English Language Learner or Learning Disabled Exploring the Differences

1
English Language Learner or Learning Disabled?
Exploring the Differences

• Jacqueline A. Iribarren, Ph.D.
• Title III, ESL Bilingual Education Consultant
• Department of Public Instruction
• March 21, 2007

2
Todays Agenda

• Review legal background responsibilities
• Defining ELLs
• Understanding Second Language Acquisition
• Assessment Process
• Tests Problems Limitations
• Appropriate Learning Disabilities identification
• Understanding the difference

3

• Sit Back and Relax

4
Legal Background
5
Legal Responsibilities

• Whether or not a district receives bilingual or
  English as a second language (ESL) State
  categorical aid for serving limited-English
  proficient (LEP) students, both federal and state
  legal obligations exist to ensure equal
  educational opportunity for LEP students.
  Districts are required to establish, sustain, and
  improve learning environments which alleviate the
  barrier caused by not being able to communicate
  fully and effectively in English, the language
  used within the classroom. These legal
  obligations apply even in schools or classes
  where only one LEP student is present.

6

• No state shall deny equal education opportunity
  to an individual on account of his or her race,
  color, sex, or national origin byfailure by an
  educational agency to take appropriate action to
  overcome the language barriers that impede equal
  participation by its students in its
  instructional programs
• Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 1974,
  PL 93-380

7
Legal Responsibilities Educational Equity and
Nondiscrimination

• No person in the United States, on the grounds
  of race, color, or national origin be excluded
  from participation in, be denied the benefits of
  or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under
  any program or activity receiving federal
  financial assistance from the Department of
  Education Title VI, Civil Rights Act, 1964

8

• Public school are prohibited from denying
  immigrant students access to a free public
  education (K-12) on the basis of their immigrant
  status. Educators are not involved in enforcing
  federal immigration laws.
• Plyer vs. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Supreme
  Court

9

• Where inability to speak and understand the
  English excludes national origin-minority group
  children from effective participation in the
  educational program offered by a school district,
  the district must take affirmative steps to
  rectify the language deficiency in order to open
  its instructional program to these students
• OCR Policy Memorandum 1970

10
Bilingual/Bicultural Program Requirements

• If any school, within a school district in
  Wisconsin, has 10 LEP students speaking the same
  non-English language at grades K-3, 20 students
  at grades 4-8, or 20 students at grades 9-12, the
  district must design a program and prepare a
  formal plan of services (PI-1849) to meet the
  needs of these students. The statute requires all
  such programs to be staffed by licensed bilingual
  teachers. When bilingual licensed teachers are
  not available, ESL licensed teachers may be used
  with bilingual teacher aides except in programs
  serving Spanish speakers. The obligation to
  maintain a state approved bilingual-bicultural
  program (WI State Statute 115.97) for students
  begins when any one of the three grade cluster
  trigger numbers is reached within a single
  school building. Districts may combine student
  numbers across different schools to meet the
  minimum threshold for state-assistance, but this
  is not an obligation.

11
Pupil Non-Discrimination

• Under this law, no student may be denied
  admission to any public school, be denied
  participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
  be discriminated against in any school-related
  activity or program on the basis of the student's
  sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry,
  creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status,
  sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional
  or learning disability.   This law, like its
  federal counterparts, requires that every student
  receive an equitable educational opportunity. In
  order to meet this requirement, language barriers
  must be overcome or removed

12
Summary Federal Law

• 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VI
• No person in the United States shall, on the
  grounds of race, color, or national origin . . .
  be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
  discrimination under any program or activity
  receiving Federal financial assistance (emphasis
  added).
• 1974 Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)
• No state shall deny equal educational
  opportunity to an individual on account of his or
  her race, color, sex or national origin, by . . .
  the failure of an educational agency to take
  appropriate action to overcome language barriers
  that impede equal participation by its students
  in its instructional programs (emphasis added).

13

• 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ACT, Title I
• The purpose of this Title is to ensure that all
  children have a fair, equal, and significant
  opportunity to obtain a high quality education
  and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on
  challenging state academic achievement standards
  and state academic assessments. (Sec. 1001) This
  includes meeting the educational needs of limited
  English proficient children.
• 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, Title
  III
• The purpose of the Title III Part A is to help
  ensure that children and youth who are limited
  English proficient, Native American and/or
  immigrants, attain English language proficiency,
  develop high levels of academic attainment in
  English, and meet the same challenging State
  academic standards that all children are expected
  to meet.

14
U.S. Supreme Court Rulings

• 1974 Lau v. Nichols
• Equality of educational opportunity is not
  achieved by merely providing all students with
  the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and
  curriculum students who do not understand
  English are effectively foreclosed from any
  meaningful education.
• 1982 Plyler v. Doe
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth
  Amendment prohibits states from denying a free
  public education to undocumented immigrant
  children regardless of their immigrant status.
  The Court emphatically declared that school
  systems are not agents for enforcing immigration
  law and determined that the burden undocumented
  aliens may place on an educational system is not
  an acceptable argument for excluding or denying
  educational services to any student. Therefore,
  school districts are prohibited from requiring
  U.S. passports, social security numbers,
  residency permits known as green cards, or any
  documentation or inquiry that would indicate
  whether a child or family was or was not a legal
  resident or citizen of the United States.

15
Key Points from Federal Rulings

• Districts must provide appropriate language
  assistance services for the same challenging
  academic material as all other students.
• Programs must meet the linguistic, cultural, and
  academic needs of LEP students while not
  segregating them unnecessarily from
  English-speaking peers.
• Bilingual-bicultural instructional approaches
  should be used, to the extent possible, to ensure
  that students do not fall behind academically.
• Districts must pursue and implement a program
  based on an educational theory recognized as
  sound or legitimate. The language assistance
  program must be evaluated and produce positive
  results for the LEP students who are being
  served. Results must include both increased
  English proficiency and increased academic
  competence to the same rigorous standards
  expected of all students.

16
State Laws

• The Wisconsin Constitution (Article X, 3)
• Through Article X, 3 of the Wisconsin
  Constitution, every Wisconsin student has a
  fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a
  sound basic education. An equal opportunity for
  a sound basic education has been defined by the
  Wisconsin Supreme Court as "one that will equip
  students for their roles as citizens and enable
  them to succeed economically and personally,"
  Vincent v. Voight, 236 Wis. 2d 588, 614 N.W.29
  388 (2000).

17
The Wisconsin Pupil Nondiscrimination Law (s.
118.13, Wis. Stats. and PI 9)

• Under this law, no student may be denied
  admission to any public school, be denied
  participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
  be discriminated against in any school-related
  activity or program on the basis of the student's
  sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry,
  creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status,
  sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional
  or learning disability. This law, like its
  federal counterparts, requires that every student
  receive an equitable educational opportunity. In
  order to meet this requirement, language barriers
  must be overcome or removed.

18
The Wisconsin Bilingual-Bicultural Statute (s.
115.95, Wis. Stats. and PI 13)

• The bilingual-bicultural statute creates certain
  obligations for all districts, regardless of the
  number of LEP students. Each district must
  annually complete a census to identify language
  minority students assess their language
  proficiency and classify each by language, grade
  level, age, and English language proficiency
  level. Once students are classified as LEP,
  districts must provide them with appropriate
  services and report English proficiency gains.

19
Bottom Line

• "There is no equality of treatment merely by
  providing students with the same facilities,
  textbooks, teachers, and curriculum for students
  who do not understand English are effectively
  foreclosed from any meaningful education.
• Lau v. Nichols (1974)

20
Why are we here today?

• The controversy began in 1968 when a
  disproportionate number of culturally diverse
  children where identified as mentally ill in
  special education
• Two landmark cases Diana v. California 1970 and
  Larry P. v. Riles, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1986

21

• Historically, special education has too often
  been a placea place to segregate minorities and
  student with disabilitiesTo the extent that
  minority students are misclassified, segregated,
  or inadequately served, special education can
  contribute to a denial of equality of
  opportunity, with devastating results in
  communities throughout the nation.
• Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (pg.
  1, 2002)

22
Bottom Line

• These cases brought national attention of the
  inappropriate placement of culturally and/or
  linguistically diverse children in special
  education programs

23
Any Questions?
24
Thoughts Comments
25
Defining ELLs
26
ELLs in Wisconsin

• Over 29,000 across the state
• Top 5 Languages Spanish, Hmong, Lao, Russian
  Albanian
• Over 67,000 teacher only 33 taught ELLs
• Nationally Accounts about 10 of total student
  population and the fastest growing student
  population

27
Who must be assessed for ESL services?

• Any student who speaks another language
• Any student who has had another language spoken
  in their home
• OR
• A child who has spent a significant amount of
  time growing up hearing another language

28
DPI English Proficiency Levels

• LEVEL 1 Beginning/Preproduction
• LEVEL 2 Beginning/Production
• LEVEL 3 Intermediate
• LEVEL 4 Advanced Intermediate
• LEVEL 5 Advanced
• LEVEL 6 Full English Proficiency

29
Classification Language

• LEP - Limited English Proficient
• ELL - English Language Learner
• ESL - English as a Second Language

30
 Staff Serving ELLs 
English as a Second Language (ESL) Teacher
Bilingual Resource Teacher   Bilingual Teacher
Bilingual Specialist/Paraprofessional
31
Service Delivery Models

• Instruction in general ed. classroom with
  ESL/bilingual support
• ESL academic content class
• ESL newcomer class
• Bilingual instruction

32
How about your School?

• What does ESL instruction look like?
• Can you articulate your ESL service delivery
  model?
• How are you serving ELLs?

33
Questions
34
Understanding Second Language Acquisition
35
Stages of Second Language Acquisition

• Silent Period
• Code switching/mixing
• Native language loss
• Language dysfluencies (lack of vocabulary,
  word-finding difficulties, and/or
  anxiety/tension)
• Receptive vs Expressive Language

36
continued

• Variations in acquisition (i.e. different
  language groups, different types of learners,
  different types of sounds, etc.)
• Differences between oral and literacy development

37
Understanding First Language

• First language influence on English learning
• Transfer
• Interference
• Characteristics of students language
• Why do some language groups learn English
  faster?
• Importance relationship of L1 in academic and
  literacy development

38
Understanding the English language difficulty

• Variations
• Content
• Cultural specific language

39
Social vs. Academic Language Proficiency Domains

• BICS Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
• CALPS Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
  Skills

40
ACESS ELL Test

• New English Language Proficiency Test
• Yearly Test Title III Funding
• 4 Domains Speaking, Listening, Reading Writing
  (Comprehension)

41
Continued

• Given by Tiers/Grade Clusters A, B, C K-2,
  3-5, 6-8 and 9-12
• Also a Screener
• Mandated by state
• Trained administrator test coordinator

42
Questions?
43
Assessment Process
44
Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)

• Class action suit alleging disproportionate
  representation of bilingual students in a program
  for the mentally retarded
• A classic example of the harmful effects of
  inappropriate assessment practices and failure to
  account for linguistic differences

45
Informed Parental Consent

• Definition Included in the meaning of consent
  is the requirement that the parent be fully
  informed, in his or her native language or other
  mode of communication, of all information
  relevant to the activity for which consent is
  sought.
• Knowledgeable, Legally Competent Voluntary

46
Recommendations to fully inform parents

• 1. procedures to better understand the rights
  responsibilities
• 2. the purpose of the assessment process
• 3. the sequential steps in the process
• 4. the timeline of activities
• 5. possible outcomes

47
Considerations for Special Education Referral

• Language level
• Academic history
• Cultural/Socioeconomic differences
• Acculturation
• Provision of services support
• Pre-referral interventions (i.e. curriculum,
  instructional, behavioral)

48
Possible Challenges

• Strong and consistent pre-referral policies and
  practices?
• Lack of instructional strategies to support ELLs
• Lack of ongoing inservice training/p.d.

49
Biggest Challenge

• Limited English Proficiency
• Testing Measures
• Assessment Practices
• 1. inadequate trained examiners
• 2. inappropriate assessment practices
• 3. failure to comply with federal and/or state
  guidelines (Rhodes, Ochoa Ortiz, 2005)

50
Biggest Challenge..

• Lack of native language cultural support
• We dont have an ESL program here
• Lack of consultation collaboration among staff

51
Questions?
52
Tests Problems Limitations
53
Limitations with Various Tests

• Language of test
• Norm Sample
• Sample identification
• Use of interpreters?
• Does it measure English language proficiency vs.
  content?

54
Challenges with Interpreters

• Cultural linguistic expertise?
• Knowledge of critical issues?
• Neutrality and Confidentiality?
• Understanding terms?

55
Which tests to use?

• Limited availability
• Valid?
• Purpose and Restriction of standardized testing

56
Inherent Test Bias

• When we test students using a standardized
  device and compare them to a set of norms to gain
  an index of their relative standing, we assume
  that the students we test are similar to those on
  whom the test was standardized that is, we
  assume their acculturation is comparable, but not
  necessarily identical, to that of the students
  who made up the normative sample for the test
• (Salvia Ysseldyke, 1991, p. 18)

57
Questions?
58
Appropriate Eligibility Determination for ELLs
and Learning Disabilities
59
Framework

• Linking Student, Schooling, Early Intervention,
  Referral, and Assessment Data

60
Final Regulations

• Solidify the need for strong pre-referral process
• The 2006 final IDEA Part B regulations clarify
  that lack of appropriate instruction cant be
  used as the sole eligibility factor for special
  education
• Factors to consider when evaluating students with
  limited English ability
• Former learning Environments
• Family Factors
• Developmental History
• Length of time in country
• (The Special Educator, September,
  2006)

61
Non-BiasedMulticultural Assessment Approach

• Distinguishing between factors associated with
  second language acquisition and disability (e.g.
  SLD) is a complex process!!!

62
Characteristics of typically Reading-Related LD

• Students have had consistent schooling, but
  achievement is still substantially below grade
  level
• Significant reading difficulties are documented
  over time
• Specialized reading interventions in the context
  of general education have failed to improve
  reading under achievement

63
continued

• Multiple data sources corroborate reading
  difficulties (i.e. results of formal/informal
  assessments consistency)
• Parents report similar problems at home in either
  language
• (Wilkinson , Ortiz Kushner, 2001)

64
Conducting the referral

• Complete student records (health, social, family
  and school histories)
• Language dominance and proficiency data (both
  languages if necessary)
• Outcomes of interventions tried and their effect
  on progress

65
Non-BiasedMulticultural Assessments

• Selection of the language to use for testing
• Primary language, second language, both?
• Need for trained interpreter?

66
Limitations of Formal Language Measures

• Weak psychometric properties
• Lack of Spanish other language Norms
• Norms obtained from monolinguals in other
  countries (versus bilinguals)
• Problems occurs when tests are translated (i.e.
  item difficulty)

67
Continued.

• Assumes that language is utilized the same across
  cultures
• One-word labeling of objects is not emphasized
  in the same manner or frequency across all
  cultural/language groups (Pena et. al 1992, p.
  271)
• Instead, some cultures emphasize the functions
  of the objecttherefore, ELLs from these cultures
  appear weak in vocabulary skills

68
continued

• Formal language measures assess one, some or all
  of the structural components of language (i.e.
  phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary)
• different tests give different proportional
  weights to the various components of
  languagepronunciation, comprehension,
  grammatical structure vocabulary
• (De Valenzuela Cervantes, 1998, p. 156)
• Thus, different scores can result given these
  variances

69
Informal Methods

• Observations
• Questionnaires
• Teacher Rating Scales
• Storytelling
• Story Retelling
• Language Samples

70
Bottom line with Language Measurements

• Their sole use to assess language proficiency is
  not recommended for ELLs
• Creates a strong rationale for utilizing informal
  measures (measuring language abilities across
  different settings and reflective of situations
  in which she/he is expected to use both BICS
  CALP) to supplement formal measures

71
Language Proficiency

• The concept of Dominance indicates only that
  one language is better developed than the other
  but reveals nothing about overall proficiency in
  either language
• ...Dominance does not dictate the course of
  assessment rather it is the absolute level of
  proficiency in each language that governs the
  path of evaluation (Ochoa Ortiz, 2005 p. 148)

72
Bottom Line Non-BiasedMulticultural Assessments

• Use a comprehensive assessment model
• Developmental history, observations, family
  interviews, instructional information,
  criterion-referenced tests

73
Using Tests

• Standardized vs. non-standardized tests
• Valid and reliable?

74
Currently in Wisconsin

• As a result of the New IDEA 2004 provisions,
  Wisconsin will use 2 methods for determining LD
• 1. Old Model Classroom achievement, Significant
  Discrepancy Information Processing Deficit
• 2. RTI data driven model-An LEA may use a
  process that determines if the child responds to
  scientific, research-based intervention as a part
  of the evaluation procedures.
• 614(b)(6)

75
Bottom Line

• Both sets of data must conclude in a deficiency
  for the student to be identified as LD

76
That means

• Pre-referral interventions must have been tried,
  documented and provide rich data.
• Must Answer How was instruction modified and
  what were the results?
• Still need an IQ/Academic achievement score

77
Assessment Team Considerations

• Is the team ready to involve parents
  meaningfully?
• Interpret for Parents?

78
Break it Down RTI

• Most useful related to instruction
• Curriculum based assessment
• Criterion-referenced

79
IQ/Achievement Testing Special Factors to be
Considered

• Is there a proficient language?
• Exposure to English native language
• Age of student
• Length in the United States
• Educational history

80
Achievement Tests.

• Achievement Spanish/English or both? Linguistic
  Demand?
• Cautions Emphasis on speed (i.e. reading
  fluency, math fluency, heavy emphasis on language
  skills verbal ability
• Spanish Translations U.S. based focus (i.e. U.S.
  currency) norm samples

81
Intellectual Assessments

• Verbal/ Non-Verbal
• Cultural Loading
• Linguistic Demands (Receptive language Auditory
  Processing difficult to measure independent of
  language)

82
Have we gathered enough data Information on

• Work samples
• Curriculum based data
• Intervention results
• Rate of Learning

83
Can we answer the basic question in assessment

• Are the students observed learning problems due
  to cultural or linguistic differences disorder?

84
Dont forget..

• Interpreting results
• Primary language impairment
• Exclusionary factors
• Is there a need for Special Education services?

85
A Multiplicity of Factors must be Considered

• Parent Input
• Oral language proficiency in L1 L2
• Literacy levels in both languages
• Prior Instruction
• Type, Duration Quality of Language Programs
• Teacher Variables

86
Determination Eligibility

• Decision is based on the referral and assessment
  information
• Data other than the presence of an IQ-Achievement
  discrepancy supports the decision

87
If found to be student with a LD, then

• Is there a need for Special Education?
• IEP Documents needs in both ESL/Bilingual
  education and Special Education Services

88
If not eligible, then what?

• Retention?
• Holmes (1989) and House (1989) research data
  indicate that simply repeating a grade does not
  generally improve achievement (Heubert Hauser,
  1999, p. 121).
• The biggest indicator of dropping out is that a
  student is older than his/her peers.  Those of us
  who are responsible for monitoring what happens
  to students over the long term are frequently the
  biggest critics of retention.   

89
Retention.

• McLaughlin (2005) sums up this view with the
  cutting saying, The definition of insanity is
  doing the same thing over again expecting
  different results.
• Student Silent Voice and emotional trauma

90
Retention

• The problem is most likely due to a lack of
  English proficiency instead of an inability to
  grasp academic content. 
• We know that cognitive ability is not linked to
  language proficiency.  We also know when language
  is the reason that a student is not getting the
  content (McLaughlin, 2005).  

91
Retention.

• The Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision (1974)
  made it clear that students with limited English
  proficiency must be granted equal opportunity in
  education, and may not be discriminated against
  because of their lack of English.

92
If not eligible, then what?

• ESL/Bilingual Education Programming
• Double Dosing
• Creative Interventions
• Progress Monitoring

93
Questions Comments?
94
Best Instructional Practices
95
BEST PRACTICES

• Differentiated Instruction and Scaffolding
• Primary Language Support
  -Varies in time and intensity depending on DPI
  level of student
• English Language Proficiency Goals

96
BEST PRACTICES(Cont.)

• Collaboration Among All Staff Working With
  English Language Learners
• Standards-Based Curriculum
• Formative Summative assessments

97
BEST PRACTICES(Cont.)

• Support levels for 3-5
• Parent Participation Programs
• Based on an understanding of the culture involved
• Parents as stakeholders
• Involvement of Community
• Individual Student Record Plan

98
Questions?
99
References Acknowledgments Assessing
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Students (2005), Rhodes, Ochoa Ortiz.
Authentic Assessment for English Language
Learners (1996), OMalley Pierce. Illinois
Resource Center (IRC)