Agenda

1. Mental Health Services for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse PopulationsBryn Harris, PhDUniversity of Colorado DenverKindra Sanchez-Marble, EdSThe Charter School InstituteSilvana Gorton, PhDJefferson County School DistrictMark Jackson, EdSThompson School District

2. Agenda • Introduction • Topics: • Legal and Ethical Issues • Assessment • Mental Health/Affective Education • Case Studies • Group Activity • Questions

3. Legal and Ethical Issues

4. Important Laws Pertaining to Diverse Populations • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • Diana v. State Board of Ed (1970) • The consent decree in Diana requires that children be assessed in their primary language OR with sections of tests that do not depend on knowledge of English • Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) • FAPE, LRE, IEP, nondiscriminatory assessment • IDEA (to be discussed in more depth later)

5. Colorado Practices • Home language survey provided to EVERY student upon registration • If any other language other than English is spoken at home, the CELA is given • CELA provided once a year • Language acquisition support of 45 minutes per day (minimum) is required for NEP or LEP (Non-English Proficient or Limited English Proficient) • The type of language acquisition support a student receives is not state or federally mandated

6. Parental Notification • Always in native language • Parent (or legal guardian) must give informed consent prior to assessment or mental health interventions • This does not apply to whole classroom or school interventions such as Second Step • Parent participation in meetings and IEP proceedings (written notice prior to meeting)

7. IEP Process for ELL Students • Team shall consider • Language abilities • Whether the child needs specific interventions, accommodations, programming depending on language needs (statement in IEP about this) • Comparison between student and ELL peers (for ELL students) • IEP must stress: • acquiring proficiency in English • Providing them with meaningful access to the content of the educational curriculum available to all students

8. DOJ Dear Colleague Letter • Sent to superintendents in May, 2011 • Provides an overview regarding the legal right of undocumented citizens to have access to public education • This was sent due to increased reports of discriminatory practices surrounding undocumented citizens • http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/plylerletter.pdf

9. NASP Professional Ethics (2010) • Principle I.3. Fairness and Justice • In their words and actions, school psychologists promote fairness and justice. They use their expertise to cultivate school climates that are safe and welcoming to all persons regardless of actual or perceived characteristics, including race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, socioeconomic status, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or any other distinguishing characteristics. • From the audience: Name ways that you currently do this in your practice

10. NASP Professional Ethics (2010) • Standard I.3.2 • School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy, counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into account individual characteristics as enumerated in Standard I.3.1 so as to provide effective services.22

11. NASP Professional Ethics (2010) • Standard I.3.3 • School psychologists work to correct school practices that are unjustly discriminatory or that deny students, parents, or others their legal rights. They take steps to foster a school climate that is safe, accepting, and respectful of all persons. • From the audience: Name ways that you currently do this in your practice

12. NASP Professional Ethics (2010) • Standard II.1.2 • Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of students, families, and other clients. When knowledge and understanding of diversity characteristics are essential to ensure competent assessment, intervention, or consultation, school psychologists have or obtain the training or supervision necessary to provide effective services, or they make appropriate referrals.

13. Last Version of the NASP Professional Conduct Manual • C.5. School psychologists discuss with parents the recommendations and plans for assisting their children. The discussion includes alternatives associated with each set of plans, which show respect for the ethnic/cultural values of the family. The parents are informed of source of help available at school and in the community. • Question for the audience: How do you promote parental participation of diverse families in your schools?

14. Unethical Practices • Waiting 5 years until a child learns English before referring them for an evaluation • Putting a child in special education for more support with English language acquisition • Just because a child is receiving support from special education or ELA does not mean they wont qualify for the other • Asking the child what language they prefer to be evaluated in – get this in a more formal way • RTI as a sole method of identification – formal assessment is still best practice • Just because you may be bilingual, does not mean you have enough competencies to provide best practice services

15. Ethical Practices • Taking culture and language into account when designing interventions and services • Including parents in all decision making and data collection • Assisting newcomers and parents – provide information regarding the educational system and provide mentor opportunities for newcomers • Using lots of data when decision making • Collaborating with school staff including ESL teachers and SLPs who often have more training in this area • Knowing your limitations, continual self-reflection

16. CHARTER HISTORY Charter Schools • There are nearly 200 charter schools in Colorado • Charter schools are public schools • Charter schools that take state or federal funds are subject to the same rules and regulations • Some charter schools are authorized through their local school district • Other charter schools are authorized through The Colorado Charter School Institute (CSI) • CSI has 22 charter schools throughout the state with >10,500 students • CSI was created by the Colorado State Legislature in 2004 is an independent division of the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) • At CSI, charter schools “trade accountability for autonomy”

17. CHARTER HISTORYCSI’s Department of Exceptional Students • Programs • SPED • ESL • GT • 504 • Health • CSI is the LAU for its portfolio schools • Staff • Director (1) • Assistant Director (1) • Program Coordinators (6) • Submissions Coordinator (1)

18. Schools’ Identity CHARTER ASSESSMENT Charter Strengths/Weaknesses Schools’ Identity • Subject to the same rules/regulations • Often have a very “rich” body of evidence • Very engaged parents • Funding may affect the recruitment and retention of quality practioners • Under the insurance model, schools are “assigned” SPED staff who may not team well with the teaching staff • High mobility rates into charter schools

19. Charter School Legal Issues • 2010 • state complaints=18 • due process complaints=22 • mediation requests=41 • 2011(as of April 2011) • state complaints=4 • due process complaints=3 • mediation requests=11 • CSI = 0

20. Increased Autonomy CHARTER-LEGAL Charter Strengths/Weaknesses Increased Autonomy • Subject to the same state/federal laws • Accountable to an AU (district or CSI) • SPED staff can’t receive waivers and must be “highly qualified” • All rights are in place • Rarely is there a “team” approach • Heads of Schools do not have to be licensed administrators so sped/legal knowledge could be lacking • Funding models sometimes limit the schools’ capacity to provide a continuum of services, hire quality practioners, and meet significant needs • Large variance in schools’ capacity to meet diverse students’ needs

22. Small District Legal Issues R2J • Quality Control with 31 teams • Parental involvement takes collaboration • RTI issues—norms, assessment, interventions • IEP goals • Legal rights vs. reality

23. Legal Issues - large district • Interpreters: trained by Bilingual Education, ESL departments, centralized system for requests. Many languages represented. • Newcomers: administration and mental health practitioner meet individually with parents and children to welcome and teach/pre-teach school structures and expectations. • Collaboration: school wide structures in place for formal data analysis; includes grade level general education teams, ESL, math, literacy specialists, special education teachers, and administrators.

24. Small Group Discussion • In small groups discuss these questions: • What ethical or legal issues have you encountered when working with diverse populations? • What questions do you have regarding ethical or legal practices? • Hopefully someone in your group can answer some of the questions!

25. Assessment

26. NASP Professional Ethics (2010) • Standard II.3.5 • School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively pursue knowledge of the student’s disabilities and developmental, cultural, linguistic, and experiential background and then select, administer, and interpret assessment instruments and procedures in light of those characteristics (see Standard I.3.1. and I.3.2).

27. Assessments Should Be… • Multifaceted • Comprehensive • Fair • Valid • Useful

28. BICS and CALP • Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills • Language utilized in social and informal setting to carry on a conversation with another person • 2-3 years to acquire • Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency • Language skills needed to do schoolwork • Critical to academic progress • Requires 5-7 years to acquire

29. Achieving CALP • LEP students need to attain a minimum threshold level in their first language before they can develop CALP in a second language • The greater the development of their native language, the greater the probability the child will develop the new language • “Lack of continuing L1 cognitive development during second language acquisition may lead to lower proficiency levels in the second language and in cognitive academic growth” (Collier, 1989)

30. Additional Interesting Findings • “The strongest predictor of L2 achievement is the amount of L1 schooling. The more L1 schooling, the higher L2 achievement” • “Number of years of primary language schooling….had more influence than socioeconomic status when the number of years of schooling was 4 or more years” • Thomas & Collier, 2002

31. Prereferral Questions Regarding Language Proficiency (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005) • Can the student’s difficulty in acquiring English proficiency be attributed to his or her insufficient development in his or her first language? • Can the students academic difficulties or failure in an English-only academic setting be attributed to his or her not having attained CALP in English? • Was the student given ample instructional time in his or her first language to 1) develop CALP in this language and 2) demonstrate ability somewhat within the average range of academic performance?

32. Language Acquisition • Please be familiar with these language issues as they can look like disabilities when in fact it is typical language acquisition: • Interference • Interlanguage • Silent Period • Code Switching • Language Loss • (Collier, 2010)

33. Most Common Reasons for ELL Referral • Poor/low achievement • Behavioral problems • Oral-language related • Reading problems • Learning difficulties • Socio-economic difficulties • Diagnosis for particular disability condition • Written language • Low attention span • Unable to understand and/or follow directions (Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, & Breunig, 1999)

34. Referral Questions to Consider • 7 out of 10 of these referral questions are language related • Need to evaluate linguistic abilities and deficits in both native and new languages • If the problem is noted only in English and not the child's first language it is most likely due to new language acquisition factors • How much CALP was attained in L1? • Is the student demonstrating similar language patterns as other ELL children?

35. Possible Behavioral Characteristics of Various Acculturation Patterns • Shy • Timid • Anxious • Withdrawn • Disorganized • Fearful • Low self-esteem • Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005

36. Nondiscriminatory Evaluation Procedures • Tests and other materials: • Are selected and administered so as not to discriminate on a racial or cultural bias • Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so • Are selected and administered to ensure that they measure the extent to which an LEP child has a disability and needs special education rather than measuring the child's English language skills

37. IDEA Requirements For Nondiscriminatory Assessment

38. Psychoeducational Report Model • Lopez, Elizalde-Utnick & Nahari (2000) developed this model that integrates language and cultural issues for CLD students: • Introductory information • Evaluation procedures and tools • Reason for referral • Background information related to language proficiency and acculturation • Behavioral observations • Test results and procedures • Summary and recommendations

39. What your reports should include • 1) cultural, experiential, and language-based factors • 2) incorporation of linguistic information (i.e. language acquisition) and language proficiency • 3) the limitations of standardized instruments – disclaimers regarding interpretation • 4) The use of translated tests and their pitfalls and questionable validity (you shouldn’t be doing this but might need to comment on another evaluation)

40. NASP Professional Ethics (2010) • Standard II.3.6 • When interpreters are used to facilitate the provision of assessment and intervention services, school psychologists take steps to ensure that the interpreters are appropriately trained and are acceptable to clients

41. Who Can Serve as an Interpreter? • Limited standards and consensus • Interpreter should be equally fluent in English and the native language of the student/parent • Ability to convey meaning from one language to another • Sensitivity to the style of the speaker • Ability to adjust to linguistic variations within different communities • Knowledge about the cultures of the people who speak the language • Familiarity with the specific terminology used • Understanding of the function and role of the interpreter • Flexibility (Rhodes, Ochoa & Ortiz, 2005)

42. Other Interpretation Resources • Court interpreters • Embassy and consulate personnel • Phone company resources • Professional associations

43. When Using an Interpreter • Allow time before the testing session for the interpreter to ask questions about the test procedures and students background • Have each member of the team introduce themselves • Explain the process of interpretation • Throughout the process, 1) speak in short, simple sentences, 2) avoid idioms, metaphors or colloquialisms, 3) use specific terms and avoid jargon, and 4) allow the interpreter time to interpret all messages • Look and speak to the student or parent, not the interpreter • Don’t hold side conversations – legal right to have access to all information shared at the meetings

44. Problematic Assessment Practices • Huge variability of practices, limited consistency as well as standards in the field • Giving WISC-IV (English) to NEP or LEP • No mention of language acquisition or abilities even if child is an ELL • Limited to no parental involvement in the evaluation • Nonverbal subtests of KABC-2 or DAS-2 used as a nonverbal assessment (actually it is an assessment of nonverbal abilities) • No evaluation of acculturation • Limited involvement of the school psych • Translated tests

45. Promising and Strong Assessment Practices • KABC-2 -Especially for lower SES groups • DAS-2 - Reduced discrepancy between diverse groups • WISC-IV Spanish - Normed on ELLs, ability to compare two groups • Nonverbal assessments such as the UNIT, Leiter – 2, and the Wechsler Nonverbal • Measuring acculturation (i.e. AQS) • Collecting data that is already there (especially academic achievement data) • Developing strong local norms • Training programs focused on preparing practitioners for diverse populations

46. Language Proficiency Assessment Instruments Recommended BY CSI The assessment of ELs encompasses three distinct areas: Screening, Formative & Summative measures. This section addresses the initial phase of the process, screening measures to determine language proficiency and appropriate program placement.

47. CHARTER ASSESSMENT Language Proficiency Assessment Instruments

48. CHARTER ASSESSMENT Standards-Based Assessments for ELLsThese two State Standardized Assessments should be used as a trigger for further review with a BOE in order to meet or exceed these thresholds.

49. CHARTER ASSESSMENT Body of Evidence (BOE)

50. CHARTER ASSESSMENT English Language LearnersSummary: Identification, Assessment, Placement NCLB title III (Sec. 3115(1),(2),(3),(4) requires that Local Educational Agencies (LEA) develop and implement Language Instruction Education Programs (LIEPs) for early childhood, elementary, and secondary school programs . Charter schools are obligated to serve ELL students who are on the Student October report and must abide by all related rules and regulations. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES 1. Home Language Surveys (HLS) - complete as part of the registration process for all students to identify those who have a Primary or Home Language Other Than English (PHLOTE). • Screening Measure 2. Colorado English Language Acquisition Placement (CELAplace) - administer to all students who have a PHLOTE in order to confirm the HLS. This must occur within 30 days of the 1st day of the school year or, if the student enrolls later in the school year, within 2 weeks. • Screening Measure 3. Body of Evidence (BOE) - composed of various measures as well as the results of the CELAplace. Designates students as Non-English Proficient (NEP), Limited English Proficient (LEP), or Full English Proficient (FEP). Program placement and instructional decisions will be based on the student’s English language proficiency designation as well as a BOE. • Formative Measures 4. Parent Notification - must be issued, in the parents’ primary language, for students identified for placement in a Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP). 5. Colorado English Language Acquisition Proficiency (CELApro) is used to monitor language and academic growth. Helps determine student movement toward attainment of content standards. • Summative Measure