Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. / Santa Barbara County SELPA Director
Email: jariceb@sbceo.org
Website: SBCSELPA.org
1
Challenges for Educators
“…far too often, children from diverse backgrounds
who fall behind in their learning are
inappropriately labeled as needing special
education. What they may really need is academic
support and the opportunity to learn in a culturally
responsive environment...”
(R. Weaver, 2008 Former President of NEA)
2
Disproportionality Occurs
When…..
Disproportionality occurs when some students
“are inappropriately referred, diagnosed,
classified and placed for special education”
Stephanie Graham-Rivas, Author of Culturally Proficient Inquiry
Presentation at State SELPA Organization Meeting 12-1-11
3
What the Research says…..
Research demonstrates that English
language learners with the least amount of
language support are most likely to be
referred to special education
ELLs receiving all of their instruction in
English were almost 3X as likely to be in
special education as those receiving some
native language support
Artiles & Ortiz 2002
4
Presentation Topics
CELDT Testing
Eligibility & Assessment of English Learners for Special
Education
Reclassification to RFEP of English Learners
Questions and Answers
5
CELDT
The CELDT has three purposes:
1) To identify students who are limited English
proficient or English learners
2) To determine the level of English language
proficiency of EL students
3) To assess the progress of EL students in
acquiring the skills of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing English
6
CELDT Testing Accommodations &
Modifications
Students may have accommodations and/or
Modifications on CELDT as specified in their IEP.
An accommodation is: Any variation in the
assessment environment or process that does not
fundamentally alter what the test measures or affect
comparability of
Scores. Accommodations may include variations in
scheduling, setting, aids, equipment, and presentation
format
A modification is: A variation in assessment
environment or process that
fundamentally alters what test measures or affects
comparability of scores
7
Alternate Assessment to CELDT
Alternate Assessment:
IEP Teams may designate an alternate assessment to
CELDT
“Students with disabilities may take an alternate
assessment if their IEP team determines that they are
unable to take one or more parts of the CELDT even
with variations, accommodations, and/or
modifications.”
8
Alternate Assessment Cont’d.
Alternate Assessment is:
“An alternate way of measuring English language
proficiency of pupils with disabilities whose IEP Team has
determined they are unable to participate in CELDT even
with accommodations, variations, or modifications.”
Note:
The IEP team must determine if the student is to be assessed
with an alternate assessment in each of the four domains
listening, speaking, reading &
9
Alternate Assessment Cont’d.
Alternative Assessments to CELDT
At this time, the California Department of Education does
not have a designated alternative assessment to CELDT for
students whose IEP team determines that the student may not
be able to take all or parts of CELDT to determine level of
English language proficiency.
The IEP team must determine the alternate assessment(s) to
be administered for each student and which domains
(listening, speaking, reading, or writing) the student will be
administered an alternative assessment to CELDT.
See the CDE’s Participation Criteria Checklist for Alternate Assessment to
CELDT in the 2012-2013 CELDT Information Guide Page 14-17
10
Resource List for Potential Alternate
Assessments to CELDT
Test Name
Organization
Skills Assessed or Publisher
Contact
Information
Alternative Language
Proficiency Instrument
(ALPI)
Listening
Speaking
Orange County
Dept.of Education
714-966-4120
Student Oral Language
Observation Matrix
(SOLOM)
Listening
Speaking
San Jose Unified
School District
http://www.cal.org/twi
/EvalToolkit/appendix/
solom.pdf
Basics 2
(Checklist for functional
reading and writing)
Listening, Speaking
Reading, Writing
Lakeshore
http://www.lakeshorel
earning.com/home/ho
me.jsp
Sandi
Listening, Speaking,
Reading, Writing
Lakeshore
(Developed by
Riverside COE)
www.Lakeshorelearning
.com
11
Resource List for Possible Alternate
Assessments to CELDT Cont’d.
Test Name
Skills Assessed
Organization
or Publisher
Contact
Information
Basic Inventory of Natural
Language (BINL)
Listening
Speaking in 30
different languages
CHECpoint
Systems, Inc.
(800)635-1235
Norm referenced &
Criterion referenced
Brigance IED II (B-7yrs)
Brigance CIBS II (Pre K –
9)
Listening & Speaking
Reading & Writing
literacy
Curriculum &
Associates
http://www.curriculu
massociates.com
VCCALPS (adapted ALPI
with Reading & Writing)
Listening, Speaking,
Reading & Writing
Ventura County
SELPA
www.venturacounty
selpa.com
12
Assessment & Determining
Eligibility of English
Learners for Special
Education
13
Identification of English Learners
Federal regulations require that students in Pre K
through age 22 be identified as EL for purposes of
special education (ie. assessment for special
education procedures, linguistically appropriate goals
in IEPs, etc.)
Note: California Education code does not formally identify
students as EL until kindergarten. CELDT is not
administered until grade K.
14
California Ed Code Requirements for
Identification & Assessment of
English Learners for Special Education
Assessment materials and procedures used for the purposes
of assessment and placement of individuals with exceptional
needs are selected and administered so as not to be racially,
culturally, or sexually discriminatory.
Pursuant to Section 141(a (6)(B) of Title 20 of the United State
Code, the materials and procedures shall be provided in the
pupil’s native language or mode of communication, unless it
is clearly not feasible to do so.
EC 56320(a) & 56001(j)
15
California Ed Code Requirements for
Identification & Assessment of
English Learners for Special Education Cont’d.
(b) Tests and other assessment materials meet all of the
following requirements: 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 so provide or
administered required by 1414(b)(3)(A)(ii) of Title 20 of
United States Code
EC 56320(b)(1)
16
Requirements for Identification &
Assessment of
English Learners Who are
Infants/Toddlers
For assessment to determine eligibility for infants
and toddlers, the assessment shall “be conducted in
the language of the family’s choice or other mode of
communication unless it is not feasible to do so.”
CCR 52082(b) & 52084(d)
17
Identification & Assessment Requirements
for ELs
Assessments shall be administered by qualified personnel
who are competent in both the oral or 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.
CCR Title 5: 3023
A variety of assessment tools and strategies will be used to
gather relevant functional and developmental information,
including information provided by the parent. EC 56320
18
Identification & Assessment
Requirements for ELs
It is best practice to use the following four sources
of information in order to address all sociocultural factors related to ELs:
1) Norm-referenced assessments, to include non-verbal and
other areas of cognition in English and native
language if native language assessments are available
(cross-cultural, non-discriminatory assessment preferred)
2) Criterion-referenced tests
3) Systematic observation in educational environments
4) Structured interviews (with student, parents/guardians,
teachers, etc.)
19
Assessment of ELs Best Practices
Best Option – Engage in the following:
1) Administer cross cultural, non-discriminatory full or partial
bilingual assessment in native language and English using
bilingual assessors
2) Use of structured interviews with parents and staff
3) Engage in observation of student in varied environments
4) Collect data from curriculum based assessment measures
2nd Best Option – Engage in the following:
1) If there is no assessor available in the native language;
engage in steps # 2-4 above and,
2) Using an interpreter, administer the assessment in the
native language under the supervision of school licensed
assessors – document limitations in assessment report
20
Assessment of ELs Best Practices Cont’d.
3rd Option – Engage in the following:
1) If there is no assessor available in the native language;
engage in steps # 2-4 on previous slide and,
2) If there are no assessment tools available in the native
language, use an interpreter who speaks the native
language to provide an oral translation of assessments
normed and written in English – document limitations in
assessment report
Worse Case Scenario Option – Engage in the following:
1) If there is not assessment tool or interpreter available in the
native language engage in #2-4 on previous slide and,
2) Assess in non-verbal areas of cognition and administer
English only assessment
21
Assessment of ELs
Why Assess in the Student’s Primary Language?
It provides comparative data to the IEP team about how the
student performs in the primary language versus English.
The assessor can determine if similar error patterns are
seen in both the primary language and English (listening,
speaking, reading or writing) in order to discern if the
students is having academic difficult due to a language
difference or a disability.
Many students acquire BICS level English speaking skills
and are stronger in English academics but think at a CALPs
level in their “native language”.
22
Assessment of ELs
Best Practices to Guide Assessment Decisions:
An assessor fluent in both languages should assess to
determine which language the student is most proficient in at
both the BICS and CALPS level (both academically &
cognitively) to guide the assessment team regarding types of
assessment to be performed by using like instruments in
primary language and English when available.
Assessors should assess in the students primary language
when feasible to do so.
23
Assessment ELs Cont’d.
Examples of When it May Not “Be Feasible” to
Assess in the Student’s Primary Language:
The student has moderate to severe disabilities and lacks the
communication or other skills to be able to be assessed
accurately in L1.
When Primary language assessments are unavailable.
Note: If primary language assessments are not available, it is
best practice for assessors to use non language measures
such as observations and structured interviews with teachers
and family, as well as non verbal tests of ability to inform
identification decisions.
24
Use of Interpreters for Bilingual
Assessment
Ways interpreters and translators are used in
bilingual assessment:
1)Interpreters – Interpreters may be used to orally
translate information given by the student or parent/
guardian in their native language into English;
interpreters may also be used to read test materials
in the native language and interpret student
Responses into English
2) Translators – Translate written text in English
into the native language
25
Use of Interpreters or Translators in
Bilingual Assessment Cont’d.
Best practice briefing Procedures prior to using an
Interpreter:






The general purpose of the assessment session
Which assessment instruments or questions will be
administered or asked
Share information about the student, family, culture
Review of appropriate testing protocol/behavior
Allow time for the translator or interpreter to organize
materials, re-read the test procedures, and ask for
clarification if needed
Carefully observe interpreter behavior during
assessment
26
Use of Interpreters in Bilingual
Assessment Cont’d.
Debriefing/follow-up Procedures:




Ask interpreter or translator to go over each of the
test or interview question responses without making
clinical judgment.
Go over any difficulties relative to the testing process.
Go over any difficulties relative to the interpretation
or translation process.
Go over any other items relevant to assessment
process.
27
RESOURCES

http://www.crossbattery.com

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students:
Strategies for Teaching and Assessment; by Grass &
Barker. Sage Publications.
http://www.sagepub.com/home.nav
Ortiz, Samuel, Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse
Studenthttp://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcom
petence/ortiz.pdf


Assessing Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Students: A
Practical Guide. Practical Intervention in the Schools
Series; by Rhodes, Ochoa, Hector, & Ortiz. Guilford
Publications.
28
Reclassification of ELs in
SPED
29
Reclassification of EL Students in SPED
Reclassification:
Defined as the process by which students who have
been identified as English learners (EL) are
reclassified as fluent English Proficient (RFEP) when
they have demonstrated that they are able to
compete effectively with English-speaking peers in
mainstream classes.
EC 313(d)
30
Reclassification of EL Students in SPED
Cont’d.
Reclassification Criteria:
The reclassification procedures developed by the California
Board of Education (CBE) require districts to utilize multiple
criteria to reclassify a pupil as proficient in English.
EC 313(d)
31
Reclassification of EL Students in SPED
Cont’d.
The following four reclassification criteria are
required by the CDE to reclassify all EL
students:
1) Assessment of language proficiency using an objective
assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, the
ELD test pursuant to EC Section 60810 (i.e., the CELDT)
2) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of
the pupil’s curriculum mastery
3) Parental opinion and consultation
4) Student performance on a statewide assessment of basic
skills in English
EC 313(d) / The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide
32
Reclassification of EL Students in SPED
Cont’d.
1. Assessment of Language Proficiency
Using an Objective Assessment Instrument
CELDT is used as the primary criterion for the
“objective assessment”. Students should be
considered for reclassification whose overall
proficiency level is early advanced or higher
and:




Listening is intermediate/higher
Speaking is intermediate/higher
Reading is intermediate/higher
Writing is intermediate/higher
33
1. Assessment of Language Proficiency
Using an Objective Assessment Instrument
Cont’d.
Note: Alternate assessment to CELDT may be designated by
the IEP Team; this IEP designated alternative measure can be
used to inform the first criteria.
Personal Communication with the CDE CELDT & SPED Division 11-30-11
The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide
34
1. Assessment of Language Proficiency
Using an Objective Assessment Instrument
for Students Taking Alternate Assessment:
“The IEP team can use an alternate assessment of
language proficiency for reclassification purposes.
(See EC sections 56342 and 56345[b].) An
alternate assessment is the measure of the
student’s English language proficiency on any or all
four domains in which the student cannot be
assessed using the CELDT”
Personal Communication with the CDE CELDT & SPED Division 11-30-11
The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide pg. 20
35
2. Teacher Evaluation
Sample Criteria Used by Special and
General Education Teachers:
 Curriculum based measures (CBM)
 Progress towards IEP goals
 Observations with peers in class
 Classwork and homework samples
Note: if incurred deficits in motivation and
academic success *unrelated to English language
proficiency do not preclude a student from
Reclassification
A disability may be a factor that contributes to low academic
achievement and is unrelated to “English language
proficiency”
The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide
36
3. Parent Opinion and
Consultation
Provide notice to parents or guardians of their rights
and encourage them to participate in the
reclassification process
Provide an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting
with parents or guardians
Seek alternate ways to get parent input if face to
face contact is not possible
Seek information from parent about student
performance in English at home and in community, as
well as possible comparison to other siblings
4. Performance in Basic Skills
Definitions:
“Performance in basic skills” means the score and/or
performance level resulting from a recent administration of an
objective assessment of basic skills in English, such as the
California English-Language Arts Standards Test (CST for
ELA) and the California Modified Assessment for ELA (CMA
for ELA)
“Range of Performance” means range of scores on the
assessment of basic skills in English that corresponds to a
performance level or a range within a performance level
“Students of the same age” refers to student who are
enrolled in the same grade as the student who is being
considered for reclassification
The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide
38
4. Performance in Basic Skills
Cont’d.
As per the CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information
Guide pg. 12:
“For students scoring below the cut point (e.g., the CST
or CMA ELA), the LEAs should attempt to determine
whether factors other than English language
proficiency are responsible for low performance on the
test of basic skills and whether or it is reasonable to
reclassify the student.”
39
4. Comparison of Performance In
Basic Skills Cont’d.
As per the CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information
Guide pg. 21:
“According to EC Section 313(f), LEAs must use, but are not limited
to, the four criteria. In accordance with federal and state law, the
local IEP team may address the individual needs of each English
learner with a disability using multiple criteria in concert with the
four reclassification criteria in law.
The LEA may be able to reclassify the English learner with a severe
disability even though, for example, the CELDT performance is not
at the level suggested for reclassification in the SBE’s guidelines
due to the identified disability. Therefore, it is recommended to use
other language assessments to ensure the student receives
appropriate services”
40
Issues With Reclassification of EL Students In
Special Education
It is more difficult to clear the CST-ELA hurdle than the
CELDT criterion. For example, in the 11th grade in 2007, 21
percent of ELLS scored Basic or better on the CST-ELA,
compared to 41 percent scoring EA or better on CELDT.
Testing results and reclassification decisions feed into the
Title III accountability system imposed by NCLB that may
either reward of punish school districts; students with
disabilities often do not meet goal targets due to a disability
versus language difference and districts receive sanctions.
A large gap exists across grades on CELDT scores for ELs
in SPED versus non SPED ELs. This suggests that few ELs in
SPED will reach the minimum CELDT score required for
consideration to be reclassified.
Fetler, 2008
41
Maria – Student with autism who takes
alternate assessment to CELDT
Maria is a 6th grade student who has autism. She
has an a low average to below average ability level.
She is verbal; however, a lot of her speaking is more
echolalia or repetitive of what she hears. Her
pragmatic and comprehension skills are low in both
languages. She functions at approximately the 2nd
grade level in math and K-1 grade level in reading
and writing. She was classified as an English
Learner upon entering school in kindergarten. The
IEP team has designated that Maria will take an
alternate assessment to CELDT.
42
RECLASSIFICATION
SCENARIO 1 “Maria” Cont’d.
Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency
using an objective assessment instrument
Since Maria took an alternate assessment to CELDT, the
reclassification team used the data from the alternative
measures of Basics 2 & ALPI to determine if Maria meets
this criteria.
43
Basics 2 Checklist Data
Skill Area
Yes
Pre Writing
No
X
Communicates in Writing
Responds to Auditory Stimuli
X
Receptive Language (Verbal)
X
Expressive Language (Verbal)
X
Articulation
X
Receptive Language (Non Verbal)
*X
Words Independently
X
Attends to Printed Material
X
Reading Readiness
X
Basic Reading Skills
X
Reading Comprehension
*X
Overall Indication Student is Fluent in English
X
44
ALPI Assessment Data
Skill Areas (Primary Language)
Points
(0-5 pt)
I. Receptive Language
1.
4
2.
4
3.
5
4.
4
5.
4
6.
5
Total Points (0-30)
26/30
II. Expressive Language
1.
2
2.
1
3.
3
4.
2
Total Points (0-14)
45
10/14
ALPI Assessment Data
Skill Areas (English)
Points
(0-5 Pt)
I. Receptive Language
1.
4
2.
4
3.
4
4.
5
5.
5
6.
5
Total Points (0-30)
27/30
II. Expressive Language
1.
2
2.
3
3.
2
4.
2
Total Points (0-14)
46
9/14
RECLASSIFICATION
SCENARIO 1 MARIA Cont’d.
Note: that even though the student received an overall “no” in
the receptive language and reading comprehension areas on
the Basics 2; the team felt that since the scores on the ALPI
indicate the student has comparable skills in her primary
language and English in receptive language, the relative
weaknesses were due to her autism versus her language
development.
The multi-disciplinary reclassification team (to include special
educators and EL staff members) in this scenario determined
that the student was fluent in English since the data indicates
the student has acquired comparable skills in both listening
and speaking in the primary language and English on the
ALPI, and her functional academics in English are proficient.
47
47
SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D.
Remember: Incurred deficits in motivation & academic
success unrelated to English language proficiency do not
preclude a student from reclassification.
Maria’s teachers indicated that they feel she has developed
English language proficiency as evidenced by her day to
day classroom performance (not related to her autism or
disability)?
48
SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D.
Criteria 3: Parent Opinion and Consultation
Maria’s parent(s) feel she has acquired the English skills
needed to be successful in school. They see her
spontaneously answering the phone in English. They
indicate that she watches television in English and prefers to
communicate with friends and in the community in English.
49
SCENARIO 1 MARIA CONT’D.
Criteria 4: Comparison of Performance in basic
skills
“Performance in basic skills” means the score and/or
performance level resulting from a recent administration of an
objective assessment of basic skills in English, such as the CST
or CMA in ELA or other appropriate alternate objective
measure”
Maria took CAPA Level IV (for her 6th grade level) versus CST as indicated
in her IEP so the LEA / IEP team analyzed her performance to determine her
level of performance in “basic skills”. The team took into consideration
Maria’s cognitive ability levels and determine that yes, since she scored
“basic” or above on the CAPA IV she demonstrated that she had
acquired basic skills in English at her functional level.
50
SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.
Should Maria be reclassified?
Yes, in this scenario the reclassification team felt that Maria
met the LEA’s established reclassification policy based on
the four criteria outlined in CDE’s 2012-2013 CELDT
Information Guide
Note: LEA’s make final decisions about reclassification
based on data that best informs the four criteria.
51
Q&A
1) May the parent opt a student out of taking
CELDT?
Response: No, A parent may not opt a student out of
taking CELDT.
The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide
52
Q&A
2) If a student is EL and in special education, are they
required by law to have an ELD class?
Response: No, a student does not have to be placed in an “ELD
class”; however, the student must receive appropriate EL
instruction and services. How those services will be provided
should be addressed in the IEP. They may be provided in a
special or regular education setting as long as they are
appropriate to the student’s level of EL needs, are provided by
qualified staff, and will help the student progress towards their
linguistically appropriate goals and objectives.
53
Q&A
3) Is reclassification to RFEP the responsibility of the
IEP team for EL students in special education?
Answer: Each LEA must establish policies and procedures to designate
which staff or the team members are responsible for reclassification of EL
students. It might very well be most appropriate for the IEP team to make
reclassification decisions for ELs with disabilities as long as an
professional with second language acquisition (EL) expertise participates
on the IEP team.
Remember: It is best practice for English learner and special education
staff members to work together collaboratively to make reclassification
decisions for students with disabilities regardless of whether or not the
IEP team makes this decision.
5 CCR § 11303
54
Q&A
1) May the IEP team designate a CELDT test variation that
is not listed in the Title 5 Guidelines Section 11516 or
11516.5?
Response: Yes; however, the district must submit a
request for review of the proposed variations in
administering the test
1) If a student participates in CELDT with test variations,
accommodations, or modifications will they “pass”?
Response: Yes; however, if the student takes alternate
assessments for sections of the CELDT, they will get
the lowest obtainable score of LOS for the sections of
the test in which they took alternate assessments
Title 5 Regulations Section 11510; The CDE’s 2012-2013 CELDT
Information Guide
55
Q&A
6) Are districts required to assess an English learner with
moderate to severe disabilities in their primary language
in order to qualify them for special education?
Response: The regulations state you must assess in the native language
unless it is “clearly not feasible to do so”. Based on the severity and type
of disability or lack of assessment materials in the native language, it may
not be feasible to assess in the native language. Asessors should refer to
the legal regulations and determine the type of assessments that are most
appropriate.
56
Q&A
7) What is the recommended or required amount of
time an English learner must be in RTI before making
a referral for special education?
Response: It is best practice for English learners to receive
high quality, research-based interventions over a period of
time long enough to determine the following:
a. Is the student struggling academically due to a disability or
language difference?
b. Can the student’s academic needs be met through RTI
versus special education?
57
Q&A
8) May the parent waive the requirement for a student
to be assessed for special education in their primary
Language?
Response: There is no specific provision for a parent to
waive assessment in the primary language. A parent may
decline assessment in part or in whole; however, the
assessors determine the language for the assessments to
be administered in.
58
Q&A
9) May a school EL reclassification team use
“alternative criteria” to reclassify a student who is
EL to RFEP?
Answer: No, there is no provision that allows an LEA to use
“alternative reclassification criteria”. LEAs must follow the
LEA’s policies and procedures for reclassification based on
the four criteria established by the State Board of Education
(SBE). However, within the four established reclassification
criteria the SBE have recommended flexibility in the way the
way teams apply the guidelines that may be relevant to
students with disabilities.
The CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide pg. 2; 5 CCR § 11303
Q&A
10) May a school classify a student that has severe
disabilities and is non-verbal as FEP upon entry?
Answer: No, there is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative
criteria” to classify a student as FEP upon entry if it is deemed that the
student may be an English learner based on the home language survey.
The LEA must attempt to give the student the CELDT (or alternative if an
IEP team determines the student is unable to take the CELDT). Then, once
the student takes CELDT, and it is deemed the scores are invalid, the LEA
may use their discretion and use other data to determine the likelihood of
the student being proficient in English and designate the student
accordingly.
5 CCR § 11303
Personal communication with the CDE SPED and CELDT Divn. 11-30-11
60
Q&A
11) May a school designate a student who uses
American Sign Language (ASL) as FEP even though
they are EL based on the home language survey?
Answer: For purposes of taking CELDT, although ASL is
considered a language separate from English, students who
use ASL in and of itself, are not required to take the CELDT;
however, if the HSL survey indicates that a language other than
English (and ASL) is spoken in the home based on the first
three questions or possibly 4th, the student should take CELDT
or alternate assessment to determine proficiency in English.
A student who uses ASL as their primary language in the above scenario
may be identified as EL.
Based on personal communication with the CDE SPED & CELDT Divn. 1130-11; 5 CCR § 11303
61
Q&A
12) For the fourth reclassification criteria
“comparison of performance in basic skills”, may the
reclassification team use data from the CAPA
assessment since the student does not take CST or
CMA?
Answer: Yes. The LEA may utilize to determine the student’s
“comparison of performance in basic skills” at a their
functional level.
CDE’s 2012-13 CELDT Information Guide
62