English Learners with Disabilities: When Is I t Appropriate to Exit Students from ELD Programs?

1. English Learners with Disabilities: When Is It Appropriate to Exit Students from ELD Programs? Dr. Julie Esparza Brown Assistant Professor Department of Special Education Portland State University, Portland, OR jebrown@pdx.edu

2. Background • English Language Learner students who have IEP’s are legally entitled to services from both the English Language Development program and Special Education. • In other words, when the team develops an IEP for an EL student, it must consider the language needs of the student as they relate to the student’s IEP (34 CFR 300.324) • Although service delivery could consist of two pull-out programs, it is strongly advised that professionals from both ESL/ELD and Special Education programs collaborate to determine the most efficient and effective approach to instruction that includes: • systematic and rigorous English Language Development based on their English language proficiency level, • AND specialized instruction that addresses their IEP goals and objectives. • There will be a few students, however, whose disability may impede their acquisition of language including English. In these rare cases, teams may consider “suspending” ELD services after carefully reviewing the student’s history.

3. Laws and Entitlements for EL Students with Disabilities LRE Appropriate Instruction FAPE

4. Protection from Discrimination: Civil Rights Laws • Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Office of Civil Rights Memorandum (1970) • Office of Civil Rights Memorandum (1991) • Section 504 of Vocational Rehabilitation Act (1973) • Equal Opportunities Act (1974) • American with Disabilities Act (1990)

5. Support for Learning English: Bilingual Education Laws • Although state policies determine the education of ELs, federal policy provides guidance. • Bilingual Education Act (1964) • Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) – 5th reauthorization of the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) • No Child Left Behind Act (2001) • Together the above laws ensure that ELs are provided with instruction to help them meet the same standards as English-only peers and holds schools accountable for this.

6. Access to Instruction:Special Education Laws • The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) • IDEA (2004) • The above laws have provisions: • for native language evaluations • that parents be informed of evaluations and their rights in their native language

7. Special Education Services and ELD Services • Once an English Learner is qualified for an IEP, if they have not met exit criteria from the ELD program, they must continue to receive both services. • However, this does not mean necessarily mean two separate pull-outs. • The two programs should collaborate to provide inclusive services whenever possible. • A school’s schedule should never dictate students’ services.

8. Evaluation/Assessment for Special Education

9. IDEA: Evaluation and Eligibility– A. Evaluation Procedures34 CFR 300.304(c) • Each public agency must ensure that- • Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part- (i) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (ii) Are provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer

10. Problems in Assessment • Standardized academic, intelligence and cognitive tests have inadequate psychometric properties and inappropriate norms for ELL students. • The problems are not solved by using nonverbal tests, native-language tests or interpreters. • All tests of intelligence reflect the culture in which they were developed and are based on the cultural values and beliefs of the authors. • The largest source of bias occurs in the interpretation of test scores. • What is needed is a systematic and comprehensive framework within which to consider the child’s language, cultural and experiential background and multiple sources of data. Sources: (Gunderson & Siegel, 2001; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)

11. What IQ Tests Really Measure in Diverse Students • They measure the degree to which a student has acquired and can access culturally specific information that is in the test. • IQ tests are based on the assumption that there is an equivalent level of acculturation across the variables of age or grade for individuals on whom the test was standardized and with whom it will be used. Sources: (Cummins, 1984; Figueroa, 1990; Matsumoto, 1994; Valdes & Figueroa, 1994)

12. Are Tests Really Culturally Biased? • Considerable research says IQ tests are sound and appropriately normed and are not culturally biased. • Jensen (1976) says they are, however, culturally loaded. • A test may contain information that could only acquired within a particular culture. • That is why it is important to know a student’s level of acculturation. That will help assessors understand how familiar a child is likely to be with culturally-based items. Sources: (Jensen, 1976; Sattler, 1992; Valdes & Figueroa, 1994)

13. Critical Factors to Know • In order to appropriately assess an ELL student, assessors must know the following: • A student’s level of acculturation • The degree to which performance on a test item is contingent upon culture-specific knowledge • A student’s level of proficiency in English and any other language he/she has been exposed to • The degree or level of language required by any test that will be used

14. Nonverbal Tests – Not the Answer • Linguistic bias is not eliminated by reducing the oral or spoken language requirements in a test. • Nonverbal tests often demand a high level of nonverbal receptive language skills from an examinee. • The type of nonverbal communication required for administration often carries more culturally based implications than does verbal communication. Sources: (Flangan & Ortiz, 2001; Ehrman, 1996)

15. A New Framework • Flanagan & Ortiz have organized tests of cognitive ability according to three test characteristics: • The broad and narrow abilities they measure (CHC Abilities) • Degree of Cultural Loading • Degree of Linguistic Demand Sources: (McGrew, Flanagan & Ortiz, 1999; Ortiz, 2001, Flangan & Ortiz, 2001, Ortiz & Ochoa, 2005 , Ortiz & Dynda, 2005; and Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005)

16. A New Framework • Using these classifications as a starting point, assessors can create a selective set of tests that may be less discriminatory and more valid for use with ELL students. • The Culture and Language Classifications (C-LTC) in their entirety can be found in Flanagan & Ortiz (2001) Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. • Despite their limitations, they offer one method by which decisions regarding the selection of tests and subsequent interpretation of test results can be made on a systematic, logical and theoretically defensible basis.

17. Multiple Data Sources • Direct observation • Level of acculturation • Review of records • Interviews • Language proficiency testing in L1 and L2 • Knowledge of SES • Developmental data • Family history • Authentic work samples • Curriculum-based data • Results of interventions • This framework should be used in conjunction with other relevant assessment information such as:

18. Research on Batería III • Brown (2008) studied the use of the Batería III Tests of Cognitive Ability with U.S. English Learners and with English-learners with no learning challenges who had never been referred to the Student Study Team or to the special education program. • The norm sample used for the Bateríaincluded monolingual Spanish-speakers. • English Learner students in the U.S. are not generally a monolingual speaker of either English or Spanish and thus they are not represented in the norm sample – a violation of a principle tenet of the fair use of standardized assessment. • The results of the study showed that students who had English-only instruction and ESL pull-out, they were substantially below average in Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-term memory, and Short-term memory. where students who were instructed in English-only with pull-out ESL

19. Research on Batería III • Students in the NLD group scored about a 1/3 to ½ SD higher on the GIA than the ELD group. • Students who had native language instruction and pull-out ESL scored higher on their overall score (within the normal range). • This research suggests that instruction in the native language keeps the students closer to normal cognitive development than English only instruction. • It also suggests that when Spanish-language instruments are used with U.S. English-learners, the scores will likely underestimate their true abilities – in other words the scores may be just as inaccurate as scores from English-only cognitive tests.

20. Ensuring the Right Students are Receiving the Right Services • Special education eligibility data • Historically, EL and other minority students have been disproportionately represented in special education – both under- and over-represented in the following high incidence categories: • Specific Learning Disability • Communication Disorder • Emotional/Behavioral Disorder • If the student’s eligibility category is one of the above, the assessment data should be carefully reviewed by the team that includes someone knowledgeable in the assessment of bilingual students and skilled in the interpretation of scores of ELL students. • Teams must remember that the disability MUST be evident in the student’s L1. If difficulties are only evident in L2 (English), the reason may simply be that the student’s English language proficiency may not be appropriately considered within their instructional program.

21. The Issue: When Are ELD Services No Longer Appropriate for Students with Disabilities? • In March, 2009, in collaboration with Carmen West, Title III, Oregon Department of Education, guidelines were developed to assist teams to make appropriate decisions. • What follows are some general guides to discuss when considering “suspending” ELD services for an EL student on an IEP. • “Suspension of services” is defined as a process to cease ELD services to a student on an IEP for whom the IEP team has determined that ELD services are no longer appropriate or benefitting the student at the time the decision is made.

22. The Issue: When Are ELD Services No Longer Appropriate for Students with Disabilities? • The student must be able to re-enter the ELD program in the future as needed. • It is critical to rememberthat the vast majority ofstudents will benefit from both programs and that this decision must not be made to accommodate schedules and/or staffing issues. • Also, students with severe disabilities should be provided both programs even though it may be difficult to gauge the impact of the services (personal communication, OCR).

23. Critical Questions: Convene a team meeting to discuss: • Is the student’s disability such that the student is not expected to meet state-approved ELD exit criteria? • What is the student’s rate of progress over time in listening, speaking, reading, and/or writing in English: • No progress has been made for _______ years • Slower rate than true peers • Does the ELD Specialist agree that the student is not benefitting from services for English Learners?

24. Collect Data to Support Decision Convene a team (general, special education and ELD/bilingual teacher, school psychologist, administrator, parents) meeting to review data: • Home Language Survey • Is the child’s first language clearly identified on the HLS? • Is the information gathered via a parent questionnaire or interview? • Score from state-approved language proficiency assessment • How does the target student’s rate of progress compare to “true” peers? (Rule out ineffective instruction.)

25. Cumulative File Review • Review academic and language progress. • Review instructional programs, language of instruction and progress. • Review report cards.

26. Native language proficiency (formal assessment or language sample) • English proficiency • Writing samples in L1 and L2 • How does the child function within the family? What kind of household responsibilities does the child have? Can the child care for him/herself? What are the parents’ long-term goals for the student? What language(s) will the student need to function in society? At home? • Teacher perceptions/observations • What language does the student choose to use across settings?

27. Case Studies • A school team consisting of the principal, ELD teacher, District ELD Coordinator, Speech-Language Specialist, Reading Teacher, Special Education teacher, School Psychologist, School Counselor and university researcher met to review the data on 12 dual identified students regarding their continuing need for ELD and Sped services.

28. The Questions Posed… • What would be different if the child was exited from the ELD program? • How would the child benefit from continuing in the ELD program? • How would it hurt the student to stay in the ELD program? • If services from the two programs mean two separate pull-outs from gen ed, what would the child miss? • Are the achievement gaps/delays/difficulties caused primarily because the student is an EL student or because of their disability?

29. Decisions for Individual Students • Given that each child’s special education needs and IEP goals/objectives are unique, each case must be viewed individually. • It was decided that these meetings should occur annually for targeted students (those who do not seem to be making progress in their development of English proficiency).

30. Case 1: Isaac • Issac is a fifth grade student in the English mainstream program and refuses to speak Spanish. • Next year he will attend the middle school where each class period is a different subject area. This means that ELD and special education services take up two class periods. • He is qualified for special education services under Specific Learning Disability. • His teachers report that his language skills are average and he has a good vocabulary but lacks social skills. • Academically he is not at grade level and abstract concepts are difficult for him. • He is making slow but steady progress on English proficiency measures. • One team member asked about the limitations of class electives when Isaac moves on to the middle school with a block schedule.

31. Questions • What would be different if the child was exited from the ELD program? • How would the child benefit from continuing in the ELD program? • How would it hurt the student to stay in the ELD program? • If services from the two programs mean two separate pull-outs from gen ed, what would the child miss? • Are the achievement gaps/delays/difficulties caused primarily because the student is an EL student or because of their disability?

32. What Would Your Team Do? • Does Isaac have difficulty with abstract concepts because of vocabulary and language difficulties or because of his disability?

33. Case Study 2: Benny • Benny is a third grade student who lives with his maternal grandparents who speak English. • Benny has a Hispanic surname. • Although English was listed as his native language on the Home Language Survey, his English language proficiency scores were low at the beginning of kindergarten. • Benny is qualified for special education services under the category Communication Disorder. He has a cleft palate which causes significant articulation difficulties and language delays.

34. Questions • What would be different if the child was exited from the ELD program? • How would the child benefit from continuing in the ELD program? • How would it hurt the student to stay in the ELD program? • If services from the two programs mean two separate pull-outs from gen ed, what would the child miss? • Are the achievement gaps/delays/difficulties caused primarily because the student is an EL student or because of their disability?

35. What Would Your Team Do? • Are Benny’s language delays likely the result of second language issues or his disability? • Was Benny appropriately identified as an English Learner?

36. Case 3: Elena • Elena is a second grade student who is qualified for special education services under Intellectual Disability. • She is mainstreamed into a bilingual classroom with a teacher who is a Spanish-speaker. • She has Down Syndrome. • Her family speaks only Spanish. • While Elena is fairly verbal is Spanish and English (often switching from one language to the other), she is often unintelligible in either language.

37. Questions • What would be different if the child was exited from the ELD program? • How would the child benefit from continuing in the ELD program? • How would it hurt the student to stay in the ELD program? • If services from the two programs mean two separate pull-outs from gen ed, what would the child miss? • Are the achievement gaps/delays/difficulties caused primarily because the student is an EL student or because of their disability?

38. What Would Your Team Do? • Should Elena be encouraged to develop two languages even though she has an intellectual disability? • What language(s) will she need to function in her community? • What are the family’s goals for Elena?

39. Case 4: Samuel • Samuel is a second grader who is currently receiving special education services under the eligibility category of Communication Disorder. • He has a full-time Spanish-speaking instructional assistant who supports him in a bilingual classroom. • His mother requested a Spanish literacy program. • His language and academic progress are both so low the team is considering the possibility of re-evaluating his eligibility category to see if he qualifies under Intellectual Disability. • His mother speaks only Spanish but his father speaks Spanish and is fairly proficient in English. • Samuel often code-switches.

40. Questions • What would be different if the child was exited from the ELD program? • How would the child benefit from continuing in the ELD program? • How would it hurt the student to stay in the ELD program? • If services from the two programs mean two separate pull-outs from gen ed, what would the child miss? • Are the achievement gaps/delays/difficulties caused primarily because the student is an EL student or because of their disability?

41. What Would Your Team Do? • Samuel is in second grade. Do we know enough about his learning trajectory to determine he will not benefit from ELD services? • What language(s) will Samuel need to communicate at home? In the community?

42. Case 5: Manuel • Manuel is a first grade student who qualifies for special education services under the category of Communication Disorder. • Manuel received Early Intervention Services as a child with a Developmental Disability. • His native language is Spanish but he chooses to speak English at school. • He receives English literacy in the general education setting. • According to his language proficiency scores on the Woodcock-Muñoz Language Proficiency Assessment, he is close to meeting the state exit criteria from ELD services.

43. Questions • What would be different if the child was exited from the ELD program? • How would the child benefit from continuing in the ELD program? • How would it hurt the student to stay in the ELD program? • If services from the two programs mean two separate pull-outs from gen ed, what would the child miss? • Are the achievement gaps/delays/difficulties caused primarily because the student is an EL student or because of their disability?

44. What Would Your Team Do? • Given that Manuel is qualified for special educations services under Communication Disorder, how is he making such good progress in English development when his home language is Spanish? • Does his special education eligibility seem appropriate?

45. To Ensure that ELL Students are Appropriately Placed into Special Education… • Involve both ESL/Bilingual and special education staff as soon as possible • Carefully examine student’s acquisition of English over time and current proficiency in L1 and L2 • Gather input from parents • Examine the student’s developmental and educational history

46. Input from OCR (Seattle, WA) • Under Section 504 and Title VI, a student’s language proficiency and ELL status is part of a student’s cultural background that needs to be considered in order to make appropriate special education evaluation and placement determinations.

47. OCR says… • Procedures must ensure that EL/SPED students are not removed, nor denied, EL or special education services for administrative reasons unrelated to a student’s educational needs. • For students with significant impairments with little or no expressive language, they should continue receiving EL services because it would be difficult to know that they are indeed not benefitting from them.

48. Example of Possible Service Delivery of both ELD and SPED • If a student needs services from both special education and ESL then a model of collaboration must be developed. It is NOT an either or. During ELD instruction, a special education teacher, or assistant under the direction of the teacher, can provide support by modifying the assignment, providing additional directions and frequent comprehension checks, be a scribe… • This model could also be used within the general education classroom. • Special education staff would need professional development in ELD strategies instruction, second language acquisition, and culturally responsive pedagogy. • ELD staff would need some professional development in special education strategies and instruction.

49. Final Thoughts • Remember… • “Research demonstrates that English Learners with the least amount of language support are most likely to be referred to special education. ELs receiving all of their instruction in English were almost three times as likely to be in special education as those receiving some native language support (Artiles& Ortiz, 2002).