Failure to Respond or Failure to Educate? Considerations ... · PDF fileConsiderations for SLD...

Failure to Respond or Failure to Educate? Considerations for SLD determination with

English Learners.

ODE/COSA Special Education Annual

ConferenceOct. 1, 2015

Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. St. John’s University

Application of RTI with ELLs raises numerous questions regarding the process, goals, intentions, and definitions. For example:

What constitutes sufficient “opportunity to learn” for ELLs?”

What works for ELLs, and with what type of ELLs?

What actually makes an intervention culturally or linguistically appropriate?

How will ELLs “catch up” on experiential vs. discrete skills and abilities?

What research guides expectations of progress or rates of acquisition that define success or failure to respond to intervention?

How does RTI measure up to the “Standards” and IDEA requirements for educational evaluation, particularly as related to SLD?

Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI: What the research says about effective Instruction for ELLs

Typical English Learners who begin school 30 NCE’s behind their native English speaking peers in achievement, are expected to learn at:

“…an average of about one-and-a-half years’ progress in the next six consecutive years (for a total of nine years’ progress in six years--a 30-NCE gain, from the 20th to the 50th NCE) to reach the same long-term performance level that a typical native-English speaker…staying at the 50th NCE) (p. 46).

In other words, they must make 15 months of academic progress in each 10 month school year for six straight years—they must learn 1½ times faster than normal.

Source: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: NCBE.


Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI: Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention

Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS

Assessments, including RTI, should be selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis.

The use of RTI, as with any assessment tool or procedure, should be designed to reduce threats to the reliability and validity of inferences that may arise from language (and cultural) differences.

Is RTI inherently more “fair” than other methods of evaluation, in particular, standardized testing?

“We are concerned that if we do not engage in dialogue about how culture mediates learning, RTI models will simply be like old wine in a new bottle, in other words, another deficit-based approach to sorting children, particularly children from marginalized communities.”

NCCRESt Position Statement 2005

The misguided and incorrect view that IQ=Ability=Potential,

coupled with the equally flawed notion of ability-

achievement discrepancy as an infallible marker of SLD,

has made all of us wary of intellectual and cognitive testing;

especially in those cases where testing is seen only as a

process for uncovering a person’s general intelligence,

global intellectual ability, or innate “potential” for success.


• Baker & Good (1995) investigated the reliability, validity, and sensitivity of English CBM passages with bilingual Hispanic students and concluded that it was as reliable and valid for them as for native English speakers despite the presence of differential growth rates.

• Gersten & Woodward (1994) suggested that CBM could be used to develop growth rates for ELL students, but erroneously concluded that ELL students generally continue to make academic progress toward grade-level norms whereas ELL students with LD do not.


Although it has long been assumed that RTI will benefit

ELLs by avoiding the types of biases associated with

standardized testing, this premise does not appear to be

wholly supported by research.

In describing a basic three-tier RTI model, one of the stated potential benefits included:

“Increased fairness in the assessment process, particularly for minority students”

Kovaleski & Prasse, 2004


Tier 1 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:

Determine whether effective instruction is in place for groups of students

Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.

“Teaching ELLs to read in their first language and then in their second language, or in

their first and second languages simultaneously (at different times during the day),

compared with teaching them to read in their second language only, boosts their reading

achievement in the second language” (emphasis in original).

“The NLP was the latest of five meta-analyses that reached the same conclusion: learning

to read in the home language promotes reading achievement in the second language.”

Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 1 Issues


Tier 1 goals are very noble

and represent a strong

commitment to all children.

However, when it comes to

ELLs, the question regarding

what constitutes “quality”

academic instruction and

support tends to be

overlooked in the most

general sense.

Level Learner Characteristics How will they gain language? What do they Understand? What can they do?

1

Can be silent for an initial period; Recognizes basic vocabulary and high frequency words; May begin to speak with few words or imitate

Multiple repetitions of language; Simple sentences; Practice with partners; Use visual and realia, Model, model, model; Check for understanding; Build on cultural and linguistic history

Instructions such as: Listen, Line up, Point to, List, Say, Repeat, Color, Tell, Touch, Circle, Draw, Match, Label

Use gestures; Use other native speakers ;Use high frequency phrases; Use common nouns;Communicate basic needs; Use survival language (i.e., words and phrases needed for basic daily tasks and routines)

2

Understand phrases and short sentences; Beginning to use general vocabulary and everyday expressions; Grammatical forms may include present, present progress and imperative

Multiple repetitions of language; Visual supports for vocabulary; Pre-teach content vocabulary;Link to prior knowledge

Present and past tense; School related topics; Comparatives & superlatives; Routine questions;Imperative tense; Simple sequence words

Routine expressions; Simple phrases; Subject verb agreement; Ask for help

3

Increased comprehension in context; May sound proficient but has social NOT academic language;Inconsistent use of standard grammatical structures

Multiple repetitions of language; Use synonyms and antonyms; Use word banks; Demonstrate simple sentences; Link to prior knowledge

Past progressive tense; Contractions; Auxiliary verbs/verb phrases; Basic idioms; General meaning; Relationship between words

Formulate questions; Compound sentences; Use precise adjectives; Use synonyms; Expanded responses

4

Very good comprehension; More complex speech and with fewer errors; Engages in conversation on a variety of topics and skills; Can manipulate language to represent their thinking but may have difficulty with abstract academic concepts; Continues to need academic language development

Multiple repetitions of language; Authentic practice opportunities to develop fluency and automaticity in communication; Explicit instruction in the use of language; Specific feedback; Continued vocabulary development in all content areas

Present/perfect continuous; General & implied meaning; Varied sentences; Figurative language;Connecting ideas; Tag questions

Range of purposes; Increased cultural competence (USA); Standard grammar; Solicit information

5

Communicates effectively on a wide range of topics; Participates fully in all content areas at grade level but may still require curricular adjustments; Comprehends concrete and abstract concepts; Produces extended interactions to a variety of audiences

May not be fully English proficient in all domains (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, listening); Has mastered formal and informal language conventions; Multiple opportunities to practice complex grammatical forms; Meaningful opportunities to engage in conversations; Explicit instruction in the smaller details of English usage; Focus on “gaps” or areas still needing instruction in English; Focus on comprehension instruction in all language domains

Analyze, Defend, Debate, Predict, Evaluate, Justify, Hypothesize and Synthesize, Restate, Critique

May not yet be fully proficient across all domains; Comprehends concrete and abstract topics; Communicates effectively on a wide range of topics and purposes; Produces extended interactions to a variety of audiences; Participates fully in all content areas at grade level but may still require curricular modifications; Increasing understanding of meaning, including figurative language; Read grade level text with academic language support; Support their own point of view; Use humor in native-like way

The Language Proficiency-Academic Performance Continuum

Source: Turner & Brown, (2012) as cited in Brown, J. E. & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Interventions for English Learners with Learning Difficulties. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, and D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (pp. 267-313)., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

PLUSS Framework Definition Evidence

Pre-teach critical

vocabulary

Presentation of critical vocabulary prior to lessons to ensure

later comprehension using direct instruction, modeling, and

connections to native language

Beck, McKeown and Kucan (2002); Heibert and

Lubliner (2008); Martinez and Lesaux (2011);

Nagy, Garcia, Dyrgunoglu and Hancin (1993)

Language modeling and

opportunities for practice

Teacher models appropriate use of academic language, then

provides structured opportunities for students to practice

using the language in meaningful contexts

Dutro and Moran (2003); Echevarria, Vogt and

Short (2008); Gibbons (2009); Linan-Thompson

and Vaughn (2007); Scarcella (2003)

Use visuals and graphic

organizers

Strategically use pictures, graphic organizers, gestures, realia,

and other visual prompts to help make critical language,

concepts, and strategies more comprehensible to learners

Brechtal (2001); Echevarria and Graves (1998);

Haager and Klingner (2005); Linan-Thompson and

Vaughn (2007); O’Malley and Chamot, (1990)

Systematic and explicit

instruction

Explain, model, provide guided practice with feedback, and

opportunities for independent practice in content, strategies,

and concepts

Calderón (2007); Flagella-Luby and Deshler

(2008); Gibbons (2009); Haager and Klingner

(2005); Klingner and Vaughn (2000); Watkins and

Slocum (2004)

Strategic use of native

language & teaching for

transfer

Identify concepts and content students already know in their

native language and culture to explicitly explain, define, and

help them understand new language and concepts in English

Carlisle, Beeman, Davis and Spharim (1999);

Durgunoglu, et al. (1993); Genesee, Geva,

Dressler, and Kamil (2006); Odlin (1989); Schecter

and Bayley (2002)

PLUSS Framework for Evidence-based Instruction for ELLs

Source: NCCRESt, (2012) as reprinted in Brown, J. E. & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Interventions for English Learners with Learning Difficulties. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, and D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (pp. 267-313)., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

PLUSS Framework Example

Pre-teach critical

vocabulary

Select 3-5 high utility vocabulary words crucial to understanding text (not necessarily content specific words) and

explicitly teach student friendly definitions, model using the words, and provide students with repeated opportunities to

use the words over time (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2008; Beck, McKeown, Kucan, 2002)

Language modeling and

opportunities for

practicing

Provide language frames and sentence starters to structure language interaction. For example, after having defined the

word, “preoccupied,” for instance, ask students to use the word, “preoccupied,” in a sentence, “Think of a time when

you were preoccupied.” (pause to give time to think). “Turn to your partners and share, starting your sentence with, ‘I

was preoccupied when…’, what will you start your sentence with?” (Have students repeat the sentence starter before

turning to their neighbor and sharing).

Use visuals and graphic

organizers

Consistently use a Venn diagram to teach concepts, such as compare and contrast, and use realia and pictures to

support the teaching of concepts (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2008)

Systematic and explicit

instruction

Teach strategies like summarization, monitoring and clarifying, and decoding strategies through direct explanation,

modeling, guided practice with feedback, and opportunities for application (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2008).

Strategic use of native

language & teaching for

transfer

Use native language to teach cognates (e.g., teach that preoccupied means the same thing as preocupado in Spanish) or

explain/clarify a concept in the native language before or while teaching it in English.

Examples of PLUSS Framework Applied in the Classroom

Source: Brown, J. E. & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Interventions for English Learners with Learning Difficulties. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, and D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (pp. 267-313)., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.


Dual-language/dual immersion and maintenance type bilingual programs

probably meet this criterion. But what about students in transitional bilingual,

ESL content, ESL pullout, and English immersion programs?

Of the five major, meta-analyses conducted on the education of ELLs, ALL five came to the very same conclusion:

“Teaching students to read in their first language [i.e., bilingual education] promotes higher levels of reading achievement in English” (p. 14, 2008).

Sources: Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What we know—and don’t know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37,(2), pp.

4-11, 38-39. and Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.

“Bilingual education [i.e., teaching students to read in their first language] produced superior reading outcomes in English compared with English immersion” (p. 9, 2013).

This is true primarily because teaching in the native language does not interrupt or inhibit the linguistic and cognitive development that students bring to school.


Results of NAEP Data on Reading Achievement for ELL vs. Non-ELL

185

205

225

245

265

285

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

2004 2008

Non-ELL

ELL

31 points

41 points

42 points

30 points

45 points

52 points


How can RTI-based evaluation be fair when the instructional programs most often used to instruct groups of ELL students (i.e., ESL, English immersion) have been demonstrated empirically to be ineffective in promoting grade level achievement or academic success?

Well designed and effective interventions cannot make up for deficiencies in educational pedagogy or artifactualdevelopmental delays that result from the unenlightened use of “intuitive science” (i.e., common sense) or application of misguided political ideology.


What would you choose?

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FORM

Please select an instructional program for your child by placing a check in the appropriate box below:

SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: This program

has been scientifically validated to lower achievement in

English, increase special education placement, raise the

risk of dropping out, and decrease rates of graduation.

English as a Second Language Bilingual Education


Provide effective instruction to the target student and measure its effect on performance

“Making an assumption that what works with native English speakers will work with

students from diverse language backgrounds may be inaccurate (McLaughlin, 1992).

Although substantial empirical support exists for the use of a response-to-intervention

(RTI) approach to address literacy problems with native English speakers (e.g., Burns,

Appleton, and Stehouwer, 2005; Mathes et al., 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, and Tanzman,

1998), very little data exist about the effectiveness of this approach with EL learners

(Vaughn et al., 2006).”

Source: Vanderwood, M. L. & Nam, J. E. (2007). Response to Intervention for English Language Learners: Current developments and future

directions. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns and A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of

Assessment and Intervention (pp. 408-417).


What Works Clearinghouse Looks at Reading Recovery® for English Language Learners

The WWC examined the research conducted in English on Reading Recovery® and identified 13 studies that were published or released between 1997 and 2008 that looked at the effectiveness of this short-term tutoring intervention on English language learners' literacy skills. None of these studies meet WWC evidence standards. Therefore, conclusions may not be drawn based on studies conducted in English about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Reading Recovery® for English Language Learners.

December 15, 2009

Full report available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/read_recov/

The WWC examined the research on "Accelerated Reader" and identified 13 studies that were published or released between 1983 and 2008 that looked at the effectiveness of this curriculum on English language learners’ reading and math skills. None of these studies meet WWC evidence standards. Therefore, conclusions may not be drawn based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Accelerated Reader" on English Language Learners.

December 22, 2009

Full report available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/accreader/

What Works Clearinghouse Looks at “Accelerated Reader” for English Language Learners

How can RTI-based evaluation be fair to the individual student if the program used to instruct that student (i.e., ESL, English immersion) has been demonstrated empirically to be ineffective in promoting grade level achievement or academic success?

Even after an ELL has been exited from or deemed to no longer need or require bilingual education or ESL services (un-LEP’d), it cannot be assumed that he/she is comparable to age or grade matched monolingual English speaking peers, or that interventions that “work” for native English speakers will now suddenly “work” just as well for non-native English speakers.



Refer students whose RTI warrants additional or intensive continuing interventions

What exactly will evaluation look like beyond progress monitoring and curriculum based

assessment of current academic skills?

How will these procedures systematically evaluate the influence of cultural and linguistic

differences and the extent to which they are primarily responsible for lack of progress as

compared to lack of progress due to a learning disability, particularly when RTI has not

ensured that evidence-based instruction (i.e., in the native language) has been

provided?

Source: Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C. & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of Response to Intervention and Norm-Referenced Tests

in Learning Disability Identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43(7), 807-825.


The assumption of comparable levels of “effective instruction” across type of ESL or bilingual program is unlikely to ever to be met. A student may have one type of program in one classroom or in one school and a different one in another classroom or school. Thus, the nature and implementation of various native language programs as well as any school movement complicates reliable, valid, and fair measurement of progress within the curriculum.



Is this really an example of “not making progress” for an

ELL student who is receiving ESL services only?


To what extent do Isiah, Mary, and Amy represent “true” peers for Chase?

ELLs must be compared to other ELLs who have similar educational

experiences AND similar levels of English language proficiency.


To what extent did Fuchs et al. base growth rates on ELLs of comparable

educational experiences AND English language proficiency?


To what extent do the gains by the “peers cohort” represent the expected

gains for ELLs who may differ in terms of educational experiences AND

English language proficiency?

The most common type of instruction given in schools today, ESL, creates an artifactual linguistic “handicap” that puts otherwise capable children at levels far below their age and grade related peers in school achievement. What is “effective instruction” for the average 3rd grader may be totally inappropriate for the average ELL who, nonetheless is in 3rd grade.

ELLs are clearly able to make progress comparable to English speaking peers on discrete types of skills (e.g., phonological processing or phonemic awareness). However, progress on other abilities that develop as a function of age and experience (e.g., vocabulary, advanced grammar), is likely to remain behind that of peers.


50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

WRCPM =

Number of

Words Read

Correctly Per

Minute

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Example 2nd Grade Progress Monitoring Chart

Classroom or Grade Level Aim Line

35 WRCPM

12 week standard

25 word difference

15 word difference

25 word difference

15 word difference

Week

6 week standard

Egberto’s progress

if he makes gains

comparable to

English speaking

peers


if he makes gains

comparable to other

“proficient” ELLs


if he doesn’t make

gains comparable to

other “proficient”

ELLs

20 word difference

35 word difference

50 WRCPM

Classroom/grade level

expectations = 15

WRCPM progress over

a 6 week period

English learners

often begin behind

English speakers

*Note: The name,“Egberto,” is a derivative of “Egbert” and used with the blessings of Dan Reschley.


Unless measurement methods used in RTI, whether CBM or otherwise, account for the differential rates of development that are occurring in the processes related to native language acquisition, English acquisition, and acculturation to the mainstream, there is no guarantee that results will be any more “fair” than other methods.

Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this packet is © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. and S. Hector Ochoa, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.



It is important to recognize

that RTI, just like testing, is a

measurement paradigm. RTI

is a different paradigm than

testing, but measurement

and comparisons of the

collected measurements

against a pre-determined

standard is still at the very

core of RTI.


What about students that speak languages other than Spanish?

Once an ELL has been exited from or deemed to no longer need or require bilingual education or ESL services (i.e., they have been FLEP’d, or un-LEP’d), it cannot be assumed that they are comparable in terms of their academic achievement to their monolingual English speaking peers.

ELLs will invariably continue to have increasingly less foundation and life-long experiences in English language development and in then acquisition of the acculturative knowledge that is embedded within and underlies the subject matter of all curricula and for which mastery remains a critical requirement for success in school.

“Once a bilingual, always a bilingual.” ELLs do not suddenly cease to be bilingual simply because they have become proficient and dominant in English.


Cognitive testing and RTI are not mutually exclusive. Both are measurement paradigms but each answers a different and important question.

RTI seeks to ensure that the learning difficulties are not the result of extrinsic issues in teaching, instruction, curriculum, etc. It addresses the question of learning needs and measures the individual’s success when those needs are identified and met. It is not a diagnostic system and is best utilized for understanding academic development as compared to peers on a local basis (e.g., classroom, school, or district).

Cognitive testing, particularly within a PSW model, seeks to provide insight into any possible intrinsic factors that may be responsible for learning difficulties and which inhibit the acquisition and development of academic skills. It is a diagnostic system and is best utilized in understanding cognitive development as compared to peers on a national basis (e.g., all individuals of the same age or grade).

In the same manner that low test scores do not automatically indicate a learning disability, so too does poor progress or a failure to respond to intervention also not invariably suggest a learning disability. In both cases there are an infinite number of reasons that account for and may explain the observed problematic performance; only one of which is a disability.

Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs


Understanding the

relationship between

cognitive abilities and

academic skills provides

a new window into

explanations for learning

difficulties as well as new

avenues for tailoring

intervention to increase

success.

Because RTI is usually in place as part of a pre-referral system, students who reach Tier 3 may benefit from comprehensive testing to assess their cognitive strengths and weaknesses, particularly in service of SLD identification via a PSW approach. The IDEA definition remains as follows:

Specific Learning Disability

(a) In general. The term 'specific learning disability' means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.

(b) Disorders included. Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.“

(c) Disorders not included. Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."


Old notions about lack of aptitude x treatment interaction are predicated upon educational ideas regarding learning “styles” whereas modern research and theory (e.g., CHC theory) provide empirically supported causal explanations regarding the relationship between various cognitive abilities and the acquisition and development of academic skills. Perhaps the best example of this research is the link between auditory processing (Ga) skills, specifically phonological awareness and the acquisition of basic reading skills.


Knowledge that a student has a particular deficit (e.g., working memory) is valuable, not only because it provides clear support for the statutory definition of SLD in IDEA, but also because it helps determine whether an observed failure to respond was due to instructional over-reliance in the individual’s area of weaknesses. If so, efforts for intervention can be significantly improved by selecting programs that minimize use of abilities that are weak for the individual, rather than continuing to select them randomly, and which will increase the likelihood that the individual will demonstrate better progress and more efficient learning.


In turn, testing benefits from information gathered over the course of the previous two tiers including because it provides a detailed and comprehensive context within which the student’s performance in various areas of cognitive functioning that are crucial to the acquisition and development of academic skills. Such data and information includes:

◦ Attendance and experience with school setting

◦ Match between child’s L1 and language of instruction

◦ Parent’s ability to support language of instruction

◦ Years (duration) of instruction in L1 and L2

◦ Quality of L1/L2 instruction or bilingual program

◦ Cultural relevance of the curriculum

◦ Consistency in curriculum and instructional programs

◦ Teaching strategies, styles, attitudes, and flexibility

◦ System and individual expectations regarding dual language learners

◦ Direct observation of classroom performance and learning


An Hypothesis Testing CHC Model for SLD Identification Within an RTI Framework

Use of an hypothesis-testing

approach to SLD evaluation

helps to ensure that appropriate

questions are asked at each

respective level so that the

necessary data are collected

and interpreted in light of the

individual needs of the learner.

Such an approach avoids the

typical exploratory type of

evaluation that is often subject

to confirmatory bias.” (p. 746)

Source: Flanagan, Fiorello & Ortiz (2010).


Matching Standardized Treatment Protocols (STP) with Specific Areas of Weakness

The Cross-Battery Assessment Software System (X-BASS): Advanced PSW Evaluation of SLD

The X-BASS combines the Data Management and Interpretive Assistant (DMIA), the Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Analyzer (PSW-A), and the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM) into a single,

fully integrated program called the Cross-Battery Assessment Software System (X-BASS v1.1).

X-BASS v1.1

X-BASS provides a comprehensive, sophisticated, and empirically-based model for evaluation of SLD using a PSW approach. The current design provides for single score entry with seamless data transfer, on-demand

classifications of major and popular tests, automatic summary graphing, a test reference classification list, additional interpretive guidelines, and

expanded charts for tiered analysis.

../../XBA Case Studies/XBASS Case Studies/X-BASS Case Study Records - v1.1.2.xlsm

WECHSLER INTELLIEGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN-V

Verbal Comprehension Index 76 Fluid Reasoning Index 88 Visual-Spatial Index 95Similarities 5 Matrix Reasoning 8 Block Design 9Vocabulary 6 Figure Weights 8 Visual Puzzles 9

Working Memory Index 79 Processing Speed Index 94Digit Span 5 Coding 9Picture Span 7 Symbol Search 8

WECHSLER INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST-III

Basic Reading 94 Reading Comprehension 76 Written Expression 92Word Reading 92 Reading Comprehension 76 Spelling 100Pseudoword Decoding 98 Oral Reading Fluency 80 Sentence Composition 86

Essay Composition 93WOODCOCK JOHNSON-IV TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITY

Auditory Processing 91 LT Storage/Retrieval 77Phonological Processing 99 Story Recall 79Nonword Repetition 84 Visual-Auditory Learning 75

WISC-V/WJ IV/WIAT-III XBA DATA FOR Maria

Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study

Step 1: Enter all available subtest scores in C-LIM Analyzer to Determine Validity

Step 2: When Valid, Transfer Data to Test Tabs and Enter Remaining Composite Scores

Step 3: Use XBA to Conduct Follow Up Testing Where Indicated and Necessary

Step 4: Enter Follow Up Tests into C-LIM Analyzer and Re-evaluate Pattern

Step 5: Evaluate Results of Follow Up Testing via XBA Analyzer

Step 6: Transfer Cohesive Composites (and academic subtests) to Data Organizer

Step 7: Re-evaluate Deficits Using Native Language and Follow Guidelines for Gc Caveat

Step 8: Designate Scores for PSW Analysis as Strength or Weakness

Step 9: Evaluate Scores on the PSW-A Data Summary Tab

Step 10: Utilize the Appropriate Validity Statement for the Evaluation



Most important consideration is determination of

student’s degree of “difference” regarding language

development and acculturative acquisition


Some decline evident but no clear

overall pattern that suggests cultural and

linguistic factors are primary influences


Tiered graph shows minimal decline and below expected

results that are not fully explainable by cultural and

linguistic influences alone—some other factor must be

present and negatively affecting performance


C-L graph also shows disrupted declining pattern and

reinforces conclusion that results are not primarily

attributable to cultural and linguistic factors

Statement 2. Evaluations of Suspected Learning Disability - Valid ResultsThe following sample validity statement may be used in cases where a clear declining pattern is NOT evident, that is, there is no primary effect of culture and language thus the results ARE valid and there may be a disability.

Because the student is not a native English speaker, it is necessary to establish the validity of the results obtained from testing to ensure that they are accurate estimates of ability or knowledge and not the manifestation of cultural or linguistic differences. To this end, a systematic evaluation of the possible effects of lack of acculturation and limited English proficiency was carried out via use of the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM).

A careful review of the student’s test data as entered into the C-LIM does not appear to reveal a pattern of decline that is typical of or within the range that would be expected of other individuals with similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The overall pattern of test performance does not decline systematically and suggests that test performance was not due primarily to the influence of cultural and linguistic factors. Although such influences remain contributoryfactors, they can not account for the resulting pattern of performance in its entirety and are, therefore, not believed to be the main or only reason for the reported learning difficulties. In addition, other extraneous factors that might account for the observed pattern (for example, lack of motivation, fatigue, incorrect administration/scoring, emotional/behavioral problems) have been excluded. This indicates that the test results can be considered valid, interpretable, and are likely to be good estimates of the student’s actual ability or knowledge with the exception of Gc, which must be evaluated only against other ELLs due to the fact that it is a direct measure of cultural knowledge and language proficiency.

In summary, the observed pattern of the student's test results is not consistent with performance that is typical of non-disabled, culturally and linguistically diverse individuals who are of average ability or higher. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the data evaluated with the C-LIM are likely valid and that, if supported by additional data, the student’s test performance may be attributed primarily to the presence of a learning disability.

(*Note: a typical description of the data that support the presence of LD should follow here at this point in the report.)



Use button to automatically transfer

scores to core test tab (e.g., WISC-V,

WJ IV). Tests from other test batteries

without a core test tab will go to

appropriate CHC domains on XBA

Analyzer (e.g., CTOPP-2)


Enter remaining test composite or index

scores into appropriate cells.


X-BASS indicates no follow up necessary

on any of the WISC-V composites


X-BASS recommends no follow up on any

academic composites


X-BASS indicates

follow up

necessary on WJ

IV COG Auditory

Processing (Ga)

composite)


Subtests

checked for

transfer to XBA

Analyzer tab

The WJ IV COG Phonological Processing subtest loads primarily on Ga. Thus, it needs to be supplemented with another Ga subtest (e.g., WJ IV OL Sound Blending) to form a useable composite since the original composite was not cohesive.

The WJ IV COG NonwordRepetition subtest loads primarily on Gsm, not Ga. It can be combined with other WISC-V Gsmsubtests to form an XBA composite or the WISC-V WMI can be used if it has been determined to be cohesive.


WECHSLER INTELLIEGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN-V

Verbal Comprehension Index 76 Fluid Reasoning Index 88 Visual-Spatial Index 95Similarities 5 Matrix Reasoning 8 Block Design 9Vocabulary 6 Figure Weights 8 Visual Puzzles 9


WECHSLER INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST-III

Basic Reading 94 Reading Comprehension 76 Written Expression 92Word Reading 92 Reading Comprehension 76 Spelling 100Pseudoword Decoding 98 Oral Reading Fluency 80 Sentence Composition 86

Essay Composition 93WOODCOCK JOHNSON-IV TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITY

Auditory Processing 91 LT Storage/Retrieval 77 Follow Up Testing Phonological Processing 99 Story Recall 79 WJ IV OL Sound Blending 88Nonword Repetition 84 Visual-Auditory Learning 75




Supplemental WJ IV tests given for

purposes of follow up now included in matrix


Tiered graph still shows minimal decline and below

expected results that are not fully explainable by cultural

and linguistic influences alone—some other factor must

be present and negatively affecting performance


C-L graph also continues to show a disrupted declining

pattern and reinforces conclusion that results are not

primarily attributable to cultural and linguistic factors

Combining WISC-V subtests from WMI creates a cohesive 3-subtest XBA composite. Although it’s ok to use existing WMI, a 3-subtest composite is more reliable than a 2-subtest test composite so the XBA composite is preferable and will be transferred to the Data Organizer.

Follow up for Ga indicates that scores do form a cohesive 2-subtest XBA composite. Thus, performance in auditory processing domain is within average range and the XBA composite will be transferred to Data Organizer.



Data Organizer provides a summary of test and XBA composites for cognitive tests including both test-based composites and any derived XBA composites.


Data Organizer provides a summary of test-based composites, any derived XBA composites, and any specific subtests from a test tab or the XBA Analyzer.








Step 8: Select and Designate Scores for PSW Analysis and as Strengths or Weaknesses





Composites (and any academic subtests) selected on the Data Organizer appear on the Strength and Weaknesses Indicator where they may be designated as “S” or “W” for PSW analysis.


Scores designated as “S” appear in green, those designated as “W” appear in red. When Gc is selected as an area of cognitive weakness, an important cautionary message will appear indicating that Gc should not be used as the sole or only area of cognitive weakness.


For ELLs, it is necessary to cross-validate areas of weakness. In this case,

failure to do so would result in a g-Value that would not permit further evaluation

of SLD and would unfairly suggest a lack of average overall ability.


One problem is that Gc cannot be evaluated fairly against native English speaker norms or else the majority

of ELLs will be identified as having a deficit in Gc. In addition, Gc is the most important ability related to

academic success and accounts for the majority of variance in overall general ability. In this case, the Gc

score was within the shaded range, thus it should be indicated as a “strength” not “weakness.”

Nondiscriminatory Interpretation of Test Scores: A Case Study

Because Gc is, by definition, comprised of cultural knowledge and language development, the influence of cultural and linguistic differences cannot be separated from tests which are designed to measure culture and language. Thus, Gc scores for ELLs, even when determined to be valid, remain at risk for inequitable interpretation and evaluation.

Much like academic tests of manifest skills, Gc scores do reflect the examinee’s current level of English language proficiency and acculturative knowledge. However, they do so as compared to native English speakers, not to other ELLs. This is discriminatory and comparison of Gc performance using a test’s actual norms remains unfair when assigning meaning to the value. It is necessary instead to ensure that both the magnitude and the interpretive “meaning“ assigned to the obtained value is done in the least biased manner possible to maintain equity.

For example, a Gc composite score of 76 would be viewed as “deficient” relative to the normative sample where the mean is equal to 100. However, for ELLs, interpretation of a Gc score of 76 should rightly be deemed as being indicative of “average” performance because it falls within the expected range on the C-LIM because it is instead being compared to other ELLs, not native English speakers. Interpreting Gc scores in this manner will help ensure that ELLs are not unfairly regarded as having either deficient Gc ability or significantly lower overall cognitive ability—conditions that may simultaneously decrease identification of SLD and increase suspicion of ID and speech impairment.

The Gc caveat for English Language Learners

To address these issues in as fair and equitable a manner as possible when using the PSW-A with ELLs, specific guidelines have been developed. These guidelines:

• prevent the use of random, multiple analyses which would affect the rarity level in the PSW-A,

• maintain the nature of the discrepancy comparisons consistent with theory and meaning of the composites,

• provide a conservative and systematic mechanism for addressing fairness issues, and

• limit the need for adjustments to a small and unique set of conditions.

The actual, obtained Gc score, regardless of magnitude or sufficiency, should always be reported, albeit with appropriate nondiscriminatory assignment of meaning, and used for the purposes of instructional planning and educational intervention.

The Gc caveat for English Language Learners

Special Considerations in Using the PSW-A with ELL Students

Recommended Guidelines for Using PSW-A with ELLs

Is the high/high cell aggregate in the C-LIM from testing conducted in English either within or above the selected difference band (i.e., does it touch or exceed the shaded

area corresponding to the expected range?

Enter English Gc score, indicate as “strength” and run PSW analyses

Did the PSW-A calculate an FCC

SS > 90?

NO

YES

Did the PSW-A indicate that all criteria for a pattern of strengths and weaknesses consistent with

SLD was found?

YES

Enter an alternative Gc score that reflects minimum level of “average” ability, i.e., SS=90 and re-run PSW-A

YES

NO

Step C for Gc

Step A for Gc

Was Gc re-tested in the native language?

Did the PSW-A calculate an FCC SS > 90?

Did the native language Gc score disconfirm or invalidate Gc as an area of weakness (i.e., the native Gc score was found to be a SS > 90 DESPITE the fact that the high/high cell aggregate in the C-LIM was

originally found to be below the expected range)?

Student does not meet criteria necessary for establishing SLD; consider other causes of poor

academic performance.

Student meets criteria necessary for establishing SLD, including exclusion of cultural

and linguistic factors.

NO

YES

Did PSW-A indicate that all criteria for

pattern of strengths and weaknesses

consistent with SLD was found?

YES

NO


SS > 90?

Did PSW-A indicate that all criteria for pattern of

strengths and weaknesses consistent with SLD was found?

Step B for Gc

For all abilities EXCEPT Gc, if the native language score validates an area of weakness (English SS < 90 AND the high/high cell in the C-LIM is below expected range AND native SS < 90), enter the English language score in PSW-A and indicate it as a “weakness” OR if the native language

score invalidates an area of weakness (English SS < 90 BUT native SS > 90), enter the native score and indicate it as a “strength.”

YES

Enter native Gc score, indicate as “strength” and run PSW analyses

Enter English Gc score, indicate as “weakness” and run PSW analyses

NO YESNO

YES

NO

NO*

*Note: Failure to re-evaluate a low Gc score obtained in English may result in an incorrect analysis within the PSW-A. As noted in the recommended best practice guidelines, a Gc score that is suggestive of a weakness (C-LIM high/high cell aggregate is below expected range) requires validation of some kind, such as via native language evaluation.

YES

NO

For ALL areas of deficit

(except Gc) when re-testing

in the native language also

results in a score that is

below normal limits

(SS<90), use the original

English score and enter into

the PSW-A as a weakness.

For ALL areas of deficit

(except Gc) when re-testing

in the native language

results in a score that is

within normal limits or

higher (SS>90), use the

new score instead of the

original English language

test score because the new

score invalidates poor

performance as being the

result of a deficit (i.e.,

average scores not likely to

occur by chance).

Procedural Steps for Nondiscriminatory Evaluation of SLD with PSW-A: A declining pattern must NOT be evident in the C-LIM indicating no primary (only contributory) effect of culture and language indicating that scores are VALID;

STEP 1: Enter the most appropriate values:

Except for Gc, areas of weakness are re-evaluated in the native language to validate them (average scores do not need validation that they are average);

1. For Gc, re-testing in the native language is NOT necessary unless the original English score was below the selected shaded area in the C-LIM

2. When re-testing areas of weakness (including Gc) in the native language results in an average or higher score (SS > 90), the new score should be entered into the PSW-A to replace its English language counterpart and indicated as “sufficient;”

3. When re-testing areas of weakness (except Gc) in the native language result in a similar score indicating weakness (SS<90), the original English language score should be used in the PSW-A an indicated as “insufficient.”


Data Entry Guidelines for Using PSW-A with English Learners

WECHSLER INTELLIEGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN-V Verbal Comprehension Index 76 Fluid Reasoning Index 88 Visual-Spatial Index 95Similarities 5 Matrix Reasoning 8 Block Design 9Vocabulary 6 Figure Weights 8 Visual Puzzles 9


WISC IV Spanish WMI 72 Digit Span 5Letter-Number Sequencing 4

WECHSLER INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST-III Basic Reading 94 Reading Comprehension 76 Written Expression 92Word Reading 92 Reading Comprehension 76 Spelling 100Pseudoword Decoding 98 Oral Reading Fluency 80 Sentence Composition 86

Essay Composition 93WOODCOCK JOHNSON-IV TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITY Auditory Processing 91 LT Storage/Retrieval 77 Follow Up Testing Phonological Processing 99 Story Recall 79 WJ IV OL Sound Blending 88Nonword Repetition 84 Visual-Auditory Learning 75

Bateria III LT Retrieval 79 Visual-Auditory Learning 81 Retrieval Fluency 78



Gsm and Glr needed to be re-tested in

the native language to confirm them as

weaknesses. The same or similar tests

can be used and scores may be

generated but the purpose is to observe

performance in the domain that

validates difficulties even with full

comprehension.

Results of native

language testing for

Gsm and Glr.

The original Glr score on the WJ IV COG was cohesive and suggested a deficit (SS=77). Follow up native language testing resulted in a similar score that also indicated possible deficit. Thus, the original score is validated, but additional converging evidence is necessary (work samples, observations, progress monitoring info, etc.).

The original Gsm score from the WISC-IV (WMI) was cohesive and suggested a deficit (SS=78). Follow up native language testing resulted in a similar score and also indicated a possible deficit. Thus, the original score is validated but additional conversing evidence is necessary (e.g., work samples, observations, progress monitoring info, etc.).


Because Maria is an English Learner, it is also necessary to re-administer tests that were possible weaknesses when tested in English. In this case, the following results were obtained:

English Spanish PSW-A Entry

- Gc (VCI) 76 - 76

- Gf (FRI) 89 - 89

- Glr 77 79 77*

- Gsm (XBA) 78 72 78*

- Gv (VSI) 98 - 98

- Ga 92 - 92

- Gs (PSI) 94 - 94

*Note: Although the native language scores were slightly higher and lower they were still indicative of weakness and served to confirm the respective abilities as true deficits. This means the validity of the English scores has now been established and are therefore, the most defensible scores for use in the PSW-A. If, however, any of the native language scores were found to be average or higher (SS>90), they should be considered valid and used in place of the original scores obtained from testing in English. This includes entering them on the XBA Analyzer or core test tabs and transferring to the Data Organizer where they can be selected for use in the PSW-A in place of their respective lower English test scores. Remember, scores from native language testing that are >90, effectively disconfirm the domain as being a weakness and indicate that the original score is spurious, invalid, and should not be used or interpreted.



In these cases, the original

English scores are used in

the PSW-A because they

have been previously

established as being valid

and are confirmed here by

native language testing.

Procedural Steps for Nondiscriminatory Evaluation of SLD with PSW-A: A declining pattern must NOT be evident in the C-LIM indicating no primary (only contributory) effect of culture and language indicating that scores are VALID;

STEP 2: Determine the sufficiency of available Gc scores:

For Gc, re-evaluation in the native language is only necessary when the original English language score is below the shaded range selected in the C-LIM;

1. If the English language Gc score falls within or above the shaded range selected in the C-LIM, re-testing is not recommended and the score should be entered in the PSW-A and indicated as “sufficient;”

2. If the English language Gc score falls below the shaded range selected in the C-LIM, re-testing is recommended and:

a) If the native language Gc score is average or higher (SS > 90), the new score should be entered into the PSW-A to replace its English language counterpart and indicated as “sufficient;” or

b) If the native language Gc score is also indicative of a deficit (SS < 90), the original English language score should be entered into the PSW-A and indicated as “insufficient” as it has been validated/confirmed (note that native language scores cannot be validated, other than when they are average or higher).




Is the high/high cell aggregate in the C-LIM from testing conducted in English either within or above the selected difference band (i.e., does it touch or exceed the shaded

area corresponding to the expected range?

Enter English Gc score, indicate as “strength” and run PSW analyses


SS > 90?

NO

YES

Did the PSW-A indicate that all criteria for a pattern of strengths and weaknesses consistent with

SLD was found?

YES

Enter an alternative Gc score that reflects minimum level of “average” ability, i.e., SS=90 and re-run PSW-A

YES

NO

Step C for Gc

Step A for Gc

Was Gc re-tested in the native language?

Did the PSW-A calculate an FCC SS > 90?

Did the native language Gc score disconfirm or invalidate Gc as an area of weakness (i.e., the native Gc score was found to be a SS > 90 DESPITE the fact that the high/high cell aggregate in the C-LIM was

originally found to be below the expected range)?

Student does not meet criteria necessary for establishing SLD; consider other causes of poor

academic performance.

Student meets criteria necessary for establishing SLD, including exclusion of cultural

and linguistic factors.

NO

YES

Did PSW-A indicate that all criteria for

pattern of strengths and weaknesses

consistent with SLD was found?

YES

NO


SS > 90?

Did PSW-A indicate that all criteria for pattern of

strengths and weaknesses consistent with SLD was found?

Step B for Gc

For all abilities EXCEPT Gc, if the native language score validates an area of weakness (English SS < 90 AND the high/high cell in the C-LIM is below expected range AND native SS < 90), enter the English language score in PSW-A and indicate it as a “weakness” OR if the native language

score invalidates an area of weakness (English SS < 90 BUT native SS > 90), enter the native score and indicate it as a “strength.”

YES

Enter native Gc score, indicate as “strength” and run PSW analyses

Enter English Gc score, indicate as “weakness” and run PSW analyses

NO YESNO

YES

NO

NO*

*Note: Failure to re-evaluate a low Gc score obtained in English may result in an incorrect analysis within the PSW-A. As noted in the recommended best practice guidelines, a Gc score that is suggestive of a weakness (C-LIM high/high cell aggregate is below expected range) requires validation of some kind, such as via native language evaluation.

YES

NO


Gc performance on Tiered graph is well within the

expected average score/range when compared to

other English language learner peers, therefore

further testing of Gc is not necessary

Because culture and language cannot be separated from the measurement of culture and language, it is necessary to ensure that Gc for ELLs is interpreted in comparison to other ELLs with similar backgrounds rather than native English speakers. The shaded range of the C-LIM for Tier 5 provides this comparison.

English Spanish PSW-A Entry

- Gc (VCI) 76 - 76*

- Gf (FRI) 89 - 89

- Glr 77 79 77b

- Gsm (XBA) 78 72 78b

- Gv (VSI) 98 - 98

- Ga 92 - 92

- Gs (PSI) 94 - 94

*Note: Although testing could have been conducted in the native language for Gc, the fact that it was within the shaded range on the C-LIM suggested average or better performance and thus there was no need to retest it. However, proper use of Gc in identifying SLD requires adherence to the additional guidelines provided in the PSW-A flowchart.



Whether re-testing is

necessary or not is

dependent on whether

the Gc score, as

indicated by Tier 5

(i.e., the High

Culture/High

Language cell in the

C-LIM) falls within or

above the shaded

range that

corresponds to the

selected degree of

difference.








Step 8: Select Scores for PSW Analysis and Designate as Strengths or Weaknesses





Data Organizer permits selection of specific cognitive composites for use in PSW analysis. Selected scores appear in yellow but a maximum of 2 cognitive scores can be selected (e.g., in cases where

there may be both a strength and a weakness or two weaknesses, etc.)


Data Organizer permits selection of specific academic composites or subtests for use in PSW analysis. Selected scores appear in yellow and a maximum of 3 academic scores can be selected including any

combination of test composites, XBA composites, or subtest scores.


Scores designated as “S” appear in green, those designated as “W” appear in red. When Gc is selected as an area of cognitive weakness, an important cautionary message will appear.


Use of the original English language Gc score is likely to be discriminatory since the magnitude

(value) is considered “well below average” in normative comparison. Since it was within the shaded

range on the C-LIM, its actual meaning when compared fairly to other ELLs indicates average or

better functioning. Therefore, it should be marked here as a “strength” not “weakness.”


For ELLs, initial analysis with Gc designated as “weakness” may result in a g-Value that will

not permit further evaluation of SLD and unfairly suggests a lack of average overall ability


Resulting g-Value suggests that Maria does not have sufficient overall general ability to meet

the definition of SLD which requires at least average level of intelligence and halts analysis.


Not only is the g-Value severely attenuated, the FCC is not displayed because it is irrelevant, regardless of

magnitude, because the g-Value does not support the idea that Maria has sufficient general ability.


The problem is that Gc cannot be evaluated fairly against native English speaker norms or else the majority

of ELLs will be identified as having a deficit in Gc. In addition, Gc is the most important ability related to

academic success and accounts for the majority of variance in overall general ability. In this case, the Gc

score was within the shaded range, thus it should be indicated as a “strength” not “weakness.”


Use of obtained SS with assignment of

nondiscriminatory meaning provides less biased

and fair interpretation of ability in area of Gc

Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 2

In most cases, when English Gc is marked as a “strength” and the actual value is used, the PSW-A will be able to calculate the FCC which

permits continuation of SLD evaluation. However, for ELLs, even when Gc is designated a “strength,” the FCC may not be calculated if it

remains below the minimum value of 85 due to being attenuated by the low magnitude of the score.

If an English Gc score is being used that is SS<90, within the shaded range, and marked as a “strength,” proceed to Step 3.

If an English Gc score is being used that is SS<90, below the shade range, and marked as a “weakness,” OR if an English Gc score is being

used that is SS>90, and marked as a “strength,” and the FCC is not calculated, the examinee is unlikely to be SLD and more likely very low

average, i.e., “slow learner” and no further evaluation is necessary.


The g-Value now

reflects a true and

equitable estimate of

overall cognitive

ability and permits

further evaluation of

SLD.

Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 2

For the ICC, the data are consistent with SLD. Because the ICC is a trans-domain composite, it has greater reliability than a domain

specific composite and is more likely to reveal a significant difference when scores are close. The ICC, however, does not provide specific

information regarding the nature of the cognitive deficit, so additional analysis may be necessary.


Final analysis of data via Step 3 indicates full consistency with SLD pattern for ICC, Glr, and Gsm. Use of

guidelines to ensure fair and unbiased assignment of meaning to obtained values helps demonstrate

differences necessary to establish SLD that might have been masked due to inherently attenuated Gc score.

Statement 2a. Evaluation of Suspected Learning Disability – Valid results and resolution of Gc Caveat

The following sample validity statement may be used in cases where valid results were obtained but the final determination of SLD via use of the

PSW-A necessitated particular attention to resolving the Gc caveat via one or more of the methods recommended for use of the PSW-A with ELLs.

Because the student is not a native English speaker, it is necessary to establish the validity of the results obtained from testing to ensure that they are accurate estimates of ability or knowledge and not the manifestation of cultural or linguistic differences. To this end, a systematic evaluation of the possible effects of lack of acculturation and limited English proficiency was carried out via use of the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM).

A careful review of the student’s test data as entered into the C-LIM does not appear to reveal a pattern of decline that is typical of or within the range that would be expected of other individuals with similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The overall pattern of test performance does not decline systematically and suggests that test performance was not due primarily to the influence of cultural and linguistic factors. Although such influences remain contributory factors, they can not account for the resulting pattern of performance in its entirety and are, therefore, not believed to be the main or only reason for the reported learning difficulties. In addition, other extraneous factors that might account for the observed pattern (for example, lack of motivation, fatigue, incorrect administration/scoring, emotional/behavioral problems) have been excluded. This indicates that the test results can be considered valid, interpretable, and are likely to be good estimates of the student’s actual ability or knowledge with the exception of Gc, which must be evaluated only against other ELLs due to the fact that it is a direct measure of cultural knowledge and language proficiency. In this respect, initial evaluation of SLD with the PSW-A using the actual obtained Gc score resulted in an unfair estimate of overall cognitive ability that inequitably decreased the difference between the student’s strengths and weaknesses and masked the presence of SLD. For the purposes of SLD determination only, and to prevent biased evaluation, systematic steps were taken to ensure that the analysis was not subject to the use of inappropriate or discriminatory values or classification including use of one or all of the following procedures: use of a native-language Gc score which better represents the student’s ability; indication of the English-language Gc score as “sufficient” (if the score was comparable to other English learners); and entry of a alternative minimum value for Gc (SS=90) solely for the purposes of providing unbiased data in subsequent calculations that fairly and accurately portray the correct “average” magnitude for the true level of average ability in this domain. Use of these procedures permitted nondiscriminatory analysis and resulted in a pattern of strengths and weaknesses consistent with the required conceptual and quantitative criterion necessary to establish SLD.

In summary, the observed pattern of the student's test results is not consistent with performance that is typical of non-disabled, culturally and linguistically diverse individuals who are of average ability or higher. Although the overall pattern of results in this case does decline, the results appear to be valid because the magnitude of the scores are much lower than what would be expected and indicate the presence of another influence. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that, if supported by additional data, the student's test performance may be attributed to some type of global cognitive impairment and intellectual functioning is at a level that could be considered significantly sub-average as compared to same age peers with similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

(*Note: a typical description of the data that support the presence of global cognitive impairment should follow at this point in the report.)


For the purpose of identifying SLD in ELLs, RTI will pose significant limitations and obstacles including the fact that:

◦ ELLs in English-only or ESL programs, by definition, do not meet the fundamental principle of RTI regarding the provision of empirically validated intervention.

◦ The reasons why an ELL is not learning or responding to intervention as may be expected, in particular those related to cultural or linguistic differences, are not likely to be revealed via RTI alone.

◦ RTI is not designed to identify or accommodate the developmentally based differences in academic skill acquisition needed to distinguish specific learning differences from specific learning disabilities.

Comprehensive evaluation of a broad range of cognitive abilities and processes (particularly within an XBA approach) in ELLs suspected of SLD via norm-referenced standards (and use of the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix) can be extremely valuable in helping determine whether learning problems are the result of “difference vs. disorder” and whether the data constitute SLD via a PSW approach that is further enhanced by the use of RTI data and information.

Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Summary

Resources for Determination of SLD in English Language Learners via RTI and Testing

Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Best Practices in Nondiscriminatory Assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best

Practices in School Psychology VI. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Hale, J., et al. (2010). Critical Issues in Response-to-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific

Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disabilities

Quarterly, 33, 223-236.

Flanagan, D.P., Fiorello, C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll

theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the

Schools, 47(7), 739-760.

Ortiz, A. A., & Artiles, A. J. (2010). Meeting the needs of ELLs with disabilities: A linguistically and culturally

responsive model. In G. Li & P.A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction(pp. 24-272). New York, NY:

Guilford.

Esparza, J. B, & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention

with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40 (5), 66–72.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O. & Alfonso, V. C. (2008). Response to Intervention (RTI) and Cognitive Testing

Approaches Provide Different But Complementary Data Sources That Inform SLD Identification. Communiquè,

26 (5), 16-17.

Vanderwood, M. L. & Nam, J. E. (2007). Response to Intervention for English Language Learners: Current

developments and future directions. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns and A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook

of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention (pp. 408-417).

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C. & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of Response to Intervention and

Norm-Referenced Tests in Learning Disability Identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the

Schools, Vol. 43(7), 807-825.

Resources for Determination of SLD in English Language Learners via RTI and Testing

Rinaldi, C., Ortiz, S.O., Gamm, S. (2014). RTI-Based SLD Identification Toolkit: Considerations for

English Language Learners. Available at http://rtinetwork.org/getstarted/sld-identification-toolkit/ld-

identification-toolkit-considerations-for-ell

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W. … Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the

disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education

through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, Article 38.

Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/143

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., & Francis, D.

(2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for

reading problems.Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–180. Retrieved

fromhttp://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.pacific.edu/10.1086/510653

Collier, V. (2011). Seven steps to separating difference from disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press. Council for Exceptional Children (n.d.). Standards for evidence-based practice in special

education. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Evidence%20based%20Practices%20and%20Practic

e/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf

ONLINE:

http://rtinetwork.org/getstarted/sld-identification-toolkit/ld-identification-toolkit-considerations-for-ell

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/143

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.pacific.edu/10.1086/510653

http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Evidence based Practices and Practice/CECs Evidence Based Practice Standards.pdf

Failure to Respond or Failure to Educate? Considerations ... · PDF fileConsiderations for SLD...

Documents

Transcript of Failure to Respond or Failure to Educate? Considerations ... · PDF fileConsiderations for SLD...