Part 2: Standard Handout Version - Ohio Speech

ASSESSMENT OF
MULTICUTURAL
STUDENTS WITH
LANGUAGE DISORDERS
Celeste RoseberryMcKibbin, Ph.D.
California State University,
Sacramento
We will examine several areas:
The influence of bilingualism and
second language acquisition variables
Considerations in standardized testing
Nonstandardized, informal evaluation
measures
My Story:
Born in southern California
Went to the Philippines at 6 years of age
Began first grade in Jose Abad Santos Memorial School in
Manila
In 3rd and fourth grade, I was the only white child in the
whole school
Went to a boarding school for missionary children for 7
years
Came back to the U.S. with my family as a 17-year old
college freshman
At the elementary school where I work
in Elk Grove Unified School District…
We have approximately 1,000 students
9% are White; 91% are children of color
Most are on welfare
Over 30 different languages are represented
In Elk Grove Unified alone…
We have children
from 80-90 different
language groups
represented
Many are from lowSES homes
It is important…
To discuss evidencebased practice
As much as possible,
we use assessment
practices supported
by research
GENERAL ASSESSMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
Is the student
manifesting
characteristics of typical
second language
acquisition and/or
bilingual development
that are mistakenly being
taken as signs of a
language-learning
disability (LLD)?
Is there a mismatch
between the student’s
background/environment
and the school’s
expectations?
DEFINITION OF A LANGUAGELEARNING DISABILITY IN AN ELL
STUDENT
An ELL student has a true language-learning
disability (LLD) if he experiences difficulties
learning in BOTH languages
A LLD affects the student’s ability to learn any
language
The student with ageappropriate L1 skills and low
scores in English is NOT LLD
and is not a candidate for
special education
We must make teachers and
administrators aware of the
difference between a student
with normal underlying
language learning ability who
needs more time and exposure
to English (non special
education) and the student
who is truly LLD (qualifies for
special education).
Demographic Data
According to the U.S. BOC 2000, during the
1990s:
The Hispanic population increased by 58%
The Asian population increased by 48%
The Native American, Pacific Islander, and Alaska
Native population increased by 35%
The African American population increased by 16%
In the last 20 years, the non-Hispanic White population
grew by 7.6%
Our diversity in our public schools
is increasing in the 21st century
There is increased focus on diverse
students in schools…
English language learners now represent
9.6% of all students enrolled in public prekindergarten through grade 12 classes in the
U.S.; 67% of these students are enrolled at
the elementary school level
No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has put
strong emphasis on achievement for lowincome, diverse, and English language learner
students
A student who is
learning English as a
second or third
language is called an
English Language
Learner (ELL)
Students may be ELLs
at any age
They can come as preschoolers, elementary
students, or adolescents; some are U.S.born, others are children of immigrants who
come to the U.S. for increased opportunities
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION AND
BILINGUALISM
NORMAL PROCESSES OF SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
A. Interference/Transfer
When students are learning an L2, they make
errors that reflect the influence of L1
For example: in Spanish, a child would say “la
casa verde” (the house green)
If a Spanish-speaking child pointed to a picture
and said, “look—I see the house green” (instead
of “I see the green house”) this would be transfer
from Spanish, not a sign of a clinically significant
problem with syntax
Transfer can occur in all
areas: syntax,
morphology, phonology,
semantics, and
pragmatics
Errors of transfer from L1
are NOT signs of a
communication disorder.
These errors indicate a
communication
difference, not a
disorder (Brice & Brice,
2009)
B. Fossilization
This refers to L2 errors that remain
firmly entrenched despite good L2
proficiency.
“The news are that…”
C. Interlanguage
This is a system that
has structurally
intermediate status
between L1 and L2
The student is
approximating L2 (Brice
& Brice, 2009)
The student’s errors are
inconsistent
D. Silent Period
In the early stages of learning
a second language (L2), most
students focus on
comprehension and do very
little speaking
The younger the student, the
longer the silent period
usually lasts
Students introduced to L2
during the preschool years
may speak very little in L1 or
in L2 for more than one year
E. Codeswitching
This is the phenomenon of
alternating between 2
languages within a single
phrase, sentence, or
discourse
Bilingual children
commonly use this strategy
Generally, codeswitching is
a normal communication
behavior (Kohnert, 2008)
Codeswitching is used by
multilingual adults and children
around the world
F. Language Loss
Many ELL students’ L1 is not maintained
in school through bilingual education
Unfortunately, they experience
language loss in L1
Thus, they achieve low test scores in
both L1 and English
SIMULTANEOUS AND SEQUENTIAL
BILINGUAL ACQUISITION
Simultaneous
acquisition occurs
when a child is
exposed to 2
languages from
infancy in natural
situations
Interference between
L1 and L2 is minimal
Early infancy is the ideal time for a
child to be exposed to 2+ languages
Sequential acquisition:
The child is exposed to L1 during
infancy, and learns L2 at a later time
Sequential learners may show greater
diversity in rates and stages of
acquisition
If L2 is introduced sequentially before a strong
L1 foundation has been established (e.g., 6-8
years of age), L1 development may be
arrested or even regress while L2 is being
learned
These students, for a while, achieve low test
scores in both L1 and L2—this can cause them
to appear LLD when they are not
Preschool children who learn English in a
sequential manner are especially vulnerable to
this situation
For example, if a Russian-speaking child is introduced to
English in preschool at age 4, he may stop speaking very
much in Russian for a time while he is trying to learn English
Many variables make it challenging
to assess young ELLs
Highly-recommended assessment tasks and
materials include the Hawaii Early Learning
Profile and others
A phenomenal resource: Tabors, P.O.
(2008). One child, two languages: A guide for
early childhood educators of children learning
English as a second language (2nd ed.).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION VARIABLES
A. Affective Variables
•1. Motivation— instrumental
vs. integrative
•2. Personality
•3. Self-esteem
B. Sociocultural Variables
1. Cultural Styles
2. Socioeconomic
Status
IV. COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION FACTORS
A. Second Language Learning Styles
and Strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
Avoidance
Use of routines and formulas
Practice opportunities
Modeling
B. Separate vs. Common
Underlying Proficiency
The Separate Underlying Proficiency (SUP)
model holds that L1 and L2 proficiencies are
totally separate, and building skills in one
language will not help the other language
Believers of SUP try to eradicate students’ L1
through placing these students in “sink or
swim” all-English classrooms and telling
parents to “speak only English at home”
Cummins (1992, 2000) promoted the
CUP model, which states: (pp. 2325)
“…the literacy-related aspects of a
bilingual’s proficiency in L1 and L2 are seen
as common or interdependent across
languages…experience with either language
can promote development of the proficiency
underlying both languages, given adequate
motivation and exposure to both either in
school or in the wider environment”
According to the theory of Common
Underlying Proficiency…
Building up one
language positively
affects the
development of the
other language
***Parents need to
speak to their child in
the language in which
they are most
comfortable (Langdon,
2008)
Practical Implications of CUP:
Build up the student’s L1 skills
The stronger the student’s L1 foundation, the
more easily she will learn concepts in English
Students who experience additive bilingualism
in this situation are much more likely to
experience academic success
Often older learners with a solid L1
foundation perform quite well
academically
Because their solid L1
foundation supports the
learning of English and
academic content
Unfortunately, many of our ELL
students are “semilingual”
These students do not receive L1 support, and they
try to learn L2 (English) with a foundation that is not
fully developed
These students experience negative cognitive effects
and frequent academic failure
They can appear to be “language-learning disabled,”
when in reality, they are merely semilingual—not
strong in either L1 or English
C. BICS and CALP
BICS (Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills) take
approximately 2 years to develop to a
native-like level under ideal conditions
BICS involves communication that is
cognitively undemanding and contextembedded
There is contextual support for the
interaction
CALP (Cognitive-Academic
Language Proficiency)…
Takes from 5-7 years to develop to a nativelike level under ideal conditions
Ideal conditions include support for L1 as well
as L2 instruction
Under less than ideal conditions, CALP can
take up to 10 years to develop to a native-like
level
CALP involves proficiency in context-reduced,
cognitively demanding activities
These include reading and writing as
well as math and science
D. Additive vs. Subtractive
Bilingualism
Additive bilingualism—the ideal situation,
where the student’s L1 is nurtured and
developed along with L2
Research shows that additive bilingualism
has great cognitive and linguistic benefits
Unfortunately, subtractive
bilingualism is much more common in
U.S. schools
In subtractive bilingualism, the student’s L1 is
not nurtured or developed
It is replaced by L2; language loss in L1 occurs
In many cases, this leads to academic failure
because the student is not strong in either
language
E. Ideal Bilingual Education
Situation
Minimum of 6 years of bilingual instruction
In kindergarten and first grade, 90% primary
language and 10% English instruction
50% + 50% English and primary language by
grade 6
When we extrapolate from BICS
to CALP…
We create deficits in
students that may cause
them to be erroneously
identified as LLD
Students who have
good BICS after 2-3
years of exposure to
English still need more
time to develop CALP
Many English language proficiency tests
assess just BICS
A problem with this is that when a BICS-oriented
proficiency test labels an ELL student as “Fully
English Proficient,” professionals assume the
student is ready to handle CALP-oriented tests in
English
These can include statewide school achievement
tests, speech-language and psychological tests,
etc.
The gap between the student’s BICS and CALP
performance may lead to erroneous special
education placement.
When we account for second language
acquisition phenomena…
We make many fewer
misdiagnoses
We avoid mislabeling normal ELL
students as having languagelearning disabilities
We honor our students’ linguistic
and cultural identities as they
engage in the challenging and
rewarding process of becoming
successful, and hopefully
proficient bilingual contributors to
our society.
We need increasing numbers of
bilingual U.S. citizens to do business in
our continually shrinking world
CONSIDERATIONS IN
USE OF STANDARDIZED,
FORMAL TESTS WITH ELL
STUDENTS
The Native Americans have a saying: When you are
riding a horse and it dies, dismount--and find a new
one. But many of us keep wanting to revive the old
horse of standardized testing with ELL students.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Congress wants to provide educational services
to children with disabilities in order to improve
educational results for these children. More and
more states are exploring alternatives for serving
more children in regular education classrooms.
There is increased attention to diversity to prevent
inappropriate identification and
mislabeling…especially excessive referral of
minority special education students to more
restrictive environments
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA, 2004) states that testing and evaluation
materials used with ELL students must be
selected and used in a nondiscriminatory manner
These materials must be administered in the
native language, or the language in which the
student is most proficient
Thus, we must assess students in both L1 and
English in most situations
Remember IDEA Stipulations
• According to the IDEA, we
must use a team assessment
approach that incorporates
multi-measure decisions
• The provisions of the IDEA
state that assessment tools
must display validity, equity,
and nondiscrimination
• The IDEA does not require that
standardized measures are used
• Traditionally, many speech-language
pathologists have used standardized
tests because they believe that a
quantitative score is mandated by
federal law; however, the law does not
exclude subjective or qualitative
measures. It leaves the choice of
measurement tools and criteria to the
educator.
• IDEA, 2004: The
need for the IQperformance
discrepancy has been
eliminated. There is
an increased focus
on early intervention.
• The IDEA (2004) does not specify the use of
either formal or informal tools for assessment.
• It does specify that a variety of assessment tools
be used, and that determination of disability
should not rely on a single test or measure.
• Standardized, formal tests are commonly used with
ELL students
• Many speech pathologists operate from the belief
that we must always obtain quantitative data such as
percentile ranks and standard deviations
• However, the IDEA permits the use of qualitative,
subjective measures which we will discuss more in
the next section
Pitfalls of using Standardized Tests
with CLD Students—
Formal Test Assumptions
• There are very few
standardized tests in
most languages
• Most standardized tests
are developed from a
Western, literate, middle
class framework
These tests assume that students
will:
• Cooperate to the best of their ability
• Attempt to respond even when test tasks don’t
make sense
• Understand and successfully perform artificial,
potentially unfamiliar tasks such as fill-in-theblanks
They also assume that students will:
• Have been exposed to the information and
experiences assumed by the test
• Be comfortable with an unfamiliar adult and
willing to talk with him or her readily
• Be proficient in verbal display of knowledge
Bias in Standardized Testing:
Potentially Unfamiliar Items
• Household objects
• Vehicles
• Sports
• Musical instruments
• Types of clothing
• Professions/occupations
• Historically related events and
people
• Foods
• American nursery rhymes
• Geography
• Games
An ELL student may not recognize
things like American fruits and
vegetables
In many countries, soccer is called
football
And holidays and seasons differ from
country to country
Many immigrant and refugee
students are unfamiliar with snow…
Items Translated from English

An egregious practice to be avoided at all costs is
translating an English standardized test into the
student’s L1 and then scoring the test according to
norms

There are differences in structure and content across
English and the primary language

Psychometric properties of tests (e.g. validity,
reliability) do not carry over to translations

Many standardized tests do not include ELL students in
their norming samples

Translation assumes that the ELL student has the same
life experiences and exposure as those students in the
norming sample
Tests Developed in Primary
Languages

Problem one: heterogeneity of various
populations

Problem two: little developmental data in other
languages

Problem three: Differences in vocabularies and
linguistic knowledge of those born in the U.S.
and those born in other countries
E. Modifying Standardized
Tests

Give instructions in L1 and English

Rephrase confusing instructions

Give extra examples and
demonstrations

Give the student extra time to respond

Repeat items when necessary

If the student gives a “wrong” answer,
ask her to explain it and record her
explanation; score it as correct if it
would be correct in her culture

Omit biased items the student will
probably miss

Test beyond the ceiling

Complete the assessment in several
sessions

Count, as correct, answers in either
language (dual scoring system; conceptual
scoring)
CONSIDERATIONS IN TEST
INTERPRETATION
Don’t identify a student based
solely on formal test scores
Ascertain if the student’s errors
are typical of other students
with similar backgrounds
Interpret overall results as a team
In assessment reports, include
disclaimers about departure
from standard testing
procedures
UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF
INTERPRETERS IN ASSESSMENT

Make sure interpreters are well trained
and understand the purpose of the
evaluation

Ensure that interpreters can build rapport
with others from their culture
Prepare the Interpreter for the
Assessment Session by:

Providing information about the student who is
being assessed

Allowing the interpreter time to get organized and
ask questions BEFORE the student arrives

Showing (actual demonstration) the interpreter
how to use each measure

Debrief with the interpreter after the session
Supervise the interpreter during the
session and make sure s/he
doesn’t:

Record data incorrectly

Prompt the student or give clues

Expand and elaborate on the student’s
responses instead of directly translating
them
Have the interpreter watch for the
following behaviors:

Response delays

Use of gestures to replace words

Perseveration, confusion

Distractibility

Language and articulation errors
I like to ask:

In your ___ years of
working in this district with
___# of ___students, what
do you think of this
particular student’s skills?

Example: “In your 5 years
of working for Elk Grove
Unified School District with
approximately 400 Indian
students, how does Manu
seem to do in comparison
to these other students?”
If we should not use standardized
tests with most ELL students…
 Then
 How
what should we do instead?
can we validly differentiate
a language difference from LLD
without the exclusive use of
formal test scores?
PRACTICAL
STRATEGIES FOR
INFORMAL,
NONSTANDARDIZED
ASSESSMENT
Evaluate the Student’s Communication
Skills in a Variety of Settings


Use multiple observations in
naturalistic settings
Observe the student’s ability to
communicate successfully at
home, in the classroom, on the
playground, in the cafeteria, and
other settings
How does the student communicate and
perform in the classroom—on the
playground—at home?
Assess Language Processing
Capacity


Research has suggested that
students with true LLD have
difficulty retaining the
sequential order of
information (Chiat & Roy,
2007; Ebert et al., 2008)
LLD students have specific
difficulties on tasks that
require verbatim, immediate
ordered recall (Leonard, Ellis
Weismer et al., 2007)


For example, it is hard for these students to
recall lists of real words, nonsense words,
and to repeat back digits in sequence
Dollaghan and Campbell (1998) developed
procedures designed to measure language
processing capacity (e.g., repeating back
nonsense syllables) and found that these
procedures had good potential to be used
with CLD students in differentiating LLD from
a language difference
Other studies have also had similar
findings:


Stokes, Wong, Fletcher, & Leonard (2006).
Nonword repetition and sentence repetition as
clinical markers of specific language impairment:
The case of Cantonese. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 219-236.
Kohnert, Windsor, & Yim (2006). Do languagebased processing tasks separate children with
primary language impairment from typical
bilinguals? Journal of Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 21, 19-29.
Swanson & Saez (2006). Growth in literacy and
cognition in bilingual children at risk or not at risk for
reading disabilities.



Published in Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 247-264.
These researchers found that Spanishspeaking students with reading disabilities
performed poorly on Spanish short-term
memory tasks
They had students repeat words back,
and they also used digit repetition


They concluded that word memory in the
primary language predicts growth in
second language reading
Their results showed that children who
had average intelligence but were at risk
for reading disabilities were deficient on
Spanish measures of short term memory
Laing & Kamhi (2003) state that:


The use of processingdependent/dynamic measures with ELL
populations is appealing for a number of
reasons.
They are not biased toward life
experience, socialization practices, or
literacy knowledge, and they are quick
and easy to administer.
Laing & Kamhi go on to say that:


Performance on nonword repetition and
working memory measures has been
found to be highly correlated with
language impairment and secondlanguage vocabulary acquisition in adults
and children.
When children perform poorly on
processing-dependent measures, there is
a high likelihood that they will have some
type of language-learning difficulty.
It is very advantageous to use assessment measures that
do not rely on a child’s prior experience or world knowledge
According to Kohnert (2008, p. 95)

Processing-dependent
measures are
designed to assess
the integrity of the
underlying language
learning system while
at the same time to
minimize the role of
previous cultural or
linguistic
experience
Use Dynamic Assessment


Dynamic assessment evaluates a
student’s ability to learn when
provided with instruction
Conventional tests are static; they
measure children’s functioning at one
point in time
 We
need to measure a
child’s zone of proximal
development; what s/he can
achieve with help
 We
look at trainability, or the
child’s ability to profit from
instruction
Questions to ask to compare the
student to similar ELL peers:



How much structure and individual attention is
needed for the student to acquire new language
skills?
During instructional activities, to what extent
does the student exhibit off-task behaviors or
inappropriate responses
Did this student require instructional strategies
that differed from those which had been used
effectively with similar peers?
Response to Intervention (RtI) utilizes the
principles of dynamic assessment


Students in regular education classrooms
receive increasingly intense amounts of
support from teachers and Teacher
Assistance Teams
If they do not respond to this—if they
show treatment resistance--then they
probably qualify for special education
(Justice, 2010).
Use Portfolio Assessment


A portfolio contains
materials by and
information about a
student
Portfolios help teams
judge a student’s
ability to learn over
time when provided
with instruction
Use a Pre-Evaluation Process



1. Gather the case history. Be sure to
include language history.
2. Use questionnaires and interviews with
individuals who are familiar with the
student (e.g., teachers, parents,
interpreters)
3. Ascertain the student’s language
proficiency in L1 and English
Use Narrative Assessment


The child can create a story, or the
clinician can tell a story and ask the
child to tell it back (150 words for
5-8 year olds)
We must take into account that
different cultures have different
rules for telling stories
When the student tells a story:



Does she organize it in such a way that the
listener understands the general story
sequence?
Does she give comments or explanations that
are relevant or irrelevant to the story?
If the student is re-telling a story originally told
by the speech-language pathologist, does she
remember both major and specific details?
Evaluate RAN (Rapid Automatic Naming)
Skills (Langdon, 2008)




Assessment of RAN skills provides information about
the student’s speed and organization of thought
Research has demonstrated that individuals with
dyslexia have difficulty with this task
RAN tests are best for children who are ages 5 yrs.
and over
RAN assessment works with ELLs too!
An excellent source of informal assessment tasks
(English and Spanish):


Mattes, L., & Saldana-Illingsworth,
C. (2009). Bilingual communication
assessment resource: Tools for
assessing speech, language, and
learning. Oceanside, CA: Academic
Communication Associates.
http://www.acadcom.com
A recommended resource for examining literacy skills
(Justice, 2010):




Reading fluency (or lack
thereof) is an important
potential indicator of a
learning disability
DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills)
(Good & Kaminski, 2002)
Assesses reading fluency in a
number of areas
http://dibels.uoregon.edu
Assess Associated Motor Behaviors







Research suggests that students who have
learning disabilities may manifest: (Nelson,
2010)
Poor coordination or awkwardness
Difficulty copying from the chalkboard
Poor handwriting
Clumsiness and poor balance
Difficulty manipulating small objects
Trouble learning to tie shoes, button shirts, and
other self-help activities
RECAP: PRINCIPLES AND
STRATEGIES FOR
NONBIASED ASSESSMENT
OF CLD STUDENTS
 Determine whether or not the student is
truly LLD, or is performing like he is
because of a mismatch between his
environment/background and the
school’s expectations
For example, if the student is
from a barrio in the
Philippines
The technological emphasis in U.S. schools may
be quite an adjustment
 Remember that an ELL student is truly
LLD only if she has difficulty learning in
both L1 and L2
 The IDEA 2004 states that we must
evaluate in a nondiscriminatory manner
in the language in which the student is
most proficient
 Try to avoid standardized, formal
measures in most cases because there
are many problems with using these
measures with ELL students
 Remember that the IDEA allows for use
of qualitative, subjective, informal
measures under appropriate conditions
 Carry out a pre-evaluation process consisting
of gathering the case history, using
questionnaires and interviews with individuals
who are familiar with the student, and
ascertaining the student’s proficiency in L1 and
English
 Again, gathering language history is crucial
 Use practical, informal measures such as a
checklist of possible LLD indicators
 Other measures include portfolio
assessment, narrative assessment, and
observation of the student’s skills in
multiple naturalistic settings
 Other informal measures we can use
include dynamic assessment, assessment
of language processing capacity and rapid
automatic naming skills, and administration
of specific nonstandardized instruments
 Use the services of interpreters judiciously,
making sure that they are well qualified
and well prepared to assist in the
assessment process
Response to
Intervention
In the old days we had….
• Regular education in the
classroom
• OR ▼
• Special education with an IEP
Now more schools across the U.S.
are implementing RTI
• Regular education classroom (Tier 1)
• ▼
• Noncategorical, nonspecial education
interventions (after-school math and/or
reading academy; REWARDS reading
program, etc.) (Tier 2)
• ▼
• Special education with IEP (Tier 3)
This is partially in response to No
Child Left Behind and IDEA 2004…
• Idea 2004 especially emphasizes
intervention for reading in the
early grades to prevent problems
later on
What is Bakersfield, CA, doing for RTI for ELL
students in Tier 2? (1/07)
• Before children are on IEP, they are
screened
• In the 60 days between screening and
formal dx, pull them into speech room
and work with them to see how
modifiable they are; how quickly they
learn (neverstreaming)
• Brief, intensive services without an IEP
• Kids go through SST—teachers have to do the
paperwork; can’t just knee-jerk refer to special
ed
• Parents need to know that they can’t just
request assessment; there is a process that
has to be followed (e.g., co-ops, SST)
• At-risk children: all-day kindergarten with
intervention; RSPs and SLPs go into the
classroom and work with children in areas
such as phonemic awareness; psychologist
works with children with social issues
In Waco, Texas and Phoenix,
Arizona: (spring, 2007)
• SLPs mostly see children who are on IEPs
• SLPs may be a little involved in supporting
reading/phonological awareness programs
• However, the schools usually hire special
teachers to conduct RTI
In Georgia: (spring, 2007)
Tier 1 = best teaching practices in the
classroom
Tier 2- Narrow it down —target students
who have lower state test scores—e.g.,
centers, guided reading groups—‖bottom
5‖ kids in the classroom; these students
get more differentiated attention. There is
also after-school tutoring—done by
classroom teacher—no extra pay—part
of their regular duties.
Tier 2 continued:
Early intervention, Reading Recovery,
ELL services. Also have teacher-led
collaboration teams that meet 1-2 times
a month to discuss the ―bottom 5‖ (SLP
usually is not there, but they could be).
Problem—teachers don’t want to
document what they do in the 6-8
weeks.
• Tier 3: Of the bottom 5, 3 respond and
2 do not. The 2 have a slower rate of
learning; achievement gap is widening.
These 2 go to Tier 3, where there is an
SST. Tier 2 is small group interventions;
in Tier 3, more 1:1 attention. This 1:1
attention should be provided by the
teacher, the ELL specialist…anyone on
the team. After-school programs may
be provided—these can be computer
programs, tutors—Title 1 money.
• Tier 4: special ed! Tier 3 is not working,
so the special ed team assesses and
intervention can be provided. Focus on
inclusion.
• When the children are pulled out, the
clinicians focus on teaching curriculum.
SLPs support the curriculum.
• SLPs also go into the classroom and help
the teacher differentiate instruction.
North Highlands, CA (8/07)
• Write down—teachers—document what interventions
they are using
• Meeting as pre-SST team—roving sub makes
teacher come
• Reading recovery, literacy groups
• Hire retired assistant superintendents, principals,
reading teachers for after-school programs, and
transportation is provided
• Title one teacher—starts later in the AM, but
also sees students after school—she is an
expert
• District sponsored preschools, head start,
full day kindergarten
• Therapy dog—gypsy 10-year old read to the
dog
• Site-based services—children are pulled into
therapy for short-term services with no IEP
In Richardson and Dallas, Texas (2/08):
• Saturday school—teachers get extra $$$ -it is competitive—they want to do it; bus
provided, lunch also (8-12 AM). Not each
Saturday; heats up as standardized testing
looms.
• After school programs
• Reading curriculum—intervention during the
day from a specialist—campus reading
specialist
• Bubble-busters—pull-out during the day
for students who are right on the bubble
of not passing—one period a day all
year. Done by tutors, specialists who are
brought in—not special ed personnel
• High school before and after school, and
PM—teachers are paid extra stipend
In San Diego, CA (2/08):
• There is a strong emphasis on early
intervention—before children come to
kindergarten
• SLPs are working with teachers and
parents on techniques such as expansion
of children’s language
Oceanside, CA 4/08
• Excel model in kindergarten—see how
quickly children respond to instruction.
Excel is 45+ minutes of reading instruction
according reading level (eagles, sparrows,
buzzards, turkeys)
• Kindergarten through 5th grade—children
in lowest reading group have 1:5 ratio (2
adults for 10 children). Out of 10, 8 are
doing great and 2 need special ed.
• Junior high: Saturday school; people are
volunteering time; transportation is provided
• Start-in program with 3rd grade only; 5 in group; 4
responded really well, 1 will go to SST
• SLP goes into special day class, works on
phonemic awareness every Friday
• RSP does diagnostic treatment (neverstreaming)
• EdMark—site-based program for phonemic
awareness; works well with ASD children
In Iowa…(6/08; Cedar Rapids)
• Instructional decision making (IDM)
• 9 weeks of intensive service delivery to
students who are struggling (no IEP)
• Iowa City got a grant and analyzed data from
testing; needy students were invited to
participate in an after-school program
• Kids got snacks; teachers were paid $25 an
hour; strictly voluntary
• The focus was on math and reading—groups
were small
• They re-tested the kids and analyzed the
scores—there was a BIG, very positive
difference!
In San Francisco (8/08)
• At the SST meetings, they fill out a speech
and language checklist
• This determines whether further
assessment is needed
• In a preliminary way, this helps weed out
differences vs. disorders in ELL students
• At the meeting, they suggest strategies to
be implemented in the regular education
classroom
• They reconvene some weeks later and
ask—were the strategies successful?
• They observe students in the classroom,
and tailor-make recommendations for
those students
• Sometimes SLPs will see a child for a period
of time with no IEP (diagnostic therapy)
• If problems don’t resolve, then there is formal
assessment and an IEP is developed
• Reading Recovery is used too—this is a nonspecial ed program where the student is seen
by a regular (non sped) educator; there is no
SST.
• If this is not enough, then there is an SST
San Joaquin, CA (1/09):
• SLP and Resource Specialist do Tier 2
intervention with 5 lowest second
graders—prereading, vocabulary, etc.
• Do it for about 6 weeks, 1 hour a day
• VERY effective in helping distinguish
language difference vs. disorder
• Informal diagnostic teaching—done in the classroom,
esp. for articulation therapy
• Academy of Reading—12 weeks after school every
day with regular ed teachers—1.5 hours; sort of like
Sylvan Learning Center; math is available too
• If this isn’t enough, they are tested for special ed
• Take 20 lowest 2nd graders and put them in a
classroom with student teacher and 2 reading
teachers—see if they can bring the kids up—very
intensive instruction—all day—sped referral if this
doesn’t work
Des Moines, Iowa (Iowa Culture and
Language Conference, 2/09)
• Several months of intensive services with
no IEP
• After school programs where teachers got
paid to help kids in math and reading
• The after school programs were especially
successful
Los Angeles County 3/09 (40+
districts)
• ABC Unified has been working on RtI for
about 5 years—general plus special ed
• Starts with principals and their leadership
• RSPs who have part-time caseloads go
into the classrooms and work with lowerfunctioning students
• Some gen ed students at risk go into the
SDC classrooms for reading and math
• RSP went into history classroom (high
school) and worked with the teacher—
students’ grades really went up
• Preschool setting: Kids will come in and get
assessed—if the child needs intervening
services, they hold off on checking the
disabilities page and send the child to a
local school for 6-8 weeks for tx—if that is
not enough, then consider sped
• Saturday school, after school tutoring,
collaboration with other after school
programs
• Resource teachers go into the classroom
and teach collaboratively with the classroom
teachers
• Then, at another level, students go to the
Learning Center
• At first the participation is voluntary, but it
may be assigned
• There are math and reading tutorials
• SST process is used
• They try to keep students with the gen ed
population as much as possible
San Bernardino 5/09:
• EXCEL –phonemic awareness program
• SLP goes into Kindergarten and first grade for
phonological awareness
• Kindergarten teachers tutor students who are
below proficiency instead of prep time
• Desert/Mt. SELPA RtI SLP Project training
SLPs to go into general ed classes; covers
language and phonological awareness
• SLPs go into special ed and regular ed
classes and do language therapy with the
kids on their caseloads as well as other
kids in the classes
• So, it’s a twofer—language kids already
on the caseload get seen for therapy (in
the regular classroom) and other children
who are not on IEPs benefit too
• Social skills lessons—role playing with
peers
Oakland, CA 8/09
•
•
•
•
Lindamood Bell
Special tutors
Lots of parent and community participation
SLP goes into kindergarten once a week,
works with whole class, keeps her eye on
kids who are struggling, tries to catch them
before they fail
•
•
•
•
SST meeting—do classroom observations
Fast Forward
Short term speech therapy without an IEP
High school kids come in and volunteer to
help out with younger children
Norwalk-La Mirada, CA 8/09
• Fast Forward
• Grade level teams look at data and recommend
interventions
• Intervention teams into classrooms for blocks K-2
(instead of pullout), look at how well students
learn; team assesses every other week,
regroups students based on this
• Team is RSP, classroom teacher, instructional
aides
• Progress is evaluated by DIBELS
• Principal provides TIME
McAllen, Texas 9/09:
• 3-tier process (gen ed teachers do these
intervention—they don’t like it)
• Tier 2 = extra interventions
• Tier 3= even more intensive interventions
• If this does not work, IEP
• Saturday school, tutorials before and after
school
• Super Saturdays are focused on test
preparation
• Gen ed teachers are paid for this
• Pullouts during the school day—students
get pulled into the hallway and worked with
• MANOS program—for students
struggling with reading—migrant,
immigrant children
• Full inclusion teacher can work with
students who are struggling in the
classroom
10/09 In Nebraska:
• Dept. of Ed chose 30 districts to be pilot
districts
• Reading fluency was chosen as an RtI
target—easier to measure
• The teachers and principals have to really
be for RtI, or forget it
• Use DIBELS—children who test at 12th
percentile or below get RtI
• 8-week interventions, progress monitoring,
change strategies that aren’t working
• SLPs are moving to seeing kids who are not
on IEPs; SLPs are getting used to the idea
• Hard when caseloads are large
• If kids are being seen by SLPs for RtI
(and there are no IEPs), those kids are
counted toward workload
• They are doing RtI for articulation—it is
a choice for SLPs to do this—about
80% of SLPs are doing ―speedy
speech‖ or intensive artic
• They do get parent permission even
though the Nebraska Dept. of Ed said
they did not have to
• Student gets excellent services without all
that paperwork
• They pull the student into the hallway for 5
minutes and work with them
• The SLP carries a basket of materials
around
• The feedback: the kids and teachers love it,
and the kids are really ―taking off‖ in their
progress on sounds
• Even in 5 minutes, the SLP can get 100 sounds
produced (the service is provided 1:1)
• The therapy is tied to the curriculum
• This intensive therapy goes on for 8 weeks
• If the students are not responding, they may be
enrolled in therapy
• This is helping caseloads decrease in size so
SLPs can work more on language and literacy
• They are working on RtI in writing—piloting 4
different interventions—psycholgists are
taking the lead on that
• They are working on positive behavior
supports (behavior specialist does this)
• No attitude of ―RtI is how we get kids into
special ed.‖ Rather, the focus is ―How do we
help support kids through RtI so they don’t
need special ed?‖
• Irvine, CA 10/09:
• High school has a freshman mentoring
program; peer mentors
• After school free tutoring—high school peer,
university student
• Office hours—students can find out their
grades, get extra help
• SRT process—what are the problems? Group
of people who meet weekly to problem solve
• Remedial classes—reading and writing skills
(non sped), algebra classes
• Tutorial 3x/week—students sign up to make
up work, study—built into schedule
• Study skills classes
• Project Success—teaches students how to
study, how to be organized (regular ed
function)
• District-wide assessments every trimester—
shows where the students are—then
students are moved into 3 different levels in
the classroom—those who struggle are
given extra support
• Parents are brought in to see progress
• High school—bell schedule that has
built in collaboration time—meeting with
other teachers is not outside the school
day
• Materials are provided for needy
students
• Professional learning community—
restructure the school day so there is
time built in to discuss students who
are struggling, brainstorm strategies
• ***Build collaboration time INTO the
instructional day
One school in Irvine did the
following:
• Layer one: teacher is concerned about a
child, meets with parents, gives them
strategies for use at home (parents
implement 6-8 weeks)
• Layer two: teacher implements classroom
strategies and DOCUMENTS student’s
progress; collects data
Layer 3:
• Teacher brings data on interventions that
were implemented and the impact on the
student’s progress
• MUST bring data—required
• If data show that classroom strategies
aren’t enough, THEN there is a special
education eval
The impact of this:
• Is that referrals of ELL students for sped
evals have really gone down
• The students are progressing very well in
the classroom
• Teachers don’t like collecting data, but this
method has been extremely effective
Our most precious national
resource is our children….
• Let’s support them in
developing and using all
their potential to create
better lives for
themselves and for the
next generation
• Thank you for all the
hard work you do for the
kids!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
•
Brice, A.E., & Brice, R.G. (2009). Language development: Monolingual and bilingual
acquisition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
•
Centeno, J.G., Anderson, R.T., & Obler, L.K. (2007). Communication disorders in
Spanish speakers: Theoretical, research, and clinical aspects. England: Multilingual
Matters LTD.
•
Chiat, S., & Roy, P. (2007). The preschool repetition test: An evaluation of performance
in typically developing and clinically referred children. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 50, 429-443.
•
Ebert. K.D., Kalanek, J., Cordero, K.N., & Kohnert, K. (2008). Spanish nonword
repetition: Stimuli development and preliminary results. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 29, 67-74.
•
Justice, L.M. (2010). Communication sciences and disorders: A contemporary
perspective (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
•
Kohnert, K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego:
Plural Publishing, Inc.
•
Langdon, H.W. (2008). Assessment and intervention for communication
disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Clifton Park, NY:
Thomson/Delmar Learning.
•
Leonard, L.B., Ellis Weismer, S., Miller, C.A., Francis, D.J., Tomblin, J.B., &
Kail, R.V. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language
impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
50, 408-428).
•
Nelson, N.W. (2010). Language and literacy disorders: Infancy through
adolescence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
•
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2007). Language disorders in children: A multicultural
and case perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
•
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2008). Increasing language skills of students from low
income backgrounds: Practical strategies for professionals. San Diego:
Singular Publishing, Inc.