Meeting the Needs of English
Learners with Disabilities
2011-2012 SBCSELPA Presentation 3-9-12
Jarice Butterfield, Ph. D. Santa Barbara County SELPA
Director
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 three times as
likely to be in special education as those
receiving some native language support
Artiles & Ortiz 2002
4
Presentation Topics








Initial Identification of English Learners (ELs)
CELDT Testing
Pre-referral Strategies/RTI for English Learners
Eligibility & Assessment of English Learners for Special
Education
IEP Development for English Learners
Programs & Services for English Learners in Special
Education
Reclassification to RFEP of English Learners
Questions and Answers
5
Initial Identification of
English Learners
California EC Section 52164.1 requires LEAs to make a
primary language determination for all students in K-12
upon first enrollment in a California public school. A
student’s home language is identified through a
Home Language Survey (HLS).
If a language other than *English is indicated on:
 Any of the first three questions (if using the CDE HLS sample
survey) – student is tested with CELDT
 Fourth question, student may be tested on the CELDT at the
LEA’s discretion
* American Sign Language (ASL), in and of itself, is not considered
a “language other than English” for purposes of CELDT testing
6
Initial Identification of
English Learners Cont’d.
 Students in grades K-12 take the CELDT if indicated
on the HLS
 The criteria for grades K-1 differ from students in
grades 2-12
 This includes transitional K students since they are
technically kindergarteners
See The CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 7-8
7
Initial Identification of English
Learners With Disabilities
Possible Scenario
A student with a disability takes the initial CELDT and
scores below the threshold for being identified as FEP
upon entry.
The LEA / IEP team may review other sources of data
(tests, work samples, interviews, observation notes,
etc.) to determine if the student is proficient in English if
there is a concern that the student’s disability may have
impacted the results of the CELDT testing.
8
CELDT
The CELDT has three purposes:
 To identify students who are limited English proficient or
English learners
 To determine the level of English language proficiency of EL
students
 To assess the progress of EL students in acquiring the skills
of listening, speaking, reading, and writing English
9
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
10
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.”
11
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 CDE has advised that any “alternate assessment” must
assess in all four domains: listening, speaking, reading & writing
12
Alternate Assessment
Cont’d.
Alternative Assessments to CELDT



At this time, the California Department of Education does not
designate a specific alternative assessment to CELDT for
students whose IEP team determines that the student may not
be able to take all or parts of CELDT in order to determine their
level of English language proficiency.
The IEP team must determine the alternate assessment(s) to
be administered as appropriate for the student
If the IEP team determines that a student should take an
alternate assessment to CELDT, they must ensure that the
student is assessed in all four domains of English proficiency:
13
listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
Alternate Assessment
Cont’d.
Possible Alternative Assessments to CELDT
The chart on the following page lists possible assessment tools
that various LEAs in California have utilized as an
alternative to CELDT for students functioning at the CAPA level:
14
Resource List for Possible Alternate
Assessments to CELDT
Test Name
Skills Assessed
Organization
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/so
lom.pdf
Basics 2
(Checklist for functional
reading and writing)
Listening, Speaking
Reading, Writing
Lakeshore
http://www.lakeshorele
arning.com/home/hom
e.jsp
Sandi
Listening, Speaking,
Reading, Writing
SEACO
http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us
/materials/SANDI_Riversid
e.pdf
15
Resource List for Possible Alternate
Assessments to CELDT Cont’d.
Test Name
Basic Inventory of Natural
Language (BINL)
Skills Assessed
Listening
Speaking in 30
different languages
Norm referenced &
Listening & Speaking
Criterion referenced
Reading & Writing
Brigance IED II (B-7yrs)
literacy
Brigance CIBS II (Pre K –9)
Organization
or Publisher
Contact
Information
CHECpoint Systems, (800)635-1235
Inc.
Curriculum &
Associates
http://www.curriculuma
ssociates.com
16
Pre Referral
Strategies for English
Learners
17
Three Categories of EL
Students Who May Experience
Academic Difficulties
1. Those with deficiencies in their teaching or learning
environment; lack of effective ELD instruction and
support
2. Those experiencing academic difficulties not related to
a learning disability; Interrupted schooling, limited formal
education, medical problems, low attendance, high
transiency, etc.
3. True ELs with disabilities and in need of Special
Education
18
STEPS PRIOR TO SPECIAL
EDUCATION REFERRAL
Step 1: School Environment
Appropriate curriculum & instruction for ELs
Step 2: Pre Referral Intervention or RtI
Screen, observe, intervene, & track progress
Step 3: Referral to Special Education
Assess in native language and English
19
5 Best Practices for Preventing
Over Identification of English
Learners for SPED:





Screen for reading or other academic problems and
monitor progress early
Provide intensive small group reading instruction
Provide extensive & varied vocabulary instruction
Develop academic English (provide daily ELD services
with fidelity)
Schedule regular, peer-assisted learning opportunities
Gersten, 2007
Ensuring that EL students have access to Response to Intervention (RTI) may be an
effective way to ensure identification for SPED is appropriate!
20
Response to Intervention (RTI)
for English Learners
Response to Intervention (RTI)……


Emphasizes prevention and early intervention for all
students, including English learners
Premised on data-based decision-making for all
learners within the system
21
Pre Referral RTI Strategies
for English Learners
Three Recommended Components of RTI for Els:
1) Universal screening of academics
2) High quality, research-based differentiated instruction
that is multi-tiered based on need
3) Progress Monitoring of English development and
academic performance
REMEMBER: Mandated ELD Services are not
RTI and should not occur in lieu of
22
RTI
Sample Response to Intervention
(RTI) Model
Tier IV
Tier III
Tier II
Tier I
Referral
To
Special
Education
•Daily, intensive,
research based
intervention
•Lower student/teacher ratio
•More frequent progress
monitoring
•Research based intervention
•Small groups (8+)
•Progress monitoring/ data tracking
Monitor & track academic & language acquisition growth
Conduct universal screening to determine student risk levels
Provide core research based reading program & EL services
23
Considerations for English Learners
Prior to Referral to Special Education
”A pupil shall be referred for special education services only after the
resources of the regular education program have been considered, and
when appropriate, utilized.”
E. C. 56303
The normal process of 2nd language acquisition, as well as manifestations
of dialect and sociolinguistic variance shall not be diagnosed as a
handicapping condition. CCR, Title 5 3023(b)
A child may not be determined to be eligible for SPED…if the determinant
factor for eligibility determination is…1) lack of instruction in reading or
math, or 2) limited English proficiency….
CFR 300.534
24
Referral to Special Education
Questions for the Student Study Team to Consider
√
Has the student received intensive interventions in the area of
academic weakness implemented with fidelity over time and
demonstrated little or no progress?
√
Does the team have data to support that the difficulties
(academic, social-emotional, or in speech & language) are
most likely due to a disability versus a language difference?
If answers to questions above are “YES,” a referral to special
education may be appropriate.
25
Assessment & Determining
Eligibility of English Learners
for Special Education
26
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.
27
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 1412(a
(6)(B) of Title 20 of the United States 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)
Note: Assessors must note this in their assessment reports!
28
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)
29
California Ed Code 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)
30
Identification & Assessment
Legal Requirements for
English Learners Cont’d.

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. It 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
31
Identification & Assessment
Legal Requirements for
English Learners Cont’d.
It is best practice to use the following four sources of
information in order to address all socio-cultural factors
related to English learners:
1) Norm-referenced assessments in English and Primary
Language (if primary language assessments are available)
2) Criterion-referenced tests
3) Systematic observation in educational environments
4) Structured interviews (with student, parent, teachers, etc.)
32
Assessment of English
Learners
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”.
33
Assessment of English
Learners Cont’d.
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..
34
Assessment of English
Learners 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 to
35
inform identification decisions.
Use of Interpreters or
Translators in Assessment
Interpreters translate ORALLY
Versus
Translators interpret WRITTEN TEXT
36
Use of Interpreters for Bilingual
Assessment
Interpreters are typically used for interviews
that are part of the assessment process (parent
or student)


“Consecutive” interpreting is recommended
e.g. the speaker stops every 1-5 minutes (usually at the end of
every "paragraph" or a complete thought) and the interpreter
then steps in to render what was said into the target language.
Interpreter should take notes as details may be lost after a full
paragraph
37
Use of Interpreters or
Translators in
Bilingual Assessment
Following are best practice
recommendations for use of interpreters or
translators during assessment
I. Preparation prior to the assessment or interview




Determine what tests or questions are being administered or asked;
Administer only the tests which the translator has been trained to
assist with;
Be prepared for the session to account for extra time needed with an
interpreter; and,
Determine the skill level of the interpreter or translator.
38
Use of Interpreters or Translators in
Bilingual Assessment Cont’d.
Briefing Procedures (assessor and interpreter or
translator review together):






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
39
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.
40
IEP Development
for English Learners
41
IEP Notices for English
Learners
IEP Notices should:
 Note if an interpreter will be at the IEP (if appropriate)
 Be provided in primary language of parent
 Indicate the parent has a right to have copy of IEP in
primary language (if feasible)
42
IEP Development
for English Learners
Also, as per EC 56345 the regulations state:
“For individuals whose native language is other than
English, linguistically appropriate goals, objectives,
programs, and services” shall be included in the
IEP contents”
Note: This does not require placement in a specific classroom!
43
IEP Development
for English Learners
IEP Content Checklist √
 The results of CELDT or alternative assessment in order to
document English language proficiency and develop
linguistically appropriate goals
 If the student requires accommodations or modifications on
CELDT
EC Section 60810
CFR Section 300.138(b)(1)(2); CFR 300.324
44
IEP Development
for English Learners Cont’d.
In addition to CELDT considerations, the IEP team
must determine:
 How English language development (ELD) needs will be met
and who will provide those services “programs, services, and
instruction”
 If the student needs primary language support and what
language should be the language of instruction
 Linguistically appropriate goals to meet English language
development needs
34 CFR 300.324; EC 56345
45
How to Document Programs,
Services & Instruction on IEP
 Programs: Indicate on IEP what type of EL program
the student will be in such as SEI, ELM, or alternate
program (see upcoming slide for details)
 Services: Indicate on the IEP if the student needs
primary language support or other services to be
successful
 Instruction: Indicate where the instruction will take
place (SPED classroom, general education, etc.) and if
the instruction will be in English or primary language46
Linguistically Appropriate
(ELD) Goals
Linguistically appropriate goals should:
 Align to the student’s present levels of performance in
English (taken from CELDT or alternate assessment)
 Be drafted in the student’s areas of disability
Note:
This may be accomplished through alignment of the
student’s academic goals in ELA (listening, speaking,
reading, or writing as relevant) to an appropriate ELD
Standard aligned to English language proficiency results.
47
ELD Standards




The California State Board Adopted ELD Standards
categorized by subject or domains (listening &
speaking, reading, and writing)
The California State Board Adopted ELD Standards
categorized by strands and sub strands
The California State Board Adopted ELD Standards
not numbered, but are categorized by levels of
proficiency assessed on CELDT
The California State Board Adopted ELD Standards
categorized by grade
are
are
are
are
48
Sample Linguistically
Appropriate Goal 1





Domain:
Reading
Strand:
Word Analysis
Sub Strand: Concepts about Print, Phonemic
Awareness, and Vocabulary and Concept
Development
Level:
Early Intermediate
Grade:
3-5
Goal: By (date) , (student) , while reading aloud a short passage of
8-10 lines at grade level, will recognize and produce English
Phonemes that do not correspond to phonemes he or she already hears and
produces with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive trials as demonstrated by data
49
tracking records.
Sample Linguistically
Appropriate Goal 2





Domain:
Strand:
Sub Strand:
Level:
Grade:
Writing
Strategies & Applications
Organization & Focus
Intermediate
6-8

Goal: By (date) , (student) will develop a clear
purpose in a short essay (two to three paragraphs) by
appropriately using the rhetorical devices of quotations
and facts with 90% accuracy on 3 consecutive trials as
demonstrated by a written response to a prompt.
50
Programs & Services for
English Learners in SPED
51
Meeting the Needs of ELs in SPED
ELs will need language development,
maintenance and support!
1) ELs learn best when learning activities that build on their home
language and culture
2) EL learning occurs best in an education context
a. Rich in language input
b. With multiple forms of literacy
c. With various types of organizational structures
(Cooperative, Dyad, and Individual
3) With multiple forms of instructional strategies
(Interactive, Socratic and Lecture)
Artiles & Ortiz 2002
52
Programs & Services for EL
Students in Special Education
Services and methodology for English learners in
California:
English Language Development (ELD) Settings
English Language Mainstream (ELM)
Structured English Immersion (SEI)
Alternative Programs
■Instruction is provided in primary language (L1)
Methodology
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English
(SDAIE)
Primary Language Support
53
Programs & Services for EL
Students in Special Education
Programs
Structured English Immersion
Program
(SEI)
For students with “less than
Reasonable Fluency” or
scoring at beginning or early
intermediate on CELDT
Program Components
English Language Development (ELD)
Academic Core Subjects
Program Delivery
•Classroom instruction is
primarily in English
•Intensive ELD support is
provided daily
•SDAIE is provided via class
•Primary language (L1)
support is provided
English Language
Mainstream (ELM)
For students with an IEP the IEP team
determines the appropriate
instructional setting for the student to
receive ELD as well as the staff
responsible (EL or SPED).
•Classroom instruction is
primarily in English
•Daily ELD instruction is
usually provided in the
context of the regular
classroom
SDAIE is provided via class
•Primary language (L1)
support is provided
The IEP team also determines the
extent to which primary language
support/instruction is needed.
•Classroom instruction is in
primary language (L1)
•Academic instruction in
54
English (SDAIE) via class
For students with “Reasonable
Fluency”
Scoring Intermediate or above
on CELDT
Alternative Programs
(Bilingual Programs)
Programs & Services for EL
Students in Special Education
Placement Requirements for English Learners:
English learners are placed in the instructional setting which can
best address their individual language acquisition needs and help
them learn English.
(1) All pupils are placed in English-language programs unless a parental
exception waiver has been granted for an alternative program.
E. C. 305, 306, 310, 311
(2) Based on LEA criteria of reasonable fluency, English learners are
placed in structured English immersion (SEI) or in English-language
mainstream (ELM) program settings. English learners who do not meet
the LEA criteria for participation in an ELM are placed in an ELM
program if the parent or guardian so requests.
55
EC 305, 306, 310, 311; 5 CCR 11301
55
ELD Programs & Services for EL
Students in Special Education
SEI services may be provided for English
learners with an IEP in a variety of ways to
include:
(1)Targeted ELD instructional groups held within the context of a
classroom taught by a special educator
(2)Instruction in a general education classroom during a portion
of the day when English language development (ELD)
instruction is provided by a general education teacher or staff
(3)In a collaborative model where special educators team with the
general education staff to provide EL services
56
Collegiality & Collaboration
Between SPED and General Ed
Collegiality is the existence of four specific
behaviors:
1) First, teachers talk frequently, continuously, and concretely
about the practice of teaching.
2) Second, they observe others’ teaching frequently and offer
constructive feedback and critiques.
3) Third, they work together to plan, design, evaluate, and
prepare instructional materials and curriculum.
4) Fourth, they teach each other about the practice of teaching.
57
Services for EL Students in
Special Education
Primary Language Support:
The IEP team should address how primary language
support will be provided to help student access the
core curriculum. It may be provided in the following ways:
 By SPED or general education bilingual teacher
 By a bilingual instructional assistant
 By a volunteer or parent/relative
 By a peer or cross-age coach
 By providing materials in the primary language
58
Reclassification of EL
Students in Special
Education
59
Reclassification of EL Students in
Special Education
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)
60
Reclassification of EL Students in
Special Education
Reclassification Criteria:
The reclassification procedures developed by the California
Board of Education (CBE) requires districts to utilize multiple
criteria to reclassify a pupil as proficient in English.
EC 313(d)
61
Reclassification of EL Students in
Special Education 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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide
62
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
63
Criteria 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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 10
64
Teacher Evaluation
Sample Criteria Used by Special and General
Education Teachers:
 Use student’s academic performance;
 Note that 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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 11
65
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.
Comparison of 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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 11
67
Comparison of Performance
In Basic Skills for Students with
Moderate to Severe Disabilities
 As per email communication with the CDE SPED Division on 31-12 the CAPA results may be used for determining if the
student has acquired basic skills in comparison to other
students at their functional level.
68
Comparison of Performance
In Basic Skills
Note: As per 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.
The CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg. 12
69
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.
70
(Fetler, 2008)
RECLASSIFICATION
SCENARIO 1 “Maria”
Student With Autism Who Takes Alternative
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 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 alternative assessment to CELDT.
71
71
RECLASSIFICATION
SCENARIO 1 “Maria” Cont’d.
Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency
using an objective assessment instrument
Since Maria took an alternative assessment to CELDT, the
reclassification team used the data from the alternative
measures of Basics 2 & ALPI to determine if Maria meets this
criteria.
72
72
Basics 2 Checklist Data
Skill Area
Pre Writing
Yes
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
73
Overall Indication Student is Fluent in English
*X
X
73
ALPI Assessment Data
Skill Areas (Primary Language)
Points
(0-5
pts)
I. Receptive Language
1.
4
2.
4
3.
5
4.
4
5.
4
6.
5
Points (0-30)
Total
26/30
II. Expressive Language
1.
2
2.
1
3.
3
4.
2
10/14
Total Points (0-14)
74
ALPI Assessment Data
Skill Areas (English)
Points
(0-5
pts)
I. Receptive Language
1.
4
2.
4
3.
4
4.
5
5.
5
6.
5
Points (0-30)
Total
27/30
II. Expressive Language
1.
2
2.
3
3.
2
4.
2
9/14
Total Points (0-14)
75
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
English language development 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.
76
76
SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.
Criteria 2: Teacher Evaluation
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)?
77
SCENARIO 1 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.
78
SCENARIO 1 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, she demonstrated that she had
acquired basic skills in English at her functional level.
79
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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide pg.
10
Note: LEA’s make final decisions about reclassification based
on data that best informs the four criteria.
80
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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide
81
Q&A
2) If a student is EL and in special education, are they
required by law to have an ELD class?
Respone: 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.
82
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
83
Q&A
4) 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
5) 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 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide
84
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.
85
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
86
special education?
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.
87
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.
5 CCR § 11303;
The CDE’s 2011-2012 CELDT Information Guide
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
89
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 HSLsurvey 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. 11-30-11
5 CCR § 11303
90
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.
As per email communication with the CDE 3-1-12
91