east valley selpa september 2010 - conejousd.org

A MODEL Approach to Conducting Assessment of Bilingual (English & Spanish) Students: A

Psychoeducational Assessment Approach Grounded in CHC Theory

Presented by:

Pedro Olvera, PsyD, LEP #2975

Lino Gomez-Cerrillo, M.A.

•Conejo Valley Unified School District November 2010

1

East Valley SELPA

September 2010

Ten Objectives of the Presentation

A. Briefly discuss Disporportionality.

B. Review: IDEA Nondiscriminatory Assessment.

C. Review: English Language Development (ELD) – Cognitive

Academic Language Proficiency Skills (CALP) Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS).


2

D. Briefly review current bilingual assessment models.

E. Brief overview of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)

F. Brief overview of Cross Battery Assessment

G. Introduce the Bilingual Assessment Model that Integrates CHC Theory.

H. Select Spanish, English & Nonverbal Assessments that utilize CHC as a theoretical framework.

Conejo Valley Unified School District November 2010

Ten Objectives of the Presentation (Con’t.)

Ten Objectives of the Presentation (Con‟t.)

I. Integrate Spanish, English, & Nonverbal instruments into the Bilingual Assessment model we‟ve created titled:

A Bilingual (English & Spanish) Psychoeducational Assessment MODEL Grounded in Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC) Theory


Ten Objectives of the Presentation (Con‟t.)

H. Introduce MODEL

Multiple Sources of Information

Observation

Data Driven Hypothesis

English Proficiency

Language of Assessment -


Disporportionality in Special Education:

A Brief Overview & Interventions

(originally presented by Olvera, P. & Belisle, V. at the CASC 2009 Annual Conference)


Definition

• Disprorportionality:

“Disproportionality refers to the relationship

between student representation in both

general and special education.”

Harry and Anderson (1995)


What is Disproportionality in Education?

• Disproportionality is the over-representation of minority students identified with a learning disability or other type of high incidence disability (MR, ED, OHI) under the IDEA, which endorses a statistically higher number of minority numbers in special education than they should be (Sullivan, et al.).


Context of California Public Schools(Total Enrollment= 6,252,031 )

Multiple or no Response

3%

White Non- Hispanic28%

African American7%

American Indian or Alaska Native

1%

Asian8%

Pacific Islander1%

Filipino3%

Hispanic or Latino49%

California PublicSchool Demographics


Context of California Public Schools(Total Special Education = 678,105)

White Non Hispanic32%

African American11%

Native American1%

Asian5%

Pacifc Islander0%

Filipino2%

Hispanic or Latino49%

Context of Special EducationTotal Enrollment 2008-2009


Comparison of Reported Percentages(General Education vs. Special Education)

Ethnicity Percent of General Education

Percent of Special Education

Multiple or No Response 3% NA

White Non Hispanic 28% 32%

African American 7% 11%

Native American/Alaska Native

1% 1%

Asian 8% 5%

Pacific Islander 1% 1%

Filipino 3% 2%

Hispanic or Latino 49% 49%


English Language Learners (ELL)

• Research in 11 urban districts in California with high proportions of ELLs, high minority enrollments, and high poverty levels, the results revealed an overrepresentation of ELLs in special education emerging by Grade 5 and remaining clearly visible until Grade 12.



• ELLs were 27% more likely than English-proficient students to be placed in special education in elementary grades and almost twice as likely to be placed in secondary grades (Artiles et al., 2002).



• ELL’s in English Immersion (no primary language support) were 2.2% more likely to be placed in a Special Day Class (SDC) compared to 1.9% of children in bilingual Education (Rueda & Windmueller, 2006).


CASE LAW REVIEW: A Brief Overview


15

Case Review

• Consent Decree

1. Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)- Assessment in Primary Language (L1)

2. Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School No.3 (1972) – Overrepresentation of Latino and Native American

Children in SPED;

Culturally Relevant Bilingual Instruction

Conejo Valley Unified School District November 2010 16

Case Review

• Case Law:1. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)-

Equal protection for all children regardless of race.

2. Hobson v. Hansen (1967)-

Environmental factors might affect IQ scores

3. Lau v. Nichols (1974)-

Provision of bilingual education programs mandated.

4. Larry P. (1972, 1974)- IQ tests not to be used in the assessment of African American

children.


POP QUIZ!!!!

(True or False)


True or False • If you are bilingual, you have a bilingual gene that gives you

inherent knowledge to assess in a bilingual manner.

• It is OK to qualify a non-eligible ELD child for SPED because you will be providing him/her with help.

• If you are assessing an ELD student with an English battery, it is OK to conduct “on the spot” translation of the directions/test items.

• Anybody who is proficient in the language can serve as interpreter.


True or False • Bilingual assessment is quick and easy.

• If a child speaks English, he is automatically proficient in English.

• You must identify the language of the examiner in all your psychoeducational reports.

• Administering tests in the language that they were standardized in will yield more accurate results than translated versions.


Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)


21

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

• Laws pertaining to Nondiscriminatory Assessment set forth the following guidelines:

1.Assessment to be conducted in native language.

2.Examination Procedures

3.Exclusionary Factors


22

Native Language

The language normally used by the child and not the parents if there is a difference between the two.

In your contact with the child, the language most usedby the child in the home or learning environment.

For a child who is deaf or blind or has no written language, the mode of communication most used by the child (sign language, Braille, or oral communication).


23

Nondiscriminatory Assessment

• Tests are selected and administered so as to not discriminate on racial or cultural basis.

• Instruments are provided and administered in the child‟s native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible.

• Tools measure the extent to which an LEP child has a disability and needs SPED rather than English language skills (need to assess ELD and rule out disability).


24

Exclusionary Factors

A child will not be learning disabled IF his/her learning problems are:

“Primarily the result of Environmental, Cultural or Economic Disadvantage.”


25

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Principles of Professional Ethics

Assessment and Intervention– 1. School psychologists maintain the highest standard for

educational and psychological assessment and direct and indirect interventions.

a. In conducting psychological, educational, or behavioral evaluations or in providing therapy, counseling, or consultation services, due consideration is given to individual integrity and individual differences.

b. School psychologists respect differences in age, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. They select and use appropriate assessment or treatment procedures, techniques, and strategies. Decision-making related to assessment and subsequent interventions is primarily data-based.


26

-2. School psychologists are knowledgeable about thevalidity and reliability of their instruments and techniques,choosing those that have up-to-date standardization dataand are applicable and appropriate for the benefit of thechild.

-3. School psychologists use multiple assessment methodssuch as observations, background information, andinformation from other professionals, to reach comprehensiveconclusions.

http://www.nasponline.org/standards/ProfessionalCond.pdf


27

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Principles of Professional Ethics

http://www.nasponline.org/standards/ProfessionalCond.pdf

California Association of School Psychologists (CASP) Code of Ethics

Assessment– 1. School psychologists recognize differences in age, gender,

native language, disability, socioeconomic, and ethnic backgrounds and strive to select and use appropriate procedures, techniques, and strategies relevant to such differences.

– 2. School psychologists understand the parameters of psycho-diagnostic instruments and utilize their data professionally. They are obligated to combine observations, background information, and other data to report the most comprehensive and valid picture possible of the individual.


28

– 4. School psychologists assess the student in his/her native language or other mode of communication for completion of a valid assessment. In the event this is impossible, use of a skilled interpreter or pre-recorded material is clearly documented in oral and/or written reports. Adequate interpretation must follow such modified techniques.

• CASP Code of Ethics 12– 7. School psychologists are knowledgeable about the validity

and reliability of their instruments and techniques, choosing those that have up-to-date standardization data and are applicable and appropriate for the benefit of the child.


29

California Association of School Psychologists (CASP) Code of Ethics

CURRENT BILINGUAL ASSESSMENT MODELS:

Multidimensional Assessment Model for Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI) & Bio-

Cultural Assessment Model


MAMBI Assessment Model(Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005, p. 171)


Key Points of the MAMBI (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005)

• Developed by Dr. Salvador Hector Ochoa and Dr. Samuel O. Ortiz.

• Provides a systematic manner for selecting appropriate mode and language(s) assessment.

• Four variables considered

1. Current grade

2. Mode of Assessment

3. Current and previous types of educational program

4. Individual’s current degree of language proficiency in both English and the native language.


33

Bio-Cultural Perspective of Assessment



http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0122904516/ref=sib_dp_pt

Bio-Cultural Perspective of Assessment(Gopaul-McNicol & Armour-Thomas, 2002)

• Developed by Sharon-ann Gopaul-McNicol and Eleanor Armour-Thomas.

• Three Overlapping Subsystems

1. Value System

2. Symbol System

3. Language System

• Multi-level assessment

– Psychometric Assessment

– Psychometric Potential Assessment

– Ecological Assessment

– Other Intelligences Assessment


INTRODUCTION TO THE MODEL:

A Bilingual (English & Spanish) Psychoeducational Assessment MODEL Grounded in Cattell-Horn Caroll (CHC)

Theory


37

Context

Assessment for Suspected Disability

(MODEL)

Targeted Interventions

Universal Interventions


RTI

Acknowledgements and Recognitions

• This work is primarily based on the work of the following individuals:

– Jim Cummings (BICS & CALP)

– Dawn P. Flanagan (Cross Battery)

– Victor Alfonso (Cross Battery)

– Samuel Ortiz (Cross Battery & CLD Assessment)


39

Assumptions

• Although this model is based and founded on current research, the authors have not conducted research on this model as of yet.

• Occurs after Response to Intervention.

• Will provide a method for administering assessments in the language they were standardized in!!

• Practitioner Oriented.

• Need moderate to advanced knowledge in CHC theory and Cross Battery Assessment.

• Need moderate to advanced knowledge in English Language Development (CALP & BICS)


40

A Brief History of the Development of CHC



• 1904: Charles Spearman, a graduate student, published a paper arguing that only one general factor, “g”, serves as the foundation across others performance tasks.

• Came to be known “Spearman’s g”.

(Anderson, 2000)



• 1937: Raymond B. Cattell, a student of Spearman, joined E.L Thorndike, a researcher at Columbia University, in order to work with adherents of the multiple-factor models of intelligence.

• 1941: Cattell presents at an APA convention asserting that there two separate factors of intelligence:

1) Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), and

2) Fluid Ability (Gf).

(Flanagan & Harrison, 2005)



• 1960’s: Cattell & John L. Horn (student), through their factor analytic, added the following factors to the Gc –Gf factors:

1) Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)2) Fluid Ability (Gf)3) Quantitative Knowledge (Gq)4) Reading and Writing (Grw) 5) Short Term Acquisition and Retrieval (Gsm),6) Visual Perception (Gv), 7) Auditory Processing (Ga)8) Long Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr)9) Speed of Processing (Gs)10) Correct Decision Speed (CDS)

(Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)


Horn-Cattell Gf-Gc Theory

Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs CDS GrwGc Glr

Fluid

Int

elligenc

e Cry

stallized

Int

elligenc

e

Qua

ntitative

Kno

wledge

Shor

t-Term

Memor

y

Visua

l Pr

ocess

ing

Aud

itor

yPr

ocess

ing

Lon

g-Term

Retr

ieva

l

Proc

ess

ing

Speed

Cor

rect

Decision

Spe

ed

Reading/

Writing

Bro

ad

(Str

atu

m I

I)

Narr

ow(S

tratu

m I

)

69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll (1993)



• 1993: John Carroll published landmark book, Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor Analytic Studies, that looked at 461 existing studies that spanned more than 50 years of research.

• Carroll argued for 3 stratum model of intelligence (narrow, broad, and general).

• This study became what we now know as The Three Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities.

(Flanagan & Harrison, 2005)Conejo Valley Unified School District

November 2010

A Brief History of the Development of CHC:(Carroll’s Three Stratum Theory)

General (Stratum III)

Broad (Stratum II)

Narrow (Stratum I)

General Intelligence (G)

1) Fluid Intelligence 2) Crystallized Intelligence3) Memory & Learning4) Visual Perception5) Auditory Processing6) Retrieval Ability7) Cognitive Speediness8) Processing Speed (Decision Speed)

65 specific abilities


(Flanagan & Harrison, 2005)

Carroll’s (1993) Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities

GGeneral

Intelligence

FluidIntelligence

CrystallizedIntelligence

GeneralMemory &Learning

BroadVisual

Perception

BroadAuditoryPerception

BroadRetrievalAbility

BroadCognitive

Speediness

ProcessingSpeed (RT

DecisionSpeed)

Gene

ral

(Str

atu

m I

II)

Bro

ad

(Str

atu

m I

I)

Narr

ow(S

tratu

m I

)

69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll

Gf Gc Gy Gv Gu Gr Gs Gt


Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC) Theory



• Simply put, CHC Theory is the fusion of the theories postulated by Cattell-Horn and Carroll (see slide 11-Three Stratum Theory ).

• It is not clear when and where the term “CHC” was coined. It appears to have been first presented in the Woodcock Johnson III Technical Manual .

(McGrew & Woodcock, 2001)



• Landmark Book!!


(McGrew & Flanagan, 1998)

...most disciplines have a common set of terms and

definitions (i.e., a standard nomenclature) that facilitates

communication among professionals and guards against

misinterpretations.

In chemistry,

this standard nomenclature is reflected in the ‘Table of

Periodic Elements’. Carroll (1993a) has provided an

analogous table for intelligence and the cross-

battery approach is an attempt to operationalize this ‘Table

of Human Cognitive Elements’




General Stratum III

Broad Stratum II

Narrow Stratum I

General Intelligence (G)

1) Crystallized Intelligence (Gc); 2) Fluid Reasoning (Gf)3) Visual –Spatial (Gv)4) Long-Term Retrieval (Glr);5) Short-Term Memory (Gsm); 6) Auditory Processing (Ga); 7) Processing Speed (Gs); 8) Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt) 9) Quantitative Knowledge (Gq);10) Reading Ability (Grw-R)11) Writing Ability (Grw-R);

76 narrow abilities Conejo Valley Unified School District

November 2010 (Flanagan et al., 2007)


1. Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) – The breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate this knowledge (verbally) and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures).

Linked to


Overall academic success

Anastasi, 1988

Verbal Intelligence Hunt, 2000

Reading Comprehension

Evans, et al. 2002

Writing McGrew, 2003


2. Fluid Reasoning (Gf) - The ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures. A good predictor of intelligence.

Linked to


Abstract reasoning Swanson, 1987

Math Parmer, Cawley & Frazita, 1996)

Generalizations Ackerman & Dykman, 1995

ReadingComprehension (inferences)

Wise & Snyder, 2001


3. Visual Spatial (Gv) - The generation, perception, analysis, synthesis, storage retrieval, manipulation, and transformation of visual patterns and stimuli. Other skills involved include mental rotation and perception of spatial configurations.

** Weak correlations with academics (Ackerman, et al., 2001; Flanagan, et al., 2002).

• Mildly Linked to:

• Further research is needed!!!


Math Fletcher, 1985

Flanagan et al.,2002


• Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) - The ability to store information and efficiently retrieve it later.

• Linked to:


Early Stages of reading

Evans, et al., 2002

Math Development Floyd, et al., 2003

Rapid AutomatizedNaming (RAN)-Predictor of Reading

Perfetti, 1994; Mannis, Seidenberg, and Doi, 1999

On and on….


• Short-Term Memory (Gsm)- The ability to apprehend, and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it in a few minutes.

• Linked to:


Verbal abilities Engle, et al., 1999

Learning, reasoning, comprehension (working memory)

Jensen, 1998

“mind’s scratch pad)

Readingcomprehension

Just & Carpenter, 1992

Spelling Ormrod & Cochran, 1988

Math Ability Wilson & Swanson,2001

Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC) TheoryAuditory Processing (Ga)- The perception, analysis, and synthesis of patterns among auditory stimuli as well as the discrimination of subtle differences in patterns of sound and speech when presented under distorted conditions. Important in the development of speech/language abilities. Mostly encompasses phonological awareness/processing abilities.

Linked to:


Spelling & Reading (Phonological awareness)

Ehri, 1998; Morris et al., 1998; Torgesen, 1998, on and on…

Phonological processing (written language)

Rack, et al., 1992

Early Reading problems Siegel & Ryan, 1988

75 % of Children that struggle by 3rd Grade will poor readers by high school

Lyon,1998


7. Processing Speed (Gs)- The ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, an aspect of cognitive efficiency.

Linked to:


Mental quickness Nettlebeck, 1994

Reading achievement (elementary school years)

Mcgrew & Knopick, 1993

Slow processing related to reading disorders

Kruk & Willows, 2001

Carroll Comments on the Horn-Cattell Model

The Cattell-Horn model...is a true

hierarchical model covering all major

domains of intellectual functioning...

among available models it appears to

offer the most well-founded and

reasonable approach to an acceptable

theory of the structure of cognitive

abilities



Implications of CHC

Implications of Carroll’s

Theory for Assessment

(Carroll, 1997)

• “it appears to prescribe that individuals should be assessed with regard to the total range of abilities the theory specifies” (p. 129).

• “it provides what is essentially a „map‟ of all known cognitive abilities. Such a map can be used in interpreting scores on the many tests used in individual assessment” (p. 127).

• “the map also suggests what abilities may need to be assessed in particular cases that require selection of appropriate tests” (p. 127).


ContemporaryAssessments that Utilize CHC


Assessments that Utilize CHC Theory

Gf Gc Gv Gsm Glr Ga Gs

WISC -IV X X X X X

WAIS- III X X X X X

WPPS-III X X X X

KABC II X X X X XWJ III X X X X X X XSB V X X X XDAS-II X X X X X XRIAS X X XWRIT X X X


INTRODUCING MODEL

“A Bilingual (English & Spanish) Psychoeducational Assessment MODEL Grounded in Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC)

Theory”


MODEL

• M- Multiple Sources of Information

• O- Observation

• D- Data Driven Assessment

• E- English Language Development

• L- Language of Assessment



68

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<85)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues

Move on to Eligibility

-Team Decision-

Revisit Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-

Revisit Exclusionary IssuesConsider

Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr

A Bilingual (English & Spanish) Psychoeducational Assessment MODEL Grounded in


RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

COLLECTING BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Based on the principles of Review, Interview, Observe, and Test (RIOT) by Dr. Brian Leung of Loyola Marymount University (1993)


69

MODEL


M - Multiple Sources of InformationO D EL


71

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

L

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<85)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-

Revisit Exclusionary Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/GsGv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

Collecting Background Information

Review of Records

Interviews

Observations


72

Review of Records

• A review of student records includes the following:

Health and developmental histories

Previous test results

Prior educational placements

Attendance

Anecdotal

Discipline records

Primary language

Other relevant data, such as information from other professionals who work with the student privately


73

Interviews

• Interviews include the following:

Structured Interviews

Rating Scales

Feedback from classroom teacher and other school staff

The student and parents provide other perspectives on conditions within the school, home, and community which may be impacting behavior and performance, such as recent changes in the family.


74

MODEL

• M

• O - Observation

• D

• E

• L


Observations

• Observations

Classroom Observation

Playground Observations

Observations provide direct information about how the student functions, interacts and behaves in the classroom and at school.

Software: BASC Portable Observation Program & BOSS Observation Program


76

EXCLUSIONARY ISSUES:

Can learning challenges be the result of other factors?


77


78

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <85

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<85

Glr

<85

Gs

Gf

Gc < 85

Gsm/

Ga

< 85

Glr < 85

Gs

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<85)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs Gv/Gs

Glr

RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage



Exclusionary Issues

• Rule out the Following:

1. Sensory Impairment

2. Mental Retardation

3. English Language Development, as primary cause

4. Attendance Issues

5. Emotional Disturbance

– Test Anxiety

– Motivational Factors

6. Health Issues


Exclusionary Issues

• Sensory Impairment

– Problems with hearing, smelling, speaking, or seeing.

• Mental Retardation:

Delayed cognitive functioned (< 69) with

deficits in adaptive functioning.


Exclusionary Issues

• English Language Development (ELD), as primary cause: – ELD exclusively is not a rule out.

- How is the child performing L1?

- Primary Language Assessments of CALP

- How is child performing in L2

- Secondary Language assessments of CALP.


Exclusionary Issues

– Attendance Issues: • How many days has the student been absent?

• What percentage of the time has the child been out.

• Why has the child been absent (health)?

• Team decision as to whether attendance is adversely affecting grades.


Exclusionary Issues

1. Emotional Disturbance• Test Anxiety

• Motivational Factors

2. Health Issues:1. Relevant illnesses that may be adversely

affecting academic performance.

2. May need to consider OHI.



84

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<85)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr


Cattell-Horn Caroll (CHC) Theory

RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

MODEL

• M

• O

• D - Data Driven Assessment

• E

• L


Referral Question

• What is the referral question?

– All assessment needs to be data driven.

– All assessment is based on information/data obtained through the previous steps.


86


87

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<85)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

Assessment of Academics

• Look at all academic areas:-Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) -English

& Spanish)- DIBELS (English & Spanish)

• Consider the following academic areas:


•Oral Expression •Math Reasoning

•Listening Comprehension •Math Calculation

•Written Expression •Basic Reading Skills

•Reading Comprehension


• Principles to keep in mind:

– Must assess in the language in which they have been instructed!!!

– If the student has only been instructed in English, then you must assess in English.

– The purpose of achievement testing is to determine academic skills, eligibility decisions, and intervention planning.



• Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is supported by research to measure critical academic skills including but not limited to oral reading, written expression, and calculation (Burns, MacQuarrie, & Campbell, 1999).



• The benefit to utilizing CBM, as part of the RTI process, is that the examiner can assess academic skills, develop interventions, monitor the student’s progress, and modify interventions based on individual progress (Lau & Blatchey, 2009).



• Schools that utilize CBM can develop local norms that can prove helpful in comparing individual student progress with similar individuals who share the same linguistic and cultural background.

• Research with ELD children, although not plentiful, is promising (Baker & Good, 1995; Baker, Plascencio-Peinado, & Lezcano-Lytle, 1998; De Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006).


Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) & Basic Interpersonal Language Communications

Skills (BICS)

A Brief Overview


93


94

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<85)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

MODEL

• M

• O

• D

• E - English Language Development

• L



What are BICS?

• Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) are language skills needed in social situations.

• ELLs use BICS during social interactions in a meaningful social context (e.g., party, talking to a friend).

96


What is CALP?

• Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) refers to formal academic learning.

• This level of language learning is essential for students success in school.

• ELLs need time and support to become proficient in academic areas.

97


What processes are affected by BICS & CALP?

• Cognitive Process

• Language Process

98


Focusing on Cognitive & Language Processes

Cognitive Process

•Knowledge

•Comprehension

•Application

•Analysis

•Synthesis

•Evaluation

Language Process

• Vocabulary

• Pronunciation

• Grammar

• Semantic meaning

• Functional meaning

99


How do BICS/CALP relate to ELD Instructional Levels?

100

BICS

CALP

Beginner/Level 1

Intermediate/Level 2

Advanced/Level 3

Exited ESOL Student


HOW CALP DEVELOPS:

Language Acquisition Stages(Jim Cummins, 1984)

101


What has the biggest impact on the academic achievement of ELLs?

• Vocabulary development has the largest impact on the academic performance of ELLs.

• Vocabulary knowledge affect various cognitive processes (e.g., knowledge, comprehension, analysis).

• Vocabulary knowledge affects comprehension of new information (e.g., semantic knowledge).

102


Language Acquisition Stages (Jim Cummins, 1984)

• Stage I: Pre-production

• Stage II: Early production

• Stage III: Speech emergence

• Stage IV: Intermediate fluency

• Stage V: Advanced Fluency

103



Stage I: Pre-production

– Students comprehend simple language but cannot produce language yet.

– Minimal comprehension

– No verbal production

• 0-6 months

104


• Stage II: Early production– The student

– Has limited comprehension

– Produces one- or two-word responses

– Participates using key words and familiar phrases

– Uses present-tense verbs

• 6 months to 1 year

105



• Stage III: Speech Emergence– The student

– Has good comprehension

– Can produce simple sentences

– Makes grammar and pronunciation errors

– Frequently misunderstands jokes

• 1-3 years to acquire

106



• Stage IV: Intermediate fluency– Intermediate Fluency Characteristics

– May seem fluent but needs to expand vocabulary and CALP

– Engages in dialogue

• 3-4 years of English

107



• Stage V: Advanced Fluency

• It takes students from 4-10 years to achieve cognitive academic language proficiency in a second language. Student at this stage will be near-native in their ability to perform in content area learning. Most ELLs at this stage have been exited from ESL and other support programs.

• At the beginning of this stage, however, they will need continued support from classroom teachers, especially in content areas such as history/social studies and in writing.

108



Test Available Languages

Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (Munoz-

Sandoval, Cummins, Alvarado, &

Ruef, 1998).

Arabic, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional),

English, French, German, Haitian-Creole,

Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish,

Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, and

Vietnamese.

Basic Inventory of Natural Languages

(Herbert, 1986).

Arabic ,Armenian, Cambodian, Cantonese,

Chinese Creole , Dutch , English, Farsi ,

French , German , Greek , Hindi, Hmong ,

Ilocano, Inupiaq, Italian, Japanese, Korean

Laotian ,Navajo Pilipino , Polish Portuguese,

Russian Spanish, Tagalog, Taiwanese,

Toishanese, Ukranian , Vietnamese

Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey –

Update (Woodcock & Sandoval,

2001).

English and Spanish

California English Language

Development Test (CDE, 2009).

English

IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test

(Dalton, 1991)

English and Spanish

Table 1. Summary of Primary Language Assessment & Available Languages:

Tests that Measure CALP

http://ericae.net/eac/eac0012.htm































CALP ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE:

Chaffey Joint Union High School District



Language Assessor

†Assess L1& L2CALPLevels

CELDT

*BVAT

CALP Levels (1-5) Provided

CELF 4

IPT II

*WMLS

CASLE

BINL

Spanish CALP Level(1-5))

Method of Assessment

(Note Trilingual Model))

Speech/LanguagePathologist

School Psychologist

CALP Levels (1-5) Provided

Scores to be compared with CALP designation (1-5)

Oral Spanish Proficiency(A-E)

Speech/Language Impairment Assessment

Oral Proficiency across 32Languages

English CALP Level(1-5)

Chaffey Joint Union High School District Model for Language Assessment/Proficiency: To be determined collaboratively with the school Language Assessor and Speech & Language Pathologist.

ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH (L2):

Data Based Decision Making


112

MODEL

• M

• O

• D

• E

• L - Language of Assessment



114

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<BNL)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

English Assessment

• Lino will discuss a CHC Based assessment utilizing Cross Battery Assessment Methods.

• If the student was classified as an English Language Learner (ELL) at one time, you may want to consider nonverbal assessments to minimize the effects of language.


115

Method of Test Classification

• Based upon CHC Theory of Cognitive Abilities– 10 Areas (7 of which are commonly assessed)– Narrow abilities were examined

• XBA Approach allows the crossing of assessment batteries for a data driven approach for assessing CHC processing clusters

• Cultural Language Matrix– Cognitive batteries organized across Linguistic and Cultural Loadings – Effort made to provide tests only within the Low to Moderate Levels of

Linguistic/Cultural Loading.

• Subtests that did not meet this criteria are included for specific clusters that are inevitably subject to higher levels of cultural/linguistic features i.e. Gc/Ga


Brief Introduction to Cross Battery Assessment


• Brief Introduction to Cross Battery Assessment


http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471757713/ref=sib_dp_pt

Cross Battery Assessment

• Pillars of Cross Battery:

– Based on the premise of CHC Theory

– Assessment battery is based on the referral question (referral driven).

– Based on the flexible battery approach rather than fixed battery.

– Ensures that all seven CHC factors are assessed as part of a comprehensive psychoeducational battery.

– Allows for nondiscriminatory assessment.



• Test Selection:– Tests are selected on the representation of CHC

factors

– You always give one entire comprehensive cognitive test (e.g., WISC, KABC II, Woodcock Johnson…)

– You then fill in the “CHC gaps” with other cognitive tests that have the representative CHC factor.


Cross Battery Assessment • Example 1:


CHC Area KABC II WJ III

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) X

Crystallized Abilities (Gc) X

Auditory Processing (Ga) X

Visual Processing (Gv) X

Short Term Memory (Gsm)

X

Long Term Retrieval (Glr) X

Processing Speed (Gs) X



• Example 2:CHC Area WISC IV CTOPP KABC 2

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) X

Crystallized Abilities (Gc)

X

Auditory Processing (Ga)

X

Visual Processing (Gv) X


X

Long Term Retrieval(Glr)

X

Processing Speed (Gs) X

Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix(CLIM)

• Benefits of Cross Battery:

– Time Efficient

– Prevent over testing

– Can construct batteries as to prevent construct over or underrepresentation

– Fits well with assessing ELD children (Non IQ based, Spanish, and Nonverbal)


Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix(CLIM)


Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix(Flanagan, et al., p. 177)


Assessments

• The following assessments were examined:

– Kaufman Assessment Batter for Children 2nd Edition (KABC II)– Bateria III– Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)– Differential Abilities Scale 2nd Edition (DAS II)– Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 4th Edition (WISC IV)– Leiter International Performance Scale- Revised– Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT)– Stanford Binet 5th Edition (SB V)– Woodcock Johnson 3rd Edition (WJ III)– Children Memory Scale (CMS)– Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning 2nd Edition

(WRAML II)– Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)– Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)– NEPSY



KABC 2


LOW MODERATE HIGH

LOW

TRIANGLES (Gv-SR,Vz)

Hand Movements (Gsm-MS; Gv-MV)*

Pattern Reasoning (Gf-I, Gv-Vz)*

Face Recognition (Gv-MV)

Atlantis (Glr-MA, L1)

Atlantis Delayed (Glr-MA, L1)

NUMBER RECALL (Gsm-MS)

Block Counting (Gv-Vz)

Rebus (Glr-MA)

Rebus Delayed (Glr-MA, L1)

MO

DER

ATE Conceptual Thinking (Gv-Vz; Gf-

I)*

Rover (Gv-SS; Gf-RG)*

WORD ORDER (Gsm-MS, WM)

HIG

H Gestalt Closure (Gv-CS) Story Completion (Gf-I, RG; Gc-K0, Gv-Vz)*

Expressive Vocabulary (Gc-VL)

Riddles (Gc-VL, LD; Gf-RG)*

Verbal Knowledge (Gc-VL, K0)

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND


UNIT

LOW MODERATE HIGH

LOW

SPATIAL MEMORY (Gv-MV)

Cube Design (Gv-SR, Vz)

Mazes (Gv–SS)

MO

DER

ATE

SYMBOLIC MEMORY (Gv-MV)

HIG

H

OBJECT MEMORY (Gv-MV) ANALOGIC REASONING (Gf-I)


DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND

Cultural Language Interpretative Matrix

• The following tests were classified according to low –moderate language and low-moderate cultural loading.


Fluid Intelligence (Gf)


132

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)


133



134

Visual Processing (Gv)


135



136

Long Term Retrieval (Glr)


137

Processing Speed (Gs)


138

SPANISH (L1) ASSESSMENT:

Data Based Decision Making



140

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<BNL)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

Spanish Assessment

• Lino will discuss a CHC Based assessment utilizing Cross Battery Assessment Methods.

• Nonverbal assessment is recommended if you are using a translator (to minimize possible

effects of translator interference).


141

Note regarding Spanish Assessment

• KABC II Spanish version provides for Spanish directions, however administration is only in English.

• DAS II performance subtests are provided in Spanish (verbal tasks only in English)


Fluid Intelligence (Gf)


143

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)


144

Short-Term Memory (Gsm)


145



146



147

Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)


148

Processing Speed (Gs)


149

Cross-Battery Assessment (CBA)

• Further reference regarding additional

assessments

• Cross Battery resources

• Website: www.crossbattery.com


http://www.crossbattery.com/

BILINGUAL ASSESSMENT:

Spanish (L1) & English (L2): Data Based Decision Making


By

Lino Cerrillo, M.A.


152

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<BNL)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

Bilingual (L1 & L2) Assessment

Bilingual Assessment: Assessment in L1 (Spanish) & L2 (English)

– Determine L1 & L2 CALP by utilizing Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (English & Spanish).

– When CALP is at about (2-3) in L1 & L2

– Consider using a school psychologist that is proficient in the language. This ensures that standardization is not broken.

– No need to assess in L1 if L2 scores are at the average range.

– If not proficient in the language, interpreter must be used.

– Nonverbal assessment is recommended if you are using a translator (to minimize possible effects of translator interference).


153

Eligibility Disability Present in L1 & L2


154

CHC DomainsAuditory Processing (Ga)

English Spanish Nonverbal

WJ III-


Phonological Processing (Clinical)

Bateria III

Auditory Processing(Ga)

Phonological Processing (Clinical)

NA

CTOPP – Phonological Awareness

TAPS III – Phonological Skills

TAPS III – Phonological Skills


CHC DomainsShort Term Memory (Gsm)/Association



WJ III-


Bateria III


KABC 2 Hand Movements

KABC 2Short Term Memory

(Gsm)

TAPS III Phonological Skills

TAPS III – Memory

CTOPPPhonological Memory

Crystallized Abilities (Gc)/Expression


English Spanish Bilingual

WJ III-


Bateria III


BVAT

Bilingual Verbal Abilities

KABC 2


BVAT English Language

Proficiency

Long Term Retrieval (Glr)/Association



WJ III-


Bateria III


Leiter R

Associative Memory

KABC 2





WJ III

Visual Spatial (Gv)

Bateria III

Visual Spatial (Gv)

Leiter R

Visualization

And/Or

Spatial Visualization

KABC 2

Visual Spatial (Gv)

KABC 2

Visual Spatial (Gv)

Instructions Provided in Spanish

UNIT

Memory Quotient

Fluid Reasoning (Gf)/Conceptualization



WJ III

Fluid Reasoning (Gf)

Bateria III


Leiter R

Fluid Reasoning

KABC 2


KABC 2


Instructions Provided in Spanish

UNIT

Reasoning Quotient

Application

How would this look in real life?



Short -term Memory(Gsm)/Association

Short-term Memory

WJ III (Cluster)


ENGLISH

KABC 2 (Cluster)

Shorter Memory/Sequential

Cluster

SPANISH

CTOPP(Cluster)

Phonological Memory

Bateria III(Cluster)


TAPS III(Cluster)

Memory

KABC 2 * (Cluster)

Short Term Memory/Sequen

tial Cluster

* Instructions in Spanish. Items must be read in English

Short -term Memory(Gsm)/Association

Application:

English Spanish

•

What do you think?


WJ III (Cluster)


Standard Score =73



Standard = 95



Auditory Processing

WJ III (Cluster)

Auditory Processing

(Ga)

Or

Phonological Processing (Clinical )

ENGLISH SPANISH

TAPS III

Phonological Skills


Auditory Processing

(Ga)

Or

Phonological Processing (Clinical )

TAPS III(Cluster)

Phonological Skills

CTOPP

PhonologicalAwareness


• Application:

English Spanish

What do you think?


TAPS III

Phonological Skills

Standard Score= 73


Phonological Processing

Standard Score= 75



Long Term Retrieval (Glr).

WJ III (Cluster)


ENGLISH SPANISH



KABC 2 (Cluster)


KABC 2 * (Cluster)

Short Term Memory/Sequential

Cluster

* Instructions in Spanish. Items must be read in English

NONVERAL

Leiter –R

Associative Memory


• Application:

English Spanish


KABC II

Long Term Retrieval/Learning

Standard Score= 95

No need to test in Spanish

because Glr is in the average

range.

Eligibility

• Student will be considered eligible if the following are present:

• Review of Records

• Interviews

• Observations

• Exclusionary Factors ARE NOT the primary reason for learning problems.

• Disability is present in L1 & L2!!!


168

Deficit in L1 & L2

• Students exhibiting a normative weakness in one or more G factors across L1 & L2, utilizing measures that are within Low to Moderate levels of cultural and linguistic bias provides for a theoretically grounded, data driven process, for determining a true processing disorder/deficit.


169

Eligibility

Presence of

Deficit

L1 & L2

Record Reviews

Observations

Classroom & Testing

Interviews

(Parent and Teacher

Standardized Assessment


Does the Data Support a Disability?

Case Study ApplicationCase #1


Review Records

• Pertinent findings in the records:

– 5th grade student with a history of reading comprehension difficulties

– Fluent decoder

– Average to Low Average math grades

– Born in Guatemala and moved to the U.S. at age four.

– Attendance is satisfactory


Review Records Cont.

– English, Social Studies, and Science Teacher comments from grades one through five include:

• Off-task

• Variable effort

• Needs one on one attention

• Distractible

– Intervention History

• Peer tutoring/Small group instruction/After school tutoring

• Two RtI meetings held to address intervention progress


Interviews

• Pertinent findings during the interview process

– No history of mental or emotional struggles

– Student had difficulty leaving extended family in Guatemala

– Student received semi-educated language development in L1 (parents received middle school education)

– History of making and sustaining friendships


Interviews Cont.

– During student interview, communication is clear without indication of an accent

• Fluid verbal exchanges through out

– When asked what language he prefers to speak, he states, “both”


Observations

• Pertinent observations:

– Classroom setting

• Math Class: No signs of difficulty/Appeared engaged throughout observation session

• English Class: Engaged with peers but avoided tasks that required sustained planning i.e. writing a book report

• Lunch/recess: Engaged with peers/included in group activities i.e. sports


Exclusionary Issues

• Sensory Impairment : NA

• MR:N/A

• ELD: Yes

• Attendance Issues: NA

• ED: NA

• OHI: NA

• Environmental Cultural, Economic Disadvantage: Yes


Referral Questions

• Does this student have clinically significant attention deficits?

– Are they present in multiple environments?

• Does the student have a learning disability in reading and/or writing?


Academic Scores

• WJ ACH III– Broad Math: 101

– Broad Written Language: 88

– Broad Reading: 81

• CST Scores

• Math: Proficient

• ELA: Below Basic to Basic

• Language: History of Basic (Below Basic most

recent score)


CALP Levels

• IPT-II: Fluent Spanish Speaker (FSS)

• WMLS:

– Spanish scores: CALP level 3

– English Score: CALP level 2-3


Assessment Battery/Findings

CHC Domain

EnglishAssessments

NonverbalAssessments

Spanish Assessments

Gf WJ-COG Gfcluster = 91

Gc WJ-COG Gccluster = 84

Bateria Gccluster = 90

Glr WJ-COG Glrcluster = 96

Ga WJ COG Gacluster = 79

Bateria GcCluster = 96

Gsm WJ COG Gsmcluster = 95

Gs WJ COG Gs cluster = 102

Gv WJ COG Gvcluster = 94Conejo Valley Unified School District

November 2010

Deficit in L1 & L2

CHC Domain

L1 L2

Gf No N/A

Gc Yes No

Glr No N/A

Ga Yes No

Gsm No N/A

Gs No N/A

Gv No N/A


Case #2


Review Records

• Pertinent findings in the records:

– 9th grade student with a history of math, reading, and writing difficulties

– Attended U.S. public schools since grade one

– Grades ranged from D’s to high C’s. Occasional letter grades of B for elective classes

– Born in U.S. and has moved three times since grade one

– Attendance is satisfactory


Review Records Cont.

– Math, English, Social Studies, and Science Teacher comments from grades one through nine include:

• Good effort

• Poor Attitude at times

• Distractible

• Requires additional assistance

– Intervention History

• Three Student Study Team meetings

• Peer Tutoring/Parent-teacher meeting/After school tutoring


Interviews

• Pertinent findings during the interview process

– No history of mental or emotional struggles

– Student has good relationship with immediate and extended family

– Student received reading and writing instruction in L1 (Spanish) from age three to five (Mother provided instruction)

– No social difficulties with peers


Interviews Cont.

– During student interview, communication is clear without indication of an accent

• Fluid verbal exchanges through out

– When asked what language he prefers to speak, he states, “doesn’t matter…Spanish is used mostly with family and English with friends”


Observations

• Pertinent observations:

– Classroom setting

• Math Class: Good effort but frequently needs assistance from peers

• English Class: Appears off-task, will initially engage in tasks then drift from assignments/Poor homework completion

• Lunch/recess: Engaged with peers/included in group activities i.e. sports


Exclusionary Issues

• Sensory Impairment : NA

• MR:N/A

• ELD: Yes

• Attendance Issues: NA

• ED: NA

• OHI: NA

• Environmental Cultural, Economic Disadvantage: Yes


Referral Questions

• Does the student have a Specific Learning Disability?


Academic Scores

• WJ ACH III

– Broad Math: 83

– Broad Written Language: 78

– Broad Reading: 84

• CST Scores

• Math: Below Basic to Basic

• ELA: Below Basic to Basic

• Language: Well Below Basic


CALP Levels

• IPT-II: Fluent Spanish Speaker (FSS)

• WMLS:

– Spanish scores: CALP level 2

– English Score: CALP level 3


Assessment Battery/Findings

CHC Domain

EnglishAssessments

NonverbalAssessments

Spanish Assessments

Gf WJ-COG cluster = 81

Bateria GfCluster = 79

Gc WJ-COG Gccluster = 86

Glr WJ-COG Glrcluster = 87

Ga WJ COG Gacluster = 88

Gsm WJ COG Gsmcluster = 86

Gs WJ COG Gs cluster = 76

Bateria GsCluster = 79

Gv WJ COG Gvcluster = 87Conejo Valley Unified School District

November 2010

Deficit in L1 & L2

CHC Domain

L1 L2

Gf Yes Yes

Gc No N/A

Glr No N/A

Ga No N/A

Gsm No N/A

Gs Yes Yes

Gv No N/A


Eligibility in L1 & L2



196

Review

Records

Interviews

Observations

Assess

ment

of

L1 &

L2

CALP

Levels

English

(only)

Spanish

(only)

Gf

Gc <BNL

Gv/Gs

Gsm/Ga

<BNL

Glr

<BNL

Gs

Gf

Gc <

BNL

Gsm/

Ga

<

BNL

Glr <BNL

Gs

Data Driven

Hypothesis:

Referral

Question

RO*

Sensory

Impairme

nt

RO

MR

RO

ELD

ROAttendance

Issues

RO

ED,

Motivation

, Anxiety

During

testing

RO

Organic

or

Physical

Health If CALP

Spanish > (3

levels) CALP

English

If CALP

English > (3

Levels) CALP

Spanish

Deficit in

L1 & L2

(< 85) ?

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N

Non-

verbal

(<BNL)

Gf

Gs

Y or N

Y or N

Oral

Expression

Listening

Comprehension

Written

Expression

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Comprehension

Math

Calculation

Math

Reasoning

If L1

& L2

are

abou

t CAL

P 2-3

Exclusionary

Issues


-Team Decision-


Issues


-Team Decision-


Standardized

or CBM

Gv/Gs

Gv/Gs

Glr



RO

Environmental ,

Cultural, and

Economic

Disadvantage

Application of Model to California Processing Definitions


197

Gf

Gv/Gs

Gc

Glr

Gsm/Ga

*Oral Expression

Auditory Processing

Gs *Attention

Visual Processing

Conceptualization

Association

*Sensory-Motor

CJUHSD Psycho-Educational

Assessment of English Learners

A General Overview


CJUHSD Application of EL Assessment Best

Practices

• Office for Civil Rights Mandates for school

psychologists

• CJUHSD English Learner Assessment

procedure


Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Mandates for

School Psychologists

• Assess student’s language proficiency in L1

(primary language) and L2 (English)

• Documentation of prior educational

interventions (Cumulative Review!)


Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Mandates for

School Psychologists

• Assess student utilizing appropriate cognitive

and academic instruments

• Assist IEP with appropriate educational

placement (ELD vs. Special Ed services)


CALP ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE:

Chaffey Joint Union High School District


Collaborative Effort

• School Psychologist

• Language Assessor

• Speech-Language Specialist (LSH)

• ELD Teacher/Coordinator


Things to Keep in Mind

• CELDT scores drive assessment for English

Learners

• Verify accommodations are provided when

administering CELDT to EL special education

students.


Things to Keep in Mind

• Spanish Proficiency scores (IPT-II/WMLS) are

to be compared/evaluated with CELDT scores.

• Report Both English and Spanish scores at the

beginning of assessment, providing rationale

for assessment in L1, L2, or both.


Checklist for School

Psychologists Assessing EL

Students


Rationale Behind Checklist

• Office for Civil Rights recommended and

approved the following guidelines during the

CJUHSD audit

• Developed among CJUHSD school

psychologists

• Guidelines are meant to be the minimum

required of each EL assessment


The Initial or Triennial Report

Considered CELDT Scores

• CELDT scores drive assessment of English

learners

• School Psychologists are to interpret CELDT

data and modify assessment to accommodate

the student’s current English language

proficiency

• CELDT data should be current (less than one

year old)


The Woodcock-Munoz and/or BVAT was

Administered to the Student who has a Score

of 2 or Below Across the CELDT, and a Level

2(E) or Higher on the IPT

• Students who are considered limited English proficient must

be assessed in their primary language i.e. IPT/WMLS/BVAT

• Assessing a student’s language proficiency is the foundation

of any meaningful EL psycho-educational assessment

• IPT is a screening instrument to determine if additional

Spanish proficiency assessment is needed.


The Initial or Triennial Report Contains an

Observation in a Classroom

• The Office for Civil Rights made it a priority for

all psycho-educational assessments to have class

time observations - (part of the ecological

assessment!)

• Ideally an observation within the student’s ELD

support class provides meaningful data regarding

English Language Development


The initial or triennial report contains a section that

addresses the rationale behind what language(s) were

chosen to assess the student (i.e. Language Proficiency

Interpretation Summary/Statement)

• School psychologists must provide a rational based

upon data, interviews, and school history regarding

the language modality chosen to access EL students.

• School Psychologist will need to have a thorough

understanding of CELDT and native language

assessments to be able to speak to this


The initial or triennial report addresses primary language

at home, primary language for student, language status,

language of instruction, and language preference via

student interview

• The Office for Civil Rights mandates that we

look at all aspects of a student’s language use

and make the most appropriate educational

decision regarding assessment mode


The Initial or Triennial Report Contains a Section

That Address the Student’s School Record

(previous schools, discipline, behavior)

• Providing evidence that a student’s cum folder

was reviewed with current school data

provides for a more comprehensive assessment

of an EL student


The Initial or Triennial Report Contains a Section

That Addresses the Social

Emotional Status of the Student

• Social-Emotional assessments are hallmark

sections of any psycho-educational assessment

• Academic struggles/Family

separations/Cultural differences impact EL

students


The Initial or Triennial

Report Contains a Section That Summarizes a

Student’s Interview

• Interviews play a critical role in determining

language preference/proficiency in addition to

the traditional value of the interview process

• No specific model of interviewing was

suggested.


Case Study Application

• Please break into groups of 3-4.

• Take out your rubric.

• Take out case study.

• Look at case study and determine if the case studies followed best practices.

• Provide recommendations and observations.


SummaryWe‟ve examined IDEA emphasis on

Nondiscriminatory Assessment. Importance of considering ELD levels in

order to make informed assessment decisions.

This model supports and is subsequent to RTI.

Introduced the Bilingual (English, Spanish, and Nonverbal) Psychoeducational Assessment Model Grounded in Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory.


Summary (Con‟t.)

Introduced assessments of narrow abilities in English, Spanish, and Nonverbal that are grounded in CHC theory.

Discussed a decision making process when utilizing Spanish, English, and Nonverbal cognitive assessments.

By utilizing CHC-based in English, Spanish and Nonverbal, the participant will be in a better position to determine whether learning difficulties are due to ELD or true LD.


Weaknesses

• Model does not look at every single aspect of bilingual assessment. This provides a framework.

• Model is based on research but has not been researched.


Questions or comments??


Thank you for joining us today!


References

Ackerman, P.T.& Dykman, R.A. (1995). Reading-disabled students with and without co morbid arithmetic disability. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 351-371.

Ackerman, P.T., Holloway, C.A., Youngdahl, P.L. , & Dykman, R.A. (2001). The double-deficit theory of reading disability does not fit all. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 152-160.

Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th Edition). New York, NY. Worth Publishers.

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing (6th ed.). New York: McMillon.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority special education disproportionate representation: The case of English language learners in California's urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283-300.

Baker, S.K. & Good, R.H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic children: A cross validation study with second grade students. School Psychology Review, 24,561-578.

Baker, S.K., Plasencia-Peinado, J., & Lezcano-Lytle, V. (1998). The use of curriculum-based measurement with language minority students. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum based measurement (pp. 175-213). New York: Guilford Press.

Bracken, B.A., & McCallum, R.S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Burns, M.K., MacQuarrie, L.I., & Campbell, D.T. (1999). The difference between curriculum based assessment and curriculum based measurement: A focus on purpose and result. Communique, 27(6), 18-19.


References Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, J.B. (2005). The Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In D. P. Flanagan. & P. L. Harrison, P. L. (Ed.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment Theories, Tests, and Issues, (pp. 69-76). The Guilford Press New York London.

Cummings, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in special education and pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill.

De Ramírez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356-369.

Diaz-Rico, L.T. & Weed, K.Z (2002): The crosscultural, language, and academic Language development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Education, C. D. (2009). Data Quest. Sacramento : California Department of Education.

Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knoweldge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elliot, C. (2007). Differential Abilities Scales-Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S.W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A.R.A. (1999). Working memory , short term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309-331.

Evans, J.J., Floyd, R.G., McGrew, K.S., & Leforgee, M.H. (2002). The relations between measures of Cattell –Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescnce, School Psychology Review, 31, 246-262.


References

Flanagan, D.P. & Harrison, P.L (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd Edition). New York, NY. The Guilford Press.

Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S., & Alfonso, V.C. (2007). Essential of cross battery assessment (2nd edition). New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons.

Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S., & Alfonso, V.C., & Mascolo, J.T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment of learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fletcher , J.M. (1985). Memory for verbal and nonverbal stimuli in learning disabilities subgroups.: Analysis by selective reminding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 244-259.

Floyd, R.G., Evans, J.J., & McGrew, K.S. (2003). Relations between measures of Cattell Horn Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and mathematics achievement across the school age years. Psychology in the Schools, 60, 155-171.

Gopaul-Micnicol, S. & Armour-Thomas, E. (2002). Assessment and culture: psychological tests with minority populations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Honig, B. (1992). Legal Advisory of Judge Peckham’s decision in Larry P. v. Riles and Crawford vs. Honig. California Department of Special Education.


References

Hunt, E. (2000). Let‟s hear it for crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences,12, 123-129.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. Pub. L 105-17, 105th Congress, 1st session. (1997).

Jensen, A.R.(1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.

Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (2nd Edition), Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

Kruk, R.S., & Wallows, D.M. (2001). Backward pattern masking of familiar and unfamiliar materials in disabled and normal readers. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18 (1), 19-37.

Lau, M. Y. & Blatchey, L.A. (2009). A comprehensive, multidimensional approach to assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students. In Jones, J.M. (Eds). The psychology of multiculturalism in the schools: A primer for practice, training, and research. Bethesda, MD. NASP Publications.

Leung, B. (1993). Back to basics: Assessment is a R.I.O.T.! NASP Communiqué, 22(3), 1,6.

Lyon, G.R. (1998). Why reading is not natural. Educational Leadership, 3, 14-18.

Mather, N. & Woodcock, R.W. (2005). Manual de examinidor (L.Wolson, Trans.). Woodcock-Johnson III Pruebas de habilidades cognitivas. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.


References

Manis, F.R., Seidenberg, M.S., & Doi, L.M. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid Naming and the longitudinal prediction of reading skills in first and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 129-157.

McGrew, K.S. & Knopik, S.N. (1993). The relationship between the WJ R Gf –Gc clusters and writing achievement across the life span. School Psychology Review, 22, 687-695.

Naglieri, J. & Das, J.P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System (CAS). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Nettleback, T. (1994). Speediness. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) , Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 1014-1019). New York: Macmillan.

Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., Shankweiler, D.P. et al. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347-373.

Naglieri, J. & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) Theory A Revision of the Concept of Intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan. & P. L. Harrison, P. L. (Ed.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment Theories, Tests, and Issues, (pp. 120-135). The Guilford Press New York London.

National Association of School Psychologists Professional Conduct Manual: Principles for Professional Ethics Guidelines for the Provision of School Psychological Services (2000). National Association of School Psychologists.


ReferencesOchoa, S.H., Riccio, C., & Jimenez, S. (2001). Psychological assessment and/or bilingual students: An investigation into school

psychologists current practices. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 185-208.

Omrod, J.E. & Cochran, K.F. (1988). Relationship of verbal ability and working memory to spelling achievement and learning to spell. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 33-43.

Oswald, D. P. & Coutinho, M. J. (2001). Trends in disproportionate representation in special education: Implications for multicultural education. In C.A. Utley and F.E.

Obiakor (Eds.), Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: Components of a quality education for students with mild disabilities (pp. 53-73). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Ltd.

Oriz, S. (2005). Comprehensive Assessment Of Culturally And Linguistically Diverse Students: A Systematic, Practical Approach For Nondiscriminatory Assessment. St John‟s University

Parmer, R.S., Cawley, J.R., & Frazita, R.R.(1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without math disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 415-429.

Parfetti, C.A. (1994). Reading. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 923-930). New York: MacMillan.

Rack, J.P., Snowling, M., & Olson, R. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 28-53.

Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H., & Ortiz, S.O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York: New York. The Guilford Press.

Roid, G.H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.


References

Roid, G.H., & Miller, L.J. (1998). Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoetling Co.

Rueda, R. t. (2006, March 17). Red Orbit . Retrieved November 10 , 2009, from English Language Learners, LD, and Overrepresentation: A Multiple- Level Analysis: http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/432469/english_language_learners_ld_and_overrepresentation_a_multiple_level_analysis/index.html

Siegel, L.S. & Ryan, E.B. (1998). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological, and short term memory in normally achieving and learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28-37.

Sullivan, A. L., A‟Vant, E., Baker, J., Chandler, D., Graves, S., McKinney, E., & Sayles, T. (2009). Confronting Inequity in Special Education, Part I: Understanding the Problem of Disproportionality. NASP Communiqué, 38(1). Retrieved October 12, 2009, http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq381index.aspx.

Sullivan, A. L., A‟Vant, E., Baker, J., Chandler, D., Graves, S., McKinney, E., & Sayles, T. (2009). Promising Practices in Addressing Disproportionality. NASP Communiqué, 38(2), 18-20.

Swanson, H.L. (1987). Information processing theory and learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 3-7.

Sandoval L. (1997) Clarification of Use of Intelligence Tests with African American Children for Special Education Assessment. California Department of Special Education

Sharp, W., Goldman, S., & Duncan, B. (2007). California Association of School Psychologists Code of Ethics. California Association of School Psychologists.

Torgeson, J.K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32-39.


http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq381index.aspx

References

Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED

Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Wilson, K.M. & Swanson, H.L.(2001). Are mathematics disabilities due to a domain general or a domain specific working memory deficit? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 237-248.

Wise, B.W. & Snyder, L. (2001, August). Judgments in identifying and teaching children with based reading difficulties. Paper presented at the US Department of Education LD Summit, Washington, DC.

Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests Of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.


east valley selpa september 2010 - conejousd.org

Documents