lack of assessment materials in the native language, it may

not be feasible to assess in the native language. Asessors should refer to

the legal regulations and determine the type of assessments that are most

appropriate.

57

Q & A

7) What is the recommended or required amount of

time an English learner must be in RTI before making

a referral for special education?

Response: It is best practice for English learners to receive

high quality, research-based interventions over a period of

time long enough to determine the following:

a. Is the student struggling academically due to a disability or language difference?

b. Can the student’s academic needs be met through RTI versus special education?

58

Q & A

8) May the parent waive the requirement for a student

to be assessed for special education in their primary

Language?

Response: There is no specific provision for a parent to waive assessment in the primary language. A parent may decline assessment in part or in whole; however, the assessors determine the language for the assessments to be administered in.

Q & A

9) May a school EL reclassification team use “alternative criteria” to reclassify a student who is EL to RFEP?

Answer: No, there is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative reclassification criteria”. LEAs must follow the LEA’s policies and procedures for reclassification based on the four criteria established by the State Board of Education (SBE). However, within the four established reclassification criteria the SBE have recommended flexibility in the way the way teams apply the guidelines that may be relevant to students with disabilities.

The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide pg. 2; 5 CCR § 11303

Q & A

10) May a school classify a student that has severe disabilities and is non-verbal as FEP upon entry?

Answer: No, there is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative criteria” to classify a student as FEP upon entry if it is deemed that the student may be an English learner based on the home language survey. The LEA must attempt to give the student the CELDT (or alternative if an IEP team determines the student is unable to take the CELDT). Then, once the student takes CELDT, and it is deemed the scores are invalid, the LEA may use their discretion and use other data to determine the likelihood of the student being proficient in English and designate the student accordingly.

5 CCR § 11303Personal communication with the CDE SPED and CELDT Divn. 11-30-1160

Q & A 11) May a school designate a student who uses American Sign Language (ASL) as FEP even though they are EL based on the home language survey?

Answer: For purposes of taking CELDT, although ASL is considered a language separate from English, students who use ASL in and of itself, are not required to take the CELDT; however, if the HSL survey indicates that a language other than English (and ASL) is spoken in the home based on the first three questions or possibly 4th, the student should take CELDT or alternate assessment to determine proficiency in English.A student who uses ASL as their primary language in the above scenario may be identified as EL. Based on personal communication with the CDE SPED & CELDT Divn. 11-30-11; 5 CCR § 11303

61

Q & A

12) For the fourth reclassification criteria “comparison of performance in basic skills”, may the reclassification team use data from the CAPA assessment since the student does not take CST or CMA?

Answer: Yes. The LEA may utilize to determine the student’s “comparison of performance in basic skills” at a their functional level.

CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide

62