English Language Learners and Special Education:
NJTESOL-NJBE Fall Conference
A Response to Intervention
October 20, 2012
Barbara Tedesco & Elizabeth Franks
babted@aol.com & ejf24bb@aol.com
ONE SIZE FITS ALL
Concerns
• Over-identification
– Diana v.
California Board
of Education.
– Students classified
due to language
difference;
inappropriate
assessment.
• Under-identification
– Schools are very
sensitive to
possibility of
misclassification.
– As a result, ELLs
with real special
education needs
are sometimes
left behind.
NJAC 6A:14-3.5(b) Determination of eligibility
(b) In making a determination of eligibility for special
education and related services, a student shall not be
determined eligible if the determinant factor is
• due to a lack of instruction in reading, including the
essential components of reading instruction, or math
• due to limited English proficiency. (emphasis added)
If the severe discrepancy or low functioning is due to
one of the above factors, the student is NOT eligible
for special education.
T Activity
• Find a partner
• Have a conversation about what you did
yesterday.
• However, you may not use the letter T in
any of the words.
Differing Explanations for Observable Difficulties
Observable difficulty
Omits words or adds
words to a sentence
Has difficulty retelling
the events of a story read
aloud
Becomes distracted easily
Possible ELL
Possible Disability
explanation (observed explanation (observed
in English)
across contexts in
both languages)
Differing Explanations for Observable Difficulties
Observable difficulty
Possible Disability
explanation (observed
Possible ELL
explanation (observed across contexts in
both languages)
in English)
Omits words or adds
words to a sentence
Direct transfer from L1
Early stages of L2
development
Word retrieval difficulties
Expressive language
difficulties
Has difficulty retelling
the events of a story read
aloud
Early stages of L2
development; may
understand but does not
have enough expressive
language to retell
Short term memory
difficulties
Difficulties with
sequencing
Becomes distracted easily Does not understand or
speak L2
Too much decontextualized oral
language
Attention difficulties
Comprehension
difficulties
Sanchez-Lopez (2007)
Key Questions
How do we decide when to refer a child to
the CST?
What interventions are appropriate for
ELLs?
What practices should be in place in order to
appropriately identify ELLs with special
needs?
Reframe the issue
• Are the difficulties related to trying to learn
content in a second language while learning
that language?
• Are the difficulties indicative of a learning
disability in addition to the normal process of
learning a second language?
Response to Intervention (RTI)
• IDEIA of Dec. 2004 –
• Response to intervention. The focus is on
providing more effective instruction by
encouraging earlier intervention for students
experiencing difficulty learning.
• Change from the “wait to fail” approach.
Response to Intervention
Model
• Three Tiered Model
• Three tiers of intervention
• Most important is a systemic foundation to build the tiers.
Individual
Specific
Instructional
Systemic
Interventions
Three tiers of intervention services
from classroom instrcution to
individual
Continuum of interventions developed
On-going progress monitoring to
ascertain response
Specific interventions/targeted
strategies when previous tier
strategies are not effective
Benefits of RTI
• Links authentic assessment and instruction
• Becomes a student-centered approach
• Requires collaboration across disciplines
(ESL, Bilingual, Gen. Ed., Special Ed.,
Reading)
• Creates new roles for problem-solving team
members and promotes cross discipline
discussions, sharing of expertise.
Potential Benefits of RTI Model
for ELLs
• Encourages a proactive, preventive process
• Emphasizes high quality, consistent, effective
instruction for ELLs throughout the day (efficacy
of instruction)
• Provides interventions/enhanced instruction with
multilingual and multilevel resources in a timely
manner across grade levels, throughout the school
• Uses assessment to inform instruction
Multi-tier model must include:
• I&RS teams consisting of representation from all
appropriate educators
• Educators who are properly trained to select and implement
evidence-based interventions
• Selected practices which have research to support their use
with ELLs.
• Progress monitoring strategies and instruments that are
clearly understood by the teacher
• Data related to student progress which is quantified, charted
and used as a foundation for making subsequent decisions.
• Interpretation of progress monitoring data which considers
alternate reasons for suspected problems.
Klingner, Hoover & Baca, 2008
Systemic Foundation
An acceptable and supportive school environment
• Casteñeda v. Pickard
– Three pronged criteria:
• Theory
• Practice
• Results (NCLB)
• Linguistic and cultural
incorporation
• Curriculum as window/mirror
– Culturally responsive
instruction
• Academically rich quality
• Individual guidance and
programs
support
• NJ Administrative Code: districtwide commitment to professional • Meaningful, continuous family
involvement
development of teachers,
support staff and administrators • Use problem-solving
procedure and/or standard
• Programs that support
treatment protocol
interventions
Think about your own school/district… Has your district instituted these practices?
Where do you think your school/district may need to focus?
Seven Contextual Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Learning environment
Personal and family factors
Physical and psychological factors
Previous schooling performance
Proficiency in oral language and literacy in both
languages
6. Academic achievement
7. Cross-cultural factors
Factors Affecting Second
Language Acquisition
• Intra-personal
– Age
– Motivation
– Degree of L1
proficiency
– Attitude toward target
language community
– Tolerance of learner
for own errors
• External
– Amount of exposure
– Manner of acquisition
– Availability of
language models
– Attitude of target
language community
– Tolerance of errors by
the community.
Systemic
Process
• Profile
– Gather relevant data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attendance/educational gaps
Grades
Assessment of L1and L2
Mobility
Length of time in district/country
Achievement in both languages
Family dynamics
Cultural characteristics
Medical evaluation
Program design
Tier One Instructional
Research-based effective models with ELLs:
All teachers aware of WIDA ELD Standards
Differentiated instruction according to ELP level
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
ESL instruction part of Core program
National Literacy Panel on Language Minority
Children and Youth
Universal screening
Monitor progress over time (6-8weeks).
DRA, NWEA, AimsWeb, Classroom based assessments
.
Second Language Acquisition
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)


Social Language
Example words/phrases: table, What’s up?
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)


Academic Language
Example words:



New meanings: table
General academic words: act upon, attach, inquiry
Content words: atom, molecule
Normal Processes of Second
Language Acquisition
• Silent or Nonverbal
Period
• Interference
• Code switching
• Fossilization
• Language Loss
Language Loss
• An individual’s change from the habitual use of one
language to the habitual use of another. Loss in L1 is
NOT matched by a corresponding replacement in L2.
Loss can be much more rapid so that children will
appear deficient in 2 languages.
• Language Loss symptoms resemble monolingual
pathology:
– poor comprehension; limited vocabulary; grammatical and
syntactical errors; expressive language.
• It may be a disorder for one child and/or lack of
English proficiency for another. Investigate the child’s
earlier L1 capabilities. Long exposure with errors still
present can indicate speech/language or learning
problems.
The WIDA ELD Standards
Standard 1- SIL: English language learners communicate for SOCIAL
AND INSTRUCTIONAL purposes within the school setting.
Standard 2 – LoLA: English language learners communicate information,
ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of
LANGUAGE ARTS.
Standard 3 – LoMA: English language learners communicate
information, ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the
content area of MATHEMATICS.
Standard 4 – LoSC: English language learners communicate information,
ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of
SCIENCE.
Standard 5 – LoSS: English language learners communicate information,
ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of
SOCIAL STUDIES.
Criteria for Proficiency Level Definitions
1
2
3
4
5
6
ENTERING EMERGING DEVELOPING EXPANDING BRIDGING REACHING
5
Discourse
level
Discourse complexity Amount of discourse, types and
variety of grammatical structures,
the organization of ideas.
Sentence
level
Language
conventions and
forms
Types and variety of grammatical
structures
Conventions, mechanics, and
fluency
Match of language forms to purpose/
Perspective
Word level
Vocabulary usage
Comprehension and use of the
technical language of the content
areas
CAN DO DESCRIPTORS FOR LEVEL 1 (ENTERING)
ELLs will process, understand, produce, or use:
Listening Visual cues for understanding
Long pauses and request repetition and/or slow rate of speed
Speaking Minimal communication skills, using only one or two words.
Imitation of others and reliance on formulaic phrases.
Words, phrases, or chunks of language when presented with onestep commands, directions,
WH-questions, or statements with visual and graphic support
Reading
Highly contextualized words including cognates
Pictorial or graphic representation of the language of the content
areas;
Single phrases and re-reading
Writing
Familiar words or phrases.
Simple fixed expressions or guided paragraph
Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol (SIOP)
1. Lesson Planning
2. Building Background
3. Comprehensible Input
4. Strategies
5. Interaction
6. Practice/Application
7. Lesson Delivery
8. Review/Assessment
Echevarria, Vogt & Short (2002)
National Literacy Panel on Language
Minority Children and Youth
• Systematic, direct
instruction of vocabulary
• Text Comprehension
• Phonemic awareness
• Phonics instruction
• Fluency
• Motivation &
Prior Knowledge
• Oral Proficiency
Literacy-rich environment:
Sufficient instructional time and
Careful lesson planning;
School-wide interventions for
struggling readers and school-wide
assessment system
Sound instructional approaches:
grouping, maximizing student
learning
School climate of collaboration, strong
leadership, and evidence of
commitment;
High quality professional development;
School partnerships.
Tier One Intervention
• Collect data on student achievement (word
reading, comprehension, phonemic awareness,
fluency, etc).
• Look at scores of ELLs based on ELP and
compare to “true peers”
• If majority of ELLs are not making progress, look
at Tier One instruction.
– Fidelity of implementation?
• Adjust instruction and continue to collect data
Klingner, Hoover & Baca, 2008
If the problem is not resolved,
seek support systems.
• Consultation with I&RS Committee
• Gather relevant data
– from initial profile
– current data
• Research intervention programs for intensive
small group instruction
• Title I, additional ESL support,
before/during/after school program
• Counseling
• Community-based programs
Tier Two -Specific Intervention
The teacher uses a clinical teaching cycle in order
to resolve the difficulty and/or validate the problem.
• When student struggles in Tier One, develop
supplemental intensive small group scientificallybased interventions. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
• Low teacher-student ratio (3-6 students)
• Carefully sequenced, scaffolded instruction
• Teach using significantly different
strategies (learning styles, multiple
intelligences)
Monitor progress over time (6-8 weeks).
Ways to implement Tier 2
interventions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Guided reading groups
Academic support programs
Additional ELL support
Before/after school programs
Extended year programs
Technology
Interrelated Elements for Enhancing
Comprehension for ELLs
Oral
Language Proficiency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Comprehension Intervention based on
Literacy Panel Research
• BRAVO
– Build background knowledge
– Reading comprehension strategies directly
taught and practiced
– Audio-visual support and scaffolds
– Vocabulary instruction directly and
systematically planned and delivered
– Opportunities for development of academic
oral language
PLUSS Model
(Brown & Sanford, in press)
• P: Pre-teach critical vocabulary
• L: Language modeling and opportunities to
use academic language
• U: Use visuals and graphic organizers
• S: Systematic and explicit instruction in
reading components and strategies
• S: Strategic use of native language
National Center on Response to Intervention
Relationship Between
L2 Oral Proficiency and L2 Literacy Skills
• Well developed oral proficiency in English is
associated with well-developed reading
comprehension skills and writing skills in English.
Oral Language Proficiency and
Rate of Acquisition
Results of study point out the significant relationship
between language proficiency and the acquisition rate
of sight words in English.
• Students with the lowest oral English proficiency had
the lowest rate for acquiring sight words in a single
sitting (about three words).
• The group of ELLs with the highest oral language
proficiency had the highest mean acquisition
rate (seven words).
Developing Oral Language Proficiency
Reduce teacher talk. Design tasks in which students must speak.
• Read alouds
• Picture Walks
• Repeated readings of predictable
picture books
• Listening to books on tapes/CDs
• Interactive computer programs
• Language experience
• Chants, songs, poems
• Drama, reader’s theater
• Storytelling
• Finger-plays
National Literacy Panel on Vocabulary
• Both extensive reading and direct instruction
– Learning in rich context
– Incidental learning (read-alouds, storytelling)
– Need for direct instruction of strategic academic
vocabulary items required for specific texts
(content-based)
• Repetition and multiple exposures
• Active engagement in learning tasks
• Multiple methods
Tier Two Reading Interventions
What Works Clearinghouse
• Reading Mastery
• Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs
• Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition
(BCIRC)
• Enhanced Proactive Reading
• Read Well
• SRA Reading Mastery
• Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners
and Their Classmates
• Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies
• Fast ForWord Language
• Peer Tutoring and Response Groups
• A Scaffold Reading Experience (SRE)
• Language Experience Approach
• Read Naturally
Tier Two Writing Interventions
• Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs
• Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition (BCIRC)
• Vocabulary Improvement Program for English
Language Learners and Their Classmates
• Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies
• Peer Tutoring and Response Groups
• Language Experience Approach
• Lucy Calkins Writing Workshop (need to adapt
for ELLs)
• Writing between languages (Danling Fu)
If interventions do not solve problem
• A special education referral is initiated. A
summary of all of the interventions and
relevant data accompanies the referral.
• A child study team convenes to determine
whether the child should be referred for a
comprehensive evaluation.
Indicators of Language Difference
• It is normal for ELLs to demonstrate a lower level of
English proficiency than their monolingual peers.
• Second language acquisition follows a developmental
course.
• Language loss is a normal phenomenon when
opportunities to hear and use L1 are minimized.
• Shifting from one language to another within utterances
is not necessarily an indicator of language confusion
(code switching).
• It is normal for second language acquirers to experience
dysfluencies associated with lack of vocabulary, word
finding difficulties and/or anxiety.
Indicators of Learning Disability
• Difficulty in learning language at a normal rate compared to learners
from similar backgrounds “true peers”, even with special assistance
in both languages.
• Short mean length of utterances (in both languages).
• Auditory processing problems (e.g. poor memory, poor
comprehension) in both languages.
• Poor sequencing skills. Communication is disorganized, incoherent
and leaves listener confused.
• Communication difficulties when interacting with peers from a similar
background.
• Lack of organization, structure and sequence in spoken and written
language; difficulty conveying thoughts.
Summary
• It is crucial that all educators work together to address this
issue.
• Gather all background information especially previous
educational experience and ability in L1.
• Exhaust all possibilities and resources to eliminate second
language acquisition as a “SOLE” cause of the struggle.
• Target concern and address through specific intervention.
• Monitor progress over time
• If child is making progress – allow more time and provide
appropriate interventions
• If child continues to struggle with all supports in place,
consider a referral to CST
Resources
Cross-cultural Developmental Education Services
Dr. Catherine Collier
info@crosscultured.com
The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational
Systems (NCCRESt) A. Artiles, Vanderbilt University and J.
Klingner, University of CO at Boulder
www.Nccrest.org
CEC Division for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Exceptional Learners
www.cec.sped.org
Center for Applied Linguistics
www.cal.org
National Literacy Panel
www.cal.nlp
Office English Language Acquisition
www.ed.gov/offices/oela
Center for Research on Education Diversity & Excellence
CREDE
International Institute Of NJ
www.cal.org/crede
www.iinj.org
Resources
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
www.ed.gov/offices/osers
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/cdb.htm
Intercultural Development Research Association
www.idra.org
National Association of Bilingual Education
New Jersey Administrative Code for
Special Education and Bilingual Education
www.nabe.org
www.nj.gov/njded/code/
Culturegrams
www.culturegrams.com
American Speech and Hearing Association
www.asha.org
References
August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language minority children.
Washington, DC: National Research Council Institute of Medicine
Bender, W. N. & Shores, C. (2007). Response to Intervention: A practical guide
for every teacher. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Collier, C. (1998). Cognitive learning strategies for diverse learners. Ferndale,
WA: \Cross Cultural Developmental Education Services
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon, Eng: Multilingual Matters
Echevarria, J, Vogt, M., Short, D. (2000). Making Content Comprehensible for
English
Language Learners: The SIOP model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gersten, R. & Jimenez, R (Eds.) (1998). Promoting learning for culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Hamayan, E., Marler, B., Sanchez-Lopez, Crisitina, and Damico, John. (2007).
Special Education Considerations for ELLs. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon, Inc.
Klingner, J. K., Hoover, J.J., & Baca L.M. (2008). Why do English language
learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from
learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
References
Langdon, H (2000). Factors affecting special education services for ELLs with
suspected language learning disabilities. Multiple Voices, 5 (1). 66-82.
Mattes, L. & Omark, D. (1984). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual
handicapped. San Diego: College Hill Press.
Ortiz, A. & Ramirez, B. (Eds.) (1998). Schools and the culturally diverse
exceptional student: Promising practices and future directions. Reston,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Ovando, C. & Collier, V. (1998). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in
multicultural contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Roseberry-McKibbin, (1995). Multicultural students with special language needs.
Tharp, R. et al. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness,
inclusion and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority
students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Determining appropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: A self
assessment guide for principals. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children