RAISING THE BAR: QUALITY ASSESSMENTS AND INSTRUCTION FOR CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE POPULATIONS Lisa Lopes, M.S., CCC-SLP, TSSLD- BE Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologist Westbury Public Schools Dr. Mary A. Lagnado, Superintendent of Schools Eudes S. Budhai, Interim Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, & Personnel Office of Second Language Acquisition & Adult Learning Center Maria Angelica Meyer, Interim Director
Transcript
RAISING THE BAR: QUALITY ASSESSMENTS AND
INSTRUCTION FOR CULTURALLY AND
LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE POPULATIONS
Lisa Lopes, M.S., CCC-SLP, TSSLD-BE
Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologist
Westbury Public SchoolsDr. Mary A. Lagnado, Superintendent of Schools
Eudes S. Budhai, Interim Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, & PersonnelOffice of Second Language Acquisition & Adult Learning Center
Maria Angelica Meyer, Interim Director
LEARNERS’ OBJECTIVES To decrease the over-referral of ELLs to special education
Develop awareness of the rules and regulations surrounding the use of standardized tests
Dispel myths about second language acquisition
Increase awareness of the literature promoting bilingualism
Introduce the use of dynamic assessment to probe the child’s highest level of cognitive and linguistic skills
Increase awareness of typical characteristics of second language acquisition
Identify differences between typical and atypical language development in the bilingual population
SOME STATE GRADUATION RATES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (2006*):
ELL IEP HOLDERS AS PART OF TOTAL NYCDOE ELL HOLDERS 2009-2010
21% of ELLs have IEPs.
15.9% of all NYCDOE students have IEPs.
Thus, if you are an ELL you are 40% more likely to have an IEP if you are an ELL.
Source: BESIS (ATS) June 30th, Register, 2010.
Copyright C. Crowley 2010,2013 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS: IDEA 2004
For English Language Learners
"Studies have documented apparent discrepancies in the levels of referral and placement of limited English proficient children in special education." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(11)(B)
"Such discrepancies pose a special challenge for special education in the referral of, assessment of, and provision of services for, our Nation's students from non-English language backgrounds." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(11)(C)
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012TC Bilingual Extension Institute
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS: IDEA 2004
“Greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities” [20 U.S.C § 1400(c)(12)(A)].
“More minority children continue to be served in special education than would be expected from the percentage of minority students in the general population” [20 U.S.C § 1400(c)(12)(B)].
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
POP QUIZHow many educational evaluation tests used to
identify a student as having a disability are adapted into Spanish or any other language?
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
NONE!
They are ALL translated tests and scores cannot be
reported, as per NYSED policies.
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
POP QUIZHow many tests used by psychologists to
identify a child’s IQ are adapted into Spanish or any other language?
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
NONE!
They are ALL translated tests and scores cannot be
reported, as per NYSED policies.
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
POP QUIZHow many speech-language tests used to identify a
student as having a disability are adapted into Spanish or any other language?
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
TWO!
However, these tests have significant validity and reliability problems.
Again, scores cannot be
reported because they violate NYSED policies and the
federal law.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
Copyrig
ht C
. Cro
wle
y 2
01
1,2
01
2
TC B
ilingual E
xte
nsio
n In
stitute
CPSE SOPM 2001
The reporting of scores for translated tests is PROHIBITED
“[S]tandardized tests that are translated cannot be interpreted in terms of their scores unless the translation has been normed and the cultural biases and linguistic distortions of the original have been eliminated . . . . . Scores may not be reported from such test administrations." Test Resource Guide, Vol. I (1997), p. 7.
NYSED policy
“Scores obtained from tests translated, but not standardized, on the student’s cultural group or translated by the examiner during the assessment processes may not be used as representative of the students’ present performance. The information collected and reported should be of a descriptive nature” (NYSED 1990, pp. 8 and 9).
IDEA 2004 Evaluation materials must be “[S]elected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis” [20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(i)]
Racial and Cultural Biases in Assessment Materials Result in Disproportionate Representation of Minority Children in Special Education
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
POP QUIZDoes IDEA, NYSED policy, or the CPSE SOPM
2001 require the use of standardized test scores or age equivalency scores to identify
a child or adolescent with a disability?
WEREN’T YOU LISTENING?????
NOOOOOO!!!!!!
THEY NEVER HAVE!
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
TEST SCORES FAIL TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE CHILD
IDEA (2004) does not specify the use of either formal or informal tools for assessment.
Instead, it indicates that a variety of assessment tools should be used to determine disability.
Standardized tests (aka formal diagnostic tools) can provide valuable information that can help determine if a child is eligible for special education and/or related services.
It recommends that evaluators provide a language sample (aka informal diagnostic tool) to provide information on how students use language in a variety of functions.
“Tests” and “scores” are not even stated in IDEA.
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
WHAT’S WRONG WITH IDENTIFYING A CHILD WITH A DISABILITY WHEN THE CHILD DOES NOT HAVE ONE?
Mislabeling students creates a false impression of the child’s intelligence and academic potential.
Once students are receiving special education services, they tend to remain in special education classes (Harry & Klingner, 2006).
Students are likely to encounter a limited, less rigorous curriculum (Harry & Klingner, 2006).
Lower expectations can lead to diminished academic and post-secondary opportunities (National Research Council, 2002; Harry & Klingner, 2006).
Students in special education programs can have less access to academically able peers (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
If we can not report scores because they are invalid and unreliable, then how can we decide if a child is
typically developing versus language impaired?
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
The key consideration in distinguishing between
a difference and
a disorder is whether the child’s
performance differs significantly from peers
with similar experiences.
(Wolfram, Adger & Christian 1999:105)
CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES (UPBRINGING DIFFERENCES)
Mainstream Community (SAE)
Non-mainstream Culture(Minority Languages & Dialects)
Known Questions (e.g., Adult hides a ball as student watches and asks the student “Where’s the ball?”)
Unknown Questions (e.g., “Where did you put your sock?”, “Why did you hit Sally?”, etc.)
Labeling Questions (e.g., “What’s this?”)
Function Questions (e.g., “What do we do with ____?”)
Linear Storytelling due to more exposure to books and academic type questions
Non-linear Storytelling: Child gives details in no particular order or theme
Children are involved in decision making and opinions are sought
Children may not be involved in adult conversation and decision making.
Copyright C. Crowley 2009,2013 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
PARADIS
The syntax and morphology of children going through subtractive bilingualism as
they lose Spanish and acquire English. Their language will have the same characteristics of Speech Language
Impairment (SLI).
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a Second Language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 (3), 172-187.
Language loss/attrition may be demonstrated by:
-Limited vocabulary
-Overuse of demonstrative pronouns (i.e., este/this one)
-Verb morphology errors (i.e., ellos come for ellos comen)
-Errors of gender in noun phrases (i.e., el [masculine] casa [feminine] rojo [masculine])
-Use of English word order in Spanish phrases or vice versa (e.g., “la roja casa” [the red house] instead of “la casa roja” [the house red])
-Subtle transfer effects which don’t produce grammatical errors (e.g., in Spanish the construction of possessives differs from English "the house of the cat" versus "the cat's house”)
Paradis et al. (2011)
CHARACTERISTICS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS
CHARACTERISTICS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS
o ch/sh confusion (e.g., "fitch" for fish) is indicative of Spanish-influenced English as well as the use of voiced and voiceless "th" as variants of /d/ or /t/ (e.g., "da" for that)
oCluster reduction generally demonstrated at the end of a word (e.g., “firs” for first) exhibited by dialects of Spanish-influenced English and AAE speakers
o Substitution of /f/ for “th” (e.g., “toof” for tooth) that continues beyond “developmentally typical norms”exhibited by AAE speakers
oDeletion of the plural /s/ in a noun following a quantity word (e.g., “three dolla” for three dollars)exhibited by AAE speakers
oHabitual “be” (“she be shoppin” for “she is always shopping”) exhibited by AAE speakers
CHARACTERISTICS OF SECOND LANGUAGE
LEARNERS "Children from culturally and linguistically diverse
groups often score below average on standardized tests. These low test scores may reflect the documented language variation in language experiences" (Peña, 1997, p. 324).
Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds present with more limited language due to sociolinguistic differences (Paradis et al., 2010).
“Acquisition of native-like academic language skills in the L2 is additionally challenging because minority language students face a moving target. As their academic language skills develop, so too do those of majority language students" (Paradis et al., 2011, p. 169).
CHARACTERISTICS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS
"Typically developing minority language students who have incomplete mastery of English academic language could perform like students who have language and learning disabilities" on standardized tests of oral language development because these tests concentrate a great deal on academic language (Paradis, 2011, p. 170).
It is estimated that proficiency in English for academic purposes may take 5 to 7 years to develop to a level consistent with monolingual English speaking peers (Paradis, 2011).
POP QUIZShould professionals tell a
parent/caregiver to only use one language at home because learning two languages will
confuse the child especially a child with disabilities?
NO! NO! NO!There is NOT one research study that supports
this assumption! In fact, it has been studied and proven that facility in multiple languages
helps develop more mature metalinguistic skills.
BILINGUALISM AND SLI STUDY
(PARADIS, CRAGO, GENESEE AND RICE, 2003:125)
Purpose: To analyzed the effect of exposure to two languages by students who had specific language impairment
Results:"More than any other finding, this study demonstrates profound linguistic strengths in children with SLI. Instead of demonstrating that bilingualism impedes language acquisition under conditions of impairment, the children in this study showed that they had the ability to learn two languages despite their impairment."
Copyright C. Crowley 2011,2012 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
Copyrig
ht C
. Cro
wle
y 2
00
9,2
01
3
TC B
ilingual E
xte
nsio
n In
stitute
The most significant factor related to academic achievement in Hebrew was socio-economic status (SES).
The second most significant factor was whether L1 was kept alive at home.
o Strongest predictor of L2 is academic success is parents’ maintenance of L1 at home
o Stories in L1
o Strong retention of own language, cultural traditions and values
o Supportive home environment
o High value on love of learning
Israeli Government Study of Russian & Ethiopian
Immigrants(Shohamy, et al, 2004)
Academic Achievement of Children of Southeast Asian
Refugees Study (Caplan, et al, 1994)
WHY SHOULD PARENTS & CHILDREN SPEAK THE LANGUAGE
THEY KNOW BEST?Working at their highest
level of cognitive maturity
Continuing their cognitive development
Parents are providing good language models for the child
Copyright C. Crowley 2009,2013 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
RESEARCH SHOWS
L1 literacy is considered a crucial base for L2 literacy development, especially when L1 and L2 share the same orthographic systems
A wide variety of skills and learning that are developed in L1 reading and writing can have a positive transfer to L2 reading and writing.
Copyright C. Crowley 2010,2013 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
DID YOU KNOW…o Poor early literacy is single strongest predictor of both high school drop out rates and future prison occupancy (Cain, 2004)
oPenitentiaries accurately predict the number of cells to prepare by the number of students in local public schools reading below grade level in 2nd grade (Williams, 2002)
o Tax payers spend more money to keep adults behind bars than is spent on intervention programs to help the same people when in school
S. Downey Toledo, 2013 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
SUGGESTIONS FOR PARENTS TO ENCOURAGE VERBAL EXPRESSION
Problem solvingPredictingBuildingFixing CookingAsk questions about TV shows
According to Restrepo (1998), "parent interviewing and language sampling procedures…currently appear to be the clinician's best tools for identification of SSLI children" (p. 1406).
Copyright C. Crowley 2011-2013 TC Bilingual Extension Institute
PARENT INTERVIEW: THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS
Language acquisition history?
Parent's highest education level?
Family history of speech-language problems?
Family history of academic problems?
Significant changes in the family structure?
"There is considerable evidence from parental report that language impaired (LI) children have a family history of language problems, offering support to a possible biological basis of LI" (Restrepo, 1998, p. 1399).
Copyright C. Crowley 2011-2013TC Bilingual Extension Institute
PARENT INTERVIEW: THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS
How do child’s communication skills compare to peers or siblings at same age?
Were child’s language skills in the evaluation representative or typical for him?
Any significant increase or decrease in last 6 mths?
What does the child do to show you that he’s smart?
10 examples of best communications and where it breaks down.
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENTUsed to determine the amount and nature of
scaffolding needed for the child to master or learn a concept.
This minimizes the effects of task non-familiarity.
Pretest/Preteaching↓
Scaffolded learning↓
Reassessment
Video on Dynamic assessment: http://leadersproject.org/media/video/preschool-disability-evaluations-module-28-dynamic-assessment-cognitive-assessment
MODIFYING THE ADMINISTRATION OF STANDARDIZED TESTS AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
**Handout
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REFERRAL (ROSEBERRY-MCKIBBIN, 2008)
Was the student slow to learn novel information in relation to typically developing peers of the same cultural-linguistic background?
Did the student have more difficulty learning than would be expected of typically developing peers of the same cultural-linguistic background?
Did the student require more structure and individualized instruction than would be expected of typically developing peers of the same cultural-linguistic background?
Did the student require scaffolding techniques that differed from those used successfully with typically developing peers of the same cultural-linguistic background?
POSSIBLE INDICATORS OF THE PRESENCE OF A LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
(ROSEBERRY-MCKIBBIN, 2008)
Student uses mainly gestures and verbal sound effects to communicate rather than speech
Peers report the student is difficult to understand
Student frequently does not respond to direct commands, requests, and/or attempts at conversation
Rarely initiates communicative exchanges with peers.
POSSIBLE INDICATORS OF THE PRESENCE OF A LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
(ROSEBERRY-MCKIBBIN, 2008)
Student responds inappropriately to conversational cues/questions
Difficulty expressing thoughts/ideas in an organized, sequential manner that is comprehensible to listeners
Difficulty maintaining a topic; often provide tangential or unrelated comments
Inappropriate nonverbal language (e.g., misuse or absence of appropriate gestures or facial expressions)
POSSIBLE INDICATORS OF THE PRESENCE OF A LANGUAGE
IMPAIRMENT
Student struggles with conversational turn-taking; constantly interrupts or never enters into dialog
Student needs additional repetitions, simplifications, and examples after objective has already been clearly and simplistically stated.
Furthermore, as reported by Restrepo (1998), children with language impairment typically exhibit perfuse morphosyntactic errors and errors of gender article agreement.
Copyrig
ht C
. Cro
wle
y 2
01
0-2
01
3 TC
Bilin
gual E
xte
nsio
n In
stitute
“[E]ach LEP/ELL student with a disability must be provided the opportunity to participate in the district’s ESL program.”
That a student not be identified as having a
disability if the determinant factor is:
“[L]ack of appropriate instruction in reading”;
“lack of instruction in math; or
limited English proficiency”
[20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(5)]
NYSED Memo (March 2011)
Bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL) Services for Limited English Proficient
(LEP)/English Language Learners (ELLs) who are Students with
Disabilities
IDEA 2004
REFERENCESCain, K., Bryant, P., Oakhill, J. (2004). Children’s Reading Comprehension Ability: Concurrent Prediction by Working
Memory, Verbal Ability, and Component Skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1), 31-42.
Cain, K., Lemmon, K., Oakhill, J. (2004). Individual Differences in the Inference of Word Meanings From Context:The Influence of Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary Knowledge, and Memory Capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), 671-681.
Crowley, C. (2013). BBSQ 5820: Normal Second Language Acquisition. [Class Handout]. Department of Biobehavioral Sciences and the Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation, Bilingual Extension Institute: Teachers College, Columbia University. New York, New York.
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Downey Toledo, S. (2013). BBSQ 5820: Increasing the Language Skills of Students from Low-Income Backgrounds. [Class Handout]. Department of Biobehavioral Sciences and the Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation, Bilingual Extension Institute: Teachers College, Columbia University. New York, New York.
Francis, David J.; Shaywitz, Sally E.; Stuebing, Karla K.; Shaywitz, Bennett A.; Fletcher, Jack M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 88, 3-17
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Horton-Ikard, R. & Weismer, S.E. (2007). A Preliminary Examination of Vocabulary and Word Learning in African American Toddlers From Middle and Low Socioeconomic Status Homes. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 16, 381-392.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
New York State Department of Health, Early Intervention Program. (1999). Clinical Practice Guideline: Report of the Recommendations, Communication Disorders. Assessment and Intervention for Young Children (Age 0-3 Years). Albany, NY: Catherine Crowley.
NYSED (2009). Speech-Language pathologists and audiologists in a pluralistic society. http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/slpa/speechguidepluralistic.htm
NYSED (1997). Guidelines for services for culturally and linguistically diverse preschoolers. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/docs/GuidelinesforCLDPreschoolStudents_March1997_1.pdf
NYSED (1990). Guidelines for Services to Students with LEP and Special Needs in New York State. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/docs/GuidelinesforServicestoStudentswithLEPandSpEdNeedsinNYS1990.pdf
REFERENCESParadis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a Second Language: Implications of similarities
with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 (3), 172-187.
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual Language Development and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Language Learning (2nd Ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Paradis, J. Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English Bilingual Children With SLI: How Do They Compare With Their Monolingual Peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46: 113-127.
Paradis, J., Emmerzael, K., & Duncan, T.S. (2010). Assessment of English language learners: Using parent report on first language development. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 474-497.
Paul, R. (2001). Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence: Assessment and Intervention (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Peña, E. & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and African American children, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 323-332.
Restrepo, M.A. (1998). Identifiers of Predominantly Spanish-Speaking Children with Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398-1411.
Roseberry-McKibben, C. (2008). Increasing language skills of children from low income backgrounds. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
Rovalino, J.E. (2013). BBSQ 5820: Looking at Language. [Class Handout]. Department of Biobehavioral Sciences and the Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation, Bilingual Extension Institute: Teachers College, Columbia University. New York, New York.
Shriberg, L., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1982). Phonological Disorders II: A procedure for assessing severity of involvement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 256-270. (b)
Walters, S.Y. (2013). BBSQ 5820: Speech Sounds Disorders Assessment and Intervention for Bilingual Children, Consonant Inventory. [Class Handout]. Department of Biobehavioral Sciences and the Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation, Bilingual Extension Institute: Teachers College, Columbia University. New York, New York.
Walters, S.Y. (2013). BBSQ 5820: Speech Sounds Disorders Assessment and Intervention for Bilingual Children, Facts about Spanish Phonology. [Class Handout]. Department of Biobehavioral Sciences and the Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation, Bilingual Extension Institute: Teachers College, Columbia University. New York, New York.
Williams, J. P. (2002). Reading comprehension strategies and teacher preparation. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 243-260). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
