ASSESSMENT OF
ENGLISH LEARNERS:
GUIDELINES FOR BEST PRACTICES
Natalia Borisov & Megan Landreth
Purpose of This Workshop

This information is
designed to guide
school psychologists
and special education
program specialists
practicing in the field
today when assessing
EL students in an effort
to better serve this
growing, at-risk
population of students.
Presentation Outline
1.
Why Focus on EL Students?
2.
Legal History of Assessment
3.
Current Regulations
4.
EL Learning Trajectory
5.
Importance of Native Language
6.
Overrepresentation in Special
Education: SLD & ID
7.
Current Assessment Methods
8.
Best Practice Methods & Tools
9.
Case Studies 1 & 2
10.
Q&A
Why Focus on EL Students?

Growing numbers of ELs in U.S. schools
 From
1997-98 to the 2008-09 school years, the number of
EL students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, a 51
percent increase

Uneven literacy performance
of EL 4th graders reaching basic reading competency
compared to 70% for non-EL
 29% of EL 8th graders compared to 77% of non-EL
 30%
Why Focus on EL Students? cont.




The dropout rate for EL students is 15 to 20 percent
higher than for the general student population
EL students are overrepresented in special education
programs
EL students have lower academic achievement as
compared to non-EL students
There is a lack of research, best practice guidelines,
or “definitive“ protocol for this population
Legal History for Assessing Minority &
Disabled Individuals


Civil Rights Act of 1964
U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare
Memorandum, May 1970
 School
 take
districts must:
steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to
open the instructional program to the students
 Avoid labeling students as mentally retarded based on
criteria that reflected their limited English proficiency
 Ensure that “ability grouping” or tracking system used by the
school is not a “dead-end”
 Notify minority parents of school activities in the
appropriate language
Legal History for Assessing Minority &
Disabled Individuals, cont.

Education for All
Handicapped
Children, 1975
 Ensured
that all
students with
disabilities
would receive
school services
Lawsuits
Legal History for Assessing Minority &
Disabled Individuals, cont.

Diana vs. State Board of Education, 1970
 Children
could not be identified as mentally
retarded based on culturally biased tests
given in a language other than the child’s
native language.

Larry P. vs. Riles, 1979
 Court
ruled that IQ tests that have been
normed on all-white population could not be
used for special education eligibility for
minority students.
IDEA, 1989

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
This law applies to state agencies that accept
federal funding
 Requires these agencies to provide early
intervention, special education, and related
services to children with disabilities.


IDEA 1997 & 2004 Amendments

Limited English proficient students cannot be
found eligible for service if the primary reason
for their learning problems are the result of
environment, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
IDEA Assessment Guidelines




Evaluation and placement procedures must be
conducted in the child’s native language, unless it is
clearly not feasible to do so.
Assessment results must be considered by individuals
who are knowledgeable about the child, assessment,
and placement alternatives .
Parents must understand the proceeding of IEP meetings
and also have the right to an interpreter at the cost of
the district; and
The multidisciplinary team must consider the language
needs of students when developing, reviewing, or
revising IEPs.
Why So Vague, IDEA?


Guidelines are left
intentionally vague to
allow more freedom in
assessment practices.
However, that
frequently results in
confusion and biased
testing.
Federal and California Code of
Regulations to Protect ELs

FCR: “A child may not be determined to be eligible… if

the determinant factor for that eligibility determination is…
lack of instruction in reading or math,
 limited English proficiency… and
 the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under
300.7”


CCR: “The normal process of second language
acquisition, as well as manifestation of dialect and
sociolinguistic variance shall not be diagnosed as a
handicapping condition.”
NASP’s Ethical & Legal Standards

NASP Guidelines



School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how
diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and
school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or
behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy,
counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into
account individual characteristics…
Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of
the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of
students, families,…
School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively
pursue knowledge of the student’s disabilities and developmental,
cultural, linguistic, and experiential background,…
So are we ready to work with ELs?

Many special education
team members feel
underprepared for
working with EL students
(Mueller, Singer, Carranza, 2006)

The results of a survey of
current practices with ELs
indicate that school
psychologists select,
administer and interpret
tests for minority students in
the same way as they do
with monolingual students
(Ochoa, Riccio, Jimenez, Garcia de Alba, & Sines,
2004)
Learning Trajectory for EL Students
Expected Trajectory: BICS vs. CALP

Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS)
 Typically

acquired in 1-2 years
Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP)
 Typically

acquired in 2-7 years
Source: Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of
research on academic achievement in a second language.
TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-624.
L2 Acquisition Stages
• Silent Period
• Focusing on
Comprehension
Stage 1:
Preproduction
(first 3
months)
Stage 2:
Early
Production
(3-6 months)
Stage 4:
Intermediate
Fluency
(2-3 years)
Stage 3:
Speech
Emergence
(6 months – 2
years)
• Improved comprehension
• Adequate face-to-face
conversational proficiency
• More extensive vocabulary
• Few grammatical errors
Source: Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005).
• Focusing on
comprehension
• Using 1-3 word
phrases
• May be using
routine/formulas (e.g.,
“gimme five”)
•
•
•
•
Increased comprehension
Using simple sentences
Expanded vocabulary
Continued grammatical
errors
Possible Factors Contributing to
Delayed L2 Acquisition
Mostly, it’s due to:
But sometimes, it’s due to:
Cultural
Factors
Deficits in
Phonological
Skills
Delayed
Second
Language
Acquisition
Family
Factors
Personal and
Intrinsic
Factors
Environmental
Factors
L1 Schooling
Quality and
Quantity
Factors Contributing to Delayed L2
Acquisition










Poor self-concept
Withdrawn Personality
Anxiety
Lack of Motivation
Traumatic Life Experience
Difficult Family Situation
Different Cultural Expectations
Limited Literacy of Parents in Native
Language
Poor Instructional Match
Unaccepting Teachers and/or School
Community
Importance of Home Support…
Factors Contributing to Delayed L2
Acquisition, cont.


Deficit in phonological skills
(both for L1 and L2) is
indicative of dyslexia
Later exposure to L2

Research shows that children who are
exposed to L2 before age 3 have better
reading performance than children
exposed to L2 in 2nd and 3rd grade.
Collier & Thomas’ L2 Acquisition Model
Sociocultural
Processes
Cognitive
Processes
L2
Acquisition
Academic
Processes
Linguistic
Processes
These components are
interdependent, so if one
is developed to the
neglect of another, it may
prove to be detrimental to
the student’s overall
growth and success.
School psychologists
should examiner every
component when dealing
with low academic
performance in ELs.
Importance of Native Language
Basics of Language Acquisition



Regardless of the dialect, in the
first 5 years of life, all humans
begin to develop a complex
oral language system.
Between ages 6-12, children
continue acquiring increasinglycomplex vocabulary,
pragmatics, semantics, syntax,
etc.
Through formal education,
reading and writing are added
to the language system in
addition to listening and
speaking.
Basics of Language Acquisition

When children (or adults) are required to acquire a
second language, they use the same innate process
they used to acquire their first language.
Cross-Linguistic Transfer


If students have certain strengths in their L1, and those
strengths are known to transfer across languages, then we
can expect that the students will develop those
proficiencies in their L2 as their L2 proficiency develops
Domains of Cross-Linguistic Transfer:
Phonological Awareness
 Syntactic Awareness
 Functional Awareness
 Decoding
 Use of Formal Definitions and Decontextualized Language

Importance of Native Language
Literacy
In U.S. schools where all
instruction is given in
English, EL student with no
schooling in their first
language take 7-10 years or
more to reach age and
grade-level norms of their
native English-speaking
peers.
Immigrant students who
have had 2-3 years of first
language schooling in their
home country before they
come to the U.S. take at least
5-7 years to reach typical
native-speaker performance.
Source: Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in
Language and Education, 1(4).
Good to Know…


Concepts learned well in one
language can be transferred to
another
Knowledge of phonemes may
be absent for English Learners
 Training
helps
 Children with no phonological
problems catch up with their
peers in phonological processing
in 1 to 2 years
Good to Know…

Studies show that students
whose primary language is
alphabetic with letter-sound
correspondence (e.g.,
Spanish) have an advantage
in learning English as
opposed to students who
speak non-alphabetic
languages (e.g., Chinese).
Given what we know…
Look for patterns…

Whenever possible,
look for patterns of
language acquisition
difficulties in student’s
native language.
Play detective…

Obtain records from
the student’s native
country, review
current records,
interview parents,
etc.
Given what we know…


School psychologists should encourage EL students
and their families to continue L1 development.
Cummins (1981) proposed that the best way for
students to develop CALP in L2 is to first develop
CALP in L1.
Overrepresentation
of ELs in Special Ed.
EL Students and Overrepresentation


ELs are twice as likely to be
identified as having a
learning disability,
intellectual disability or
speech/language
impairment as non-ELs.
For this project, we will
focus on SLD and ID.
Specific Learning Disability

SLD & SLI are the most frequent eligibility
categories under which EL students qualify for
special education
Difficulties with Assessing ELs with SLD

Lack of appropriately standardized tests for the EL
population


Test items are culturally loaded so results cannot be taken
at their face value
Difficult to discern between an EL’s language
deficiencies and learning disability
Factors Contributing to Difficulties when
Assessing ELs with LD

Typical EL students and EL’s with LD share
many characteristics:







Poor comprehension
Difficulty following directions
Syntactical and grammatical errors
Difficulty completing tasks
Poor Motivation
Low Self-Esteem
Poor Oral Language Skills
 It has been suggested that linguistic diversity may increase assessment errors
and reduce the reliability of assessments
 Lack of teachers trained in bilingual and multicultural education to meet and
assess EL students’ needs
 Mistaking basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) for cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP)
So what’s the big deal?

Research shows that inappropriate placement into special
education programs results in academic regression over
time (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004)
Intellectual Disability


EL students are also overrepresented in this
category.
This may be due to:
 lack
of understanding by the IEP team of the typical
timeline of language acquisition for ELs
 lack of instruction that has research-based evidence
showing its effectiveness for ELs
 and use of assessment methods that lack reliability and
validity for ELs as a population
Current Methods of
Assessment
Assessment in English
Pro’s:


Con’s:
Accommodations can be made
(to test itself or to test
procedure) to provide a more
valid picture of the EL student’s
abilities:
Provides information about the
student’s level of
functioning/ability in an
English-speaking environment


Student’s may not thoroughly
understand task instructions or
particular test items due to limited
English proficiency
Compromises test validity:




Student not represented in the norm
group
Changing/simplifying language to
improve understanding of test
instructions breaks standardization
Students demonstrate slower
processing speeds and are more
easily distracted during assessments
conducted in a language with which
they are less familiar
ELs performed one full standard
deviation below native speakers
Assessment in English
Checklist of Test Accommodations
Before Conducting the Test:



Make sure that the student has had
experience with content or tasks
assessed by the test
Modify linguistic complexity and text
direction
Prepare additional example items/tasks
During the Test:

Allow student to label items in receptive
vocabulary tests to determine
appropriateness of stimuli

Ask student to identify actual objects or
items if they have limited experience
with books and pictures

Use additional demonstration items

Record all responses and prompts

Test beyond the ceiling

Provide additional time to
respond/extra testing time

Reword or expand instructions

Provide visual supports

Provide dictionaries

Read questions and explanations aloud
(in English)

Put written answers directly in test
booklet
(modified from Szu-Yin & Flores, 2011)
Assessment in Native Language
Pro’s:
May provide a more
accurate inventory of
student’s knowledge and
skills
 Interpreters can be
utilized to facilitate
testing if psychologist
does not speak the
student’s native
language

Con’s:
Language-specific assessment
for each and every student
are not available
 If they are unfamiliar with the
educational context, using
interpreters may compromise
test validity
 School psychologist must
speak the language of the
student
 Normed on the population of
monolingual speakers from
that country

Nonverbal Assessment
Pro’s:

Attempts to eliminate language
proficiency as a factor in the assessment

May provide a better/more accurate
estimate of student’s cognitive abilities
Con’s

Often does not fully eliminate language

Offers a limited perspective of a
student’s academic potential

Fails to provide information about
linguistic proficiency in student’s native
language or in English

Cultural context is still embedded within
the test items

Cannot measure certain abilities
(language arts, reading, etc.)
Best Practices
Best Practices &
Interventions

Four methods will be presented:
1.
2.
3.
4.


Assessment in both native
language and English
The Multidimensional Assessment
Model for Bilingual Individuals
(MAMBI)
Cultural-Language Interpretive
Matrix (C-LIM)
Alvarado’s four steps to bilingual
assessment
Alternative Assessment for ELs
Evidence-Based Interventions
Assess in L1 and L2


Assess both in the native language and in English.
English language performance:
 Will
help the practitioner understand the student’s
current level of English proficiency, and
 Will give the IEP team an idea of how well the student
can understand the every day English instruction in the
classroom

Native language performance:
 Will
help the practitioner gain a better understanding
of the student’s knowledge and skills
Multidimensional Assessment Model for
Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI)


A grid that provides 9 profiles for a practitioner to choose
from and takes into consideration 4 major variables about
the student:
 The student’s proficiency in L1 and L2
 Current grade level
 Type of educational program
 Length of student’s instruction in the program
Once these variables are accounted for, the practitioner is
left with the method of evaluation that is most likely to
yield valid results:
 Nonverbal Assessment
 Assessment primarily in L1
 Assessment primarily in L2
 Bilingual assessment both in L1 and L2
MAMBI: Step 1

Assess the student’s proficiency in L1 and L2
 Can
be obtained from multiple sources, including:
 CALP
score from the Woodcock-Johnson Munoz Language
Survey or the Bilingual Verbal Ability Test (BVAT)
 Teacher and parent questionnaires
 Observations (classroom, playground/recess, home, etc.)
 Formal and informal interviews with parents, teachers, and
student.
 Once
this information is obtained, choose one of the 9
profiles from the Language Profiles of English Learners
Table
Language Profile
L1 Proficiency Level
L2 Proficiency Level
Profile 1
Minimal
Minimal
Profile 2
Emergent
Minimal
Profile 3
Profile 4
Profile 5
Profile 6
Profile 7
Profile 8
Profile 9
Fluent
Minimal
Emergent
Fluent
Minimal
Emergent
Fluent
Description
CALP level in L1 and L2 are both in the 1-2 range –
individual has no significant dominant language, and
proficiency and skills in both languages are extremely
limited.
CALP level in L1 is in the 3 range and English is in the 1-2
range – individual is relatively more dominant in L1, and
proficiency and skills are developing but limited; L2
proficiency and skills remain extremely limited.
Minimal
CALP level in L1 is in the 4-5 range and L2 is in the 1-2
range – individual is highly dominant and very proficient in
L1; L2 proficiency and skills remain extremely limited.
Emergent
CALP level in L1 is in the 1-2 range and L2 is in the 3 range
– individual is relatively more dominant in L2, with
developing but limited proficiency and skills; L1 proficiency
and skills are extremely limited.
Emergent
CALP level in L1 is in the 3 range and L2 is in the 3 range –
individual has no significant language dominance and is
developing proficiency and skills in both but is still limited in
both.
Emergent
CALP level in L1 is in the 4-5 range and L2 is in the 3 range
– individual is relative more dominant in L1, with high
proficiency and skills; L2 proficiency and skills are
developing but still limited.
Fluent
CALP level in L1 is in the 1-2 range and L2 is in the 4-5
range – individual is highly dominant and very proficient in
L2; L1 proficiency and skills are extremely limited.
Fluent
CALP level in L1 is in the 3 range and L2 is in the 4-5 range
– individual is dominant and very proficient in L2; L1
language proficiency and skills are developing but limited.
Fluent
CALP level in L1 and L2 are both in the 4-5 range –
individual has no significant dominant language and is very
fluent and very proficient in both.
Source: Ochoa & Ortiz, 2005
MAMBI: Step 2


Find out what kind of program the student has been
a part of in the past and is in currently.
Choose from one of the three educational
circumstances:
1.
2.
3.
Bilingual education in lieu of, or in addition to
receiving ESL services
Previously been in bilingual education but who are
now receiving English-only instruction or ESL services
All instruction has occurred in an English-only program
with or without ESL services
MAMBI: Steps 3 & 4

Step 3: Know the student’s current grade level and
select between two options:
– 4th grades
 5th – 7th grades
K

Step 4: Select the appropriate testing modality
from the MAMBI grid which include four options:
 Nonverbal
assessment, assessment in L1, assessment in
L2, or assessment in L1 and L2
MAMBI Grid
The Ochoa and Ortiz Multidimensional Assessment Model for Bilingual Individuals, Ochoa, S.H.
& Ortiz, S.O. 2005. Copyright Guilford Press. Reprinted with permission of The Guilford Press.
Culture-Language Test Classifications and
the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix

C-LTC- a data-driven classification system for the
subtests of cognitive assessment measures based on
two critical test dimensions:
 Degree
of Cultural Loading
 Degree of Linguistic Demand
 Each
dimension has three levels or degrees which are
“High”, “Moderate”, and “Low”
How were the C-LTC & C-LIM Developed?


The two dimensions of these tools were chosen due
to their repeated identification in the research
literature as factors having significant relationships
to test performance for culturally and linguistically
diverse populations as well as factors which could
invalidate test results.
Classifications within these tools are data-driven
and organized by the empirical studies on testing
done in English with bilingual individuals.
Purpose of the C-LTC & C-LIM



To evaluate the extent of the effect of differences
in language proficiency and level of acculturation
on the validity of scores obtained from
standardized tests.
Seeks to identify tests with the lowest levels of
cultural loading and linguistic demand to help us
choose tests with the highest likelihood of valid
scores.
NOT DISGNOSTIC TOOLS IN AND OF
THEMSELVES!!!
CHC Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix
Pattern of Expected Performance for Individuals From Diverse Cultural and
Linguistic Backgrounds
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
PERFORMANCE
LEAST AFFECTED
MODERATE
HIGH
INCREASING EFFECT OF
LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE
MODERAT
E
HIGH
DEGREE OF CULTURAL
LOADING
LOW
LOW
INCREASING EFFECT OF
CULTURAL DIFFERENCE
PERFORMANCE
MOST AFFECTED
(COMBINED EFFECT OF
CULTURAL & LANGUAGE
DIFFERENCES)
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C., Essentials of cross-battery assessment (Vol. 84). Copyright John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2013, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
General Guidelines for Expected Patterns of Test
Performance for Diverse Individuals



Slightly Different: Includes individuals with high levels of English language proficiency
(e.g., advanced BICS/emerging CALP) and high acculturation, but still not entirely
comparable to mainstream U.S. English speakers. Examples include individuals who
have resided in the U.S. for more than 7 years or who have parents with at least a
high school education, and who demonstrate native-like proficiency in English
language conversation and solid literacy skills.
Different: Includes individuals with moderate levels of English language proficiency
(e.g., intermediate to advanced BICS) and moderate levels of acculturation.
Examples include individuals who have resided in the U.S. for 3-7 years and who
have learned English well enough to communicate, but whose parents are limited
English speakers with only some formal schooling, and improving but below grade
level literacy skills.
Markedly Different: Includes individuals with low to very low levels of English
language proficiency (e.g., early BICS) and low or very low levels of acculturation.
Examples include individuals who recently arrived in the U.S. or who may have been
in the U.S. 3 years or less, with little or no prior formal education, who are just
beginning to develop conversational abilities and whose literacy skills are also just
emerging.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C., Essentials of cross-battery assessment (Vol. 84). Copyright John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2013, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
General Guidelines for Expected Patterns of Test Performance
for Diverse Individuals, cont’d.
Degree of Linguistic Demand
Low
Moderate
High
Degree of Cultural Loading
Low
Moderate
High
Slightly Different: 3-5 points
Slightly Different: 5-7 points
Slightly Different: 7-10 points
Different: 5-7 points
Different: 7-10 points
Different: 10-15 points
Markedly Different: 7-10 points
Markedly Different: 10-15 points
Markedly Different: 15-20 points
Slightly Different: 5-7 points
Slightly Different: 7-10 points
Slightly Different: 10-15 points
Different: 7-10 points
Different: 10-15 points
Different: 15-20 points
Markedly Different: 10-15 points
Markedly Different: 15-20 points
Markedly Different: 20-25 points
Slightly Different: 7-10 points
Slightly Different: 10-15 points
Slightly Different: 15-20 points
Different: 10-15 points
Different: 15-20 points
Different: 20-30 points
Markedly Different: 15-20 points
Markedly Different: 20-25 points
Markedly Different: 25-35 points
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C., Essentials of cross-battery assessment (Vol. 84). Copyright John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2013, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Subtests of the WISC-IV







Block Design
Similarities
Digit Span
Picture Concepts
Coding
Vocabulary
Letter-Number
Sequence








Matrix Reasoning
Comprehension
Symbol Search
Picture Completion
Cancellation
Information
Arithmetic
Word Reasoning
Culture-Language Test Classifications: Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children-Fourth Edition
Degree of Linguistic Demand
LOW
MODERATE
BLOCK DESIGN (BD) AND BD NO TIME
BONUS
CODING
DIGIT SPAN
SYMBOL SEARCH
HIGH
LETTER-NUMBER SEQUENCING
ARITHMETIC
PICTURE CONCEPTS
PICTURE COMPLETION
HIGH
Degree of Cultural Loading
LOW
CANCELATION
MATRIX REASONING
MODERATE
COMPREHENSION
INFORMATION
SIMILARITIES
VOCABULARY
WORD REASONING
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C., Essentials of cross-battery assessment (Vol. 84). Copyright John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2013, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Culture-Language Test Classifications: Bateria III
Woodcock-Munoz Cognitiva
MODERATE
HIGH
Degree of Cultural Loading
LOW
LOW
Degree ofMODERATE
Linguistic Demand
HIGH
Integracion de Sonidos
Atencion Auditiva
Reconocimiento de Dibujos
Palabras Incompletas
Analisis-Sintesis
Rapidez en el Decision
Relaciones Espaciales
Formacion de Conceptos
Memoria de Trabajo Auditivo
Cancelacion de Pares
Planeamiento
Memoria Para Palabras
Fluidez de Recuperacion
Inversion de Numeros
Rapidez en la Identificacion de Dibjuos
Pareo Visual
Aprendizaje Visual-Auditivo
Memoria Diferida – Aprendizaje
Visual Auditivo
Informacion General
Comprension Verbal
*Note: The subtests and their classifications as shown in this matrix have not been the subject of extensive empirical investigation. The classifications herein are
drawn primarily from the work of J. E. Brown (2008, 2011) and users are referred to this source for additional information. The classifications offered herein are
provided primarily for the purposes of continued research and exploration. As such, their use in evaluating the validity of obtained test results and their utility in
making subsequent decisions regarding the effect of cultural and linguistic variables on the test performance of ELs cannot yet be recommended as meeting an
evidence-based standard at this time. The matrix and graph are intended only to promote further research on the manner in which such variables affect test
performance..
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C., Essentials of cross-battery assessment (Vol. 84). Copyright John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2013, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Great tools to use, but…


Using the C-LTC and C-LIM to evaluate validity of
our test results is not sufficient to establish that a
fair and unbiased assessment was completed.
In order to be called a nondiscriminatory
assessment the entire assessment process must
follow a comprehensive framework.
Alvarado’s 4 Steps to Bilingual Special
Education Evaluation
1.
2.
3.
4.

Gathering of student information
Oral language proficiency and
dominance testing
Achievement testing
Cognitive testing
The language or languages of each
step is dictated by the individual
student’s language exposure, language
dominance, and academic background
and by the objective of the assessment.
Determining Language Dominance






Alvarado’s model for determining language
dominance:
Using a test that has two language forms that
have been statistically equated in order to allow
comparison of abilities and skills between those
two languages.
Two steps are proposed:
1: the core language of the cognitive battery is
determined on the basis of the student’s dominant
language
2: the appropriate scale is selected on the basis
of the student’s language status in his/her
dominant language
In the Woodcock tests, the Batería III COG is
statistically equated to the WJ III COG. Likewise
the Batería III APROV is statistically equated to
the WJ III ACH.
Informal Ways to Assess Language
Dominance





Language student prefers
talking in
Which language
produces better phrasing
Speech therapists can
test
What movies do they
watch
(English or Spanish)
Friends on playground
Alternative Assessment
Methods
How CBM Can Help EL Students



Determine whether instructional programs
are addressing needs of EL population as a whole
Inform instructional decisions for struggling EL students
Compare target students to EL and non-EL peers
Using CBM/RTI with ELs

Used to:
 Screen
for students at risk of learning difficulties
 Monitor progress of all students
 Monitor progress of selected students
 Determine whether instruction/intervention is effective
 Making special education decisions
Using CBM/RTI with ELs
Useful but needs more
research!!!




Some current research on the
use of reading CBM/RTI
methods
Little research on CBM for
math skills with ELs
Provides more qualitative
than quantitative data
Doesn’t work well if using the
discrepancy model
Challenges With CBM/RTI and ELs

Difficulty in determining:
 benchmarks
 expectations
 appropriate

growth rate
Lack of growth can be due to variety
of factors, such as:
 Language
 SES
 Instruction
 True
Learning Disability
Interventions

The following reading interventions are
recommended by What Works
Clearinghouse for use with EL students:




Enhanced Proactive Reading
Read Well
SRA Reading Mastery/SRA Corrective Reading
Common elements in the above intervention programs:




formed a central aspect of daily reading instruction
between 30 and 50 minutes to implement per day
intensive small-group instruction following the principles of
direct and explicit instruction in the core areas of reading
extensive training of the teachers and interventionists
Interventions
AIM for the BESt: Assessment and Intervention Model for the
Bilingual Exceptional Student



Incorporates pre-referral intervention, assessment, and intervention
strategies
Uses nonbiased measures
Aims to improve academic performance for culturally and
linguistically diverse students and aims to reduce inappropriate
referrals to special education


How?
 Use of instructional strategies proven to be effective with languageminority students
 Allows teachers flexibility to modify instruction for struggling students
 Supports teachers with a team of professionals
 Uses CBM and criterion-referenced tests to assess in addition to
standardized test data
Model holds promise for improving educational services provided to
limited English-proficient students(Ortiz et al., 2011)
Case Study #1: Jorge
The Facts
 Age: 10 years old
 Grade: 5th
 Native language: Spanish
 Program: SDC
 Initial Eligibility Category: Significant Adaptive
and Intellectual Disability
 Current Eligibility Category: Specific Learning
Disability
Case Study #1: Jorge
Initial Evaluation
2005
Differential Ability Scales (DAS Preschool
Version)
(Average scores between 90-110)
General Conceptual Ability: 59
Verbal: 55
Performance Standard Score: 62
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales –
Survey Edition
(Average scores between 85-115)
Communication: 63
Daily Living Skills: 65
Socialization: 70
Adaptive Behavior: 54
Eligibility:
“Significant Adaptive and Intellectual Disability”
Questions for Discussion


What mistakes, if any, did the examiner make when
assessing Jorge?
Using the tools discussed in this training, come up
with the best assessment method for Jorge.
Case Study #1: Jorge
Subsequent Evaluations
2008
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd
Edition (KABC-II)
(Average scores between 85-115)
The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System
(ABAS-II)
Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd
Edition (BASC-2)
Test of Auditory Processing Skills (TAPS-3)
(Average scores between 85-115)
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)
(Average scores between 85-115)
Sequential: 66
Simultaneous: 84
Learning: 86
Planning: 72
Knowledge: 72
Nonverbal Index: 76
Parent/Teacher Ratings:
GAC: 41 / 57
Conceptual: 50 / 61
Social: 55 / 75
Practical: 42 / 51
Clinically Significant Areas:
Parent – social skills, activities of daily living,
functional communication
Teacher – aggression
Phonological: 73
Memory: 64
Cohesion: 73
Overall: 70
Sight Words: 75
Phonemic Decoding: 85
Case Study #1: Jorge
Subsequent Evaluations
2011
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd
Edition (KABC-II)
(Average scores between 85-115)
Sequential: 74
Simultaneous: 105
Learning: 100
Planning: 93
Knowledge: 102
MPI: 90
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test- Individual
Administration (NNAT-I)
(Average scores between 85-115)
General Ability: 91
Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (CTOPP)
(Average scores between 90-110)
Phonological Awareness: 91
Phonological Memory: 64
Rapid Naming: 79
Alternate Phonological Awareness: 76
Alternate Rapid Naming: 79
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and
Learning (WRAML)
(Average scores between 85-115)
Verbal Memory: 80
Visual Memory: 106
Attention-Concentration: 57
General Memory: 74
Case Study #2: Miguel
The Facts
 Age: 10 years old
 Grade: 5th
 Native language: Spanish
 Program: SDC
 Initial Eligibility Category:
Speech and Language
Impairment
 Current Eligibility Category:
Intellectual Disability
Case Study #2: Miguel
Initial Evaluation
2011
Full Scale IQ (Standard Score): 67
Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Abiltiy
(Average standard scores between 90-110, TScores between 40-60)
Subtest Scores (T-Scores)
Matrices: 31
Object Assembly: 30
Coding: 39
Recognition: 35
Teacher Ratings
The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System
(ABAS-II) (Average standard scores between
90-109)
Global Adaptive Composite score: 42 (Very
Low)
Conceptual Domain: 52
Practical Domain: 43
Social Domain: 55
Case Study #2: Miguel
Initial Evaluation
Bilingual Verbal Ability: 70
Bilingual Verbal Ability Test (Average standard
scores between 90-109)
English Language Proficiency: 63
CALP Level: 2 (Very Limited)
Language Use Inventory
Miguel was asked questions in both Spanish and
English about what language he used in various
environments (home, school, playground, etc.). He
reportedly had a hard time understanding most of
these questions but was able to communicate to the
examiner that he used both English and Spanish at
home. He also shared that he only spoke Spanish
with his mother and that he preferred to speak in
Spanish.
Speaking – Early Intermediate
California English Language Development Test
Listening – Beginning
Reading – Early Intermediate
Writing – Beginning
Questions for Discussion:


What, if any, mistakes did the examiner make when
assessing Miguel?
Using the tools discussed in this training, come up
with the best assessment method for Miguel.
References







Abedi, J. 2006. Psychometric issues in the EL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College
Record, 108(11), 2282-2303. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00782.x
Abedi, J., & Gandara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in a large-scale
assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, pp. 36-46.
Alvarado, C.G. (n.d.). Bilingual special education evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse
individuals using Woodcock tests. Retrieved from http://www.educationeval
.com/files/BilingualSpEdEvalofCLDIndividualsUsingWoodcockTests.doc
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority
disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71,
283-300.
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Before assessing a child for special education, first assess the
instructional program: A summary of language learners with special educational needs. Retrieved from
http://www.misd.net/bilingual/ellandspedcal.pdf
Baker, S. K., & Good, R. H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual
Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review 24(4), 561-578.
Batalova, J., & Terrazas, A. (2010). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the
United States. Retrieved on October 21, 2013 from
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=818#1a
References cont.










Bentz, J. & Pavri, S. (2000). Curriculum-based measurement in assessing bilingual students: A promising
new direction. Diagnostique 25(3), 229-248.
Berko Gleason, J. (1993). The development of language (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Brooks, K., Adams, S.R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive learning commuinities for EL
students: Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-151.
Butler, F.A. & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessment of the content knowledge of English language
learners K-12: Current research trends and old dilemmas. Language Testing 18(4), 409-427. doi:
10.1191/026553201682430111
Bylund, J. (2011, January/February). Thought and second language: A Vygotskian framework for
understanding BICS and CALP. NASP Communique, 39(5).
California Department of Education (2004). California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, 3023(b).
Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Direction in Language and Education, 1(4), 1-8.
For National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE020668/Acquiring_a_Second_Language_.pdf
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English?
Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26-38.
Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education,
163, 16-30.
De Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., & Qi, C.H. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the
disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children 72(4), 425441.
References cont.








Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H.-K., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: a crosslinguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. Journal of Research in Reading,
35(4), 372-392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x
Ed-Data (2014). State of California Education Profile. Fiscal Year: 2012-13. Retrieved on February 17,
2014 from http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp
?Tab=1&level=04&reportNumber=16#englishlearners
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). The culture-language interpretive matrix (C-LIM). In Contemporary
intellectual assessments (third edition), ed. Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L., 548. New York: Guilford Press.
Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2004). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority sutdents to
special education. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition: Washington, D.C.
Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., & Yawkey, T. (1997). Assessment and instruction of culturally and linguistically
diverse students with or at-risk of learning problems: From research to practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Guajardo Alvarado, C. (2011). Best practices in the special education evaluation of culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Retrieved from http://www.educationeval.com/files/
Best_Practices_2011.pdf
Huang, J., Clarke, K., Milczarski, E., & Raby, C. (2011). The assessment of English language learners with
learning disabilities: issues, concerns, and implications. Education, 131(4), 732-739.
References cont.









Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). Pub. L. No. 108-446, (2004). Retrieved [summary]
March 3, 2014, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01350:@@@L&summ2=m&
Larry P. vs. Riles. Citation. 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir.October 16, 1979). As retrieved 3/3/2014 from
http://scholar.google.com
Liu, L. L., Benner, A. D., Lau, A S., & Kim, S. Y. (2009). Mother-adolescent language proficiency and adolescent
academic and emotional adjustment among Chinese American Families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 572586. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9358-8
Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. S. H., & Carranza, F. D. (2006). A national survey of the educational planning and
language instruction practices for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English language learners.
Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 242-254.
National Association of School Psychologists (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.nasponline.org/standards/2010standards/ 1_%20Ethical%20Principles.pdf
National Association of School Psychologists. (2012). Racism, prejudice, and discrimination. [Position Statement].
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A policy research brief. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELResearchBrief.pdf
Ortiz, A. A., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Reducing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to
special education. In Bilingualism and learning disabilities, ed. Willing, A. C., & Greenberg, H. F., 37-50. New York:
American Library.
Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A framework for serving English language learners with disabilities. Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 72-80.
References cont.










Ochoa, S.H. (2005a). Representation of Diverse Students in Special Education. In Assessing culturally and
linguistically diverse students: A practical guide (pp. 15-41). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Ochoa, S.H. (2005b). Bilingual education and second-language acquisition. In Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H, & Ortiz,
S. O. (Eds.), Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse individuals: A practical guide (pp. 57-75). New York:
Guilford Press.
Ochoa, S.H., Gonzalez, D., Galarza, A., & Guillemard, L. (1996). The training and use of interpreters in bilingual
psycho-educational assessment: An alternative in need of study. Diagnostique, 21(3), 19-40.
Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Cognitive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals: An
integrative approach. In Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H, & Ortiz, S. O. (Eds.), Assessing culturally and linguistically
diverse individuals: A practical guide (pp. 168-201). New York: Guilford Press.
Ochoa, S.H., Riccio, C. A., Jimenez, S., Garcia de Alba, R., & Sines, M. (2004). Psychological assessment of limited
English proficient and/or bilingual students: An investigation of school psychologists’ current practices. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 93-105.
Ortiz, S.O., Ochoa, S.H., & Dynda, A.M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations:
Moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In D.P. Flanagan & P.L. Harrison
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed.) (pp.526-552). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Petitto, L.A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span: Implications for
education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 185-197.
Rhodes, R.L. (2005a). Legal and ethical requirements for the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse
students. In Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H, & Ortiz, S. O. (Eds.), Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse individuals:
A practical guide (pp. 42-56). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rhodes, R.L. (2005b). Use of interpreters in assessment and practice. In Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H, & Ortiz, S. O.
(Eds.), Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse individuals: A practical guide (pp. 91-102). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical
References cont.













Richards-Tutor, C., Solari, E.J., Leafstedt, J.M., Gerber, M.M., Filippini, A., & Aceves, T.C. (2012). Response to intervention for English
learners: Examining models for determining response and nonresponse. Assessment for Effective Intervention 38(3), 72-84.
doi:10.1177/1534508412461522
Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C.J. (2011). Dropping out of school among EL students: Implications to schools and teacher
education. Clearing House, 84(3), 98-103.
Sotelo-Dynega, M., Cuskley, T., Geddes, L., McSwiggan, K., & Soldano, A. (2011). Cognitive assessment: A survey of current school
psychologists’ practices. Poster presented at the National Association of School Psychologists, San Francisco.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of English Language Learners. Exceptional
Children, 77(3), 317-334.
Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities (2013). Special Education Public Policy. Retrieved on February 17, 2014 from
http://www.projectidealonline.org/v/special-education-public-policy/
Thomas, A. & Grimes, J. (eds.) (2008). Appendix II – Guidelines for the provision of school psychological services. Best practices in
school psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic
achievement: Executive summary. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Retrieved on November
4, 2011 from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/ CollierThomasExReport.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Census population profile maps. Retreived on October 21, 2013 from
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_main.html
U.S. Department of Education (2006a). Topic: part c amendments in IDEA 2004. Retrieved on March 3, 2014 from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/ %2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C13%2C
U.S. Department of Education (2006b). DHEW memo regarding language minority children. From the Office of Civil Rights. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1970.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2006c). Specific learning disability, 34 CFR 300.8(c) (10). Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/ %2Croot%2Cstatute%2CI%2CA%2C602%2C30%2C
Protections for Children not Determined Eligible for Special Education and Related Services, 34 CFR § 300.534 (2006).
Worthington, E., Maude, S., Hughes, K., Luze, G., Peterson, C., Brotherson, M., Bruna, K., & Luchtel, M. (2011). A qualitative examination
for the challenges, resources, and strategies for serving children learning English in Head Start. Early Childhood Education, 39, 51-60.