separating difference from disability n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Separating Difference from Disability PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Separating Difference from Disability

Separating Difference from Disability

69 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Separating Difference from Disability

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Separating Difference from Disability

  2. Why Are We Here?

  3. Comparison 2005-2006 350 ELLs 33 languages 2012-2013 762 ELLs 62 languages

  4. We are Growing

  5. 2011-2012 Data

  6. Do You See What I See?

  7. Building the Foundation

  8. A Quote from Research One of the most common reasons for referrals to special education has been limited English proficiency (Maldonado-Colón, 1986). This is the case despite the fact that limited English proficiency, when it stems from the presence of a non-English language in the child's home, has, in and of itself, no negative effects on learning. […] When, however, no accommodations are made to a child's lack of proficiency in the language of the EC [early childhood] setting, children are left without means of understanding what is being said or expressing what they need to say. Their performance then becomes similar to that of children with disabilities. SOURCE: Barrera, Isaura (1995). To Refer Or Not to Refer: Untangling the Web of Diversity,"Deficit," and Disability. In: New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal v10 p54-66, Summer 1995

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

  10. Natural Progression of Language Acquisition De Avila L 2 Ability WLPT 1 WLPT 4 WLPT 3 WLPT 2 ELD Beginning/ Advanced Beginning ELD: Intermediate ELD: Advanced ELD: Transitional Listening Speaking Reading Writing Time

  11. BICS vs. CALP B I C S Social Language Listening and Speaking 6mo-2years Academic Language Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing 3-9 years C A L P

  12. Proficiency Levels

  13. Top to Bottom Model

  14. Peer Analysis Tool

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

  16. To whom is the ELL student being compared? • A peer analysis is critical in determining if the student’s performance is atypical. • The ideal peer group are ELLs, same language background, same time in program, same grade of entry in school. • Scour district longitudinal data and find as large a peer group as possible

  17. Appropriate Comparison or Not? • ELL 3rd grader to all 3rd graders? • ELL to all ELLs in the district? • ELL Spanish speaker to all ELL Spanish speakers? • ELL to older or younger sibling?

  18. Questions

  19. Separating Difference from Disability: • A Matrix for Supporting Quality GT Decisions


  21. The Matrix • Provides a structure for organizing information about the student which should be considered prior to referral • Visually organizes the information which supports referral and/or supports more intervention • Focuses team on “Red Flag” issues • Designed to be used by a team – at both data gathering and decision making

  22. The Matrix: 16 Data Driven Decision Points • Data supports referral • Between Neutral and Supports Referral • Neutral • Between Neutral and More Intervention • Data Supports More Intervention

  23. The Matrix: Decision Point #1 Student’s Primary Language • Take into consideration transparent or non-transparent nature of the primary language. If primary language is transparent (phonetically predictable) it is more difficult to become accustomed to non-transparent language like English. See LanguageTransferresource by Rigby.

  24. The Matrix: Decision Point #2 Other Languages Spoken by Student If student has multiple languages that he/she speaks, it is reasonable to expect average to above average learning of English.

  25. The Matrix: Decision Point #3 Multiple Languages Spoken in Home If student is experiencing multiple languages spoken in the home, and is 6 years or younger, it can have an impact on usage of language. If student is older and still struggling between languages, place a mark to indicate evaluation may be necessary.

  26. The Matrix: Decision Point #4 Expected Years of Education in Primary Language If student has not received expected years of education in the primary language the student will not (in all likelihood) have the structures of language relative to academic learning and the experience of how to function in a school setting.

  27. The Matrix: Decision Point #5 Parental Education in Primary Language Parental education in primary language can impact the student’s vocabulary and language structures. If parent has limited literacy in primary language, more intervention may be warranted.

  28. The Matrix: Decision Point #6 Did Student Learn to Read in Primary Language If student did not learn to read in primary language, we are trying to teach the process of reading while teaching a new language.

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

  30. The Matrix: Decision Point #8 Attendance History 3 or more unexcused absences per year or a total of 15 absensces per year is outside the norm and negatively impacted learning.

  31. The Matrix: Decision Point #9 Approach to ELL Services Has the student had consistent access to intensive and consistent ELL services? SIOP or GLAD strategies? This Decision Point addresses the quality and consistency of Tier One services for ELL students.

  32. The Matrix: Decision Point #10 Peer Analysis of WLPT/WELPA • How is the student progressing relative to other students of similar age, same language background, and similar length of time learning English and receiving ELL services. • Team should consider referral question, for example, is student progressing in language and literacy at expected rate, but not math. • WLPT vs WELPA Future training for psychologists on how to access state data base.

  33. The Matrix: Decision Point #11 Intervention Description • Have there been targeted interventions with base line, progress monitoring, and post intervention data? • This decision point focuses on Tier 2 supports.

  34. The Matrix: Decision Point #12 Expectations in the Gen Ed Classroom • All students should be expected to complete assignments, regardless of language development, at a level appropriate to current skills. • If the students has had consistent output and learning rate is still atypical, an evaluation may be indicated.

  35. The Matrix: Decision Point #13 Academic Engagement • If student is actively engaged in learning process but continues to have atypical learning pattern, an evaluation may be warranted. • If student is not engaged, a neutral mark is indicated, as lack of engagement is difficult to interpret.

  36. The Matrix: Decision Point #14 Comparison Student Data • This consideration is similar to Decision Point 10, with a focus on progress monitoring data (as opposed to WLPT/WELPA data) collected for target student in comparison to other similar students who received a similar intervention.

  37. The Matrix: Decision Point #15 Parent Interview • In totality, does parent provide information supportive of an evaluation, or suggestive of more intervention? Issues to consider include family history of learning difficulties, difficulties in early learning, expectations around learning in the culture. • Are there factors present which might explain difficulties in learning – frequent moves, disruptions in the home, etc.

  38. The Matrix: Decision Point #16 Developmental History • Is there a history of developmental delay? • How has child met developmental milestones?

  39. Sample Completed Matrix

  40. GROUP ACTIVITY What are the Pro’s, Con’s, and Practicalities of implementing this model? • Using the worksheet provided, as a team, examine each Issaquah Resource in your packet, and answer the questions on the worksheet. • Are the Issaquah Resources sufficient to support completion of the Matrix? What additional resources, training, or administrative guidance are needed to effectively use this model? • Prioritize the supports your teams needs to make referral decisions Difference vs Disability referral decision more effectively. Report back to group.