Dr. Pedro Olvera Azusa Pacific University 1/10/2019

1. Equitable Psychoeducational Assessments Practices with Dual Language Learners: From Theory to Practice Dr. Pedro Olvera Azusa Pacific University 1/10/2019

2. Overview History Disproportionality Legal Matters Context Language Development Assessment Pathways Case Studies

4. Historical Development and Impact of Bilingual School Psychologists: • Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) & • Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified (1971)

5. Diana v. Board of Education “The EMR placement was incorrect and caused irreparable harm. Further, they complained that the manner by which the ‘EMR’ diagnosis was arrived at was invalid. The children spoke predominately Spanish, yet they were given an IQ test in English” (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, p. 132).

6. •9 Mexican-American ELL children had been given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Stanford-Binet, tests of verbal and nonverbal abilities in English. •The mean Full Scale IQ (standard score) was 63 ½ for the nine children and ranged from 30-72 (Valencia, 2008). •An EMR placement was required when a student scored below 70.

7. •The parents hired Victor Ramirez, a credentialed, bilingual school psychologist, to retest all nine children in a bilingual manner (English, Spanish, or both). •The Peabody Picture tests were administered in English and Spanish to establish language dominance (Valencia, 2008). •His findings indicated that of the nine children, seven had scored above the cut-off of 70 (standard scores) with Full Scale scores ranging from 67-89 and in some cases some of the scores increased 22-50 points (Valencia, 2008; Rhodes, Ochoa, et al, 2005).

8. •The far-reaching impact of this case included, but not limited to, mandated assessment in the primary language or with sections of the tests that do not rely on language. •This case highlights the importance of bilingual school psychological services and the impact of service delivery.

9. Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified (1971): •Seven Mexican-American and thirteen African-American families, which were placed in EMR classes (Valencia, 2008). •The Mexican-American children came from homes in which Spanish was the primary language and the African-American children spoke “Black English” (Valencia, 2008). •An unnamed bilingual school psychologist retested all the using linguistically and culturally appropriate testing techniques.

10. •All the plaintiffs scored above the cut-off score of EMR placement, and in each instance plaintiffs scored higher on the performance section of the test, compared to the verbal section. •Furthermore, none of the plaintiffs had a FSIQ below the cut off score of 70 for EMR placement, no child had scores in the 70’s, eleven had performance scores above 95 IQ and for scored over 100” (Valencia, 2008, p. 139). •

11. The influential impact of this case included, but not limited to, paying monetary damages to children misplaced in EMR classes due to linguistic and culturally biased practices and informed consent prior to placement in this type of class (Gopaul-McNicol & Armour-Thomas, 2002).

12. "The complexity of the issue of bilingual assessment includes the lack of thoughtful theoretical underpinning, poor operational (practical) conceptualization of what is to be measured, and nearly empty psychological "arsenals" of tools and procedures.”

13. Disproportionality

15. Legal Matters “Disproportionality refers to the relationship between student representation in both general and special education.” Harry and Anderson (1994)

16. Disproportionality The over-representation/underrepresentation 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.,2009).

17. Disproportionality National Education Association (NEA) & National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Report the Following Outcomes (NEA & NASP, 2007 ): –False impression of student’s ability and academic potential –Tend to remain in SPED and not exit –Less rigorous curriculum –Limited post secondary opportunities –Stigmatized by society –Less access to non-disabled peers –Racial separation

21. Equity-Based Assessment

24. Assessment sometimes highlights the inequalities/inequities that we children experience.

25. Equity-based Assessment- Assessment that is based on fair and equal considerations and understanding the child as a whole. • Culture • Language –Home and Academic • Educational Experiences • Intervention History • Family Background/Experiences • Community opportunities • Access to mental health, medical, and supplemental academic services

26. Equity-based approaches go beyond non-discriminatory assessment and proactively understand the child’s context (ecological system) and try to understand the degree of impact of environmental factors and intervene when possible (SPED may be necessary): • Trauma • Reading problems (MTSS) • ADHD • Etc.

27. Legal Matters

29. Legal Matters •EC 56001. (j) Procedures and materials for assessment and placement of individuals with exceptional needs shall be selected and administered so as not to be racially, culturally, or sexually discriminatory. •EC 56320. (a)(2) Tests and other assessment materials…are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable. • •EC 56320. (a) (d) Tests are selected and administered to best ensure that when a test administered to a pupil with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills produces test results that accurately reflect the pupil’s aptitude, achievement level, or any other factors the test purports to measure and not the pupil’s impaired sensory, manual, orspeaking skills unless those skills are the factors the test purports to measure.

30. Legal Matters •EC 56320. (a)(b)(1) Are provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the pupil knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to provide or administer as required by Section 1414 (b) (3)(A)(ii) of Title 20 of the United States Code.

31. Legal Matters •EC 56324.(a) ….shall be conducted by a credentialed school psychologist who is trained and prepared to assess cultural and ethnic factors appropriate to the pupil being assessed. •CCR 3023. (a) ….competent in both the oralor sign language skills and written skills of the individual’s primary language or mode of communication and have a knowledge and understanding of the cultural and ethnic background of the pupil. If it clearly is not feasible to do so, an interpreter must be used, and the assessment report shall document this condition and note that the validity may have been affected.

32. Legal Matters

33. See attachment 1

34. Exclusionary Factors

36. Exclusionary Factors •EC 56329. (2) In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (1), a pupil shall not, pursuant to Section 1414 (b) (5) of Title 20 of the United States Code, and Section 300.306(b) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, be determined to be an individual with exceptional needs if the determinant factorfor the determination is one of the following in subparagraphs (A) to (C) inclusive, plus subparagraph (D): •Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components or reading instructionas defined in Section 6368(3)of Title 20 of the United States Code •Lack of appropriate instruction in mathematics •Limited-English proficiency

37. What did we learn? • Need to determine language of assessment! • ELL status is not sufficient to qualify for SPED unless child has a disability as well. • Trained staff • Valid and reliable tools • Normal English-development manifestations is not sufficient to qualify for SPED.

38. Context

40. Family support of education Context School Inclusion of Family in Decision Making Family LIteracy Family SES & Education Level Why family immigrated to U.S. Home Language/ Culture/Acculturation Who are Primary Caretakers? Siblings language Parent Work Schedule

42. Language Development

44. Language Development Dual Language Learners (DLL) English Language Learners (ELL) Limited English Proficient (LEP) English as a Second Language (ESL)

45. DLL ELL- The California Preschool Learning Foundations, Volume 1 (CDE, 2008) defines English learners as “children whose first language is not English and encompasses children learning English for the first time in the preschool setting as well as children who have developed various levels of English proficiency” (p. 103).

46. DLL DLL- The Office of Head Start defines dual language learners as children who “acquire two or more languages simultaneously, and learn a second language while continuing to develop their first language. The term "dual language learners" encompasses other terms frequently used, such as Limited English Proficient (LEP), bilingual, English language learners (ELL), English learners, and children who speak a Language Other Than English (LOTE)” (OHS 2009).

47. Facts about Bilingual Students

48. What does state language based assessment data say?

49. Home Language Survey

50. What does state language based assessment data say? Home Language Survey (HLS)