Practitioner’s Guide

Practitioner’s Guide with Primary Emphasis on Assessing Achievement as Part of an Evaluation for Special Education

FALL 2007

1

TABLE OF CONTENT S INTRODUCTION

......

5

Alternatives and Interventions Prior to Special Education Instruction in the General Education Classroom

Academic Intervention Supports within General Education Special Education Assessment

Issues Related to Language Acquisition for CLD Students

Report of Student Language Proficiency Assessment Second Language Acquisition(Stages and Patterns)

Stages Involved in Learning a Second Language Patterns of Language Use of Second Language Learners The Relationship between Acculturation and Language Assessing Language Skills for CLD Students Examining Behaviors Within the Context of Culture/Immigrationv Patterns Indicative of Possible Need For a Special Education Assessment Considerations for InitiatingA Special Education Assessment Considerations Prior to Making a Referral

Special Education Assessment Process

......

....... ....... ...... ....... .......

5 5 5 7 7

....... 9 ...... 13 ...... 14 ...... 14 ...... 15 ...... 15 ...... 17 ...... 18 ...... 19 ...... 20

22

General Considerations for Special Education Assessment ...... 22 Special Considerations When Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students 24 Conducting Bilingual Assessments- Bilingual Cascade ...... 27 Statement of Co-existence of Disability and Limited English Proficiency ...... 32 Components of Culturally/Linguistically Valid Assessment ...... 37 Instrument Selection and Administration ...... 39

ORAL LANGUAGE

......

40

Speech and Language Assessments Domains for Consideration in the Assessment of Oral Language Skills Assessing Oral Languate Achievement at Special Education Evaluation

READING

......

45

Phonemic and Phonological Awareness Word Recognition Fluency-Automaticity Assessing Reading Achievement Areas to be Assessed When Reading Problems are Identified Reading Assessment Measures Describing Standardized Achievement Test Reading Assessment Results Glossary of Reading Terms

...... 40 .......41 ...... 42

...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

45 47 49 50 51 51 53 55

2

WRITTEN LANGUAGE

......

56

Domains for Consideration in the Assessment of Written Language Skills Written Language Assessment Measures Assessing Written Language Achievement Glossary of Oral Language and Written Language Terms

MATHEMATICS ...... 67

Domains for Consideration in the Assessmentof Mathematics Skills Assessing Mathematics Achievement atSpecial Education Evaluation Mathematics Assessment Measures

...... ....... ....... .......

58 61 63 66

...... 67 ...... 70 ...... 71

APPENDICES A p p e n di x A Guidelines for Initial Evaluations, Reevaluations, and Mandated three year review Evaluations

.. .... 73

A p p e n di x B NASP Position Statement on Periodic Reevaluations for Students with Disabilities

...... 75

A p p e n di x C Samples for Reporting Assessment Results from Individually-Administered Achievement Tests

...... 77

A p p e n di x D Sample Special Education Evaluation Initial Comprehensive Psychoeducational Report

.. .... 85

A p p e n di x E Quick Reference Guide for Linking Assessment and Intervention Recommendations

...... 94

A p p e n di x F Report of Student Language Proficiency Assessment

...... 135

A p p e n di x G Statement of Co-existence of Disability and Limited English Proficiency

...... 139

A p p e n di x H Components of Culturally/Linguistically Valid Assessment

....... 141

A p p e n di x I Considerations to Making a Referral Prior to Evaluation

...... 14 4

A p p e n di x J Initial Referral Form

...... 147

RE FEREN C ES

...... 153

3

AC KN OWLEDGMENT S This Practitioner’s Guide was made possible by dedicated people who believe in the value of pre-referral interventions for struggling learners and special education assessment starting with the classroom teacher.

In addition to various Department of Education (DOE) instructional, clinical and management personnel who participated in the project, The Office of Special Education Initiatives would like to thank the following experts in particular for their valuable participation in this project: Dr. George McCloskey, Ph. D., Associate Professor and Co-Director of Research in School Psychology at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine and principal, Psychological Consulting Corporation.

Dr. Alberto Bursztyn, Ph. D., Professor of Graduate Special Education and School Psychology at Brooklyn College and in the Ph. D. Program in Urban Education at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

Dr. Emilia Lopez, Ph. D., Professor & Director of Bilingual and Multicultural Specializations, Graduate Program in School Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York.

4

INTRODUCTION The basic premise of assessment is that it is a process of gathering meaningful instructional information about student needs (Collier, 2004). This guide is meant for assessment staff involved in the process such as school psychologists, school social workers, teachers, speech teachers and other related service providers. These professionals contribute to the academic assessment of students to determine eligibility for special education services. It provides an overview of research and best practices concerning formal and informal assessment of math and the four language arts areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. One of its purposes is to increase sensitivity to the needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) students.

The New York City Department of Education (DOE) has established a comprehensive system to support students who have not met adequate performance levels on elementary, intermediate and high school assessments relevant to their grade level standards. This system includes Academic Intervention Support and the development of a Response to Intervention model. It is suggested that every school have a working Academic Intervention Team (AIT)/Pupil Personnel Team (PPT) which provide a full array of support services. When students are not eligible for special education services, assessment results should be used by the teams to develop individualized interventions, targeted to student needs.

It must be emphasized that assessment by the classroom teacher begins as soon as a student enters school and is a continuous process. Assessment creates a student profile of progress towards meeting grade level standards. It informs instruction, directs intervention programs, and informs the decision about eligibility for special education services.

A l t e r n at i ves and I nt e r ve n t i o n s P r i o r t o S p e ci al E ducat i o n The DOE has a comprehensive system currently in place for students who may require additional support to participate and succeed in school. The Response to Intervention (RTI) framework includes assessment-driven instruction, use of research-based programs and supportive services that have been designed to address the diverse needs of the struggling learner. The purpose of this series is to provide an organized system whereby levels of support increase according to student need.

I ns t r u c t i on i n t he G e n e r al E ducat i o n C l a s s r o o m The classroom teacher employs multiple assessments and sources of evidence about student achievement to plan and deliver instruction targeted to the specific learning needs of the student. General progress is determined by formative and summative assessments.

(Examples: Acuity, Scantron, NYSESLAT, running records and other informal classroom assessment) Student progress is monitored on an ongoing basis.

The teacher may develop an individual learning profile that considers the student’s cognitive, linguistic and developmental strength and weaknesses. In addition, the student’s prior knowledge, experience in an English speaking school system and his/her acquisition of the English language must be considered for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. The learning profile data is useful in matching effective teaching methodology and learning requirements. While instructional accommodations and behavior management programs are targeted to one or more students, all students benefit from best teaching practices.

Using the native language for learning allows an English Language Learner (ELL) student to draw on his/her total language experience and to continue his/her conceptual development (Gibbons, 1991). When ELLs have difficulty progressing in the general curriculum, they must be provided with scaffold supports that address their linguistic, cultural, and learning needs. ELLs must be provided with academic language programs in accordance with New York State’s Commissioner’s Regulation CR-Part 154 and the DOEs Language 5

Allocation Policy (LAP) until they acquire academic proficiency in English.

Rather than assuming that all students develop skills and strategies, in some way, instructors must incorporate direct, explicit and systematic instruction when working with struggling learners. Development of units of study and lesson planning must consider the match between style of delivery and the student’s learning needs. Use of questioning, conferring and analysis of student work are critical teaching skills that must be employed. Identification of expectations, perceptions and attitudes that may impede the learning progress of atypical learners is needed for students with diverse needs and students who have different languages and backgrounds.

Thoughtful consideration must be given to maximizing the student’s time-on-task. Students should be engaged through a variety of teaching formats within the lesson, including direct instruction, guided practice, independent study and cooperative learning. Scaffolding instruction embeds support in the learning task by reducing the task into smaller components while providing modifications to advance the student’s ability to accomplish the task. In culturally sensitive teaching and pedagogy, cultural beliefs, traditions, and values of the students and their families are reflected in all aspects of the teaching/learning process. Providing hands-on experiences and multiple opportunities to interact with the curriculum content, builds a broader and deeper knowledge base while increasing fund of knowledge, vocabulary and language development. Technology-assisted instruction fosters differentiation and its use is strongly supported in the research, but must not supplant direct student-teacher interaction. Finally, teachers must consider the pacing of the lesson and the volume of content when introducing new information to the learner.

Acad e m i c I n t e r ve n t i o n S u pp o r t s w i t h i n G e n e r al E du c at i o n New York State regulations require the provision of academic intervention services (AIS) to all students who score below grade level on achievement tests. In New York City, a variety of protocols are suggested to ensure that these services are planned and delivered in ways that ensure that student progress will occur. Typically, a school convenes an academic intervention team which meets on a regular basis to conduct planning reviews for students who qualify for AIS services. An AIS team facilitator is designated whose main role it is to schedule meeting dates and facilitate meetings and maintain documentation. The team, which might consist of AIS providers, classroom teachers, administrators, and other staff, review available assessment data and determine what – if any – additional assessments might be needed to specifically target underlying academic needs. Based upon this review, the team plans for a specific protocol of intervention services provided either at the Tier I level delivered in the classroom by the classroom teacher or at the Tier II level delivered by a specialist as a ‘push-in’ or ‘pull-out’ service. AIS services always supplement, rather than supplant, regular classroom instruction.

Among the protocols followed by the AIS team is the documentation of planning for each qualifying student as well as documentation of student progress. While no specific style of documentation is mandated, the team is accountable for recording assessment and treatment information, as well as planning for periodic ‘temperature checks’ to ensure that the student is, in fact, responding to the interventions that are provided. Examples of documentation include service start-up and exit letters to parents (required by the State), documentation to ensure that holdovers are receiving intensive academic intervention services that differ sufficiently from that provided in the previous year, a targeted toolkit of academic intervention methods and materials that offer a rigorous research base – including listings of targeted assessment tools, documentation of AIS team meetings, documentation of follow-up checks to ensure that response to intervention has and continues to occur, meeting agendas and signins. These forms are typically maintained in an ‘intervention binder’ that resides in the principal’s office.

The AIS team functions alongside the school’s Pupil Personnel Team (PPT) and Inquiry Team. Team members might overlap among these and, while each of these teams has a different purpose, all have as their common attribute a case-study format with a goal of planning for student support.

The primary objectives of the AIS team include support of struggling students, furtherance of the school’s work in reducing the number of students achieving below grade-level expectations, as well as reducing the number of students unnecessarily referred to special education.

6

Academic intervention supports that emphasize culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Planning for English Language Learners proceeds according to the same protocols noted above. For such culturally and linguistically diverse students, the team has the additional responsibility of ensuring that considerations for cultural and linguistic diversity have been included in the planning. Among these considerations are an analysis of student characteristics, including academic strengths and gaps in native language and English, ability/preference to work in varied grouping formats as well as to work independently, English proficiency/language dominance, time in the United States school system, as well as a determination of general fund of academic knowledge.

Additionally, consideration should be given by the AIS team to determine teacher supports that might be needed in areas such as differentiation of instruction in response to student needs, use of research-based tools and methods, including those that support English language learners, management of the differentiated needs of all students in the classroom, knowledge of the specific academic language challenges that the curriculum, standards and content may present to English language learners, as well as standard and alternative methods of assessing academic progress to ensure targeted treatment and response to intervention.

S p e c i al E ducat i o n As s e s s me n t Special Education services and program interventions require identification of a specific disability. Prior to consideration for special education services, interventions in general education should occur. Students who received intervention services, but do not make sufficient progress in basic academic skill acquisition or who are still experiencing behavioral or emotional difficulties may be referred for a comprehensive special education evaluation (see Appendix J for Initial Referral form). This evaluation must consider the student’s cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and academic strengths relevant to the referral issues. For CLD students it must also consider aspects of the school environment and exposure to an English speaking school system and culture that may contribute to the referral issues, as well as lack of formal education.

Psychologists may consult Appendix A of the Practitioner’s Guide and NASP’s Best Practices in School Psychology IV for suggested professional guidelines for using intellectual assessment measures as part of a comprehensive initial evaluation.

I ssu es Re l at ed t o L an g uag e Acq ui s i t i o n f o r C L D S t ude n t s : D e t e r m i ni ng i f P r o bl e ms i n S c h o o l ar e Par t o f t h e N at u r al P r oc es s o f S e co n d L an g uag e Acq ui s i t i o n Facility with the English language plays a central role in success in school. School personnel need to develop an understanding of how second-language learning influences achievement in school. They must be able to distinguish a language disability from a language difference. For example, the communication of a student who is an English language learner may appear to be evidence of a speech and language or learning disability, when in fact, it is evidence of that student’s natural progression in acquiring a second language. Being at a particular stage of second language acquisition is not a disorder. An overview of language acquisition skills follows.

Research confirms the presence of numerous developmental stages that individuals experience as a part of the language acquisition process. These stages follow a natural progression, but development through the stages is not locked into any set timeframe that applies to all youngsters. An individual student might progress through these stages at a faster or slower rate. Areas of language development also vary in their rates of progression, as a youngster’s ability to listen or read and speak and write using a new language can all develop at significantly different rates. In short, there is no single standard time period within which a student can be expected to develop mastery of all aspects of a new language.

The Language Assessment Battery-Revised (LAB-R) was developed by the DOE and adopted by New York State Education Department (NYSED) to identify incoming students who may be eligible for bilingual education or ESL services. All incoming students who live in a home where a language other than English 7 is spoken, as confirmed by the Home Language Identification Survey (HLIS), are tested with the LAB-R

upon admission to a public school. A score below the designated cut score for the child determines eligibility for bilingual or ESL services. The LAB-R is administered only once to each incoming student. The LAB-R consists of four sub-tests based on language skills—speaking, listening, reading and writing. The Spanish LAB is given to Spanish speaking students only once to determine language dominance.

If a student is placed in a bilingual or ESL program, achievement in the English language is measured annually with the New York State English Language Arts assessment, effective January 3, 2007 for Grades 3-8. (See NYSED memorandum at http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/nyseslat/nclbmemo8-4-06.htm). The New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) is also administered to ELL students in grades K through 12 to determine their progress in the acquisition of academic English (this includes all students identified to have disabilities). The NYSESLAT identifies the English proficiency level of ELLs as either Beginning, Intermediate, or Advanced. The NYSESLAT also identifies those ELLs who have achieved a proficient level of English and no longer require ESL and/or bilingual services. The NYSESLAT consists of four sub-tests based on language skills—speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The items on the NYSESLAT are written by ESL and bilingual teachers in New York State and are based on the NYS learning standards in ESL. For a description of how English language proficiency is determined by using the scores obtained in the administration of the NYSESLAT, visit the New York State Education Department website at www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/nyseslat.

English language learners require language support that builds upon their prior knowledge; consequently, assessments such as the NYSESLAT assist educators to scaffold instruction from students’ previous exposure to language and content to new contexts (Gottlieb, 2006).

The document on the following page should be used by the IEP team to report on the student’s level of English language proficiency:

8

REPORT OF STUDENT LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT Student Name: _____________________ DOB: _________OSIS: ______________________ Grade: ___ Language(s) Assessed: _______________________________________________ Place of Birth: ________________________________________________________________ Student’s Preferred Mode of Communication: _______________________________________ Does student have a medical condition that interfered with the assessment?

Describe:____________________________________________________________________ Other factors impacting the assessment:____________________________________________ Evaluator: ________________________________________________

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Current Language Proficiency Level: English_____

Date_____

Instrument/Procedures__________________________________________________________ Native Language_____ Date______ Instrument/Procedures____________________________ Academic Program: ______ General Education ______ Related Service Only ______ Special Education Teacher Support Services ______ Collaborative Team Teaching

______ Self-Contained ______ Special School

Language Program: ____Bilingual ____ESL

9

ACHIEVEMENT INFORMATION English: Instrument/Procedure ______________________ Reading Grade Level ______ Math Grade Level ______ Writing Grade Level _______ LAB-R _____or ELA for Grades 3-8 or NYSESLAT Score (if applicable) _____

Spanish LAB (if applicable) __________ Date___________________

Date________

Native Language: Instrument/Procedure ______________________ Reading Grade Level ______ Math Grade Level ______ Writing Grade Level _______

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES Individualized Standardized Language Proficiency Test(s): _____________________________ Other methods of assessment of language proficiency: ____Dialogue/Questions and Answers ____Storytelling/re-telling _____ Picture Description ____Student Interview ____Parent Interview _____Other (Describe): ____________________

OBSERVATIONS Setting(s) and Date(s): __________________________________________________________

Describe student’s behavior: _________________________________________________________________________

10

_________________________________________________________________________ Did student’s learning difficulties affect his/her performance on language tasks? How? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Describe student’s performance on the different sub-tests of the standardized test and other methods of assessment utilized: English:___________________________________________________________________ Native Language: ___________________________________________________________ Accommodations made during the assessment: _________________________________________________________________________ Language Proficiency Levels

RECEPTIVE

Native Language

English

EXPRESSIVE

Native Language

English

Syntax (Form)

Semantics (Content)

Pragmatics (Use)

Determination and Recommendation of Student’s English Language Proficiency Level: English: Native Language:

____Beginning ____Beginning

_____Intermediate _____Advanced ____Proficient _____Intermediate _____Advanced ____Proficient

11

INSTRUCTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

For reproduction purposes, the Report of Student Language Proficiency Assessment can be found in Appendix F.

12

S ec ond L an g uag e Acq ui s i t i o n ( S t a g e s an d Pat t e r n s ) Second-language learning is a long, complex, and multifaceted process that involves various stages and manifests in specific language patterns. Second language learning does not follow a linear predictable path. Research in second language acquisition reveals significant individual variations in the pattern, rate, and eventual mastery of second languages. While some degree of surface fluency is relatively easy for youngsters to acquire within the first year of exposure to a second language, academic language proficiency is much more complex and achievement of competency much less predictable.

The following factors have been identified as significant influences on the acquisition of English as a second language: nature and intensity of exposure to new language, motivation, proficiency in the native language, and individual cognitive ability. These factors should also be explored in the context of evaluating the academic language proficiency of youngsters who speak regional variations of Standard English. The challenges faced by these Standard English-variant speakers in mastering the academic discourse at school are not unlike the needs of speakers of languages other than English. As a result, these students are likely to require similar attention and support for language development.

Gathering information about students whose first language is not English, or is an English dialect must include a thorough exploration of the student’s exposure to English, length of residence in USA or English-speaking school system, languages spoken at home and in the community, linguistic competence in general, and in the first language in particular. This assessment will help teachers and support personnel evaluate whether the student has had adequate time and opportunity to gain the degree of language proficiency required in a U.S. classroom.

Educators and school psychologists must also attempt to understand the student’s motivations and inhibitions that might account for difficulties in meeting academic expectations. The presence of a learning disability, particularly one that involves language deficits in the native language, will greatly impact a student’s capacity to master a second language. The academic difficulties and linguistic limitations of such a student will be present in both linguistic systems, and may be more pronounced in the second. There are many factors that influence second language (L2) acquisition that need to be taken into account when trying to accurately characterize a CLD student’s educational needs, including: • Motivation • Practice Opportunities • Personality Characteristics • Acculturation • Parental and Community Attitudes • Degree of Bilingualism • Home Literacy • Patterns of Second Language Acquisition • Age • First Language Development

13

S t ag es I n vol ved i n L e ar n i n g a S e co n d L a n g uag e Students engaged in learning a second language typically progress through a series of stages in the development of their facility with the new language.

Pre-production (Comprehension): the learner is beginning to develop the ability to understand what others are saying in the second language. Attention to the phonological aspects of the second language is critical as the learner attempts to associate sounds and meaning. The second-language learner is often able to understand the gist of another person’s communication based on an understanding of key words or phrases in sentences.

This stage of passive listening can be accompanied by a silent period during which the learner does not attempt to communicate orally.

Early Production: the learner attempts to communicate using one or two word utterances or short phrases.

Word mispronunciations are often observed in this stage and phrases often do not contain articles.

Speech Emergence: the learner attempts to communicate using longer and more complex sentences or phrases.

Self-generation of language includes longer sentences and re-tellings of stories or events. Errors in grammar are common and are related to the transference of rules from the first language to the second language.

Intermediate Fluency: the learner communicates using connected narratives. The second-language learner is more actively involved in conversations and interacts more with native speakers of the second language.

Receptive language skills are adequate for most conversational situations and many fewer errors in the second language are made. Despite these gains, information processing is slower in the second language than in the first language because the learner is still translating information back into the first language in order to facilitate understanding of the content of communication in the second language.

Advanced Fluency: the learner exhibits better developed receptive and expressive skills in the second language, but second-language encoding, manipulating, storing, and the retrieving of information progress at a relatively slower rate.

Proficient: the learner is fully fluent in the second language, uses idiomatic expression, has complex understanding and comprehension, and actively participates in group discussions.

Pat t e r n s of L an gu ag e U s e o f S e co n d L an g uag e L e ar n e r s The normal process of second language acquisition may bring about several patterns of language use.

Silent Period: the learner does not actively engage in the use of the second language to communicate but focuses energies on listening intently to second language speech.

Inter-language: refers to language usage by which the learner is integrating language rules from both the native language and the second language. The result is a language rule structure that represents an amalgam of various aspects of both languages. The development of an inter-language pattern is a normal and systematic stage in the acquisition of a second language and does not represent deficient or impaired English language learning.

The inter-language developed by the learner is not a stable language form, and is continuously changing as the learner attempts to integrate more of the second language rules and structure into new speech patterns. The inter-language pattern approximates more and more the second language as the learner is exposed to new vocabulary and linguistically rich second language experiences.

Code switching: involves the sudden shift from the syntactic structure of one language to the other. An example of code switching involves beginning a sentence in one language and finishing it in another. Code switching is viewed as a pattern reflecting an adaptable language tool. It can be used to convey subtle meanings that would be difficult to do using one language only. Individuals may also use code switching as a way to express close ties and cultural connections when speaking to friends and family. Because code switching 14

is used as an effective communication tool by the learner who is bridging two language systems and two cultures, its presence should not be viewed as demonstration of limited vocabulary development, inadequate language ability, or neurologically-based word-finding problems.

Code Mixing: involves using a word from the first language while speaking the second language. Code mixing can also be an adaptive language mechanism as there sometimes are no English language equivalents for certain first language words or concepts.

Language Loss: (or subtractive bilingualism) native language proficiency loss can occur for second language learners if they do not have sufficient exposure, experience, or training in the first language to enable first language development to continue once they begin using the second language. Over time, the first language begins to erode through disuse, and proficiency declines.

Interference: the non-conscious and unintentional activation of aspects of native language abilities can cause “glitches” in the transfer of skills to the second language resulting in errors in pronunciation, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, or meaning.

Fossilization: second language learners sometimes hold on to aspects of their inter-language pattern and fail to progress before a certain level of fluency is attained in the second language. In these cases, the aspects of the inter-language that are retained become fossilized in the sense that they remain permanent fixtures in the learner’s attempts to use the second language. These aspects of the learner’s inter-language are not likely to be eliminated for most second-language learners, regardless of extensive explanation and instruction, in what is otherwise a fluent command of the second language. Fossilization does not represent the presence of a language impairment, but rather, an end state of second language acquisition for a learner.

Th e Re l at i ons hi p be t we e n Accul t ur at i o n a n d L an g uag e For an immigrant, second language learning can also be thought of as the acquisition of a second identity because second language learning entails acculturation. While learning the second language, the learner is exposed to and learns many facts about the new culture (e.g., tradition, practices, and history); imitates and incorporates behaviors representative of individuals within the host culture (e.g., the language, social courtesies, nonverbal gestures that accompany verbal statements); and absorbs and adopts at least some values, norms, and world views representative of the mainstream culture. Being unable to, or refusing to, communicate with members of the mainstream culture limits the economic and social opportunities of a second-language learner but embracing the new language can distance the second-language learner from his/her cultural group and create great emotional dissonance. Consequently, learning a second language can produce feelings of alienation from members of one’s culture, the mainstream culture, and from oneself.

Students who are conversant in Standard English, are familiar with the culture of the school, and are socially accepted, may require less support than students with limited English proficiency who must also master a culture different from their own. Understanding the nature of the acculturation and the challenges that a student faces can be useful in determining the extent of need for additional attention and support.

A s s e s s i ng L ang ua g e S k i l l s f o r C L D S t ude n t s BICS and CALP It is widely recognized that there are two different aspects of language that must develop for effective use of language: Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS involve the ability to fluently engage in everyday conversation and casual social discussion. These are the language skills needed to communicate effectively in daily personal and social interactions. BICS is a type of surface fluency that students learn while interacting with peers and sometimes with teachers. CALP represents language necessary to function in an academic setting where the context in which learning and 15 instruction occur offers very few cues to help students derive meaning from what, for example, they are

reading. The structure and content of language used in instruction, and language used to discuss instruction are typically very different from that used in casual social conversation. CALP provide the basis for complex problem-solving and conceptual thinking using language. CALP takes significantly more time to develop than BICS. For that reason, it should not be assumed that a student who is proficient in conversational English automatically has the skills necessary for success in academic classroom settings. (Cummins, 1984) The IEP team must assess the levels of English language proficiency and native language skills; the following is a list of instruments commonly used:

A. English Language Proficiency (Oral): 1 Language Assessment Scale (LAS)-Macmillan/McGraw Hill 2 IDEA Proficiency Tests (IPT)-Ballard and Tighe 3 Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey Revised (2004)-Riverside Publishing 4 Quick Informal Assessment (QIA)-McGraw-Hill 5 Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Riverside Publishing B. English Language Proficiency (Reading): 6 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 7 Language Assessment Scale (LAS)-Macmillan/McGraw Hill 8 IDEA Proficiency Tests (IPT)-Ballard and Tighe 9 Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey Revised (2004)-Riverside Publishing 10 Quick Informal Assessment (QIA)-McGraw-Hill 11 Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Riverside Publishing C. English Language Proficiency (Writing): 12 Language Assessment Scale (LAS)-Macmillan/McGraw Hill 13 Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey Revised (2004)-Riverside Publishing 14 Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Riverside D. Native Language Proficiency (Oral): 15 Language Assessment Scale (LAS)-Macmillan/McGraw Hill 16 IDEA Proficiency Tests (IPT)-Ballard and Tighe 17 Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey Revised (2004)-Riverside Publishing 18 Quick Informal Assessment (QIA)-McGraw-Hill 19 Spanish Language Assessment Procedures: A Communication Skills Inventory-MattesSan Diego College Hill Press 20 The Bilingual Verbal Ability Test (BVAT)-Riverside Publishing: Available in 17 languages and in English E. Native Language Proficiency (Reading and Writing): 21 Language Assessment Scale (LAS)-Macmillan/McGraw Hill 22 Quick Informal Assessment (QIA)-McGraw-Hill 23 Brigance Assessment of Basic Skills, Spanish Edition-Curriculum Associates

16

Ex ami ni n g Be ha v i or s W i t h i n t h e C o n t ex t o f C ul t ur e /I mmi g r ation Behavior is the most salient aspect of culture, and as CLD students learn and adapt to a new culture, they begin to manifest the behaviors expected within the new cultural milieu. What may initially appear to be deviant, or odd behavior, often dissipates as students begin to respond in more adaptive ways to the classroom environment.

For example, newly arrived youngsters from impoverished rural backgrounds may be unfamiliar with basic classroom routines and may need time to adopt such behaviors as taking turns, and respecting classmates’ space and property. School professionals must be careful when interpreting the behaviors of students who have not had the time or opportunity to adjust to mainstream behavior expectations. Behaviors that appear inappropriate or indicative of learning problems might be related to differences in cultural behavior norms or from personal experiences that might include chronic poverty or physical and psychological trauma.

Some of the behaviors that CLD students might manifest include:

1. Passivity and Withdrawal Many cultures expect students to be quiet, deferential, and passive in the presence of adults, both at home and in school. Students entering U.S. schools who have been raised under such cultural expectations often remain passive or withdrawn despite teacher expectations and demands for active participation and less constrained student-teacher interactions during the learning process. These students can easily be thought of as lacking initiative, enthusiasm, and/or spontaneity, disengaged from the educational process, or even unfairly judged as quietly hostile. These children might experience internal conflicts spurred by the desire to maintain their home culture traditions in the face of classroom expectations for speaking out in class, actively collaborating with other students, taking leadership roles, and a high level of interaction with adults. Such struggles about identity and allegiances can make the school environment stressful, particularly for students who are racially or ethnically different from their classmates.

Passivity and withdrawal also are often part of a natural progression of learning a second language. Mastery of a new language usually requires a period of active listening during which learners seek to identify words and structural patterns, and attempt to derive meaning from progressively more familiar sounds. Although this silent period is typical for bilingual children and adults, school personnel may mistakenly assume that a youngster’s lack of expressive language production indicates permanent language impairment, or attribute the silence to negative behavior or personality traits.

Passivity in the classroom can also result from a lack of comprehension of classroom discourse. Processing information in the weaker language is slower, laborious and not reliably effective. Students who are still acquiring English language fluency often avoid reading aloud in class or responding spontaneously. The observed passivity is a way for youngsters to protect themselves from embarrassment by hiding their weak comprehension and accented speech from peers. It is not uncommon for second language learners to begin to “tune out” as their capacity to follow the classroom discourse is compromised by the exhaustion caused by the effort to follow partially understood verbal communication.

2. Attention and Memory Problems Culturally and linguistically diverse students may have difficulty understanding the language being used in the classroom and this difficulty places incredible demands on their ability to focus and concentrate for long periods of time. Becoming fidgety, distracted or forgetful may be a very normal response to the situation. Before administering tests to evaluate potential learning and memory problems, these behaviors need to be observed outside the school context and confirmed as problems that occur in both the native language and when acquiring English.

3. Poor Academic Performance Students most at risk of being misidentified as learning disabled are older immigrant youngsters who have received little or no formal education in their country of origin. The educational and curricular demands for these students are the greatest; therefore, the largest gap will exist between what they are able to do and

17

what they are expected to do in school. These students will need intensive support to avoid failure in school.

However, students must not be identified as learning disabled and in need of special education services if the primary cause of their “disability” is determined to be a lack of exposure to adequate academic instruction.

4. Acting Out Students in the process of learning and mastering a new language, and perhaps a new culture, may act impulsively or aggressively in school. Some immigrant youngsters may have had little or no experience with formal school settings and therefore are unfamiliar with school routines and expectations. Students who do not speak or understand English may have great difficulty with peer interactions. Inappropriate behaviors in the school setting need to be addressed, and great care must be taken to try to understand the potential causes for those behaviors.

5. Stress during Acculturation Adapting to a new culture and language can create a very stressful situation for families and for the youngsters who must attend school. Immigrant families may no longer have the network of support that they had depended upon in the country of origin. Youngsters often acquire the role of “cultural broker” for their parents as they are asked to translate for family members across a variety of situations. Being placed in this role can be stressful for children and may have an impact on school performance. Moreover, immigrant students may be especially vulnerable to the influence of peer pressure in the new environment as they strive to adapt and to be accepted in their new school. For some immigrant youngsters, great periods of stress and anxiety may have precipitated their arrival to this country, suffering from economic deprivation, wars, etc. Behaviors in school that interfere with learning may be the result of any of these experiences. Youngsters under the most stress to adapt to life in this country may be most in need of assistance and support from school staff (e.g. bilingual counseling, ERSS, etc.).

(Bursztyn, 2001)

Patt er ns In di c at i ve of Pos s i ble N e e d Fo r a S p e ci al E ducat i o n As s e ssment There are several behavior patterns that should prompt teachers’ attention. Student’s exhibiting the following behaviors should be considered for referral for a special education assessment:

Extreme social maladjustment - CLD students who present a danger to themselves or to others require immediate and intensive attention from school personnel. Students, who carry weapons, intimidate classmates, threaten teachers, etc., should not be seen simply as exhibiting adjustment difficulties rooted in cultural differences. Students who express notions of suicide also require immediate intervention from school staff.

Lack of adaptive change over time - After interventions (discussed in Tiers I and II) have been in place and a student still fails to meet with success, a more comprehensive assessment of a student’s strengths and weaknesses is necessary. Allowing too much time to pass without progress being made warrants a further examination of the student’s needs and how the school can best meet those needs. Keep in mind, however, that most CLD students do make successful transitions when given enough time and support.

Pre-existing psychological or neurological condition - A number of learning and neurological problems may be caused by medical conditions (e.g., lead poisoning, malnutrition, head injury, etc.).

These conditions may be difficult to identify, but must be explored when appropriate. (Bursztyn, 2001)

18

C on s i de r a t i o n s f o r I n i t i at i n g A S p e c i al E du c at i o n As s e s s me n t f o r C ul t ur al l y an d L i ngu i s t ica l l y D i ve r s e ( C L D ) S t ud e n t s Determining a “Difference” Versus a “Disability” Requiring Special Education Services When CLD students fail to achieve in school, it must be determined whether the problems are due to issues related to cultural or linguistic differences or due to a disability requiring special education services. It is generally held that disabilities are present across academic, linguistic, social, familial, and cultural contexts. Parents play a crucial role in providing information about a youngster’s learning and behavior in the home and community environment.

The following is a set of guidelines intended to facilitate the distinction between difficulties that can be resolved over time, and disabilities that require more intensive services.

1. CLD students with neurologically based disabilities will exhibit those specific difficulties in their native language and home culture. For example, if a youngster is suspected of having a reading disability, the reading problems will be evident in both the native language and English ( if reading was taught in the native language).

2. Emotional disorders and behavioral difficulties of CLD students will be of concern to the family and community, not only to school staff. Neurological and psychiatric disorders will be evidenced at home as well as in school, especially those requiring immediate attention.

3. A CLD youngster with a cognitive impairment such as retarded mental development will lack social and academic skills in the native language and exhibit difficulties in both the community and at school; 4. CLD students with sensory and perceptual disabilities will exhibit these impairments at home as well as in school. For example, a young, hard-of-hearing CLD child will show signs of linguistic deficits acquiring both the native language and English.

Note: Considerations to Making a Referral Prior to Evaluation (Table 1) can be used as a reference guide for areas to consider prior to the evaluation of a CLD student. For reproduction purposes, this form can be found in Appendix I.

19

C ons i der at i ons P r i o r t o M a ki n g a Re f e r r al Exhibited Behaviors Results

Making Considerations to Avoid Misinterpreting Assessment

Extended periods of silence

May be associated with limited English proficiency level and/or level of Acculturation (i.e., process of adapting to new environment such as a new school or classroom); Some cultures encourage children to be quiet as a sign of respect

Confusion with locus of control

Some cultures teach that things are out of the control of individuals (i.e., external locus of control) and this should not be misinterpreted as not caring or requiring intervention

Indifference to time

The concept of time is often perceived differently in various cultures and may be significantly different than time emphasized in U.S. schools

Social Withdrawal

Shy behavior may be associated with the process of adjusting or acculturating to a new environment (e.g., U.S. schools/classrooms) and/or with learning English as a second language

Acting out/aggressive behavior

Some cultures may teach that assertive behavior (e.g., standing up for oneself) is desirable social behavior; inexperience with U.S. classroom rules may also account for acting out behaviors

Difficulty with independent work

Some cultures may value group performance over individual achievement and thus students may be unfamiliar with independent, competitive learning preferring cooperative group learning

Perceived lack of significance of school achievement

Value or significance of school may vary by culture as other priorities in that culture may take priority (e.g., family needs; spring harvest)

Poor performance on tests taken in English

Tests in English become a English test for limited English proficient students; test results in English must be interpreted relative to the learner’s English proficiency level

Low self-esteem

Students from different cultures or linguistic backgrounds may initially experience difficulty while adjusting to new cultural expectations and learning a new language, temporarily negatively impacting a child’s self-concept

Differences in perception of everyday items

Different cultures may view everyday concepts differently than the mainstream culture; (i.e., personal space, sharing of belongings, gender, meaning of color, directions) and knowledge of how cultures view these and related items is necessary to make informed decisions

20

Increased anxiety

Stress associated with adjusting to a new culture and/or learning a new language often results in increased anxiety in learners until they feel more comfortable in the new environment and develop higher levels of English language proficiency

Difficulty observing school/class expectations

Unfamiliarity with formal schooling and classroom expectations is often experienced by children new to U.S. schools; they require additional time and support to become more accustomed to U.S. school’s behavioral and learning expectations

Preferences in style(s) of learning

Preferred styles of learning are reflective of cultural values and styles of ELLs may be different than typically emphasized.

Inability to learn through teaching/classroom strategies

Teaching strategies typically used in today’s classrooms may conflict with cultural views and/or be inappropriate for students with limited English language proficiency levels.

© John Hoover, Boulder, CO 2006

21

Special Education Assessment Pr ocess Ove r vi ew Assessment is the process of gathering and interpreting information about individual students for the purpose of educational decision making. The assessment process must identify and consider the strengths which the student brings to the educational environment. It must include the cultural, linguistic, and family experiences of the student. The assessment plan must be designed to assure that sufficient information is available to address all referral concerns and answer all referral questions. It must be a comprehensive appraisal of the student within the context of the school, home and community, not only a search for the problem but also the strengths of the student.

After a student is referred to the Committee on Special Education, an individualized multidisciplinary assessment is conducted. In addition to the above functions, the information gathered will be used to determine the student’s eligibility for special education services.

A student is eligible for special education services if:

1. the student meets the criteria for one or more of the disability classifications (listed below); and

2. the student requires approved special education services and programs.

A school-age student is not eligible for special education services if:

1. the student does not meet the criteria for one or more of the disability classifications; or

2. the student meets the criteria but does not require approved special education services and

programs; or the determinant factor is a:

- lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including explicit and systematic instruction in

phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency (including oral reading skills) and reading comprehension strategies;

- lack of appropriate instruction in math; or

- limited English proficiency.

Accordingly, when evaluating students who are referred because of demonstrated weaknesses in the areas of math or reading, the IEP Team must review and consider the non-special education instruction that has been provided and that can be provided to the student in general education.

The evaluation of a student referred to the Committee on Special Education is a collaborative and multifaceted process using a variety of information gathering tools and techniques. It always includes information provided by the student’s parent(s). Multiple strategies within the evaluation process are designed to gather relevant functional and developmental information about the student and information related to enabling the student to participate and progress in the general education curriculum.

G e ne r al C o n s i de r at i o n s f o r S p e c i al E ducat i o n As s e s s me n t Mandate for Fair Assessment of All Students Maximizing educational competencies and opportunities can only be reached when assessment information is obtained using techniques and instruments appropriate to the population from which the student derives. Since New York City’s public schools reflect great diversity in ethnic, racial and language backgrounds, it is crucial that assessment of academic achievement be individually and objectively designed. It is imperative that assessment be based on accurate and valid data and methods that are professionally justified. Predeterminations or descriptions based on stereotypes indeed, any assessments that go beyond the students’ best interests are forbidden by law.

22

Ethical Standards and Considerations Consideration must be given to the following: 1. Evaluation Reports. Reports must present data germane to the purposes of the evaluation. Every effort must be made to avoid invasion of privacy. Students and parents have the right to receive, and the evaluators have the responsibility to provide, an explanation of the nature and purposes of the evaluation results in language that the students and parents can respond to and understand.

2. Confidentiality. Safeguarding information about an individual that has been obtained during assessment is a primary responsibility of the clinician. Information is not communicated to others unless signed, informed consent is provided.

3. Differences Among People. School staff should recognize cultural and ethnic differences among individuals and, where relevant, obtain staff training or experience to assure competent service relating to diverse groups.

Learning Characteristics Psychologists should be cognizant of the student’s learning characteristics for the purpose of both assessment method selection and the formulation of appropriate short and long term educational objectives. Discussion of learning characteristics should assist in understanding how the student processes information most efficiently and the difficulties that might be encountered when the student is experiencing difficulties with the processing of information.

Psychologists should also be aware of how cultural differences can influence learning characteristics and how a youngster approaches learning situations. For example, youngsters from cultures where learning emphasizes a cooperative approach and/or strong respect for authority might not perform as effectively in a school where a highly individualistic and competitive approach to learning is fostered and/or where interactions with teachers are much less formal.

It is often helpful to formulate a series of questions for the purpose of ascertaining the learning strategies used by a particular child based on cognitive processes. For example, does the student appear to plan and organize or is she/he characteristically impulsive in responding? Is appropriate use of space and time made? Can the student attend to, and focus on, a task as well as sustain attention and concentrate? What is the frustration tolerance level? In terms of actual performance, how accurate are the responses and what types of errors are made? Is the student aware of errors and is she/he able to self-correct?

Preference for one particular learning characteristic on the part of a student need not be solely ascertained on the basis of test results alone. Information gleaned by trial teaching, referral information, teacher consultation, cultural background information, and observation of performance can be used in defining particular learning characteristics.

Level of Academic Functioning Ascertaining a student’s academic achievement or functional level, in various content areas is a main goal of the educational evaluation. Grades on criterion-referenced tests, and scores on standardized instruments, are indicators of academic progress. Academic achievement levels indicate which educational objectives have or have not been achieved.

It should be noted that the scores which a student attains on a test of achievement may not be as important as an analysis of the specific types of items a student passes or fails. Ascertaining patterns of error and degrees of consistency in making errors is a crucial aspect of an academic assessment. Feedback to classroom teachers on these related findings help provide a more complete picture of the student’s academic functioning.

During the individual assessment, opportunities exist to observe the student’s responses directly; to control the pace of testing; to probe responses and provide clarification, when necessary; to help the youngster in terms of encouragement and, in general, gather a considerable amount of qualitative information not 23 always available when a classroom teacher administers a group test. The psychologist can thus ascertain

strengths and weaknesses in terms of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Assessing Auditory and Visual Acuity Assessment of cognitive processes and achievement skills should begin with a check of the status of the student’s auditory and visual acuity. Visual and auditory acuity information should be available in the student’s cumulative record. Prior to formal assessment, this information should be reviewed. Arrangements should be made to have the student’s visual and/or auditory acuity assessed in any of the following situations: 1. Information about visual and/or auditory acuity is missing from the record 2. It is known that no visual and/or auditory acuity testing was ever completed 3. Information from the background data collection indicate that the student’s visual and/or auditory acuity status might have changed since the completion of acuity testing 4. Any plausible concerns exist about the student’s visual and/or auditory acuity

S p e c i al C ons i de r at i o n s Wh e n As s e s s i n g C u l t u r al l y and L i ng ui s t i cal l y D i ve r s e ( C L D ) S t ude n t s Special considerations describing the complex nature of assessment for CLD students are described in detail in the Tier I and II sections of this guide and should be referred to when conducting comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations at Special Education Evaluation.

Psychologists must ensure the validity of assessment procedures used with CLD students. For purposes of clarification, an assessment team member should review school records and discuss with parents prior participation of the referred student in bilingual, or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, level of formal education the youngster received in his/her native country, if the youngster is an immigrant to the U.S., migrant/refugee experiences, or remediation services, such as: Academic Intervention Services. Awareness of the differences in educational systems and instructional practices used around the world is needed. Different countries provide instruction in different ways, (i.e. lecturing with no questioning the teacher, as compared to practices in the United States that encourage active learning with students engaged in group activities that promote high order thinking skills). One should be aware that students with diverse linguistic and/or cultural backgrounds may behave differently in testing situations just as different cultures vary in their perception of customary personal or interpersonal conduct and communication. These factors may significantly affect the testing environment as well as the impressions and conclusions of the evaluator. It should also be noted that Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) have little or no experience in the use of academic terms in their native language and may not perform well on cognitive and academic-focused tests and/or informal procedures.

Since fair evaluation of CLD students is mandated, the requirements concerning provision of other-than-English language services to parents and/or students, as defined in the special education evaluation guidelines, are to be observed. A bilingual team member who, preferably, speaks the language of the student, must participate in the evaluation of English Language Learners (ELL) for initial referrals and re-evaluations.

The bilingual assessment team member should be sensitive to the students’ cultural background and must be skilled and knowledgeable in:

a) establishing and maintaining rapport with culturally and linguistically diverse students;

b) assessing students using a variety of assessment materials, tools and procedures; and c) analyzing and interpreting the results in light of cultural/linguistic/experiential background of the students.

In addition, they should be sensitive to the cultural values, child-rearing practices, and family/community relationships of the student if the parent’s home language is other-than-English.

See Table 2: Ecological Framework for the Assessment of other-than-English Language Speakers for a comprehensive list of student, classroom and home/community factors that should be considered when assessing a student who is an other-than-English language speaker.

24

Table 2: Ecological Framework for the Assessment of Other-than-English Language Speakers

Component 1: Student Factors Factor

Primary Outcome

Information to Gather

Language Competence

Suggested Measures

Identify most proficient Native Language Proficiency-Oral language for providing English Language Proficiency-Oral

assessment/instruction Native Language Proficiency-Rdg/Wrtg

English Language Proficiency-Rdg/Wrtg

LAS Link IPT Woodcock Munoz Running Records Language Samples

Acculturation

Determine if exhibited Behavioral and emotional adjustment to behaviors reflect stress school/Community environment due to acculturation

Acculturation Quick Screen Cross-Cultural Interview Class Observation/CBA

Determine if prior experiences are sufficient to meet academic/behavior classroom demands

Previous experiences with formal schooling Prerequisite academic skills (Native Language) Prerequisite academic skills (English Language)

Review of Records Cross-Cultural Interview with Parents and students

Compatibility of native culture values/norms with school/classroom behavioral expectations Compatibility of native culture values/norms with academic expectations

Cross-Cultural Interview Curricular Review Interview

Experiential Background

Cultural Ensure that values/norms Values/Norms are understood relative to

areas of need

Higher Order Thinking

Document critical Student use of Bloom’s Taxonomy higher order thinking skills think abilities in Native Language

used by student Student use of Bloom’s Taxonomy higher order

think abilities in English Language

Analytic teaching CBA Performance-Based Assess Work Sample Analysis

Teaching/ Learning Styles

Classroom Observations CBA Task Analysis

Ensure that differences between teaching style and preferred learning style are not mistaken for learning problem

Most used teaching styles in classroom (e.g., lecture, drill/practice, coop learning) Student styles of learning resulting in most effective educational progress

Component 2: Classroom Factors (Opportunities to Learn) Topic

Linguistic Competence

Contextualized Learning

Joint Productivity Instructional Conversation

Challenging Curriculum

Specifics to gather through Observations/Interviews Appropriate instruction; Functional language usage; Purposeful conversations; Connect current and prior experiences Home/Community culture and student experiences are reflected in instruction Activities shared by teachers/students; Interactive conversations On-going teacher-student dialogue; Form, exchange, express ideas interactively Curriculum must be appropriate and effective in challenging students cognitively

Component 3: Home/Community Factors Topic

Suggested Assessment

Primary Home Language Adjustment to new environment Education History (Family/Child)

Home Language Survey Interview/Checklist of Important Considerations Parent/Caregiver Interview/Checklist/Review Records

Copyright. From J.J. Hoover, J.K. Klinger, L.M. Baca, & J.M. Patton (2007). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

25

General education students who have other-than-English home language as determined by the Home Language Identification Survey (HLIS) and who have scored at or below the cut score on the Revised Language Assessment Battery (LAB-R) are considered to be English Language Learners (ELLs). Similarly, students who were enrolled in public school prior to September 2002 and who were administered the Language Assessment Battery (LAB), and who scored at or below the 40th percentile and have not scored at the appropriate level on the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) are also considered to be English Language Learners.

Students who have not attended a New York City public school and initially referred for evaluation, will not have a Home Language Identification Language Survey (HLIS). The social worker will administer a HLIS during the social history. The results of the HLIS will determine if the student requires a bilingual evaluation. In addition, any newly administered HLIS must be submitted to the Pupil Accounting Secretary for placement in the student’s cumulative record.

For students initially referred for evaluation, who have a Home Language Identification Survey and based upon those results a LAB-R should have been administered and was not, arrangements by the school should be made for a LAB-R to be administered.

The LAB-R must not be administered to students who are deaf. Under no circumstances should a new LAB be administered to a student who has been previously administered the LAB or the LAB-R. The LAB-R is administered only once to each incoming student. After it is determined that the student requires bilingual or ESL services, achievement in English proficiency is measured annually by the NYSESLAT. Also, for Spanish speakers, the Spanish LAB is administered only once to determine language dominance.

Students with disabilities who scored at or below the reference point on the LAB-R or NYSESLAT may not necessarily be English Language Learners as the LAB-R or NYSESLAT score may reflect the disability rather than their language skills. These students must be assessed consistent with their current program recommendation.

Students with disabilities who were identified as English Language Learners and have been recommended for bilingual services or monolingual services with ESL will continue to require bilingual assessments when it is determined that additional assessments are necessary. Students who have been recommended for monolingual services with no ESL are not considered English Language Learners on their IEPs and may have their assessments conducted in English. Note, that for accountability purposes these students are required to be administered the NYSESLAT on an annual basis until such time as they are determined English proficient based on their score on the NYSESLAT. Students with disabilities who are not participating in standardized state and City testing because of severe or profound disabilities and who have been recommended for bilingual services or monolingual services with ESL will continue to require bilingual assessments when it is determined that additional assessments are necessary. Note that these students must also be administered the NYSESLAT in accordance with New York State regulations.

Visit the NYSED website at www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/nyseslat for further information on the administration and scoring of the NYSESLAT.

Referred students who have been identified as English Language Learners must be initially assessed: 1. in both their native language and English; 2. by professionals who are bilingual in the language(s) of the student, following the assessment cascade; 3. using culturally non-biased assessments; 4. using information from parents, bilingual/ESL teachers, bilingual clinicians and others; and 5. using information which includes socio-cultural information, and academic/educational test data.

26

Con du c t i ng Bi l i ngu al As s e s s me n t s - B i l i n g ual C as cade If a bilingual assessment is required, the Bilingual Cascade must be followed. The Bilingual Cascade outlines a sequential process that ensures that the most appropriate assessment personnel are involved in assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students. The Bilingual Cascade requires that a hierarchy of steps be followed in arranging the bilingual assessments and holds that an assessment by a bilingual (in the native language of the students and in English) assessment professional who is knowledgeable about second language acquisition and the linguistic/cultural considerations of the student (Step One) is always preferred to an assessment conducted with the aid of an interpreter (Steps Two through Five). The steps (and sub-steps) of the Bilingual Cascade, arranged in order of priority are as follows:

B ilingual Casc ade - S t ep Res ou r ce

1. Bilingual Assessment Personnel (who speak the student’s native language) a) DOE bilingual assessment personnel (daytime, or a session) b) Contract Agency bilingual personnel c) Independent Non-DOE Bilingual Assessment Personnel identified through the Assessment Authorization process 2. DOE bilingual teacher serving as a trained interpreter (a session only) 3. Trained Interpreter (College Graduate) DOE paraprofessional trained interpreter Contract agency trained interpreter 4. Trained Interpreter (Non-College Graduate) DOE paraprofessional trained interpreter Contract agency trained interpreter 5. *Bilingual Community Volunteer serving as an interpreter

*NOTE: An interpreter may not be used for Spanish Assessments This step should only be taken when there are no other means available. Every effort should be made to develop ties with appropriate resources within the community for the esoteric languages spoken by students. These resources may include the United Nations, consulates, community service agencies, and community volunteers.

Step five may not be used for students from Spanish-speaking backgrounds.

Some suggestions for conducting least-biased assessments are: a. Substitution or dialectally/culturally appropriate vocabulary b. Deletion/modification of culturally inappropriate items c. Modification of scoring criteria (correct/incorrect), according to examiner’s knowledge of student’s culture/dialect/language d. Use of cues e. Explicit instruction, beyond that allowed in administration criteria f. Information about correctness of responses g. Use of practice items h. Explicit instruction, beyond that allowed in administration criteria i. Allowing for longer response time j. Probing for reasons behind student responses k. Modification/substitution of test stimuli l. Alternation to test format in length or selection of test items m. Translation. (See section on Translated Tests) n. Administration in alternate location to reduce formality o. Oral reading of test items p. Overt recognition of correct answers q. Modification of test stimuli, such as using larger print

27

Any modification of test administration deviating from standard protocol invalidates the use of normative comparisons. Therefore any modifications used must be documented and clearly discussed in the report (de Valenzuela & Baca, 2004).

For re-evaluations and mandated three year reviews, the student’s language must be considered for any additional tests or program changes. The purpose of the annual review and mandated three year review evaluation for ELL students is the same as for monolingual students: to update the ELL student’s present levels of educational performance in both languages and to analyze and document instructional needs.

Language Proficiency Testing The purpose of language testing has been to determine language dominance or language proficiency (Kayser, 2001). The terms have not been defined in the literature and are often used as synonymous (Valdes & Figueroa, l994). Dominance is defined as “a controversial term usually indicating language spoken most fluently” (Goldstein, 2000). However, one approach to testing for language dominance “is obtained by measuring the individual’s performance across a narrow variety of tasks in each of the two languages and then comparing the two languages (Kayser, 2001). Another approach to testing for language dominance is “ to compare the individual’s performance on a set of tasks in each language with the performance of monolingual speakers of each language” (Kayser, 2001).

Language proficiency describes the language development of the student in listening, speaking, reading and writing. According to Gottlieb, (1999), “its purpose is to document student’s progress over time and determine whether learning standards are being attained through support service or language programs (Gottlieb, 1999).

The language testing should be measured at different levels (classroom intervention programs and informal/ formal assessment tools) using formal and informal measures in different contexts.

Interpretation/Interpreter vs. Translation/Translator Interpretation/interpreter refers to oral or gestural communication between two or more people.

Translation/Translator refers to transferring ideas expressed in writing from one language to another.

When a student is in need of a bilingual assessment and there is no qualified professional at the school, the school psychologist notifies the CSE for assistance in obtaining a qualified professional. The school psychologist maintains responsibility for the case.

Translated Tests and the Use of Interpreters It is often necessary for assessment professionals to use or develop material in languages other than English. At the same time, it is generally not good practice to translate standardized assessments into other languages. The translation of standardized tests may change the nature of the tasks in unintended ways. Some adaptations of tests into other languages may permit the examiner to observe student’s abilities in the behavior being sampled.

However, standardized tests that have been translated cannot be interpreted in terms of the standardized scoring.

Tests that have been translated and normed for another language should be used in accordance with the DOE guidelines.

Whenever possible, it is preferable for students whose primary language or mode of communication is not Standard English to be evaluated by a certified bilingual psychologist. However, students who speak languages other than English or Spanish may need to be assessed with the use of an interpreter due to the unavailability of appropriately certified assessment professionals. When using an interpreter, the assessment professionals must choose or create assessment tasks that will measure more than the student’s proficiency in English. Any material to be used with the student should be created and discussed before meeting with the student. Instantaneous translation and interpretation of materials is poor practice and is to be avoided. Test scores cannot be reported from an assessment of a student who is an English Language Learner. The interpretation of the student’s performance through the use of the interpreter must be qualitative and descriptive.

28

The Briefing-Interpreting-Debriefing Sequence Any time an interpreter is used during an evaluation, the assessment professional should meet with the interpreter to discuss the referral questions, the nature of the assessment tasks, and the examiner’s expectations before meeting the student. The interpreter may interact more with the student than the assessment professional during the course of the evaluation session in order to encourage the use of the native language and put the student at ease.

If it is determined that a bilingual assessment is needed, this must be done by bilingual assessment staff. It will include an evaluation of cognitive academic language proficiency in both languages. When substantial changes in services are necessary or requested, consideration of the student’s language is still required for any additional tests or program changes. The purpose of the annual review and mandated three year review evaluation for ELL students is the same as for monolingual students: to update the ELL student’s present levels of educational performance in both languages and to analyze and document instructional needs. The same guidelines to determine if a bilingual assessment is needed apply to the mandated three year review evaluation.

Language Assessment Issues critical to second language development are discussed in detail in the Tier I and II sections of this guide.

At a Special Education Evaluation, the student’s development in both languages should be assessed and levels of proficiency in different skill areas (i.e., oral expression, written expression, reading) established. Keep in mind the various factors that affect the development of competency in English (i.e., years of exposure to English, level of acquisition and mastery of the first language, etc.). One must also consider the current second language acquisition research indicating that:

1 . The processes of first and second language acquisition tend to be similar. Social and affective factors play an important role in determining how the second language is perceived and assimilated.

2. The utilization of the basic interpersonal communication skills developed in the first language can be readily transferred socially to the second language when there is appropriate social interaction and support.

3. Second language communication skills in social situations are not predictive of success with language in academic settings. Some CLD students are able to learn English well enough to communicate socially. Their cognitive/academic language proficiency in the second language, however, may not have developed sufficiently to function equally well at the conceptual level in the classroom. It is important to see this as a natural stage progression in second language acquisition (which may need bilingual school service) rather than as an indicator of learning disability.

Language assessment should also consider the differences between the phonological and grammatical systems of English and the student’s other-than-English language. Some errors can be expected as a result of those differences. This should not be considered a speech or language disorder. In assessing the student’s abilities in both languages, the particular social dialect and/or language used by his/her community should be used as the norm. In this connection, note such variables as the language in the student’s environment during his/her development, the age of the student when the second language was introduced and the manner in which this introduction was made. For some students English may even be their third language. Some students may speak an indigenous language, a second language, and English as their third language.

The language assessment of the CLD student is crucial in distinguishing between two factors: the lack of proficiency in English as a consequence of a normal second-language acquisition process, and a general language disorder.

Some students who have been referred may only need appropriate bilingual services while remaining in general education. If a language disorder is suspected, a bilingual speech and language assessment is required.

29

Psychoeducational Assessment of CLD Students Currently there are few norm-referenced, individually administered instruments for assessing CLD students’ academic achievement. It should be stressed that standardized tests are valid only for those populations included in the standardization sample. If a test used to assess a CLD student is not appropriate for that student, informal assessment using the content of that test or other assessment tools may be the best alternative. When these are used, clinicians must describe the tasks presented, how they were presented, the student’s responses and the basis for the conclusions drawn from the behaviors described.

Clinicians must keep in mind, and make every effort to avoid, the difficulties inherent in the use of translated tests that can seriously compromise efforts at fair assessment, including the following points: 1. Words used to describe tasks and as part of test items might not be of equivalent level of difficulty across the languages.

2. Items used to assess abilities and skills at specific age levels or grade levels might not be of equivalent levels of difficulty for the two cultures.

3. Items and pictures used to assess abilities may be culture-specific and may not be present in student’s native culture (e.g., “bacon” for breakfast question presented to Muslim or Israeli student).

4. Psychological constructs are not necessarily constant in meaning and interpretation across languages and cultures.

5. Translating items and instructions into the CLD youngster’s native language might confuse rather than help the student who has begun to associate certain concepts and content with English.

If appropriate norms are not available for the standardized tests, the information collected should be of a descriptive nature. Psychologists must exercise care in reporting these test results.

Scores may not be used for indicating the student’s current performance when they have been obtained from tests whose language has been translated (but not standardized on the basis of the student’s cultural group) or translated by the examiner during the assessment processes. The information collected and reported in this context should be of a descriptive nature. Reports should state the languages in which the tests were administered, and whether an interpreter was used during the assessment. An interpreter is to be used only after efforts have been made (and documented) to obtain the services of a bilingual assessment specialist.

The assessor must be aware that often ELL youngsters feel compelled to use English although their comprehension is more competent in another language; furthermore, some ELL youngsters have limited vocabularies in both languages. These limitations will impact on their scores. For these reasons, assessment in the native language should be done first before it is done in English.

Social/Cultural Considerations When assessing students and families from different cultural backgrounds, the concept of “assessment” versus “testing” becomes extremely relevant. Social/cultural determinants impinge upon behavioral responses and reactions to learning situations. In this regard, the student’s environment and its social norms, the characteristics of his/her religious, economic and language experiences are of particular importance. Therefore, additional means of assessing students and their needs should be used (e.g., observations, interviews, review of records, informal measures, etc.). Testing information should be supplemented by all other social/cultural information available to the assessor.

If an assessment is conducted under non-standard conditions, a description of the extent to which the assessment varied from standard conditions shall be included in the evaluation report. This information is needed so that the team of evaluators can assess the effects of these variances on the validity and reliability of the information reported and determines whether additional assessments are needed. For example, the use of a translator when a qualified bilingual professional is not available may create non-standard conditions.

There are differences in the ways various socio-economic and cultural groups perceive education services and disabling conditions. Some groups, for example, perceive the school and teacher as the primary

30

sources of knowledge about the student’s educational needs; others view their own family and/or the resources within their own culture or community as the principal sources of help for their youngster.

Assessment personnel should keep in mind that there are difficulties in precisely identifying or categorizing behavior patterns within any given culture. There may be both simultaneous diversities and similarities within any social group. Some students, for example, may be stereotyped and misunderstood because they live under the influence of two cultures (home and neighborhood as opposed to school and the socially dominant culture). In addition to having experienced primary socialization in the culture of origin, members of minority groups are also acculturated into the mainstream environment by media influences, by exposure to varying social institutions, political and economic ideologies, etc; furthermore, family patterns may differ considerably within cultures and reinforce various behavioral patterns.

The extended family is often an integral part of recent immigrants’ social environment, serving as a support system and a resource for assistance. For example, poor attendance patterns may be due to the need of families to use their children as interpreters. Whatever the nature of other influences, it is well to remember that the family remains as the primary group that provides formative socialization experiences and communication skills that affect social/cultural, ethnic and religious responses and behavior. Consideration should be given to the influence of peers, both from the student’s native language and culture as well as the influence of new friends and peers in the school setting.

Religious practices and beliefs of different ethnic and cultural groups are intertwined with values and behaviors which are very much part of the individual’s world. These factors should be taken into account during the psycho-educational assessment interviews, the social history review, and in the interpretation of test performance (especially projective test responses). This process will enable school personnel to identify a range of elements that are to be validated so that further learning can be facilitated. Taking into consideration the widest range of factors can prevent the error of labeling as pathological those experiences that were inherited within a functioning cultural system.

Assessment personnel should therefore collect all possible information in order to rule out, to the extent possible, linguistic, cultural or ethnic differences as the primary explanation of the stated referral or assessment problem.

Such information should be written in the assessment reports.

Critical Questions for Consideration during the Referral and Assessment Process It is imperative to determine whether “symptoms” indicating a possible disability may actually be expressions of a variety of environmental conditions that are yet to be determined. In this regard the following questions should be considered: What is the student’s language proficiency in his/her native language, as well as in English?

In regard to the student’s relative proficiency in the two language skills (expressive/receptive), is there a difference in expressive language as opposed to receptive language?

Does the student demonstrate a lack of adaptive behavior in the home and community environment, as well as in the school environment?

Is the student’s problem based upon a language difference or a true learning disability?

Is the problem a matter of adjusting to a new setting, i.e., a school environment, a particular classroom, etc?

Have native language and ESL approaches been used in the provision of academic intervention services to the students?

Has the student ever been placed in a bilingual or ESL program?

Has the immigrant student had time to adjust to his/her new environment?

How certain are we that the student truly requires special education services?

Teams may use the following form to substantiate the presence of a disability in conjunction with second language acquisition needs:

31

STATEMENT OF CO-EXISTENCE OF DISABILITY AND LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY Student Name ____________________ DOB __________ CSE# ________ OSIS __________ 1) Is there evidence in the history, observations, and reports of:

YES

NO

YES

NO

An inability to learn information presented in BOTH the native language and English?

Academic difficulty over a long period of time and across content areas despite the delivery of instruction according to the student’s linguistic and cultural needs?

Academic difficulty to an extreme which warrants intensive intervention?

Pre-referral provision of academic intervention services provided according to the student’s linguistic and cultural needs?

Psycho-educational evaluations that are a fair representation of the student’s cognitive and linguistic needs?

Informal assessments that accurately portray both the student’s present level of cognitive functioning and level of English language proficiency?

2) Is there evidence that the student’s disability and Limited English Proficiency:

Is due to a lack of instruction in reading or math?

Is due to prolonged absence from school?

Is due to disruption in formal education?

NOTE: If “YES” is selected in any of the columns in item 2, the team must attach a rationale explaining the presence of a disability despite these conditions.

NOTE (Check if applicable):

32

o Due to the lack of appropriate test instruments, the team assessed this student using non-standardized techniques and is, therefore, unable to apply the formula. A statement explaining where the discrepancies are found is attached. o Although this student does not exhibit a severe discrepancy, the team believes the student is learning disabled. A statement explaining the team’s reasons for determining the student is learning disabled is attached.

Based on the data in the observations and reports, there is a coexistence of a disability and Limited English Proficiency. This student requires special education supports and or services, as described on the IEP, to benefit from instruction. ___________YES__________________NO Signatures: _______________________Parent/Legal Guardian ___________________General Education Teacher

__Monolingual __Bilingual

_______________________District Representative ___________________Special Education Teacher

__Monolingual __Bilingual

_______________________School Social Worker

__Monolingual _Bilingual

___________________ School Psychologist __Monolingual ___Bilingual

_______________________Other

__Monolingual __Bilingual

* One member of the team must be bilingual.

This Statement of Coexistence of Disability and Limited English Proficiency is available in reproducible form in Appendix_G_

33

Reminders to School Assessment Team/IEP Team I. Prior to administration of any assessment, it is mandated that the School Assessment Team/IEP Team: 1. Determines the language primarily spoken in the student’s home, the culture with which they generally identify, and their preferred mode of communication (e.g., expressive, gesture, etc.)

2. Determines the student’s level of English Language Proficiency II. Each evaluation must be linguistically and culturally non-discriminatory. Therefore, the School Assessment Team (IEP Team) must ensure that: 1. The content of assessment tools is culturally relevant.

2. In the case of hearing and/or language impairment, that the assessment process is not reliant upon expressive language and provides for either visual support of auditory transmissions or an interpreter to assist with the assessment. Clinicians should note that some hearing impaired/deaf ELLs may respond to native sign language versus American Sign Language. For example, there is Chinese sign language.

3. The language used to evaluate the student must be consistent with the primary language of the home or other mode of communication. If the student’s language use pattern is reflective of two or more languages or modes of communication, the student must be evaluated by bilingual specialists who are qualified in each language and/or mode of communication. For all initials, reviews, and mandated three year reviews of ELLs, there must be at least one bilingual member of the team.

4. Upon the documentation of an appropriate number of unsuccessful attempts to secure a qualified bilingual specialist to administer the evaluations, an employee of the New York City DOE who has demonstrated competencies in the language of the child may act as translator for a qualified monolingual specialist and the student throughout test administration. The School Assessment Team must document this arrangement within the evaluation report, as it is representative of “non-standard” testing conditions.

5. If no bilingual personnel are available to assist a qualified monolingual specialist in test administration, the School Assessment Team must utilize assessment instruments which are not reliant upon language (e.g., observation, portfolio review). The School Assessment Team must document this arrangement within the evaluation report, as it is representative of “non-standard” testing conditions.

III. Evaluations of ELLs suspected of a need for special education services should entail: 1. All of the components of a comprehensive psycho-educational evaluation as the evaluation process for monolingual students; AND 2. Assessment of Language Proficiency (across content areas).

IV. Special Considerations for the Evaluation of ELLs with Suspected Disabilities: 1. Utilize qualitative data from a variety of sources (e.g., student interview, student observation, teacher input, review of classwork).

2. Utilize informal assessment data derived from performance-based assessments, criterion-referenced tests, and curriculum-based assessments in determining a student’s level of academic performance.

3. Interpret data resulting from standardized assessments with caution as cultural and linguistic relevance can vary widely. Also, assessment results may be reflective of achievement level rather than actual intellectual or learning aptitude.

4. A test developed in any given language (e.g. Spanish) may not be appropriate for all speakers of that language due to a range of dialects, so caution must be taken in selection of tests and interpretation of resultant data. For example, a test normed with Dominican and Puerto Rican students may not be valid for some Mexican students.

34

V.

Modification of Bilingual/ESL Services for ELLs with a Disability:

The following practices and procedures should be followed to change the English language proficiency level or to exit an ELL with disabilities from receiving bilingual/ESL services: 1. When necessary, make accommodations and adaptations to the language test materials and assessment procedures (e.g., extended time, large print, use of computer, etc.). These accomm odations should be documented on the IEP and on the language proficienct assessment report; 2. A language proficiency test measuring oral as well as reading and writing skills must be administered to determine the level of language proficiency of ELLs suspected of having a disability or ELLs already receiving special education services; 3. When the administration of standardized language proficiency tests is not possible, even with accommodations and modifications, authentic assessment procedures should be used, such as observations, analysis of language samples, use of developmental inventories; etc.

4. Note that if the recommendation of the IEP is that the student participate in alternate assessment the NYSESLAT must still be given on an annual basis.

Decisions about the current English language proficiency level and/or whether an ELL with disabilities continues to regional bilingual/ESL services are made at IEP meetings.

The following conditions should be considered: 1. Are the student’s low oral and academic language skills in English associated with the issues pertaining to second language acquisition?

2. How do student’s English language skills compare to those of native English speaking children of the same age and with the same disabilities?

3. It should be noted that if the IEP recommends the student no longer needs special education services or bilingual/ESL services, the student must take and pass the NYSESLAT in order to exit as an ELL. Observation as an Assessment Technique Good clinical practice in schools has always included a thorough exploration of the environment within which learning and behavior occur. Referrals for assessment sometimes indicate concerns that are unnecessarily global and undifferentiated, for example, statements such as “John’s behavior is dangerous”; “Mary is depressed and withdrawn”; “Tom hates school”. In addition, referrals might contain statements which may or may not be accurate, e.g., “Jose never hands in homework or Elissa is always out of her seat.” Direct observation of the student should clarify the referral problem and distinguish between actual and hastily perceived behavior.

It is mandated that at least one member of the assessment team should conduct one structured observation of the student in the primary setting, or a second observation for referrals where the presenting problem is behavioral. When observing a CLD student, care must be taken to assure that: 1.

2.

3.

4.

the observer should be familiar with the student’s language and culture the youngster’s behavior is compared to the behavior of children of similar cultural backgrounds the effects of language usage by both the youngster and the teacher is considered the impact of cultural factors that might cause misinterpretation of observed behaviors

One of the goals of school observations conducted within the natural school environment, (e.g., classroom, hallways, lunchroom, playground), is to view the student in a context that includes the actual persons and settings where the dysfunctional activities occur. In this manner, the team can obtain a description of school behavior that requires less inference on the part of the observer. Comparisons can be made between the referred student and other youngsters in her/his class only if these students are of similar cultural background.

Students are typically referred for assessment because of difficulties in a group situation; therefore, behavior and learning which are observable in the formal testing phase of assessment may differ considerably from that which occurs in a group setting. Familiarity with different settings provides a range of information needed

35

to complete a valid assessment and design an appropriate educational program for the student.

If a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is required or a subsequent Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) is developed the linguistic and cultural needs of the student must be considered and incorporated.

36

Co m pone nt s of C u l t u r al l y/L i n g ui s t i cal l y Val i d As s e s s me n t Circle Y (Yes) for each item after it is addressed in the Assessment of CLD learners

Item

Description

Red Flag

Appropriate Decision Point Occurs When:

Opportunities to Learn

Student is taught knowledge and skills assessed in a manner consistent with most proficient language, prior experiences, length of time spent in US schools, cultural values

Few/no provisions and/ or accommodations are made to address second language needs, proficient language abilities, acculturation levels or cultural values

Student is taught in most proficient language, has been provided numerous and appropriate opportunities to acquire knowledge/skills

Relevant Classroom Observation

Class observation is conducted by educator knowledgeable in the student’s culture/language and in the content area being observed. Observer looks for five critical opportunities to learn: Linguistic Competence, Contextualized Learning, Joint Productivity, Instructional Conversation, Challenging Curriculum

Observer lacks cultural or language background and/or one or more of the five critical opportunities to learn are not evident

Highly qualified observer completes one or more classroom observations and is able to observe and clearly document evidence of 5 critical aspects reflecting opportunities to learn

Determining Cultural and Linguistic Factors

Six important cultural linguistic factors include Language Competence Acculturation; Experiential Background; Culture Values; Higher Order Thinking; Teaching/ Learning Styles

Student skills and abilities in these areas along with specific considerations relative to a suspected problem are NOT identified and considered

Student abilities and development in these six areas are clearly identified and documented

Parent/Home Values/ Norms Identified

Various home and parental values and norms must be identified and understood including primary language, acculturation, time in the community, access to and use of community resources, participation in school/community

Parents are not consulted and/or educators do not know specific home or community values/ norms

Parents provide input to help educators best understand the child; Educators are very familiar with the home and community culture/ values and are able to relate this knowledge to the learning situation

Y

Y

Y

Y

37

Item

Description

Red Flag

Appropriate Decision Point Occurs When:

Appropriate Language Usage

Student is assessed in most proficient language; Student is taught in most Proficient language and/ or ESL methods are used

Most proficient language is unknown or child receives little instruction in proficient language and/or is NOT academically assessed in most proficient language; ESL methods are NOT used

Student is assessed in most proficient language and taught through use of ESL methods and/or most proficient language

Valid Instruments

All assessment instruments used must be valid and reliable for their intended purposes and targeted populations

Assessment devices used were NOT developed with sufficient samples of the population for which they are used to make educational decisions

Assessment devices used to make educational decisions are valid and reliable for use with CLD learners

Valid Process

The assessment process and all components (e.g., observations, interviews, formal testing, classroom based testing) must be culturally and linguistically appropriate

Assessment process is conducted by individuals lacking cultural competence and/or linguistic knowledge

Assessment process reflects cultural and linguistic competence and values

Y

Y

Y

Copyright. Adapted from J.J. Hoover (in press). Differentiating learning differences from disabilities: Meeting diverse needs through multi-tiered response to intervention. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Components of Culturally/Linguistically Valid Assessment is available in reproducible form in Appendix H.

38

I n s t r u m e nt S e l e ct i o n an d Admi n i s t r at i o n When selecting a battery of psychological and educational tests to be individually administered there must be a clear idea of the questions which need to be answered and appropriate techniques available to elicit the answers. In selecting a test, consideration must be given to the properties of the instrument. A particular skill cannot be accurately measured if the demands of the test are too difficult for the student to meet. Sensitivity to any special limitation a student may have, e.g., first or second language problems or coordination, may enter into the decision regarding appropriate techniques and/or test to use. This is particularly important to assure that students can reasonably understand the demands of the test.

Another major issue to consider in test selection relates to the content domain or type of test to be given. If the evaluator is interested in the student’s actual level of mastery in a particular area, then a criterion-referenced test or curriculum based measures may be most appropriate. If the concern is with comparing this student with others from similar backgrounds, a norm-referenced test may be most appropriate. Norm-referenced tests yield scores which give the relative standing of the student compared to others of comparable age/grade. Criterionreferenced tests and curriculum-based measures assess development of a particular skill in terms of mastery level and lend themselves directly to the specific instructional objectives needed to formulate an Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Standardized tests may, in all instances, be considered valid only for those populations included in the standardization population of the test. Their use for CLD students and other students of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds demand caution. Attention should also be given to languages with different alphabets, directionality of the writing, tonal and pictorial languages.

Choosing the administration of a relevant test for a particular purpose is necessary and important. Awareness should also be given to the fact that various countries have different approaches of doing mathematical operations such as: division and the writing of decimal points rather than the use of commas for numbers (i.e., 2.000 versus 2,000). In comparison to the United States, Latin America and Asia use different mathematical symbols.

A particular student may have a special limitation which renders a test inappropriate. For example, if a student cannot write a response, then a test requiring this ability is inappropriate because such a test would measure inability in writing rather than skills in a particular subject area. Assessment tools that incorporate Universal Design and provide students with a variety of ways of demonstrating performance should be used. In addition, students who have physical challenges and/or who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems, hearing aids, eye glasses, or other assistive devices should be assessed while the student is using those items.

39

ORAL L AN GUAGE Ove r vi ew In order for a youngster to succeed in school, some degree of competence must be demonstrated in the areas of listening to and comprehending oral language, and orally expressing thoughts and ideas. Oral language abilities also form the basis for the development of reading, written expression, and mathematics skills. Multiple aspects of cognitive and language ability and development come into play to produce a student’s observable language competencies. From a top down perspective, a student needs to have developed age appropriate capabilities for processing the basic language components of phonology and syntax (grammar and morphology) and be able to apply reasoning and working memory processes with language content. Also, the student’s store of word knowledge and information about a topic will greatly constrain the child’s ability to comprehend what is being said and to express thoughts about what is being discussed. From a bottom-up perspective, the student must be able to attend to orally presented verbal information and be able to discriminate sounds effectively enough to initially encode oral language and organize and hold it in working memory.

Several stages of language acquisition have been identified in the literature on language development. By the time a child has reached Kindergarten, important milestones in native language development are expected to have been achieved in all but the most severely language impaired children. Development in phonological, semantic, and pragmatic language abilities will be the areas of greatest development and concern for school age youngsters. It is important to keep in mind that a youngster learning English as a second language, also progresses through various stages of development in their acquisition of the new language, as well as engaging cognitive processes specific to the learning of a new language. The special circumstances confronting culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) youngsters must be considered whenever questions about language competency are raised. (See the Tier I and II sections of this guide for more discussion of second language acquisition.)

Oral language assessments focus on expressive and receptive language abilities. Oral expression has to do with the production of speech sounds and the use of language to convey meaning. Motor disorders (articulation difficulties, etc.) are also addressed within the oral expression language ability domain. Receptive language abilities involve attaching meaning to auditory input and are often referred to as “listening comprehension” abilities. The special circumstances confronting CLD youngsters must be considered whenever questions about language skills are raised (see Tier I and II sections of this manual).

S p ee c h and L an g uag e As s e s s me n t s Screening is the process of identifying candidates for formal evaluation. Screenings may be conducted by using published or informal screening measures administered by the speech language pathologist. Screening needs to be done in both the native language and in English for a CLD student. Standardized checklists, questionnaires, interviews, or observations may be considered as screening measures (ASHA, 2000).

Speech and Language evaluations are an integral part of a student’s evaluation process. It provides vital information about the language competence and language performance of the student given the language demands of the classroom and curriculum. The assessment is concerned about the student as a meaning maker. Results from formal and informal measures provide information about the student’s strengths and weaknesses, needs and emergent abilities in accessing the general education curriculum. These strengths and needs are considered within the broader context of the classroom, home and community (ASHA, 2000). The purpose of a speech and language evaluation is to determine whether the student has a speech and language difference, delay or disorder. The evaluator should consider the use of both informal (checklists, questionnaires, observational rating forms, and formal measures (e.g., CELF-4 test, language samples, etc.).

40

Once the results of assessment are interpreted, the analysis may also reveal differences in the components of language (form-phonologic, morphologic, and syntactic systems), content (semantic system), or function/use of language in communication (pragmatic system). All of these develop simultaneously, with interactions occurring between and among them (Fahey & Reid, 2000). A description for each component of language is listed as follows:

Dom ai ns f or C ons i der at i on in t h e As s e s s me n t o f O r a l L an g uag e Skills Effective communication abilities are built on the foundation of basic language competencies that develop over time. Frameworks for describing these basic competencies typically divide these into categories that include phonology, syntax and morphology, semantics, pragmatics, and prosody.

Phonology refers to speech sounds that form the words of a spoken language. A unit of sound is called a phoneme. In receptive language, youngsters must be able to discriminate between individual speech sounds (phonemes). In oral expression, children must be able to orally produce speech sounds (articulate) in order for speech to be easily understood by the listener. Assessment of phonology is also an important part of a comprehensive assessment of a youngster’s reading skills (see the Reading section of this guide).

Lexicon refers to a base of stored verbal knowledge previously required by the student to utilize during communication regarding stories and content area topics.

Syntax refers to the way words are put together to convey meaning. A youngster’s implicit grasp of syntax involves an understanding of the internal structure of a language including the order in which the elements of a language can occur and the relationship among the elements when speaking. The term Grammar is usually used to describe the explicit statement of the rules governing the syntax of the spoken and written forms of a language. Grammar therefore conveys the principles or rules for speaking or writing according to the underlying conventions of syntactic form and use of a language, including verb tenses. Morphology is typically included within the area of syntax although it is really a construct that bridges phonology and syntax. Morphemes can be defined as the smallest meaningful unit of language that has a differential function. Morphology refers to how morphemes are put together to form words. A youngster’s grasp of the morphology of a language includes an understanding of how plurals are formed for various words, how verbs are changed to reflect tense, how adjectives are changed to reflect degree, negation, possession, and the various parts of speech a word can assume. For example, in the Chinese system plural markers are not used. A student from that language background who is learning English may say “two doll” instead of “two dolls.” That does not reflect a disability but rather reflects the student’s application of Chinese grammatical rules to English and indicates that the student may be at the Speech Emergence stage of second language acquisition.

Semantics refers to the meaning of words and the meaning conveyed when these words are assembled into sentences. Competency in semantic processing of a language is necessary in order to understand what others mean as they speak and to effectively communicate ones thoughts to others. Important aspects of semantic language abilities include understanding the multiple meanings of a single word and when each meaning is applicable and a grasp of figurative use of language such as metaphors and similes. Semantic language abilities are shaped by a youngster’s cultural background and life experiences.

Pragmatics refers to the effective use of language within a given context or social situation. Competency in pragmatic communication involves knowing what to say and how to say something to a specific person or group of persons in the context of a specific social situation. Pragmatics also includes the understanding of nonverbal aspects of communication including establishing the intentions of a speaker and the meanings of subtleties communicated in actions that precede, accompany, or follow speech. Like semantics, pragmatic language abilities are deeply influenced by a youngster’s cultural background and life experiences. Competency in the pragmatic use of language is necessary to achieve academic success as so much of schooling is dependent on knowing how to communicate thoughts under specific circumstances.

41 41

Prosody refers to an understanding and correct use of the speech rhythm and intonation patterns of a language.

As is the case with semantics and pragmatics, prosody is shaped by the youngster’s cultural background and life experiences.

While these basic constructs are used to describe the foundation of all languages, the specifics of each of these constructs varies extensively across, and even within, each particular language. In order to accurately characterize a youngster’s native language competencies, an evaluator must be aware of the youngster’s cultural background, life experiences, and the community that has shaped the specific aspects of the youngster’s development of language abilities.

A s s e s s i ng O r a l L a n g uat e Ac h i eve me n t at S p e c i al E ducat i o n E val uat i o n When to Assess Oral Language Oral language skills should be assessed when the referral indicates an inability to profit from effective instruction directed at the improvement of oral language skills, especially when instruction has properly included components to address the development of language skills in both the native language and English. CLD youngsters should be assessed at Special Education Evaluation if the concerns related to second language acquisition have been addressed but communication problems persist. Bilingual Speech and Language Clinicians are to be involved in the assessment of the oral language skills of youngsters who are CLD if a specific disability (e.g., speech impairment or other impairment such as autism that may also involve a communication disorder) is suspected.

When oral language remains a concern after appropriate instructional efforts, one or more of the following difficulties are likely to be reported: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

poor ability to express thoughts verbally excessive use of simple or incomplete sentences articulation difficulties or speech that others have difficulty understanding difficulty with word retrieval inability to organize discourse effectively difficulty following spoken directions (especially several steps in sequence)

Areas Assessed When Oral Language Problems Are Identified When the conditions for a Special Education Evaluation comprehensive assessment are met, an assessment of the youngster’s expressive and receptive language capabilities and the processes underlying these skills should be completed by a Speech/Language Therapist. The youngster also should receive a speech evaluation by the Speech/Language Therapist when articulation and other obvious physical speech production difficulties are noted.

In addition to assessment conducted by a Speech/Language Therapist, information about oral communication skills can be obtained from tests typically administered by school psychologists as part of their psycho-educational battery. Those results should be used to supplement the testing efforts of the Speech/Language Therapist.

In the case of a youngster who is an English Language Learner, great care must be taken to first characterize the youngster’s language abilities and skills in terms of their native language or the language they naturally use to communicate at home or in the community. Assessing the level of capacity with communication skills in English is also important, however, as long as this information is used to assist in the planning and implementation of an appropriate educational program for the student that supports the student in, rather than excluding the student from, mainstream educational experiences.

Listening Comprehension (Receptive Language) Assessing listening comprehension is a good way to determine the extent to which the youngster possesses some of the requisite pragmatic language skills necessary to understand and respond to communications.

Throughout this section, a major distinction will be made between Basic Interpersonal Communicative

42

Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). This distinction is especially important to appreciate when dealing with CLD youngsters and extremely relevant to listening comprehension, where a youngster can display an extremely large discrepancy between the ability to understand language in everyday social contexts and the ability to understand language as it is used in more academic ways.

Because BICS and CALP language abilities are much more likely to dissociate for students with learning and language problems or CLD youngsters, psychologists are advised to include one or more formal measures of listening comprehension, such as the WISC-IV Word Reasoning for CALP and the CELF-IV Understanding Spoken Paragraphs for BICS, to have a good understanding of the student’s English language facility in each of these areas. When such formal measures are not used, the psychologist can employ informal means for assessing listening comprehension skills, but the distinction between BICS and CALP should be kept in mind and addressed in these informal efforts.

Listening comprehension requires the ability to attend to orally presented verbal information long enough to engage in effective encoding of what is being said. Youngsters with difficulties in this area do not always encode all of the important aspects of an oral communication. When this occurs, understanding of what others have said is often compromised.

When scores on formal listening comprehension measures are high, a strong case can be made for good ability to encode spoken language and comprehend the encoded information as a basis for accurate responding.

When scores are low, however, alternate explanations involving component process difficulties must be explored, such as: inability to focus and sustain attention, poor auditory working memory processes, poor understanding of syntax, poor semantic knowledge base, poor retrieval processes, or poor direction of the use of adequate auditory working memory or retrieval processes. For CLD students, adequate assessment of English listening comprehension abilities will require an understanding of where in the developmental process the child is in the acquisition of English language.

Oral Expression skills are extremely important in school settings and in the community. The ability to communicate thoughts, needs, opinions, and ideas clearly and effectively is a strong asset. Youngsters with good language comprehension and reasoning skills but deficient expressive language skills are at risk of having their cognitive skills undervalued and misunderstood along with negative judgments of their academic potential. Teachers who depend on participation in class through verbal discussion to inform them of a student’s progress in learning new material and retaining previously learned information will often underestimate the learning abilities and knowledge base of a child with expressive language difficulties.

Oral Language Assessment Measures The Speech/Language Therapist is usually called upon to answer specific referral questions related to the oral communication skills of a student referred for Special Education Evaluation assessment when language development and use are a primary concern of the referral. A number of tests, dedicated to the needs of a speech and language evaluation, are at the disposal of the Speech/Language Therapist. School psychologists should coordinate their testing efforts with the Speech/Language Therapist and determine the assessment instruments each will administer in order to answer the referral question(s).

Before selecting an assessment method, several factors should be taken into account: 1. What oral language skill the measure or method assesses 2. How the selected measure or method measures those language skills 3. Technical properties of the measure or method, including reliability and validity of the procedures and adequacy of normative or curricular comparisons For the school psychologist, information about oral language skills is often obtained through: 1. Observations (classroom, home, community) 2. Informally during testing situation 3. Sub-test information obtained during cognitive assessment (e.g., Vocabulary from the WISC) 4. Information provided by the parents and teachers

43

Although standardized assessments provide valuable norm-referenced information about skill levels, psychologists must be careful to include other information collected during the referral and evaluation process in their overall assessment of a student’s skill acquisition.

The following is a partial list of applicable oral language assessment measures. School psychologists are to use their expertise and discretion in selecting appropriate measures to assess skills development for individual students.

Examples of tests which may be useful to the school psychologist when assessing oral language skills include: Listening Comprehension 1. KTEA-II Listening Comprehension 2. CELF-4 Understanding Spoken Paragraphs 3. CELF-4 Semantic Relationships 4. KAIT (ages 11 and up) Auditory Comprehension 5. CASL- Listening Comprehension 6. WISC-IV Word Reasoning 7. NEPSY Comprehension of Instructions 8. CELF-4 Concepts and Following Directions Note: WIAT-II Listening Comprehension is not included in this list because it is a combination of listening comprehension items combined with a set of receptive vocabulary and a set of expressive vocabulary items, and therefore is too confounded with vocabulary knowledge demands to effectively serve as a measure of listening comprehension for either BICS or CALP, although it is more likely to provide scores that are more consistently in line with CALP than BICS. Oral Expression Some achievement tests include sub-tests designed to assess Oral Expression, such as the KTEA-II Oral Expression Sub-test and the WIAT-II Oral Expression Sub-test. Several other tests that are often used to assess oral language skills include: The Test of Language Development-Primary Level (TOLD-P:3), The Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS),The Test of Adolescent Language (TOAL- 3), The Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-Third Edition (TACL-3). Bilingual speech providers are using the Spanish version of the (SLAP).

Elements to Include When Describing Oral Language Assessment Results from Standardized Achievement Tests Describe performance in each area assessed. Interpretation should focus on the tasks performed, and therefore description should be organized by sub-test. When a Composite score is discussed in the interpretive section, the Composite description and interpretation should precede the discussion of the sub-tests that comprise that composite. Composite interpretation should only be done when the performance on the sub-tests that comprise the composite is highly consistent. Composites should not be a focus of interpretation when performance on the sub-tests that comprise the composite is inconsistent (producing statistically significant differences in the levels of performance on the sub-tests).

For each sub-test: 1. describe the tasks performed; 2. describe the level of performance obtained, including but not necessarily limited to, norm-referenced scores; 3. describe the relevant specific behaviors observed while the student was performing the task; and 4. when applicable, describe how performance may have been influenced for CLD students.

If sub-test administration was modified or sub-test items were adapted to accommodate a CLD student, report the modifications and adaptations and apply the proper interpretive approach to characterize the student’s oral language skills. Compare the results of the same type obtained when testing the native language.

44

READIN G Ove r vi ew The act of reading is based on an integration of many cognitive abilities and processes and stored knowledge bases. Effective readers employ a variety of skills and strategies to recognize the words on the page, process them efficiently, and derive meaning from what was read. Because of the complexity of the reading process, it is important that all aspects of the act of reading be carefully considered when problems are identified.

ASSESSMENT OF SUB-SKILLS

P hon e m i c an d P h o n o l o g i ca l Awar e n e s s Phonologic Capacity refers to a student’s ability to recognize and work with sub-word units of sound, usually referred to as phonemes. A phoneme is the smallest part of spoken language that makes a difference in the meaning of words. English has about 41 phonemes whereas Spanish has 25.

Although the general reading literature often uses the terms “phonemic awareness”, “phonological awareness”, “phonemic processing”, and ”phonological processing” interchangeably, it will be helpful to distinguish them.

Phonologic capacity progresses along a developmental continuum from passive initial encoding (taking in through listening) of phonemes to the active manipulation of phonemes with working memory processes.

The early developing, relatively passive phonologic capacity involves the ability to initially encode and recognize the existence of sub-word sound units and will be referred to here as phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness capabilities include being able to distinguish between words that “sound different,” identifying words that start or end with the same sound, and using a sense of phoneme similarity to generate rhyming words.

As the child’s phonemic awareness increases and working memory processes become more developed the child gains greater capacity for manipulating the phonemes of individual words. This later developing, active capacity for manipulating phonemes is referred to here as phonological processing. Phonological processing capabilities include being able to delete phonemes from words and recombine the remaining phonemes to produce a new word (e.g., “say “plod”; now say it again without the /l/” [pod]) or substitute one phoneme for another in a word to produce a new word (e.g. “say “flight”; now change the /fl/ to /br/” [bright]).

Development of phonemic awareness at an early age is critical in preparation for the transition from listening to speech sounds to associating speech sounds with letters or groups of letters. Youngsters who have not developed sufficient phonological awareness capabilities prior to the introduction of reading instruction are at much greater risk for lagging behind in the acquisition of reading skills.

Possession of phonemic awareness capabilities, however, does not guarantee that youngsters will develop adequate facility with the decoding of words, as this skill is rooted in the development of adequate phonological processing capabilities in the early elementary grades.

Because early age developmental lags in phonemic awareness are a sign of developing reading problems, a good measure of phonological awareness should be incorporated in the assessment of young children (ages 5-8 or grades K-2). Phonemic awareness is less important in identifying phonologic difficulties for students eight years and older. Phonological processing tasks are more effective in identifying the reading problems of older students. Youngsters who have not developed or are not effectively using phonological processing usually find it difficult to “sound out” words that are not familiar to them and struggle with word reading and the learning of new words.

45

The development of phonemic awareness and phonological processing abilities is also a critical issue in the development of reading skills for ELLs. When assessing ELLs, it is important to establish the level of native language phonemic awareness and phonological processing, as well as ascertain if these skills are present in English.

ELLs native language may include tones to indicate meaning, as well as phonemes (e.g., Chinese). ELLs written language may be pictorial and not phonemic (e.g., Chinese). ELLs are faced with the task demand of becoming familiar with and proficient in the English phoneme manipulation as well as in their native language.

For example, for the Spanish speaking child, common errors are: 1. The English phoneme-grapheme “j” has no counterpart in Spanish, and the student may have a tendency to substitute one most nearly like it. Hence jello becomes yello.

2. The multiple sound-symbols relationships of English may be confusing for Spanish readers who have learned to rely on the consistency of the speech-print connections in their own language, for example, chocolate, machine, chemistry.

Visual Factors in Reading Processing of verbal visual information (orthographics) must be distinguished from the processing of nonverbal visual information. Beyond the initial registry of the visual information stream in the primary visual processing centers of the brain, orthographic information is processed very differently, and by different neurological networks, than nonverbal visual information. This fact is important to remember because it establishes the untenable nature of using information from measures of nonverbal visual processing as indicators of a youngster’s ability to visually process orthographic information. In other words, low scores on visual perceptual tests such as the Bender Gestalt Visual Motor Test and the Beery Developmental Test of Visual Perception cannot be used to infer visual difficulties that are having an impact on a youngster’s ability to visually process words. In actuality, reading letters, words, and numbers is a visual memory task rather than an immediate abstract visual perceptual processing task.

Orthographic Capacity refers to the youngster’s ability to process the visual information (visual code) we use to represent letters, words, and numbers. The English language orthographic code usually includes the visual images of all the upper and lower case letters of the alphabet and the Arabic numerals 0 through 9. Before a youngster can become a proficient reader, the orthographic code must be loaded into visual memory so it can become the orthographic lexicon (visual memory knowledge store for letters and numbers).

Orthographic awareness refers to a youngster’s understanding of the fact that the visual shapes referred to as letters and numbers are the symbols that are used to read and perform mathematical functions. A child who has entered Kindergarten or 1st grade who does not yet recognize all the letter shapes (that is, a child who cannot discriminate all of the letters from abstract visual shapes that are not letters) is lacking orthographic awareness; however, for CLD students this may not apply due to difference in the native language letter forms. Usually children in kindergarten have developed a high level of orthographic awareness. Children build on their initial orthographic awareness and “memorize” (through thousands of repeated exposures) the shapes of the letters and numbers. This orthographic knowledge store (orthographic lexicon) is the visual information store that is accessed when a child engages in the act of reading.

Visual processing of letter shapes occurs extremely rapidly in reading. By the second grade, many students can process between 5-6 words a second, about 300-400 words a minute. This is an exceptional amount of high speed orthographic processing keyed off by the visual input system.

The processing of orthography is performed in memory centers of the brain. Inefficient orthographic processing might contribute to reading problems. Students must consistently “attend” to all of the visual information being processed while reading in order to become proficient readers. This ability, known as “attention to orthography,“ can affect reading in a number of ways (i.e., mistaking one word for another word that contains the same letters in a different order, mistaking a word for another word with similar overall configuration, word 46 deletions, and “losing one’s place” while reading).

Assessing a youngster’s orthographic proficiency includes a variety of tasks. A student’s orthographic image store can be assessed by asking the student to name letters during a randomly ordered presentation of all of the letters of the alphabet. If the student can name all of the letters without difficulty, then the orthographic lexicon has been loaded and is ready to be used in reading.

Attention to orthography can be assessed informally using a process-oriented approach while observing the youngster’s efforts during word reading tasks. Attention to orthography and visual immediate memory for orthography can be assessed using the Receptive Coding task of the Process Assessment of the Learner.

While orthographic deficits can sometimes contribute to reading disabilities, phonological awareness and phonological processing problems are more often the cause of early reading problems.

For English Language Learners and youngsters from culturally diverse backgrounds, great care must be taken to establish the student’s level of awareness for the orthographic characters of their native language, as well as awareness of English orthography. Students who are English language learners, regardless of age, must have sufficient familiarity with English orthography in order to begin to develop any degree of proficiency with reading in English. English does not contain a simple one-to-one correspondence between each letter and each sound, thereby making it difficult for some ELL students to develop sound and symbol awareness when those students’ orthographic system may be different from that of English (e.g. Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Korean).

Wo r d Re co g n i t i o n Word Recognition – Reading Words in Isolation It is important to assess the extent to which the youngster can orally read a list of words. Using isolated word lists entirely negates any advantages that might be gained from context clues. For success to be realized in this format, the youngster either must recognize words by sight (either rudimentary sight word recognition or the mature reader’s direct access path) or apply word analysis skills with good accuracy.

It is typical for standardized tests of word recognition to include some combination of high frequency words (words that are typically recognized quickly by youngsters because of their frequent appearance in reading materials) and low frequency words (words that do not appear very often in their reading materials). The mix of high and low frequency words tends to change over the full range of the test with more high frequency words appearing early in the test and lower frequency words appearing later in the test. This ensures that younger readers will be presented a greater number of high frequency words than older readers. As readers get older, they are more likely to have stored relatively large numbers of high frequency words. In order to make sure that the test can discriminate “good” word recognizers from “poor” recognizers at later grades, test developers must rely on ever increasing numbers of low frequency words that the youngster is less likely to have seen before.

At the early grades, test scores might be deceptively high for a youngster who can rely entirely on sight word reading. Yet that youngster might not have an adequate grasp of decoding skills needed for proficient word reading.

When word recognition scores are low or substantially lower than scores on reading comprehension, reasoning, and listening comprehension, it is likely (but not definite) that the youngster might be lacking in the necessary phonological and morphological rules to enable adequate recognition of unknown words. Careful analysis of how the youngster approaches the task of recognizing each word can provide important information about how the youngster attempts to decode words that are not immediately recognized.

When assessing ELL students, it is important to establish the youngster’s degree of facility with reading words in their native language to more fully understand the student’s reading background and skill level. The student’s ability to read common words in their native language needs to be assessed.

47

Cautionary Note: If a youngster is not demonstrating adequate use of word analysis strategies, it cannot be immediately assumed that the youngster has a “reading disability.” It is possible that the youngster has not yet been exposed to instruction that would teach proper use of word analysis strategies; for ELLs this includes instruction in the native language. This also applies to those ELLs who are in the process of expanding their English vocabulary and manipulating the grammar and structure of English.

Word Attack Sub-tests on reading tests often use “nonsense” or “pseudo-words” to help measure word attack skills. Pseudowords are pronounceable non-words that can be decoded on the basis of phoneme-grapheme relationships and structural analysis skills. ELLs typically will not do well on pseudo-words tests unless they have been explicitly taught decoding skills. Word recognition of high frequency words through environmental print (word walls) do not help ELLs learn to decode. Instead word attack skills need to be developed before word recognition. Whereas a youngster can perform fairly well on word recognition tasks with the use of a strong sight recognition skill, only the youngster who possesses a knowledge base of how to analyze and decode unknown words will be able to perform well on word attack tasks. Because the strings of graphemic units the youngster must read have not been learned as sight words, the only way to decode these nonsense words is to apply phonological and word analysis knowledge. The youngster might have been taught these techniques explicitly, or learned them indirectly through examples and comparisons. Often youngsters are not able to state the reason why they would pronounce a pseudo-word in a specific way, but their pronunciations are accurate in the sense that they follow the general rules that need to be stored for efficient word reading to develop.

When scores on pseudo-word reading tasks are low or substantially lower than scores on reading comprehension, reasoning, and listening comprehension tasks, it is possible that the youngster is not demonstrating adequate knowledge of phoneme-grapheme relationships and structural analysis skills to recognize words.

Reading (Text) Comprehension is basically the ability to extract meaning from text. Assessment of the ability to extract meaning from text is crucial in diagnosing reading problems. Reading comprehension sub-tests typically require a youngster to read (silently or aloud) a sentence or paragraph then demonstrate an understanding of what was read through various question formats (e.g., multiple choice, cloze, short answer, retelling, etc.).

The questions are also designed to reflect various aspects of comprehension (e.g., literal, inferential, word knowledge, etc.).

Remember that reading comprehension is constrained by reasoning ability, but mainly by limited vocabulary in English for ELLs. If a youngster demonstrates good reasoning ability and good listening ability, the youngster will be able to extract meaning from text, if the youngster knows what 90-95% of the words mean. Reading comprehension scores may be commensurate with, or only slightly lower than, levels of reasoning and listening comprehension. In this case the youngster’s knowledge of the act of reading and ability to extract meaning from text can be assumed to be consistent with the student’s cognitive skills which constrain reading comprehension.

Aspects of reading to monitor during comprehension tasks include: 1. speed of reading (measuring the amount of time required to read a passage and dividing the time by the number of words in the passage to obtain a words a second estimate); 2. strategies the child uses to respond to comprehension questions (e.g., “look-backs” such as rereading the text, attempting to identify answers based on location in the text rather than on content meaning, or pointing to the answer but not being able to pronounce the word(s) selected; 3. verbatim repetition of phrases or sentences versus paraphrasing of content; although level 1-3 ELLs will have the tendency to repeat since they are not yet able to paraphrase; 4. tendency to overemphasize minute details and miss larger points.

Whenever possible, note the extent to which lack of recognition of individual words reduces the student’s ability to extract meaning from the text. If the youngster prefers to read aloud, assess the degree of reading fluency, especially noting errors of pronunciation (although ELLs will mispronounce without affecting meaning),

48

substitution, and omission. Also assess the extent to which the youngster uses, or does not use, context clues to determine the meaning of specific words or the general gist of a passage. Observe carefully for a more generalized inability to remain focused on the text, inability to maintain left to right scanning (when reading in English) of every word in every line of text, one line at a time, and other difficulties. The clinician should keep in mind that for some ELL youngsters, reading from left to right might not be their natural orientation to scanning words on a page.

Reading (text) comprehension assessments are typically constructed predominantly using high frequency words that are likely to be part of a youngster’s vocabulary. For example, while a reading comprehension passage might be designed to assess a level of comprehension expected from a fourth grade student, the words that were used to construct the reading passage are likely to be easily recognizable even by students at lower grades, unless they are polysemous words or words not yet known to ELLs. This helps to ensure that the test is measuring the ability to extract meaning from text instead of the ability to decode and comprehend more esoteric low frequency words.

This is a primary reason why youngsters with specific reading disabilities who cannot decode many low frequency words but who have the requisite reasoning and language skills may score well on reading comprehension tests.

These youngsters frequently know how to perform the act of reading (scanning left to right, row by row) and the general structure of written material (sentences usually follow the general format of someone did something to something/someone). This general sense of the act of reading allows them to know where in a passage important information is contained and enables them to extract meaning as long as those individual words are decoded and comprehended. Even when lower frequency words are included in the passages of these standardized measures, they often are not crucial in the process of extracting meaning from the text in general.

Hence, scores from reading comprehension measures may indicate a much higher level of competency in the ability to extract meaning from text than demonstrated when reading course textbooks. This is because the reading comprehension tests try to reduce the effect of word recognition skills, whereas the goal of textbooks is to provide content information. Often, textbooks will include a great deal of specialized vocabulary that is not in the typical everyday sight vocabulary of the youngster. Struggles with this course reading material is possibly a result of the difficulties the youngster has with decoding and recognizing these low frequency words much more so than poor comprehension skills per se. ELLs may have not been explicitly taught listening or reading comprehension skills or the general structure of English written material.

Most assessments of reading comprehension only require the application of comprehension skills for a brief period of time. The ability to read and comprehend for prolonged periods of time should also be gauged. This information can be obtained through informal assessment including the following: 1. Discussions with the youngster about reading habits 2. Discussion with the parents and teachers about reading habits ELLs are more likely to find extracting meaning and comprehension from the text more challenging than for native English speakers, as they must translate English into the native language, if they know enough English words to be able to translate. Otherwise, they will resort to guessing. This additional processing demand requires a large amount of working memory which reduces the ELLs’ effectiveness and proficiency of English text comprehension.

For these reasons, the ELL youngster’s reading comprehension capacity is often underestimated, especially when timed tests are used to assess reading comprehension. Students’ familiarity with content areas related to reading material also has an impact on assessment results.

F l u e n cy - Aut o mat i ci t y Word Reading Automaticity and Reading Rate Assessment of a student’s reading capabilities includes the rate at which a student can read words, especially in connected text such as paragraphs. Proficient reading involves reading quickly and accurately with good comprehension of what was read. The speed with which a student can read greatly affects overall 49 proficiency. Students who can read words very quickly are said to have developed automaticity for word

reading. Reading rate is the speed with which a youngster reads connected text, such as sentences and paragraphs. Automaticity for word reading accompanied by a fast reading rate does not necessarily indicate proficient reading; as such a youngster might read rapidly but have difficulty with comprehending what was read.

Fluency/Reading rate is developmental and increases throughout the elementary and secondary school years.

Reading rates vary significantly depending on the complexity of the material being read and the reader’s purpose for reading it. Oral and silent reading rates also vary, with oral reading being slower than silent reading. Beyond second grade, most youngsters prefer to read silently when given a choice. This is a natural progression, as silent reading reduces the number of cognitive processes needed to complete the physical act of reading and frees up more cognitive resources for processing and comprehending what is being read. A youngster’s cognitive processing speed is a major constraint on how fast a child can read either orally or silently.

At early ages, assessment focuses on automaticity for letter and word reading, which is typically measured using rapid automatic naming tasks. These tasks require the youngster to read a list of sight words or well-known words as quickly as possible for a period of one minute. At later ages, measures of automaticity can be supplemented, or replaced, by measures of reading rate using connected text (paragraph reading). Most measures of reading rate using connected text (paragraph reading) typically include, or are linked to, a measure of comprehension of what was read. This is important since proficient reading must involve comprehension as well as speed.

Youngsters who read very quickly but comprehend little of what they read will need assistance in learning how to adjust reading rate and engage processing and comprehension strategies to improve reading proficiency.

Youngsters who read very slowly but comprehend very well will need assistance in finding ways to reduce their reading time since they are at risk of becoming overwhelmed by increasing curricular demands for large amounts of independent reading. ELLs may need more explicit instruction on vocabulary and syntax in order to develop both speed and comprehension.

Youngsters who are reading very slowly and comprehending poorly are likely to be struggling with the decoding of words and applying many cognitive resources to recognize words. As a result, fewer cognitive resources are available to engage in the act of processing and remembering what was read and comprehension suffers as a result.

A s s es s i ng Re ad i n g Ac h i eve me n t

When to Assess Reading Skills Students should have had reading instruction which includes: 1. development of phonological awareness and processing skills 2. word decoding and structural analysis to develop word recognition skills 3. automaticity/fluency 4. and text comprehension Only students who did not benefit from this instruction should be assessed.

When reading remains a concern after appropriate instructional efforts, one or more of the following difficulties are likely to be reported: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Poor ability to sound out unknown words Slow, labored application of decoding skills Lack of an adequate store of sight words Slow reading speed Difficulty comprehending what was read Inability to read for more than a very short period of time

50

Areas to be Assessed When Reading Problems are Identified When difficulties are noted in any of the areas mentioned above, assessment in the following areas should be considered: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Phonologic Capacity (Phonemic awareness and/or Phonological processing) Orthographic Capacity Vocabulary Development (Knowing meaning of all words) Word Recognition (Reading words in isolation) Word Attack Skills (Reading pseudo-words) Reading/Text Comprehension Reading Rate/Fluency

Assessment should be geared to the youngster’s developmental level as follows: Kindergarten-Grade 2 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Phonologic Capacity (Phonemic awareness and/or Phonological processing) Orthographic Capacity Word Recognition (Reading words in isolation) Word Attack (Reading pseudo-words) Reading Comprehension Reading Rate

Grades 3-6 1. Phonologic Capacity (Phonemic awareness and/or Phonological processing)*; 2. Orthographic Capacity* 3. Word Recognition (Reading words in isolation) 4. Word Attack (Reading pseudo-words) 5. Reading Comprehension 6. Reading Rate Grades 7-12 1.

2.

3.

4.

Word Recognition (Reading words in isolation) Word Attack (Reading pseudo-words) Reading Comprehension Reading Rate

*For younger children in grades K-2, phonologic and orthographic capacity should be routinely assessed. For children in Grades 3-6, phonologic and orthographic processing should be assessed when referral information or test results warrant its inclusion.

English Language Learners’ native language skills as they communicate at home or in the community should be assessed. Assessing English reading and language processes is also important, however, to develop an appropriate educational plan for the student to be included in the mainstream program to the greatest extent possible. Assessment of student’s native language reading skills should also be assessed.

Readi n g A s s e s s me n t M e as ur e s Before selecting an assessment instrument or method, several factors should be taken into account: 1. What reading skill the measure or method assesses 2. How the selected measure or method measures those reading skills 3. Technical properties of the measure or method, including reliability and validity of the procedures and adequacy of normative or curricular comparisons

51

Although standardized assessments provide valuable norm-referenced information about skill levels, psychologists must be careful to include other information collected during the referral and evaluation process in their overall assessment of a youngster’s academic skill acquisition.

The following is a partial list of applicable reading assessment measures. School psychologists are to use their expertise and discretion in selecting appropriate measures to assess skill development.

Phonological Awareness 1. Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II (KTEA-II) Phonological Awareness (Sections 1-4) 2. Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) Rhyming 3. NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part A (Phonemic Awareness) 4. NEPSY Repetition of Nonsense Words Sub-test 5. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II (WIAT-II) Word Reading (Items 30-47) 6. Woodcock-Johnson III (WJIII) Sound Awareness (Achievement Battery) 7. WJIII Sound Blending (Cognitive Battery) 8. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Phonological Processing 1. KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (Section 5) 2. PAL Syllables Task 3. PAL Phonemes Task 4. PAL Rimes Task 5. NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B (Phonological Processing) 6. WJIII Incomplete Words (Cognitive Battery) 7. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Orthographic Processing 1. WIAT-II Word Reading (Items 1-29)

2. KTEA-II Letter & Word Recognition (Items 1-18) 3. PAL Receptive Coding 4. WJIII Letter-Word Identification (Items 1-16) 5. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Word Recognition (Reading words in isolation) 1. WIAT-II Word Reading (Items 48-131) 2. KTEA-II Letter & Word Recognition (Items 19-99) 3. WJIII Letter-Word Identification (Items 17-76) 4. Optional/Alternative Measures: o Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials o Structured Curriculum Based Assessment (CBA and/or CBM) approaches o Informal Reading Inventories (such as Qualitative Reading Inventory-3); 5. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Word Attack (Reading Pseudo-Words) 1. KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding 2. WIAT-II Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test 3. WJIII Word Attack 4. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Reading/Text Comprehension 1. KTEA-II Reading Comprehension 2. WIAT-II Reading Comprehension 3. WJIII Passage Comprehension 4. Optional/Alternative Measures: o Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials

52

o Structured CBA and/or CBM approaches o Informal Reading Inventories (such as Qualitative Reading Inventory- 3) 5. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Fluency/Reading Rate 1. PAL Rapid Automatic Naming – Letters, Words, Digits, Words & Digits 2. KTEA-II Word Recognition Fluency 3. KTEA-II Decoding Fluency 4. WJIII Reading Fluency 5. WIAT-II Reading Comprehension 6. TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency 7. TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 8. Optional/Alternative Measure: o Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials o Structured CBA and/or CBM approaches o Informal Reading Inventories 9. Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised (Spanish) Note: The Woodcock-Muñoz is the best assessment instrument for Spanish speaking ELLs, as it has all of the above sub-tests.

Informal reading inventories permit observation of a student’s reading behavior. Individually administered informal reading inventories provide diagnostic information about a student’s reading skills. They typically contain graded word lists and passages designed to assess oral and silent reading skills. A measure of reading comprehension is often included. They usually provide information about a student’s reading levels- a) independent, b) instructional, and c) frustration. In the DOE, teachers use, among other instruments, the Early Childhood Literacy Assessment System - 2(ECLAS-2), and the El Sistema de Observacion de la Lecto-Escritura (EL SOL) for bilingual Spanish children.

Informal Reading Inventories may not be used for making placement decisions in special education, but they may offer important diagnostic information for instruction purposes.

Additional individually-administered achievement tests that include measures of reading skills include the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R), the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (WRMT-R) and the Gray Oral Reading Test-Revised (GORT-R).

Woodcock-Muñoz-Revised; KTEA-II in Spanish

Descr i bi ng S t andar di z ed A c hi eve me n t Te s t Re adi n g As s e s s me n t Result s Describe performance in each area assessed. Interpretation should focus on the tasks performed, and therefore, description and interpretation should be organized by sub-test. On those infrequent occasions when a Composite score is discussed in the interpretive section, the Composite description and interpretation should precede the discussion of the sub-tests that comprise that composite. Composite interpretation should only be done when the performance on the sub-tests that comprise the composite is highly consistent. Composites should not be a focus of interpretation when performance on the sub-tests that comprise the composite is inconsistent (producing statistically significant differences in the levels of performance on the sub-tests).

For each sub-test: 1. describe the tasks performed; 2. describe the level of performance obtained, including but not necessarily limited to, norm-referenced scores; and 3. describe the relevant specific behaviors observed while the child was performing the task.

53

If sub-test administration was modified or sub-test items were adapted to accommodate a student who is an English language learner, report the modifications and adaptations and apply the proper interpretive approach to characterize the student’s reading skills as outlined in previous sections of this document. Results obtained in the assessment of reading in English should be compared with results obtained from the assessment of the English language learner’s skill in reading in his/her native language.

The four levels of phonics skills in language and reading are: Level 1: Phonological Processing is the student’s ability to sequence together sounds in words, phrases, and sentences.

Level 2: Phonological Awareness is the student’s ability to manipulate the sound of spoken language without a print component.

Level 3: Phonemic Awareness requires students to listen carefully to the sounds and then repeat the sounds or move them to another formation. Phonemic awareness is one type of phonological awareness.

Level 4: Phonics is an instructional approach in the method of teaching the sound/symbol correspondences used to write a language.

It is unlikely that some form of visual perceptual deficit, other than one that affects all visual processing (e.g., visual acuity), underlies a youngster’s difficulties in learning to read.

The English Language Learner’s reading comprehension results will also be influenced by context-rich and context-reduced topics and materials, and the extent/size of the youngster’s vocabulary bank in English.

54

G l os s a r y o f Re adi n g Te r ms Analytic Phonics (also referred to as the functional, incidental, or intrinsic approach) – In contrast to the synthetic phonics where words are built-up from known parts, the analytic approach introduces whole words first and encourages youngsters to deduce letter-sound relationships as they appear in those words.

Explicit Phonics (also called Synthetic Phonics Instruction) – A form of phonics instruction that explicitly teaches individual phoneme-grapheme correspondences before they are blended to form syllables or whole words.

Grapheme

A single letter or letter cluster representing a single speech sound.

Lexicon

A body of stored verbal knowledge used in either hearing, seeing, or producing language related information.

Morpheme

A meaningful unit of speech. A morpheme may be a whole word, e.g., “child”; a base word, e.g., “child” in “childhood”; a suffix, e.g., “hood” in “childhood”; or a prefix, e.g., “un” in “untie.”

Morphograph

Written form of a word part that has meaning, such as the ending “-tion.”

Orthograpy

The English language orthographic code usually includes the visual images of all of the upper and lower case letters of the alphabet and the Arabic numerals 0 through 9.

Orthographic

Pertaining to the spelling of written language and/or the visual image of letters and words.

Phoneme

An individual sound unit in a spoken word. The smallest unit of speech that distinguishes one utterance from another.

Phonemic Awareness

An understanding of the fact that phonemes can be isolated and their relative positions within syllables can be established.

Phonetic

Pertaining to speech sounds and their relation to graphic or written symbols.

Phonetics

The study and systematic classification of sounds made in spoken utterance. .

Phonics

The essence of sound; the central use of letter-sound connections in the teaching of reading and spelling.

Phonological

Pertaining to the speech sounds in spoken words.

Phonological Awareness

A basic understanding of the fact that words are composed of a series of discrete speech sounds.

Phonological Processing

The ability to work with or manipulate the speech sounds in spoken words (i.e., break words down into their component speech sounds and recombine them into the original word, or manipulate them into new or different configurations which represent real words).

Phonology

The science of speech sounds, including the development of speech sounds in one language or comparison of speech sound development in different languages.

55

WRIT TEN L AN GUAGE Ove r vi ew Written expression is an extremely complex skilled act requiring the precise synchronization of multiple cognitive processes in order to achieve consistency, fluency, and quality of production. In order for a youngster to succeed in school, some degree of competence must be demonstrated in producing a written record of organized and coherent thoughts related to specific topics and reflecting proper use of syntax and correct spelling. Written language assessments should focus on both how a student writes as well as what a student writes.

There are varied models of writing associated with higher level skills. One model presents the general model of skilled writing that sees writing as a metacognitive act. The purpose is to continue to evaluate the relationship between the author’s message and the goal of written communication. The second model proposes a developmental model of writing. The focus of this model is on engaging inexperienced writers in “knowledge telling”, i.e,. using cues and text to create written products that readers can understand. A third model combines the two models listed above to include two processes: transcription and text generation. Transcription consists of motor and cognitive components of forming written representations of text. Text generation is the mental production of a linguistic message.

Research among elementary and middle school students indicates: 1. Better and older writers generate more spoken sentences than younger and poorer writers 2. Better writers have faster and more accurate access to words in their mental lexicons 3. Writers’ speed of transcription is related to the quality of their written composition 4. Instruction and transcription (how to properly form letters) among young elementary school students; transfers to improvement in the amount and quality of what is written 5. Instruction and spelling transfers to improvement in compositional fluency The development of written language skills can be viewed as a progression through various stages. The following chart provides information about the types of writing characteristics (writing stages) that appear at approximate grade levels.

56

Stage

Characteristics

Imitation (Preschool1st Grade)

n Prewriting and fanciful attraction n Attempts to mimic true writing n Awareness of spatial arrangement of letter groups (words) and of lines n Acquisition of letter and number formations n Beginning appreciation of spelling accuracy and use of invented spellings n Cultural and familial influences n Establishment of hand preference n Lack of highly precise graphomotor function and variable utensil grasp

Graphic Presentation (1st and 2nd grades)

n Preoccupation with visual appearances n Discovery of conventions of capitalization, punctuation, and sentence structure n Growing self-consciousness n Increasingly precise and distal fine motor regulation n Rapid increase in spelling ability n Use of unsophisticated language

Progressive Incorporation (Late 2nd grade to 4th grade)

n Awareness of writing as synthetic process n Integration of conventions (punctuation, capitalization) with language (morphology, syntax, narrative organization) n Written language less sophisticated than speech n Little emphasis on well-planned writing n Awareness of spatial formats (paragraphs, letters) n Beginning of rewriting n Start of cursive writing

Automatization (4th grade to 7th grade)

n Writing with less expenditure of conscious effort n Growing capability to write and think or write and remember spatially n Attainment of cursive writing fluency n Ability to produce larger volumes of writing n Greater stress on planning and draft writing n Early development of report and expository writing and research skills

Elaboration (7th grade to 9th grade)

n Writing used to establish and express a viewpoint n Written language exceeds complexity of everyday speech n Problem solving and idea development occur through writing n Summarization through writing becomes a common task n Organization and use of information from multiple sources n Extensive use of transitions and cohesive ties (words such as finally, for example, therefore, or but)

PersonalizationDiversification (9th grade and beyond)

n Development of individual writing styles n Use of different writing styles and formats appropriate to subject matter and purpose (lab reports, research papers, expository essays, poetry) n Simplification and greater variation of language use n Sophistication of vocabulary and use of figurative language, irony, symbolism n Writing as a medium for experimentation n Writing as a medium for taking notes n Writing as a facilitator for learning and remembering n Writing as a method of reasoning, problem solving, and persuasion

57

Instruction in Writing- Instruction (and remediation of poor writing) among elementary and middle school students should focus on establishing age-appropriate skills: 1. fine motor speed and accuracy in writing letters and words; 2. spelling skills; 3. text generation skills (includes how to generate ideas, construct sentences with proper syntax; and grammatical usage to express those ideas; 4. establish coherent, well- organized sentences to reflect student thoughts.

For English Language Learners, consideration of writing instruction should also include the writing skills that the students possess in both the native language and in English.

Excerpted from Levine, M. (1998) Developmental Variations and Learning Disorders.

The timing and emergence of these various stages of written expression skills can vary greatly depending on the youngster’s cultural background and degree of exposure to English. Young children who are English language learners might lack the familiarity with English orthography and phonology necessary to develop early stages of writing skills, and older youngsters who are English language learners might lack the necessary familiarity with syntax and other features of the English language to develop and record fluent expression of ideas and thoughts in English. For example, in Chinese languages, such as Mandarin and Cantonese, the lack of plural markers and relative clause effect Chinese students’ English language acquisition. For Spanish speaking students the difference in the degree of difficulty in words, for example, “campanario vs. belfry,” also poses difficulty when acquiring English as a second language.

D om ai n s f or C ons i de r at i o n i n t h e As s e s s me n t o f W r i t t e n L an g uag e S ki l l s Phonologic Capacity and Orthographic Capacity Phonologic and orthographic capacity lay the foundation for the development of reading and written language skills. A youngster’s phonemic awareness enables the youngster to grasp the concept that words are composed of sub-word unit sounds, and that these sounds can be combined in various ways to produce different words. A youngster’s orthographic awareness enables the youngster to understand that printed words can be segmented into letters and letter clusters that represent meaningful visual units. Application of phonologic and orthographic knowledge in combination enables the youngster to produce written words that are spelled accurately. Additional information about phonologic and orthographic processes is provided in the Reading section of this document.

For youngsters who are English language learners, the degree of facility with phonologic and orthographic processes must be determined in the youngster’s native language as well as in English. Youngsters who struggle with phonemic and orthographic awareness in their native language are at risk of developing written expression difficulties in both their native language and in English. Youngsters who demonstrate adequate phonologic and orthographic processing in their native language but struggle with these processes in English need assistance in the development of these important precursors to written expression skill development.

Graphomotor Processes and Handwriting/Legibility The development of graphomotor control for the purposes of producing legible letters and words quickly and effortlessly plays a large part in the initial stages of written expression development. Handwriting is an exceptionally complex act that requires sensorimotor perception and fine motor dexterity, knowledge of orthography and phonology, visual perception and organization abilities, visual memory processes, and executive control processes to integrate and guide the use of these varied abilities and processes.

As a youngster becomes more capable with the physical act of writing, primarily through practice, letter formation becomes more rapid and fluid. The effortless production of letters and words allows mental effort to be more focused on the process of transforming thoughts into words. Youngsters with graphomotor difficulties 58

are at risk of developing writing problems because they are likely to have to consciously attend to the written production of letters and words and are not able to divert mental resources to the processing of thoughts and the translation of those thoughts into written words.

Fine motor dexterity forms the basis of the youngster’s ability to perform the motor movements necessary to form letters and words in a legible manner so that their production can be recognized and read by themselves and others. Fine motor control and sensory-motor perception enable the youngster to develop an appropriate grip that varies for different sized writing implements and allow the youngster to write with an appropriate amount of pressure so that letters and words are not produced too lightly or too heavily. Visual-spatial abilities underlie the youngster’s ability to perceive the visual format of written text and guide judgments about the adequacy of the youngster’s production of the format elements, such as the appropriate size for letters and words considering the size and shape of the writing area, leaving spaces between words and at the end of sentences, writing in a relatively straight line across the page, and the amount of space to be left between lines of written text on the page. Executive control mechanisms coordinate the use of all of these abilities and processes and also assist the youngster in developing an appropriate rate of production so that writing does not occur too quickly or too slowly. When a youngster is consciously aware that writing will need to be read by himself or herself and others, greater graphomotor effort is often required to maintain the appropriate degree of motor control over the writing process. Youngsters with sensory-motor or motor dexterity or motor control difficulties are at risk of excessive muscle fatigue when engaging in the physical act of writing.

Spelling When a youngster is not a fluent and effortless speller, a substantial amount of mental effort is put into the process of figuring out how to transcribe words on the page rather than the organization of the thoughts that are to be communicated in the written product. The ability of the writer to spell words correctly in written communication is also important because it allows the reader of the communication to focus on the content and message of the writing rather than on deciding what words are on the page.

Measures of spelling ability assess spelling that is either externally directed (that is, the youngster is asked to spell specific words), or internally generated (that is, the youngster’s spelling of words the youngster chooses to use in the process of writing). Externally directed spelling measures vary in the format used to assess spelling skill. Some tests require a youngster to write words after dictation.

Other tests require a student to choose the “correct spelling” of a word from a presentation of different choices.

Spelling is also assessed through “editing” formats in which a youngster must identify misspelled words. From writing samples internally generated and produced by the child, examiners can observe a number of characteristics related to spelling skills ( e.g., how often do misspellings occur; how close to correct are the misspellings; what kind of orthographic and phonologic knowledge is represented in the misspellings).

Spelling difficulties can greatly affect written production for many reasons. As noted previously, a youngster who is concentrating on producing correct spellings will find it difficult to focus sufficient attention on the other aspects of the writing process such as idea generation and expression. Also, students who are concerned about their ability to spell words “correctly” within their written work (either as classwork or on written expression tests) often make word choices or use sentence structure below their actual expressive ability levels. Easier to spell words may be used in their writing in place of more mature or descriptive words. Also, very simple sentences may be used in place of more complex and descriptive sentences in order to decrease spelling demands (e.g., “I saw animals” instead of “I observed many fascinating animals while we were on vacation.”). These choices made by the poor speller typically reduce the quality and quantity of their written expression production.

For youngsters who are English language learners, the spelling rules of English are often quite different from those of their native language. This fact is important to consider when attempting to assess the adequacy of the spelling of an English language learner’s written production in English.

59

Written Expression Skills Related to Mechanics (Capitalization/Punctuation) Syntax, Semantics, Organization, and Ideation Proficiency in writing requires effective application of the rules of formatting written text (capitalization and punctuation), the proper use of grammar and morphology to construct readable sentences, effective application of semantic knowledge for word choice and accurate word usage related to meaning, and good organization and adequate idea generation of the written material for effective communication. All of these elements must be present for writing to be judged as adequate for specific purposes.

Assessment of Writing Basic Level Skills: uses an assessment of transcription that focuses on handwriting, spelling, and keyboarding (if necessary); Next Level Skills: text generation. A series of analyses of students’ written product that include word choice, sentences, and text.

Skills: related to capitalization and punctuation are usually taught as sets of “rules” and measured through “editing” formats (e.g., given a sentence, correct the errors in punctuation and/or capitalization) or by eliciting writing samples (e.g., examining all sentences written by the student for errors in capitalization and punctuation).

Syntax: relates to the use of grammar and morphology and is reflected in how words are put together to form meaningful sentences. Syntactical knowledge requires an understanding of how word order affects the meaning of the communication. Knowledge of the rules of grammar is included as syntax. For English language learners, the syntactical rules of English are often quite different from those of their native language. This fact is important to consider when attempting to assess the adequacy of an English language learner’s written production in English.

Semantics: refers to the meaning of words (vocabulary). Written expression measures usually require the examiner to make judgments about the depth and breadth of the vocabulary used in written products. The greater the youngster’s store of vocabulary knowledge and the associations among words, the more likely the youngster will be able to make use of this semantic lexicon to enhance written products. The number of different words used in writing and the variation of the combinations of words in phrases reflect the level of proficiency with applying vocabulary knowledge to the writing process. English language learners face particular challenges in the application of their semantic knowledge base to written expression. The youngster might have a much greater store of word knowledge in his native language, but not be able to translate that knowledge into English. As a result, the English language learner’s written production might be lacking in quantity and variety of English vocabulary usage despite the presence of a well-developed semantic knowledge base in his/her native language.

Ideation: relates to the quality of the written expression in terms of the ideas and information that the student is attempting to communicate. For the writer, ideation involves generating ideas for a topic and determining which would be the most appropriate to use. Idea generation can involve the active manipulation of information retrieved from long-term storage and the application of reasoning skills to the manipulation of this information in working memory. A student’s creativity and flexibility in thinking about a topic contribute greatly to adequate idea generation. As is the case with semantics, English language learners face special challenges in their efforts to translate thoughts and ideas in their native language into English language words and use these to guide writing in English. As a result, English language learners writing is at risk of under-representing the youngster’s capabilities in idea generation and expression. [Ideation - a child who is bilingual could possibly have two different pictures of words in English or the native language. For example, if you ask a Chinese student what rice is he/she may see it as a different item on a plate. Someone from the Caribbean may relate to rice as something else cooked with another food item, e.g., chicken and rice or rice with beans.]

Organization of written material is critical for effective communication. Proficient writing requires the writer to be able to organize the presentation of thoughts so that readers can easily follow the purpose of the communication and the information provided to support that purpose. Written expression tests frequently assess the adequacy of the organization of the writing product.

60

The amount of written material produced during an evaluation of written expression skills is a critical factor to consider. It can be difficult to measure skills related to syntax, semantics, organization and ideation, when these skills are represented in limited quantity in a single writing sample. Some youngsters lack the executive function capacity to generate a substantial amount of written production upon immediate request and within a short period of time. For this reason, it is important to evaluate these skills by examining a variety of written work produced by a youngster in other settings such as the classroom. This is especially critical in the assessment of English language learner’s written language skills. When assessing an English language learner it is important to obtain samples of the youngster’s native language written expression abilities if the student is able to write in their native language.

Writing Fluency: Writing fluency involves the rapid retrieval and production (in writing) of information. Students who have developed writing fluency demonstrate a quick flow of words onto the paper and are more likely to have access to the mental resources necessary to guide the formulation of thoughts related to the writing topic and the translation of these thoughts into meaningful statements on paper. Fluency measures are good indicators of the capacity to develop proficient writing skills. Assessment of fluency usually involves tasks that require students to write words or sentences related to a specific topic as quickly as they can for a specific amount of time.

Note-Taking: The ability to take notes with some degree of organization while including main points and supporting details becomes especially critical as youngsters enter junior and senior high school. Note-taking requires the coordination of multiple cognitive processes and abilities and stored knowledge bases including auditory attention, listening comprehension, working memory, reasoning, executive decision-making processes, store of previously learned information related to the topic being presented, executive control of motor routines, and graphomotor skills. The student must listen to spoken language, translate what is heard into meaningful information, manipulate that information in working memory, relate new information to previously learned information, organize the resulting associations in working memory, generate a plan for summarizing the information in a brief form, and direct and carry out the motor routines necessary to transcribe the notes on paper. All this usually must be accomplished at a very fast pace in order to keep up with the oral presentation of the information. Students who have difficulty with this skill must rely on other means for encoding, manipulating, and storing important information as it is being presented. This can place an undue burden on listening comprehension and auditory working memory and reduce the child’s efficiency in learning and remembering. A child might be capable of handling the multiple cognitive demands of listening, organizing, planning and generating notes, but be unable to transcribe them quickly and efficiently enough to make them useful later on when reviewing. This is especially true for English language learners who must deal with the additional burden of making the connection between the information being presented in English and the semantic and conceptual meanings of that information as it is represented in their native language.

Because Note-taking is such an important skill in later learning, it is advisable to assess this skill from late elementary school on. The Performance Assessment in Language Arts (PAL) offers a formal measure of notetaking for students in grades 4-6. This can be used as a norm-referenced measure for students in these grades and used informally with students in older grades. Psychologists also can generate other informal means of assessing note-taking for children in grades 7-12. Authentic assessment, using a student’s notes from a class lecture or textbook can provide valuable information and should always be included as part of the assessment process.

A s s e s s i ng W r it t e n L a n g uag e Ac h i eve me n t When to Assess Written Language Skills Written Language skills should be assessed when the referral indicates an inability to profit from effective instruction directed at the improvement of written language skills.

When written language remains a concern after appropriate instructional efforts, one or more of the following difficulties are likely to be reported:

61 61

1. Difficulties with holding a pencil correctly 2. Difficulties with forming letters and numbers 3. Difficulties with spacing between words, extreme variations in size of written words, and/or inefficient use of space when writing 4. Difficulties with spelling 5. Difficulties with copying letters, words, or sentences from various sources 6. Difficulties with the proper use of syntax (rules of grammar) when writing sentences and paragraphs; 7. Difficulties with amount of written language production-minimal production for the time and effort put into the process of writing 8. Lack of effective communication of thoughts in writing 9. Lack of organization of thoughts in writing 10. Written language products that are significantly below class standards Areas to be Assessed When Written Language Problems are Identified When difficulties are noted in any of the areas mentioned above, assessment of the student’s capabilities in the following areas should be carefully considered: 1. Phonological and Orthographic Processing 2. Grapho-motor and Handwriting/Legibility 3. Spelling 4. Written Expression measures of: o Mechanics (Capitalization and Punctuation) o Syntax o Semantics (Vocabulary) o Organization o Ideation • Writing Fluency • Note-Taking Assessment should be geared to the student’s developmental level as follows: Kindergarten

Phonologic and Orthographic Capacity

Grapho-motor

Spelling (Writing letters for sounds) Grades 1-3

Phonologic and Orthographic Capacity

Grapho-motor

Spelling

Written Expression Skills Related to: o Mechanics (Capitalization and Punctuation) o Syntax o Semantics o Organization o Ideation

• Writing Fluency

• Writing Fluency Rate (CBM) Grades 4-6

Phonological and Orthrographic Capacity

Grapho-motor

Spelling

Written Expression Skills Related to:

62

• •

o Mechanics (Capitalization and Punctuation) o Syntax o Semantics o Organization o Ideation Writing Fluency Note-Taking

Grades 7-12

Grapho-motor

Spelling

Written Expression Skills Related to: o Mechanics (Capitalization and Punctuation) o Syntax o Semantics o Organization o Ideation

• Writing Fluency

• Note-Taking NOTE: A comprehensive assessment of a student’s fine motor skills, including handwriting, should be completed by an Occupational/Physical Therapist when case history and/or current observations indicate severe handwriting (graphomotor) difficulties. The student also should receive an Occupational/ Physical Therapy evaluation when other obvious gross or fine motor difficulties are noted.

1. Describe the level of performance obtained, including but not necessarily limited to norm-referenced scores; 2. Describe the relevant specific behaviors observed while the student was performing the task;

If sub-test administration was modified to accommodate an ELL student, report the modifications and apply the proper interpretive approach as outlined in previous sections of this document.

In the case of a student who is an English Language Learner, great care must be taken to first characterize the student’s language abilities and skills in terms of their native language or the language they naturally use to communicate at home or in the community. See the ELL section of this document for appropriate guidelines and methods for assessing the student’s language capacity in native languages other than English. Assessing the level of capacity with written communication skills in English is also important; as long as this information is used to assist in the planning and implementation of an appropriate educational program for the student that supports the student in, rather than excludes the student from, mainstream educational experiences.

W r i t t e n L anguag e As s e s s me n t M e as ur e s

Before selecting an assessment instrument or method, several factors should be taken into account: n n n

What written language skill the measure or method assesses How the selected measure or method measures those skills Technical properties of the measure or method, including reliability and validity of the procedures and adequacy of normative or curricular comparisons

The following is a partial list of applicable written language assessment measures. School psychologists are to use their expertise and discretion in selecting appropriate measures to assess skill development for individual students. (See the Test Resource Guide for information about specific assessment measures.)

63

Phonologic Capacity 1. PAL Rhyming 2. KTEA-II Phonological Awareness 3. NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part A 4. NEPSY Repetition of Nonsense Words Sub-test 5. WIAT-II Word Reading (Items 30-47) 6. PAL Syllables Task 7. PAL Phonemes Task 8. PAL Rimes Task 9. NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B 10. WJIII Spelling of Sounds Orthographic Capacity 1. PAL Receptive Coding 2. PAL Expressive Coding 3. PAL Alphabet Writing (K-6) 4. WIAT-II Alphabet Writing (K-2) 5. Optional/Alternative Measures Graphomotor Processes 1. PAL Alphabet Writing (K-6) 2. WIAT-II Alphabet Writing (K-2) 3. PAL Copying Task A 4. PAL Copying Task B 5. PAL Finger Sense 6. NEPSY Finger Discrimination 7. Optional/Alternative Measures: o Informal Assessment of Student’s Work Samples o Structured CBA and/or CBM Approaches Spelling 1. KTEA-II Spelling 2. WIAT-II Spelling 3. PAL Word Choice (Grades 1-6) 4. WJIII Spelling 5. Optional/Alternative Measure: o Informal Assessment of Student’s Work Samples o Structured CBA and/or CBM Approaches Written Expression (Measures of Mechanics, Spelling, Syntax, Semantics, Organization, Ideation) 1. KTEA-II Written Expression (Sentences, Paragraphs) 2. WIAT-II Written Expression (Sentences, Paragraphs, Essay) 3. WJIII Writing Samples 4. WJIII Punctuation and Capitalization 5. WJIII Editing 6. Optional/Alternative Measure: o Informal Assessment of Student’s Work Samples (Especially Portfolios) o Structured CBA and/or CBM Approaches Writing Fluency 1. WIAT-II Written Expression (Word Fluency Item) 2. WJIII Writing Fluency 3. Optional/Alternative Measure 4. Structured CBA and/or CBM Approaches

64

Note-Taking 1. PAL Note-Taking A 2. PAL Note-Taking B 3. Informal Assessment of Student’s Work Samples (Notes taken from lecture or textbook) Additional achievement tests that include measures of written language skills include the Test of Written Language (TOWL-3) and the Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS).

Assessments Useful for Spanish Speaking Students Cognitive Assessments o UNIT o WISC-3 (Argentinean version) o DAS Speech/language o CELF – 3 Spanish version o PLS – 4 o SLAP – (Spanish Language Assessment Procedures) o SAM – (Spanish Articulation Measure) Academic o Batería Woodcock-Muñoz Achievement Test o Brigance Diagnostic Assessment of Basic Skills o Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC) o Phonemes o DIBELS – Spanish (benchmarks available, progress monitoring coming soon) Social/Adaptive Behavior o Vineland Adaptive Behavior – Spanish o BASC - Spanish Note: The use of discrepancy formulas and standard scores is not recommended for ELLs How the assessment of individual writing skills is characterized as a normative score varies considerably from test to test. Many tests combine two or more writing skill areas within a sub-test to obtain a single sub-test score.

While assessing written language skills through a formal externally driven format provides valuable information as part of a comprehensive evaluation, actual samples of work produced in class ( e.g., daily journals, class spelling tests, answers written on tests, notes from lectures, etc.) should also be considered in the assessment process.

Many teachers gather writing portfolios for each student (often including extensive daily writing samples). These portfolios offer information about the developing nature of the writing process that can be observed over a period of time. Observations of frequently occurring errors and patterns of response can be examined. Having samples generated over a period of time gives a picture of a student’s ability that cannot necessarily be observed within the relatively contrived context of formal assessment tasks that assess various types of written production.

Elements to Include When Describing Written Language Assessment Results from Standardized Achievement Tests Describe the student’s performance in each area assessed. Interpretation should focus on the tasks performed and the specific format used to assess skills. Report scores for individual skill areas when applicable, and take care when reporting “composite” sub-test scores that actually assess a variety of different skills within a single sub-test.

65

For each sub-test or measure: 1. Describe the tasks performed 2. Describe the level of performance obtained, including but not necessarily limited to norm-referenced scores 3. Describe the relevant specific behaviors observed while the student was performing the task

If sub-test administration was modified to accommodate an English language learner, report the modifications and apply the proper interpretive approach as outlined in previous sections of this document.

Gl os s ar y of O r al L ang uag e an d Wr i t t e n L an g uag e Te r ms Grapheme

A single letter or letter cluster representing a single speech sound.

Graphomotor

The motor skills involved with forming letters.

Ideation

Ideas related to the writer’s purpose and intent.

Legibility

The degree to which handwriting is capable of being read by others.

Lexicon

A body of stored verbal knowledge used in either hearing, seeing, or producing language related information.

Mechanics

The rules of language such as capitalization and punctuation.

Orthographic

Pertaining to the use of letters and spelling.

Phonological Processing

The ability to work with or manipulate the speech sounds in spoken words.

Syntax

How words are put together to form sentences.

Semantics

Knowledge of specific word meanings and the conceptual associations among various groups of words. Vocabulary.

66

MATHEMATICS Ove r vi ew Mathematics skills are multifaceted competencies. Mathematics embodies symbol systems for communicating about quantities, the spatial and temporal characteristics of our visually perceived environment, and procedures for manipulating the symbol systems. Despite this direct connection between the visual, nonverbal environment and the symbol systems used to represent that environment, comprehension of mathematics concepts and instruction in mathematics typically relies on as many verbal-oriented cognitive processes as visuo-spatial and visuo-constructional cognitive processes. Because of the approaches used to teach mathematics and the ways that most people choose to speak about mathematics, language plays a very central role for most students in the acquisition of mathematical skills and knowledge. The language demands of a mathematics curriculum can substantially impact the learning capabilities of a youngster who is an English language learner even though she/he might be very capable in the area of reasoning about quantity, time and other mathematics concepts.

While we cannot negate the role of the teacher in scaffolding mathematics instruction for student conceptual understanding and production, the fact remains that without an adequate grasp of the verbal labels used to communicate mathematics concepts and the symbol system and notation used to communicate mathematics in English and to structure work with numerical operations tasks or applied math problems, a youngster is at risk of not comprehending effectively what is being taught about mathematics and not profiting from instruction.

D om ai ns f or C on s i de r at i o n i n t h e As s e s s me n t of M at h e mat i cs S ki l l s Basic Number Concepts Acquisition of mathematics skills is built from a youngster’s innate sense of numeracy (sense of quantity) and is dependent on the grasp of basic number concepts, including classification, ordering, one-to-one correspondence, and conservation of quantity. The youngster builds on these concepts as he or she learns to assign number names in serial order to count objects.

Gaining orthographic awareness for the written representation of numbers leads to the reading of numbers.

Once numbers can be recognized and numerals can be read, they can be used to effectively represent, in the abstract, the physical quantities with which they are associated. The concept of place value, while not necessary, is essential in the development of an understanding of how to read numbers and grasp the quantities they represent beyond single digit numbers.

Learning to write numbers follows a developmental path similar to that involved in learning to write letters, and similar problems can ensue resulting in difficulties with remembering how to form the numbers, poorly formed or illegible numbers, and disruption of number writing due to motor fatigue.

Basic number concept acquisition is demonstrated through knowledge of the following: 1. Rote counting 2. Object counting 3. Number recognition (orthographic awareness) 4. Number formation (writing numbers) 5. Number-quantity association

67

The child’s mathematics conceptual base expands progressively over time with the gradual addition of more complex concepts including a sense of time, the conceptual processes of object collecting and combining, constructing and deconstructing quantities, use of measurement of quantities and distances, and an understanding of money, geometry, and estimation. For effective counting and quantifying, the student must develop an understanding of multiple systems of quantification including the base 10 counting system and English and metric based systems for quantification.

Numerical Operations Basic number reading and conceptual knowledge related to combining, constructing, measuring, and moving along a path are all utilized in the acquisition of skill in the performance of basic mathematical operations. These conceptual operations are then abstracted to form basic calculation routines called algorithms, which include addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

The use of abstracted algorithms for calculation might, or might not be taught and learned in concert with an understanding of the mathematical concepts of combining, collecting, measuring, and moving along a path that underlies deeper understanding of the how and why of the stereotyped problem-solving methodologies embodied in algorithms. If this deeper conceptual understanding is not associated with algorithmic calculations, problems are likely to arise in later stages of mathematics learning when basic operations must be manipulated effectively to solve more complex mathematics applications problems.

Layered on top of a student’s ability to understand basic mathematical operations and to grasp the base 10 place value system, are the skills of manipulating numbers that represent quantities that are less than a whole (fractions, decimals and percents). Using these mathematical concepts in numerical operations involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and division may be confusing to students that are second language learners.

Clinicians need to remember that students from different countries in South America and Asia may have a different mathematical educational background to solve division problems. Also, these students need to understand the correct use of decimals (for example, one thousand is written as 1,000 not as 1.000).

Accurate use of basic operation algorithms is dependent on an understanding of mathematics notation, counting strategies, and storage and retrieval of basic mathematics facts. Completing written numerical operations calculations is a complex integration of multiple abilities and skills. The student must attend to the notation that indicates what procedural algorithm(s) need to be applied, retrieve the knowledge of how to apply the required algorithm(s), sequentially carry out the steps involved in completing the algorithm(s), retrieve math facts as needed, apply place value knowledge, spatially align the work product to ensure calculation accuracy, accurately form the numbers and notation elements in writing, check work for accuracy, and correct any errors. Difficulties with any one of these mental acts can result in significant reduction in accuracy of final solutions to numerical operations tasks.

Instruction geared at teaching how to perform numerical operation algorithms usually involves a great deal of verbal explanation and discussion of quantities using verbal descriptors. It also entails structuring group work that addresses the needs of the students, whether linguistic or content-related or both, and fostering student interaction for conceptual understanding and maximum student performance. The student must have adequate verbal comprehension skills and a knowledge store of the verbal labels used to describe mathematics terms and concepts in order to profit from this instruction. However, such instruction must be well-planned and targeted by the teacher while conducting ongoing diagnostic assessments. Students with language impairments, students from culturally diverse backgrounds, and students who are English language learners are at risk of falling behind in mathematics skill acquisition (especially in abstract areas such as story problems) because of difficulties with these language demands and possible differences in mathematics notation and symbol systems, and so we encourage that teachers scaffold instruction and amplify the language for increased student comprehension.

Use of math instruction using ESL approaches is recommended since key math vocabulary words help learners to identify the numerical operations they should use to solve a problem.

68

Mathematics Problem Solving Solving mathematics problems usually requires the youngster to: 1. draw on his or her understanding of concepts of quantification; 2. apply his or her knowledge of mathematics operations; and 3. generate a strategy to combine conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge.

Geary (1994) presents a model of math development that illustrates the relationship between automaticity and problem solving in mathematics. The student develops active working memory and strengthens associations between the problem and the answer with continued practice. The storage of associations in long term memory, enables the student to access solutions automatically without having to use working memory demands from calculation. This facilitates the transfer of limited cognitive resources to more complex calculations involved in the problem and/or to higher order reasoning and metacognitive processes.

Geary’s model (1994) can be supported by cross-cultural studies that consistently show that more efficient calculation strategies, based on each language’s number terms and counting system, gradually replace less efficient ones and are correlated with speed and accuracy of performance.

Mathematics problem-solving requires skill in generating strategies that enable the student to identify the relevant informational elements of the problem and then set up the problem in terms of the concepts that must be applied and the operations that must be performed. Setting-up a mathematics problem may require a good understanding of the syntax and vocabulary used in stating the problem. We recognize that the teacher plays a critical role in bridging the context of word problems with students’ prior knowledge. Additionally, it is the teacher’s role to unpack the language of mathematics and make explicit the distinctions between word meanings within math and everyday English. Usually the language demands of the problem are processed and a problem-solving setup is accomplished, at which point the student must retrieve the procedural and algorithmic knowledge and/or basic facts necessary to solve the problem, complete any necessary calculations in the proper sequential steps, apply place value knowledge, spatially align the work product to ensure calculation accuracy, accurately form the numbers and notation elements in writing, check work for accuracy, and correct any errors. Difficulties with any one of these mental acts may result in significant reduction in accuracy of final solutions to mathematics problems, although at the crust of mathematics instruction should be concept development via structured student interaction.

Instructional Implications for Math Competence Include: 1. efficient and accurate execution of basic processes leads to progress in mastery of a hierarchy of math skills; 2. focus instruction on such skills as counting facility and math fact retrieval; 3. selection of curricula that places a strong emphasis on math fact mastery.

Youngsters who are not proficient with language processing will find it difficult to comprehend and set-up mathematics problem-solving routines even though they might have the conceptual understanding and facility with numerical operations needed to solve the problems. To that end, teachers must engage students in unpacking the phrases found in word problems and must differentiate between plain English and the language of mathematics so that students internalize the skills necessary to comprehend and successfully solve word problems. Students with language impairments, students from culturally diverse backgrounds, and students who are English language learners are at risk of falling behind in mathematics problem-solving skill acquisition because of difficulties with the language demands of the problem-solving process. Similarly, and perhaps of greater value is the need for the teachers to tap into students’ prior knowledge whether in English or in the native language, to increase the rate at which math is learned. There should be a distinction made between CLD students who are English proficient who may be successful in math problem solving and ELLs who need to understand the key vocabulary in both the native language and English to be successful in problem solving.

Mathematics Fluency Along with the acquisition of rote procedural algorithms for calculation, the results of the first strata of these calculations must be stored as basic mathematics facts and retrieved with good speed and accuracy in order for mathematics fluency to emerge.

69

Mental Calculation Mental calculation involves the ability to hold mathematics information in working memory long enough to identify, retrieve, and perform any necessary manipulations, transformations, or calculations that might be required.

Mental calculation tasks place a great deal of demand on a youngster’s working memory resources in addition to the demand for accurate retrieval and use of mathematical facts and procedural knowledge.

A s s e s s i ng Mat h e mat i cs Ac h i eve me n t at S p e c i al E ducat i o n E val uat i o n When to Assess Mathematics Skills Mathematics skills should be assessed when referral problems indicate an inability to profit from effective instruction directed at the improvement of mathematics skills.

When mathematics performance remains a concern after appropriate instructional efforts, one or more of the following difficulties are likely to be reported: 1. Difficulties with basic concepts of number (number recognition, one-to-one correspondence, counting, etc.)

2. Difficulties performing calculations involving operations with whole numbers (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) 3. Difficulties working with fractions, decimals, and percents 4. Difficulties with the conception and use of measurement, time, and/or money 5. Difficulties with the application of math skills to solve problems encountered in daily living Areas to be Assessed When Mathematics Problems are Identified Typically, mathematics skills are assessed in a dual format: 1. Numerical Operations Calculations. These tasks require the youngster to perform calculations with numbers (numerical operations or mathematics calculations measures). Numerical operations measures require knowledge of mathematical algorithms and notation, such as operations signs, and the syntax of mathematical equations so that the steps in a multi-step calculation problem can be performed correctly.

2. Mathematics Reasoning or Applied Mathematics Problem-Solving. These tasks require the youngster to manipulate number and mathematics concepts in the performance of applied mathematics reasoning problems. Mathematics reasoning and applications measures emphasize the use of number concepts to reason with quantities and the student’s ability to generate strategies for setting-up the problem and carrying out the necessary calculations.

For children in grades K-1, assessment typically focuses first on the child’s understanding of basic number concepts.

When difficulties are noted in any of the areas mentioned above, assessment of the child’s capabilities in the following areas should be carefully considered: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Basic Number Concepts Numerical Operations/Calculations Mathematics Reasoning/Applications Mathematics Fluency Mental Calculation

70

In the case of a youngster who is an English Language Learner, great care must be taken to first characterize the youngster’s mathematics skills as they are demonstrated in the context of their native language or the language they naturally use to communicate at home or in the community. See the ELL section of this document for appropriate guidelines and methods for assessing the youngster’s language capacity in native languages other than English. Assessing the level of capacity with mathematics skills in English is also important, however, as long as this information is used to assist in the planning and implementation of an appropriate educational program for the student that supports the student in, rather than excludes the student from, mainstream educational experiences.

Mat he m at ics As s e s s me n t M e as ur e s Before selecting an assessment instrument or method, several factors should be taken into account: 1. What mathematics skills the measure or method assesses 2. How the selected measure or method measures those mathematics skills 3. Technical properties of the measure or method, including reliability and validity of the procedures and adequacy of normative or curricular comparisons Although standardized assessments provide valuable norm-referenced information about skill levels, psychologists must be careful to include other information collected during the referral and evaluation process in their overall assessment of a youngster’s academic skill acquisition.

The following is a partial list of applicable mathematics assessment measures. School psychologists are to use their expertise and discretion in selecting appropriate measures to assess skill development for individual students.

Basic and Advanced Concepts 1. KTEA-II (Majority of Items 1-32) 2. WIAT-II Numerical Operations (Items 1-7) 3. WIAT-II Math Reasoning (Items 1-16) 4. WJIII Quantitative Concepts 5. Optional/Alternative Measure: o Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials Numerical Operations/Calculations 1. KTEA-II Math Computation 2. WIAT-II Numerical Operations (Items 8-54) 3. WJIII Calculation 4. Optional/Alternative Measure: o Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials o Structured CBA and/or CBM approaches Mathematics Reasoning/Applications 1. KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications (Most of Items 33-88) 2. WIAT-II Mathematics Reasoning (Items 17-67) 3. WJIII Applied Problems 4. Optional/Alternative Measure: 5. Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials Mathematics Fluency 1. WJIII Math Fluency 2. Optional/Alternative Measure: o Informal Assessment Using Norm-Referenced Materials (timing individual item performance on various measures) o Informal Assessment Using Curriculum Materials 71 o Structured CBA and/or CBM approaches

If a detailed analysis of mathematics skills is required, the school psychologist may choose to use tests such as The KeyMath-R Diagnostic Arithmetic Test to assess more specifically areas of concern.

Elements to Include When Describing Mathematics Assessment Results from Standardized Achievement Tests Describe performance in each area assessed. Interpretation should focus on the tasks performed, and therefore description and interpretation typically can be organized by sub-test. On those infrequent occasions when a Composite score is discussed in the interpretive section, the Composite description and interpretation should precede the discussion of the sub-tests that comprise that composite. Composite interpretation should only be done when the performance on the sub-tests that comprise the composite is highly consistent. Composites should not be a focus of interpretation when performance on the sub-tests that comprise the composite is inconsistent (producing statistically significant differences in the levels of performance on the sub-tests).

For each sub-test: 1. describe the tasks performed; 2. describe the level of performance obtained, including but not necessarily limited to, norm-referenced scores; and 3. describe the relevant specific behaviors observed while the child was performing the task.

If sub-test administration was modified or sub-test items were adapted to accommodate an English language learner, report the modifications and adaptations and apply the proper interpretive approach to characterize the student’s mathematics skills as outlined in previous sections of this document.

72

APPENDIX A G u i d el i nes f o r I ni ti al E val uat i on s , Re eval uat i on s , and M andat ed t h r e e ye ar r ev i ew E val uat i on s In all cases, assessments conducted with students should be geared to address specific questions developed jointly by the psychologist and the person referring the child for evaluation. In the case of Mandated three year review Evaluations, the youngster’s parents and teachers need to be consulted to determine the specific questions that need to be answered during the evaluation process. Assessment methods and instruments should be selected for the purpose of answering the referral questions. A fixed, standard battery of tests should not be given to every youngster, regardless of the referral questions posed.

Specific guidelines for the use of intellectual assessment instruments in psychoeducational evaluations are provided in the NASP publication Best Practices in School Psychology IV. This source should be consulted for further information on this topic. Below is a brief summary of some of the points addressed in Best Practices in School Psychology IV: 1. Use of intellectual assessments should be done in the context of a system that emphasizes prevention and early intervention rather than eligibility determination as the initial phase in services to students who exhibit learning and behavior problems. While eligibility for special education might be a concern for a student, that concern should be addressed after, not before, attempts to deal with learning and behavior concerns in the context of regular education. This is consistent with the concept of a threetier service delivery model emphasizing regular education interventions prior to consideration for more intensive special education services.

2. The use of intellectual assessment measures should be directly tied to the referral questions posed.

Not all referral questions will require that a complete, or even a partial, battery of intellectual measures be administered. This is especially the case if a wealth of information has already been collected that effectively documents relevant intellectual characteristics of the youngster.

3. The specific intellectual measures used for an evaluation should be based on the match between the instrument and the characteristics of the youngster. There are several well-developed instruments available to psychologists. At times, one measure might be much better suited to the characteristics of an individual student than the others. All efforts should be made to ensure that the instrument used will enable the psychologist to accurately and effectively characterize the student’s intellectual strengths and weaknesses. These efforts should include using only the most recent edition and norms of a test.

Re-evaluations should be conducted in the same manner as initial comprehensive evaluations in the sense that both must address the specific referral questions posed by the referral source rather than involve the automatic administration of a fixed battery of tests.

Mandated three year review Evaluations Psychologists conducting Mandated three year review Evaluations, also known as periodic reevaluations, should adhere to the guidelines provided by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). The NASP guidelines are stated in a document entitled Position Statement on Periodic Reevaluations for Students with Disabilities. This statement was revised in July, 2004 and is provided in Appendix B of this Practitioner’s Guide in its entirety. NASP cautions that this position statement is periodically subject to review and revision. The NASP website at www.nasponline.org should be consulted for the most recent version of this statement.

73

The NASP position statement on reevaluations reinforces the necessity of structuring data collection methods to fit the questions to be answered in the mandated three year review evaluation process. These questions should be arrived at by the school psychologist in collaboration with the other members of the multidisciplinary team including, but not limited to, the student’s parent(s) or guardian(s), and the student’s teacher(s). In all cases, every effort possible should be made to contact and interview the youngster’s parent(s)/guardian(s) as part of the reevaluation process. Input from the parent(s)/guardian(s) of a youngster is crucial to ensuring the appropriateness of the student’s educational program. In the rare instance when it is not possible to obtain input from the parent(s)/guardian(s), clear documentation of the efforts made to obtain parent input should be maintained in the youngster’s file.

In keeping with the goals of a mandated three year review evaluation, data collection should be consistent with the standards set forth for initial assessments and reevaluations in the sense that all of these must address the specific referral questions rather than involve the automatic administration of a fixed battery of tests.

Note: All of these guidelines should be adhered to in addition to the considerations of the needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse students as presented in this document.

74

APPENDIX B N A S P Po s i t i on S t at e me n t on Pe r i odi c Re eval u at i o ns f or S t ude n t s w i t h Di sabi l i t i e s The National Association of School Psychologists is committed to promoting standards of best practice in conducting periodic reevaluations of students in special education programs, as well as supporting compliance with the requirements of the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

NASP supports, and federal regulations allow, a flexible approach to reevaluations based on the unique needs of the student and the specific questions that need to be answered. The reevaluation is an opportunity to critically examine the current educational environment and to evaluate student progress, instructional needs, the least restrictive environment, and long-term goals. This process requires the collaborative involvement of the multidisciplinary team, including teachers, the family, and the student.

D evel o pi ng a Reeval u at i on P l an Federal guidelines and professional standards call for meaningful, individualized, multifaceted reevaluations that serve the best interests of students. The purposes and specific questions for reevaluation should guide the selection of assessment methods and instruments. Three broad purposes of reevaluation are: Accountability The effectiveness of the student’s individual education program (IEP) should be analyzed. Reevaluations should include a review of progress by examining data reflecting past and present levels of performance. Data may include grades, school discipline records, curriculum-based measures (CBM), and norm-based measures.

Lack of progress should stimulate changes in the IEP regarding curriculum, instructional techniques, behavioral strategies, the educational environment, or a reassessment of the nature of the disability.

Planning Assessment information should be used to determine whether modifications to the special education services are needed in order for the child to meet the annual goals and participate, as appropriate, in the general curriculum. Factors such as behavior, current academic skills, and communication skills as compared to regular education peers should be considered. Future needs must be addressed, especially at transition points in the child’s educational program. Transition planning might address confirmation of disability, community living skills, vocational training, and/or plans for post-secondary education. Further, planning should address any necessary and appropriate accommodations to allow the student to participate in state and district assessments as well as in general education instruction and activities.

Qualification Under IDEA it is assumed that the initial identification of an educational disability and qualification for special education services are valid processes. However, when the initial eligibility determination occurred at a very young age, or when academic experiences were very limited, or when specific developmental delays may have prevented long-term prediction of educational needs, the reevaluation provides an opportunity to reconsider the presence and nature of the disability. When the initial identification and qualification otherwise met standards of reliability and validity, the emphasis of reevaluation usually will not be to reconfirm eligibility, but to gauge the effectiveness of current services and determine future programming needs. IDEA clearly indicates that additional formal assessments to reconfirm the disability are not required unless a change in disability is suspected or the parent requests assessment in specific areas of development. An evaluation must be conducted however, before determining that a child no longer has a disability that requires special education support. If, at the time of the reevaluation, the student’s progress suggests that he or she may no longer have a disability requiring 75 75 special education, the assessment should address the student’s needs and programming in order to

succeed in the general education program.

In reviewing existing data to determine the components of the reevaluation for the individual student, parental input is essential. Further, the team should consider factors that influence the choice of specific assessment procedures including: the student’s age, degree of language proficiency in English, severity and nature of the disability, progress in school, years of support from special education, and the consistency of the results of previous evaluations. Existing information, such as classroom assessments, norm-based measures, curriculumbased measures, observations by related service professionals, and interviews with teachers, family, and student, may provide critical data from which the team can determine what questions need to be addressed by the reevaluation. Finally, the reevaluation should emphasize the collection of functional data readily linked to instructional strategies. The outcome of the reevaluation should be a better understanding of the student’s current levels of performance and needed modifications in instruction to match the goals of the general education curriculum to the extent feasible.

Role o f t he Sc hool P s yc hol ogi s t NASP encourages school psychologists, special education teams, school administrative units, and state education agencies to develop flexible and meaningful approaches to reevaluation. School psychologists have unique training and expertise in gathering and reviewing data, and their knowledge is crucial in the selection of appropriate, reliable, and valid assessment procedures.

School psychologists should also assist in developing appropriate instructional strategies and behavioral interventions so that students with disabilities may be educated successfully in their least restrictive environments with optimal exposure to the general education curriculum.

As part of the IEP team, school psychologists should assist in coordinating a review of the student’s progress that considers the efficacy and appropriateness of the student’s current program. School psychologists should work with parents, student, and teachers in determining future program needs, especially at transition times. Program changes or discontinuing special education services should be addressed when the student has made significant progress in remediating or compensating for learning or behavioral deficits.

The special education reevaluation is an essential component of comprehensive services for students with disabilities. School psychologists can make meaningful contributions to student success by approaching the periodic reevaluation as an opportunity to examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the student’s program.

References Canter, A., Hurley, C. & Reid, C. (2000). A better IDEA for reevaluation. In C. Telzrow & M. Tankersley, IDEA Amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for school-based teams. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997).

- Original version adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, April 1998 - Revised version approved by NASP Delegate Assembly, July 1999 - Revised version approved by NASP Delegate Assembly, July 2004 Note: Also see NASP article on Culturally Competent Assessment of English Language Learners: Strategies for School Personnel at: http://www.nasponline.org/culturalcompetence/cca_personnel.pdf

76

APPENDIX C S amp l es f or Re po r t i n g As s e s s me n t Re s ul t s f r o m I n di v i du al l y - A dmi n i s t e r e d Ac h i eve me n t Te s t s ANNA, AGE 11-11, READING PROBLEMS Anna was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT-II to gain insight into her reading, writing, and mathematical skill development and current level of functioning compared to students the same age as Anna.

To achieve this end, age-based standard scores were used to describe Anna’s level of academic functioning in these areas.

Word Reading Sub-test This task assessed Anna’s ability to orally read words from a list one at a time. Anna quickly and efficiently identified many frequently seen basic words that are typically part of the sight word store of children the same age as Anna. As lower frequency words were encountered, Anna’s word recognition performance began to break down. Rather than attempt to sound out the less familiar words using structural analysis principles, Anna maintained her rapid word reading pace and offered word substitutions for most of these unknown or unrecognized words (“function” for “fraction”; “symbol” for “smudge”; “photograph” for “phonograph”; “dropping” for “deputy”; “pose” for “poise”; “a cure” for “acquire”; “teacher” for “treacherous”; “novelty” for “negotiate”). Anna’s rapid response style, which resulted in many word recognition errors, produced a low average WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Standard Score of 90 (25th percentile).

Pseudo-word Decoding Sub-test This task assessed Anna’s facility with structural analysis. Because the Pseudo-word Decoding Sub-test uses letter patterns that form nonsense words, Anna was unable to use her sight word recognition skills to perform the task and was instead required to demonstrate her knowledge of phoneme-grapheme relationships and structural analysis principles. Anna performed much more poorly on this task than she did with the Word Reading Subtest where her sight word knowledge was relied on heavily. Rather than analyze each orthographic unit in each non-word and assign a corresponding phonemic sound unit based on some underlying structural principle, Anna sometimes jumped to a real word that had many similar visual features (“pun” for “pon”; “drip” for “dreep”; “sway” for “snay”; “flip” for “flid”; “than” for “thag”; “safe” for “shafe”; “yam” for “waim”; “clutch” for “clotch”).

At other times, her responses were nonwords, but still indicated an inability to maintain accurate graphemephoneme relationships (“nup” for “nad”; “chang” for “chag”; “grith” for “gritch”; “yerp” for “herp”). These errors were interspersed with correct readings of some of the nonsense words (“rith”; “caft”; “ched”; “lirst”; “clurt”; “broan”; “fide”; “clait”; “unfrodding”; “jode”). Anna’s difficulties with the application of structural analysis principles resulted in a low Pseudo-word Decoding Sub-test Standard Score of 77 (6th percentile).

Reading Comprehension Sub-test This task required Anna to read sentences (orally) and read paragraphs (orally or silently as preferred by the child) and orally answer questions about what she read. The sentences of the reading comprehension passages are composed primarily of high frequency words in order to emphasize assessment of comprehension of what was read rather than to assess the degree of facility with decoding difficult, lower frequency words.

Anna tended to read passages at relatively rapid rates ranging from 4.1 to 7.6 words per second. When asked comprehension questions, Anna frequently had to look back at the passage to find the information that related to the question. These look-backs were usually efficiently directed to the location in the passage where the information relevant to answering the question was located. The efficiency with which Anna returned to the text to search out answers to questions suggest that she was maintaining a visuospatially-oriented “where” 77 memory trace for the location of important information in the passage. Anna demonstrated a good grasp

of the meaning of the text she read as she earned an above average WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test Standard Score of 111 (77th percentile), although she did depend greatly on a “look-back” strategy to answer most comprehension questions.

Anna was very effective in orally responding to questions that involved recognizing stated and implied detail, using context to determine word meaning, identifying the main idea of a passage, and recognizing stated and implied cause and effect. Anna was much less effective when responding to questions that involved drawing conclusions or making inferences.

THOMAS AGE 8-8, READING PROBLEMS Thomas was administered selected tasks from the Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) to assess his facility with basic cognitive skills that underlie academic skill acquisition in reading and writing.

Thomas was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT to gain insight into his reading and writing skill development and current level of functioning, compared to students the same age as Thomas. To achieve this end, grade-based standard scores were used to describe Thomas’s level of academic functioning. Grade based (Grade 2) scores were selected because of the time of the year of administration of the tasks (summer break) and the fact that he has not been exposed to as much formal reading instruction as children the same age, many of whom have finished 3rd grade.

Phonological Processing Tasks Thomas’s facility with phonological processing was assessed with the Phonological Processing tasks of the PAL. Phonological processing skills are the language processing skills that underlie success in developing effective phoneme-grapheme (from sound to letter or letter group) translation, the skill that enables the development of efficient word recognition skills. These basic phonological language abilities enable a student to understand words as combinations of various sound units (phonemes, syllables, rimes), a skill that is crucial in efforts to “sound out” unfamiliar or less frequently seen words.

Thomas experienced few difficulties with the PAL phonological tasks. Thomas was able to repeat monosyllabic and polysyllabic words presented by the examiner and then say the syllable(s) or phoneme(s) (sound unit) remaining when a targeted syllable or phoneme was omitted (for example, say “umbrella”, now say it without the /um/; say “bring”, now say it without the /r/). Overall, Thomas’ performance on the PAL Phonological Processes tasks earned him scores at the upper end of the continuum when compared with same-grade peers in the PAL standardization (PAL Syllables 51st-60th percentile range; PAL Phonemes 71st-80th percentile range).

Orthographic Processing Tasks The PAL Receptive Coding Task assessed how quickly Thomas could encode written words into short-term visual verbal memory. Each item of this task required Thomas to view a written word for 1 second, then view another word and indicate whether the second word was or was not the same as the original word by saying “yes” or “no.” Thomas’ errors in responding were erratic (easy comparisons were sometimes missed, harder comparisons were often identified correctly in strings suggesting more than chance responding). This response pattern was more suggestive of executive monitoring difficulties than basic orthographic perception deficiency.

Thomas’ performance earned him a score at the lower end of the continuum when compared with same-grade peers in the PAL standardization (PAL Receptive Coding 21st –30th percentile range).

Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test Thomas was shown a list of nonsense words and asked to pronounce each word. Pseudoword decoding tasks (nonsense word reading) use pronounceable nonwords that can be decoded on the basis of phoneme to grapheme relationships and structural analysis skills. This enables the observation of the child’s skill with decoding as a process rather than familiarity with specific words. Thomas’ application of taught rules was very inconsistent and his errors often reflected a lack of attention to the specific details of the pseudowords being presented. Rather than analyze each letter or letter cluster in the nonword and assign a corresponding phonemic sound unit, Thomas sometimes jumped to a real word or a nonword equivalent that had many

78

similar visual features (“bon” for “bim”; “boom” for “poom”; “thing” for “thag”; “wine” for “waim”; “bram” for “broan”).

Despite these types of errors, Thomas performed this task at a level consistent with the average performance of standardization sample children in the 2nd grade (Standard Score 96, 40th percentile).

Word Reading Sub-test This task assessed Thomas’ ability to orally read words from a list one at a time. Thomas demonstrated a fairly well developed basic sight word store, but did not demonstrate many applications of his structural analysis knowledge, preferring to quickly latch onto easily retrievable words with some visual similarities to the ones he was looking at (“now” for “know”; “inside” for “instead”; “stewed” for “stood”; “sigh” for “sight”; “careful” for “carefully”; “fashion” for “fraction”; “oxen” for “oxygen” and “thumpack” for “thumbtack”). However, in one instance, Thomas took his time and applied his word analysis skills to sound out the word “flexible.” Thomas’ efforts earned him a Sub-test Standard Score of 98 (45th percentile).

Reading Comprehension Sub-test This task required Thomas to read sentences (orally) and read paragraphs (orally or silently as preferred by the student) and orally answer questions about what he read. The sentences of the reading comprehension passages are composed primarily of high frequency words in order to emphasize assessment of comprehension of what was read rather than to assess the degree of facility with decoding difficult, lower frequency words.

Thomas read each passage at a pace that was in the lower end of the average range for same-grade peers (less than one word a second). Thomas devoted so much time and energy to the act of recognizing words that his ability to apply his superior reasoning skills to the task of comprehension was greatly compromised. The impact of struggling with word recognition was evident from the fact that when asked to listen to a much more complex story than those he attempted to read, Thomas was able to answer inferential reasoning questions at a very high level. Thomas’ responses to the questions about what he had read both silently and aloud, earned him a WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test Standard Score in the average range (99, 48th percentile).

ELLIS, AGE 11-8, READING PROBLEMS Ellis was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT to gain insight into his reading skill development and current level of functioning compared to students the same age as Ellis. To achieve this end, age-based standard scores were used to describe Ellis’s level of academic functioning.

Word Reading Sub-test This task assessed Ellis’s ability to orally read words from a list one at a time. Ellis did demonstrate knowledge of how to decode unknown or relatively unfamiliar words by applying structural analysis to sound them out and frequently applied these skills to identify words, but his efforts in this area were very slow and laborious.

Interspersed with his sight word vocabulary and accurate word decoding were errors of various types. Some reflected an attempt to apply word attack strategies but the final pronunciation was incorrect and often not a real word (for example, “crowed” for “crowd”; “dee sign” for “design”; “smud guh” for “smudge”; “un a que” for “unique”; “pie er” for “pier” and “sub tel” for “subtle”) and some were quick association detail errors that resulted in saying a word that looks like the word on the page (“function” for “fraction”; “rain” for “ruin”; “cleans” for “cleanse”; “veterinarian” for “veterinary”; “barrier” for “bureau”). Ellis’s efforts at word reading placed him near the lower end of the average range (WIAT-II Word Reading Standard Score 90, 25th percentile).

Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test Ellis was shown a list of nonsense words and asked to pronounce each word. Pseudoword decoding tasks (nonsense word reading) use pronounceable nonwords that can be decoded on the basis of phoneme to grapheme relationships and structural analysis skills. This enables the observation of the student’s skill with decoding as a process rather than familiarity with specific words.

Ellis demonstrated a solid grasp of basic word analysis rules, but occasionally misapplied them or failed to apply them appropriately. The fact that Ellis performed somewhat better on this structural analysis knowledge task than he did on reading of actual words suggests that Ellis has been effectively exposed to structural

79

analysis rules in reading instruction but he has not yet developed the capacity to apply these rules with consistency and automaticity to real words. Ellis’s knowledge of structural analysis and his ability to apply these skills earned him a sub-test Standard Score of 100 (50th percentile).

Reading Comprehension Sub-test This task required Ellis to read sentences (orally) and read paragraphs (orally or silently as preferred by the student) and orally answer questions about what he read. The sentences of the reading comprehension passages are composed primarily of high frequency words in order to emphasize assessment of comprehension of what was read rather than to assess the degree of facility with decoding difficult, lower frequency words.

Ellis read each passage at an extremely slow rate, consistently averaging less than a single word a second.

Students’ Ellis’s age typically can read the same passages at an average rate of about 4-5 words a second.

Although Ellis read slowly, his comprehension of what was read was superior for his age (Reading Comprehension Sub-test Standard Score 124, 95th percentile). Ellis’s responses to the comprehension questions reflected a superior understanding on both literal and inferential levels and an ability to apply his well-developed reasoning skills to the understanding of character’s motives and to attain an understanding of the underlying causes of events in the stories.

Sam pl es f or Re por t i ng W r i t t e n E x pr e s s i o n As s e s s me n t Re s ul t s f r o m Indivi dual l y - A dm i n i s t er e d A c hi eve me n t Te s t s ANNA, AGE 11-11 Anna was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT II to gain insight into her writing skill development and current level of functioning compared to students the same age as Anna. To achieve this end, age-based standard scores were used to describe Anna’s level of academic functioning.

Written Expression Sub-test The Written Expression Sub-test required Anna to perform several different writing tasks including word fluency, sentence combining, and paragraph writing. The scores from these tasks were combined to report a written expression standard score.

On the task requiring word fluency, Anna was required to write down, in 60 seconds, the names of all the things she could think of that are round. Her efforts earned her a score in the lowest quartile.

On a sentence combining task, Anna was required to combine two or three sentences into a single sentence that communicated the same thoughts as the individual sentences. Anna’s rewritings were poorly constructed and usually contained either grammatical or spelling errors as she earned only partial credit for two of the six items administered (e.g., When combining the sentences, “Mark has a sister named Ann.” “Ann is six years old.”, Anna wrote: Mark sister name is Ann and she 6 years old.). Although her sentence combinations usually were not completed well enough to earn 1 or 2 points because of grammatical and spelling errors, she usually did combine the thoughts of each sentence into a single sentence as required.

Anna was then asked to complete a paragraph on the topic, “My favorite game is …” This writing sample would then be evaluated in terms of mechanics (spelling and punctuation), organization, theme development and vocabulary. Anna wrote for only 1 ½ minutes and produced the following three sentences even though she had been told to write at least 5-10 sentences. (When prompted to continue writing, Anna responded that she could not think of anything more to write.)

My favorite game is …. “Swimming. I like swimming because I like to be in the water, dive in or just jump in. I also like to play games in the water.”

80

Anna’s Written Expression score is a composite of all of the above tasks. Anna’s lack of production and errors in grammar and spelling resulted in a below average Written Expression Sub-test Standard Score of 81 (11th percentile).

Spelling Sub-test The Spelling Sub-test required Anna to write the spellings of words as they were dictated to her. Anna produced correct spellings for a number of high frequency sight words and a few more difficult, less frequent words.

Some of Anna’s misspellings represented an attempt to apply structural analysis skills and phoneme-grapheme correspondence, (“climed” [climbed]; “easyer” [easier]; “celling” [ceiling] ). Many of Anna’s efforts at the spelling of words were more representative of attempts to recall the visual pattern of letters in a word, but with errors (“digisn” [design]; “rought” [rough]; “streath” [strength], “douat” [doubt]).

Anna’s efforts on this sub-test earned her a Spelling Sub-test Standard Score of 88 (21st percentile) which is at the lower end of the average range.

LAUREN, AGE 11-4 Lauren was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT II to gain insight into her writing skill development and current level of functioning compared to students the same age as Lauren. To achieve this end, age-based standard scores were used to describe Lauren’s level of academic functioning.

Written Expression Sub-test The Written Expression Sub-test required Lauren to perform different writing tasks including word fluency, sentence combining, and paragraph writing.

To measure word fluency, Lauren was asked to write down in 60 seconds the names of all the things she could think of that are round. Lauren performed in the upper end of the average range on this task.

A sentence combining task required Lauren to combine two or three sentences into a single sentence that communicated the same thoughts as the individual sentences. In contrast to the simple writing fluency task, Lauren had difficulty with the sentence combining tasks. Her rewritings of the sentences usually involved changing wording to such an extent that the meaning of the sentences was significantly distorted and did not keep the main points.

On the paragraph writing task, Lauren was required to complete the following prompt with a 5-10 sentence paragraph: “My favorite game is…” Lauren was told to write down her favorite game and explain why she liked it. She wrote the following passage in 10 minutes: … the forest game. You have to use your imagineation to play. The food is pretendanimalsandleavesmixedwithgrass. There hastobeatleastfive or sixpeopleInthis family. The familyowns sevenhorses. Itisagreatgameanditislotsoffun. I could Goon forhourstalkingaboutthe forestgame. Try it sometimes.

Lauren’s letter formation was legible, but the paragraph she wrote showed a severe disregard for the spacing of words as the text was written in the manner shown above. Although the sample showed some degree of organization and correct punctuation, for the most part, Lauren provided little elaboration of the basic theme and used very simple vocabulary to express her thoughts in writing. Thoughts related to the specific topic of why she likes the game were only “…use your imagination” and “It is a great game … lots of fun”. Lauren’s paragraph writing sample was scored by examining mechanics (spelling and punctuation), organization, vocabulary, and theme development.

Lauren earned a Written Expression Sub-test near the lower end of the average range (Standard Score 89, 24th percentile).

81

Spelling Sub-test This task required Lauren to write the spellings of words as they were dictated to her. Lauren demonstrated a well-developed store of word spellings as she was able to earn an above average Sub-test Standard Score of 117 (87th percentile).

JOSEPH, AGE 11-10 Joseph was administered the Note-Taking Part A and Part B of the Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) as a measure of note-taking abilities.

Note-Taking Sub-test This sub-test required Joseph to listen to a simulated classroom lecture (2 minutes of prolonged listening) and take notes on what he heard. Then, 30 minutes later, Joseph was asked to use his notes and write a summary of the lecture.

During the 2 minute lecture and for 5 additional minutes, Joseph wrote the following information ( the brackets [ ] contain the actual information from the lecture): Just bin found [ Three new animals that have just been discovered in Kulaland] Mom mukey/kitten mukey food is insects [ The Momo Monkey also known as the Kitten Monkey; its main food source is insects found on the forest floor] Poka poka bird [ Polka Dot Bird] Submerine fish every 30 day it submerges [The Submarine Fish surfaces once every 30 days.]

The amount of production and quality of his notes were comparable to the work of the bottom 30 percent of the students in the standardization sample. (Note-Taking Task A-21 30th percentile.)

Thirty minutes later, Joseph was asked to use his notes and write a summary of the lecture. After 5 minutes (the maximum time allowed), Joseph had written the first two sentences below. Because of the limited production during the first 5 minutes, Joseph was encouraged to continue writing. After a total of 20 minutes, he had produced the following: Kola Land has many different kinds of animals. For example heres 3 of them the mom monkey also known as the kitten monkey. [5 minutes elapsed] Its food is insects. Then theres the poka poka birds.

Submerine fish submerge from the water every 30 days.

[20 minutes elapsed].

Joseph’s limited production and the poor quality of description in his summary once again earned him a low score even with the allowance of extra time. (His score reflects a comparison to the standardization sample who wrote a summary in 5 minutes while he was allowed 20 minutes: Note-Taking Task B-21 30th percentile.)

When Joseph was finished writing, he was asked to tell about the lecture in his own words. His oral description of what he had heard in the lecture was much richer and more accurately detailed than what he had written.

Examples of Sub-test Score Reports for WJIII Written Expression Tests (based on children Age 14) Marcus was administered selected tests from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement to gain insight into his writing skill development and current level of functioning compared to students of the same age. To achieve this end, age-based standard scores were used to describe Marcus’ level of academic functioning.

Spelling The Spelling Test required Marcus to write the spellings of words as each word was dictated to him. Marcus’ misspellings of words were most often the result of an error in one letter of the word. (i.e. “rewords” [rewards], “cogh” [cough], “beautifull” [beautiful], “diffrence” [difference], “sauser” [saucer] etc.) His efforts 82 on this test earned him a below average Standard Score of 80 (9th percentile).

Writing Fluency The WJ-III Writing Fluency Test measures skill in formulating and writing simple sentences quickly. For each item, Laticia was shown a picture and three words and instructed to write a short sentence using the three words.

Laticia was required to complete as many items as possible within a 7 minute time limit. Laticia completed 24 sentences. Her sentence production was fairly steady and consistent, producing each new sentence in about 12-16 seconds. Laticia’s sentences frequently contained spelling and morphology errors (“Can you cath the ball”; “The cat plays with yawn”; “That cone taste good”; “The boy get out of bed”). Laticia’s efforts earned her a score in the lower end of the average range (Standard Score of 88, 21st percentile).

Writing Samples The WJ-III Writing Samples Test measures skill in writing responses to a variety of demands, such as adding a sentence to an already started paragraph or writing a note based on instructions. Steven produced a response for each of the 12 writing sample tasks he was administered. Steven’s responses tended to express ideas effectively, but were only minimal in quality, consistently earning only one out of two possible points. Steven’s sentences contained only a few misspelled words and no punctuation or grammar errors. Steven’s efforts earned him a score within the average range (Standard Score of 100, 50th percentile).

Editing The WJ-III Editing Test measured Marcus’ ability to identify and correct errors (punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or usage) found in sentences and short passages that are read silently by the child. Marcus identified 9 of the 20 errors contained in the material he read. He failed to identify about equal numbers of errors in the categories of punctuation errors, capitalization errors, spelling errors, and usage errors). His efforts earned him a score within the lower end of the average range (Standard Score of 91, 27th percentile).

Spelling of Sounds The WJ-III Spelling of Sounds Test required Angie to spell nonsense words that follow phonics and spelling rules as each nonsense word was dictated to her. Angie experienced a great deal of difficulty with this test, making many errors, mainly with the spellings of vowel sounds (for example, spelling fo for “foy” , jung for “jong”, splonted for “splunted”, glaunder for “glounder”). Her struggles with this task resulted in an extremely low Standard Score of 48 (<1st percentile).

Punctuation and Capitalization The WJ-III Punctuation and Capitalization Test required Alan to punctuate or capitalize items correctly. Alan correctly completed 8 out of 22 punctuation items and 7 out of 11 capitalization items. His efforts earned him a score at the lower end of the average range (Standard Score of 86, 17th percentile).

Samples for Reporting Mathematics Assessment Results from Individually-Administered Achievement Tests SARA, AGE 11-11 Sara was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT II to gain insight into her mathematics skill development and current level of functioning compared to students the same age.

Numerical Operations Sub-test This sub-test was used to assess Sara’s ability to calculate using basic operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Sara was given a pencil and paper to work out calculations and a booklet containing problems. There were no time limits. Sara correctly solved 22 of the 34 items she attempted, demonstrating a grasp of basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division with whole numbers and addition and multiplication with fractions and decimals. The areas most problematic for Sara were subtraction and division with fractions and division with decimals. Sara earned an average range Numerical Operations Sub-test Standard Score of 102 (55th percentile).

83

Mathematics Reasoning Sub-test This sub-test was used to assess Sara’s knowledge and application of mathematics concepts across a broad range of content areas such as quantity, geometry, money, and time. The tasks required Sara to look at pictures or written descriptions of math problems and then figure out how to solve the problem and perform the necessary calculations. Sara was allowed to use a pencil and paper to work out problems and there were no time limits. Sara was able to set-up and solve addition, subtraction, and multiplication problems from information given as “word problems”. She solved problems dealing with money, telling time, and recognizing geometric shapes by name.

Sara was not as effective in using grids, graphs and other visuals to make comparisons, draw conclusions, and answer quantity-based questions. Her efforts earned her a Mathematics Reasoning Sub-test Standard Score of 90 (25th percentile).

Note: The above sample case studies do not address issues related to cultural and linguistic diversity.

84

APPENDIX D S amp l e P s yc h o e ducat i o n al Re p o r t The purpose of this case example is to illustrate how educational recommendations related to reading and writing can be generated from cognitive and academic assessment findings.

P s yc h oedu c at i o n al E val uat i o n Re po r t [X] Initial Referral Student Name: John Sample DOB: Age: 9-0 Grade: 3

[ ] Mandated three year review Evaluation

[ ] Reevaluation

School: PS XX Date of Evaluation:

Reason for Referral: John was referred for a psychoeducational evaluation because he has made little progress in the acquisition of reading and writing skills despite remedial efforts to assist John in these areas. John’s parents and teachers want to know why he is not making more progress in reading and writing and what should be done to assist John in improving his skills in these areas.

Information from the Parents or Guardian: Mrs. Sample stated that John is a good-natured child who has a good relationship with his older brother and younger sister. She noted that John has always liked school, but his attitude seems to be changing and she thinks this is due to the difficulties he is having with reading and writing. Getting John to do his homework is also getting much more difficult, especially assignments such as writing sentences using new spelling words. Mrs. Sample notes that she tries to help John learn to read and spell better, but she is not sure what she should be doing to help him improve. Mrs. Sample believes that John’s teachers are trying their best to help him, but she is worried that John is falling further behind in school.

Educational, Social, and Physical History: John has attended PS XX since enrollment in Kindergarten. Developmental history did not indicate any complications with pregnancy or birth, but did note that John was slow to develop language, with his first words being spoken around age 2 ½ and speech being hard to understand through age 4. John’s Kindergarten teacher noted that John was slow to pick up on letter sounds and names and his attempts at invented spellings did not reflect any understanding of the relationship of sounds to letters. In first grade, John seemed to understand the reading process and was able to read most of the sight words introduced and used in reading lessons throughout the year. In second grade, John’s teacher noted difficulties with sounding out unknown words and his slow reading pace and in October referred him for at-risk Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) and Project Read, a program that provides direct instruction in phonics skill development. John participated in these remedial programs for the remainder of the second grade year. Despite these efforts, John was not able to pass the district second grade achievement test administered in the spring. Now in the 3rd grade, John continues to receive remedial services through the at-risk SETSS and Project Read three times a week. Despite these efforts at helping John with his reading and writing, he still struggles with reading and spelling unfamiliar words, and has great difficulty expressing even simple ideas in writing, and is falling further behind his peers in these areas.

John’s skill development in the area of mathematics and his knowledge of other subjects such as geography and science are reported as being appropriate for his age and grade placement.

John’s 3rd grade classroom teacher, Mrs. Harris, stated that John likes to talk about his sports interests with her and with students in the class. John also shows a great deal of enthusiasm for science, especially the

85

insect unit that is now being taught. Although John struggles with reading and does not like to be called on to read orally in class, John always participates in discussion of material that the class is reading. John requires a great deal of assistance during Independent and Guided writing activities, and usually does not produce much written work unless he is assisted.

Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Project Read teacher, Mr. Wilson, stated that John is a hard worker who puts a lot of effort into learning to read, but he does not seem to be able to apply what he is learning very effectively. He noted that John came to the program with some sight word recognition but almost no understanding of how to approach the decoding of words. Although John understands and applies what he learns about decoding words while he is being taught, he often fails to apply newly learned skills in his independent reading attempts. As a result, John has made much less progress in improving his reading than most of the other children in the reading program.

See the Social History for a more detailed account of background information.

Summar y of F i n di n gs / In t e r pr e t at i o n o f As s e s s me n t Re s ul t s

(See the attached Appendix for assessment details).

Cognitive Abilities

What John Can Do (Strengths): 1. John demonstrated effective reasoning with both verbal and nonverbal forms of information 2. John demonstrated average ability to explain his understanding of the meaning of words and an average store of word knowledge 3. John demonstrated average ability to reason with information that he read silently 4. John demonstrated average speed of visual processing of nonverbal information

What John Has Difficulty Doing (Challenges): 1. John demonstrated difficulties with holding auditorilly presented details in mind and working with the details to produce a correct answer. This was especially difficult for John when the details had to be reordered before providing a response 2. John demonstrated difficulty with adequate production of motor responses when coordination of visual processing and motor movements had to be done quickly Academic Skills

What John Can Do (Strengths): 1. John demonstrated average reading comprehension when reading passages that contained mostly words that were familiar to John 2. John is reported to have developed age and grade appropriate mathematics problemsolving skills and basic fact and concept knowledge 3. John is reported to have developed an age and grade appropriate knowledge base in history and science

What John Has Difficulty Doing (Challenges): 1. John demonstrated poor understanding of how to separate words into sound units, identify the separate sound units in words, and recombine these sound units to form new words 2. John demonstrated word recognition and word structural analysis skills at the lower end of the average range 3. John demonstrated great difficulty maintaining a quick, automatic pace when orally reading letters, numbers, and words 4. John demonstrated great difficulty with spelling common words 5. John demonstrated great difficulty with organization, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and quantity of production when writing words and sentences

86

Soc ial and Em o t i onal Fu nc t i on i n g

What John Can Do (Strengths): 1. John demonstrated good social skill development and usually applied good effort when faced with material that he found exceptionally challenging 2. John demonstrated age appropriate levels of emotional control in the classroom and in the assessment situation 3. John demonstrated no evidence of social or emotional disturbance nor behavior disorder

What John Has Difficulty Doing (Challenges): 1. John is becoming frustrated with his lack of success in reading and writing, and his frustration may lead to disengagement. If/when this occurs, staff should be aware the function of his disengagement is not emotional disturbance, and it is a function of frustration with instruction that he believes cannot lead to success 2. John shows signs of emotional bruising from repeated failing experiences under the current instructional system

Concl usi o ns and Rec om m e ndat i o n s John is a friendly, well-mannered 9-year-old boy who enjoys sports and playing with his friends. John has a good relationship with his parents and siblings and appears to be generally well-motivated to do well in school.

Currently in 3rd grade, John continues to experience difficulties with learning to read and write despite provided interventions directed at improving these skills. John’s extremely slow progress in acquiring reading and writing skills appears to be starting to erode his confidence and enthusiasm for school. In the context of the current evaluation, John demonstrated good reasoning abilities and at least average reading comprehension skills.

John struggled with word reading and was not able to effectively apply phonetic or structural analysis skills to read unfamiliar words. John demonstrated pronounced weakness in his ability to isolate and work with the separate sounds that make up words, and this weakness is at the root of his word reading problems. John also demonstrated a severe weakness in rapid automatic naming of letters, numbers and words, and his word reading rate was often very slow even with familiar words. Passage reading was also done at a very slow rate.

John’s reading rate weaknesses are contributing to his difficulties in reading and making it more difficult for him to benefit from the instruction he is being given. John also demonstrated significant weakness in his rate of production of written words. John has been receiving reading instruction that emphasizes word decoding skills and some work on his writing, but these efforts have not worked much on developing automaticity in word reading and word writing.

John requires more specific remedial instruction directed at both word analysis and speed of word recognition and word writing in order to improve his skill development in reading and writing. Although these word level reading skills need to be focused on, John’s reading instruction program will need to include reading of paragraphs and books for meaning and pleasure in order for John to develop the entire range of reading skills. Working on the details of word reading is hard work for a child who has specific weaknesses in processing the details of words, and it will be very important to find ways to help John maintain an interest and love of reading despite all the hard work it will require of him. Keeping John engaged with high interest reading material at his current reading level will help in this regard. With a more focused instructional intervention program in school, support from John’s parents, and lots of hard work on John’s part, it is likely that improvement in reading and writing will be evident.

It must be remembered by all involved, however, that continual effort will be required to help John improve and that the rate of progress might not be as quick as desired.

In order to accomplish the above recommended services, John requires a significantly high level of individualized instruction utilizing strategies that are not currently part of the general curriculum at his assigned grade. In addition, the starting point for instruction in numerous areas is significantly below instructional programs available within his current grade placement.

Based on the information gathered during the evaluation and John’s history of struggles with reading and writing, the following recommendations are made:

87

What John can do for himself: 1. John needs to devote 10 to 15 minutes each day after school to practicing his reading skills. This could be done by John reading a favorite book to his mother, father, or grandparents What Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s family can do for John: 1. Encouraging and rewarding Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts at reading and writing without overemphasizing the outcome.

The important thing to focus on at this time is the fact that John is putting in a good effort to learn to read and write better 2. Reading to John and letting John follow along on the page as they are reading 3. Encouraging John to read to them. If John is reading a very familiar book, they can assist John in improving his reading by having John follow their finger across the page as he reads. The finger serves as a guide for the rate of reading, and the finger should be moved along the page in a manner that encourages John to read a little more quickly than he normally would try to do if he were self-guiding the reading. Because the content of the book is familiar to John, he should be able to spend less time decoding the words and more time adjusting to the faster pace that following your finger is setting for his reading 4. Use of reading materials that reflect Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s non-academic interests, e.g. reading magazines, newspaper articles, and books related to sports What School Staff can do for John: 1. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics and use of the alphabet principle 2. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development beyond the use of the basic phonics 3. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the recognition of basic sight words 4. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction and practice in reading frequently encountered words and words that are not decodable (sight words) quickly and efficiently 5. John should be provided practice in reading materials appropriate for his reading level that require him to apply decoding skills in context 6. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word spelling using a method that presents spelling in an organized scope and sequence that emphasizes phonics and structural analysis skills 7. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of correct punctuation and capitalization when writing sentences 8. John should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction in sentence structure and grammar usage when writing sentences 9. John should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction to improve word selection, use and variety when writing sentences, e.g. using own projects 10. John should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in how to generate ideas to guide writing content 11. John should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction in brainstorming, mapping, outlining and other strategies focused on organizing ideas for written communication, e.g. summarizing a handson science experiment 12. John should receive developmentally appropriate instruction in keyboarding to reduce stress on limited working memory resources 13. John should, on occasion, be provided access to someone who can transcribe his ideas as he engaged in composition and narration of his ideas, e.g. older peer or school volunteer Note: The reading and writing skills noted above should be integrated within the content areas.

88

A p p endi x P s yc h o e d ucat i o n al Re p o r t Psychoeducational Evaluation Results Assessment Methods Parent Interview Teacher Interview Student Interview Classroom Observation Classwork Samples Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II; selected sub-tests) Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL; selected tasks) Classroom Observation John was observed on October 9th during language arts class with his 3rd grade teacher Mrs.Harris. See the attached Classroom Observation Form for details.

Individual Assessment Sessions John was seen for a psychoeducational evaluation in two separate sessions. The evaluation sessions were conducted in the conference room at PS XX. The first session was conducted on October 15th from 9am to 11am and included rest breaks as needed. The second session was conducted on October 17th from 8:45am to 10am and included rest breaks as needed.

Student Interview and Assessment Session Behavior Observations John presented himself as a very friendly and personable boy throughout both evaluation sessions. His conversational skills were quite good as was his sense of humor. All of Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interactions were socially appropriate and the overall impression was one of a child who has the ability to relate well with adults.

John readily talked about his likes and dislikes and the school routine. He identified several sports as his favorites, including basketball and baseball, and expressed pleasure in playing these sports on organized teams.

John also enjoys playing NBA Inside, a video game on the X-Box system. John enjoys playing with friends and mentioned two good friends in his class- Jeff and Kenneth. As testing progressed on the second day, John spoke of his interest in racecars and racing and spoke very enthusiastically on this topic.

John stated that his favorite subject in school is math. In his discussion of the other subjects, John offered many details about the subjects he was studying now (rocks and minerals in Science; Indians in Social Studies). John offered that homework assignments are frequent during the weekdays, but there is no homework on Fridays.

John acknowledged some difficulties in finishing homework assignments, especially spelling papers.

John maintained a very positive approach and a high level of engagement throughout the assessment and readily attempted all tasks given him during the evaluation. John appeared to be putting forth his best efforts throughout the evaluation.

C ogn i t i ve As s e s s me n t Re s ul t s : Reasoning Abilities John demonstrated above average ability to reason with verbal information (Similarities Scaled Score 13, 84th percentile; Comprehension Scaled Score 12, 75th percentile) and average to high average ability to reason with nonverbal visual material (Matrix Reasoning Scaled Score 12, 75th percentile; Picture Concepts scaled score 11, 63rd percentile). John demonstrates effective reasoning skills that form the basis of developing effective reading comprehension.

Language Abilities John demonstrated effective receptive and expressive language abilities during classroom observation and individual assessment sessions. John demonstrated poor understanding of how to separate words into sound units, identify the separate sound units in words, and recombine these sound units to form new

89

words (PAL Syllables Task, 3rd Decile, 21st-30th percentile range; Rimes Task, 3rd Decile, 21st-30th percentile range).

This specific difficulty with phonological processing is the primary basis for the difficulty John is experiencing with word reading. John also struggled with tasks that required him to say the names of letters and numbers and to read sight words as quickly as possible (PAL RAN Letters 2nd Decile, 11th-20th percentile range; RAN Numbers 2nd Decile, 11th-20th percentile range; RAN Words, 1st Decile, 1st-10th percentile range).

Visuospatial Abilities John demonstrated effective visual processing abilities as indicated by his efforts on several tasks that required the organization and processing of visual information (Matrix Reasoning Scaled Score 12, 75th percentile; Picture Concepts Scaled Score 11, 63rd percentile; Symbol Search Scaled Score 10, 50th percentile). John’s effectiveness in working with visual, nonverbal material was greatly reduced when visual perceptual abilities had to be integrated with motor movements for responding (Coding Sub-test Scaled Score 6, 9th percentile; Block Design Scaled Score 8, 25th percentile). Similar motor control difficulties are likely to be interfering with John’s written expression efforts.

Memory John demonstrated adequate retrieval of verbal information from long-term storage (Vocabulary Scaled Score 10, 50th percentile). While John demonstrated average ability to encode (take-in) sequentially presented verbal information (Digit Span Scaled Score 10, 50th percentile), he demonstrated much less effectiveness with holding sequentially presented verbal information and manipulating it to produce a correctly sequenced response (Digit Span Backward Scaled Score 6, 9th percentile; Letter Number Sequencing Scaled Score 7, 16th percentile).

John’s difficulties with holding and manipulating sequential verbal information are likely to be impacting his attempts to grasp the word reading instruction he has been receiving and interfering with his efforts to process and store correct word spellings.

Executive Functions John demonstrated effective emotional control and good decision-making in social situations. John also demonstrated good control and direction of attention processes when engaged in task performance. John’s struggles with rapid automatic naming tasks indicate some executive control weaknesses and these are likely to impact John’s efforts to develop automaticity with word reading.

John demonstrated average processing speed when dealing with reasoning tasks and verbal and visual processing tasks, but his speed was greatly reduced when executive coordination of motor movements and visual perceptual abilities was required. These difficulties are likely to impact on John’s efforts to perform written expression tasks.

Academic Assessment Results John was administered selected sub-tests from the WIAT-II to gain insight into his reading and writing skill development and current level of functioning compared to students of the same age. To achieve this end, agebased standard scores were used to describe John’s level of academic functioning in these areas. Teacher collected work samples and progress reports were also used to determine John’s academic functioning skills.

Word Reading Sub-test This task assessed John’s ability to orally read words from a list one at a time.

John read many of the words on the list very slowly 2-6 seconds a word despite the fact that they were words that John frequently encountered in his daily reading instruction. Although John attempted to decode words using a basic phonetic approach, he was not able to apply more complex structural analysis rules to unfamiliar words.

John’s struggles with this word recognition task produced a low Word Reading Sub-test Standard Score of 84 (14th percentile).

Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test This task assessed John’s facility with structural analysis. Because the Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test uses letter patterns that form nonsense words, John was unable to use his sight word recognition skills to perform the task and was instead required to demonstrate his knowledge of phoneme-grapheme relationships and structural analysis principles. As he did in reading unknown words, John applied a strict phonetic decoding 90

approach to reading the nonsense words. This enabled him to decode several very basic three letter nonwords (e.g., “fum,” “bim,” “pon”). John struggled with patterns beyond the very basic letter-sound correspondences.

John’s difficulties with the application of structural analysis principles resulted in a low Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test Standard Score of 80 (9th percentile).

Reading Comprehension Sub-test This task required John to read sentences (orally) and read paragraphs (orally or silently as preferred by the child) and orally answer questions about what he read. The sentences of the reading comprehension passages are composed primarily of high frequency words in order to emphasize assessment of comprehension of what was read rather than to assess the degree of facility with decoding difficult, lower frequency words.

John read the passages at very slow rates ranging from 1.1 to 2.2 words a second. When asked comprehension questions, John frequently had to look back at the passage to find the information that related to the question.

These look-backs were usually efficiently directed to the location in the passage where the information relevant to answering the question was located. The efficiency with which John returned to the text to search out answers to questions suggests that he was maintaining a visuospatially-oriented “where” memory trace for the location of important information in the passage. John demonstrated an effective grasp of the meaning of most of the passages and sentences he read as he earned an average WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test Standard Score of 106 (66th percentile), although he did depend greatly on a “look-back” strategy to answer most comprehension questions.

Written Expression Sub-test The Written Expression Sub-test required John to perform several different writing tasks including word fluency, sentence combining, and paragraph writing. The scores from these tasks were combined to report a written expression standard score.

On the task requiring word fluency, John was required to write down, in 60 seconds, the names of all the things he could think of that are round. His efforts produced only two words (ball and srca [circle]) earned him a score in the lowest quartile.

On a sentence combining task, John was required to combine two or three sentences into a single sentence that communicated the same thoughts as the individual sentences. John’s rewritings were poorly constructed and usually contained either grammatical or spelling errors as he earned only partial credit for two of the six items administered (e.g., When combining the sentences, “Mark has a sister named Ann.” “Ann is six years old.”, John wrote: Mark sister nam is Ann an she 6 yers old.).

John was then asked to complete a paragraph on the topic, “My favorite game is …” This writing sample was evaluated in terms of mechanics (spelling and punctuation), organization, theme development and vocabulary.

John wrote for only 3 ½ minutes and produced the following three sentences even though he had been told to write at least 5-10 sentences. (When prompted to continue writing, John responded that he could not think of anything more to write.)

My favorite game is …. “Siming. I like simming because I like to be in the water, dive in or just jump in.

I also like games in water.”

John’s Written Expression score is a composite of all of the above tasks. John’s lack of production and errors in grammar and spelling resulted in a below average Written Expression Sub-test Standard Score of 76 (5th percentile).

Spelling Sub-test The Spelling Sub-test required John to write the spellings of words as they were dictated to him. John produced a few correct spellings only for some high frequency sight words (we, is, big, look). John’s incorrect spellings reflected some attempt to apply sound-letter phonetic correspondences, but vowel sounds were frequently misrepresented and consonants were omitted. John did not demonstrate the use of more complex structural analysis rules in any of his spelling attempts. John’s efforts on this sub-test earned him a low Spelling Sub-test Standard Score of 76 (5th percentile).

91

T E S T RE S U LT S Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) Scales

Standard Score

Percentile

Full Scale

98

45

Standard Score

Percentile

Verbal Comprehension

108

70

Perceptual Reasoning

102

55

Working Memory

86

18

Processing Speed

88

21

Indexes

(NOTE: Standard Scores range from a low of 40 to a high of 160, with 100 as the average score.)

Verbal tests

Comprehension

Sub-

Scaled Score

Percentile

Vocabulary

10

50

Similarities

13

84

Comprehension

12

75

Perceptual Reasoning Sub-tests

Scaled Score

Percentile

Block Design

9

37

Matrix Reasoning

12

75

Picture Concepts

11

63

92

Working Memory Sub-tests

Scaled Score

Percentile

Digit Span

8

25

Letter Number Sequencing

7

16

Processing Speed Sub-tests

Scaled Score

Percentile

Coding

6

9

Symbol Search

10

50

(NOTE: Scaled Scores range from a low of 1 to a high of 19, with 10 as the average score.)

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II)

Sub-tests

Standard Score

Percentile

Reading Comprehension

106

66

Word Reading

84

14

Pseudoword Decoding

80

9

Spelling

76

5

Written Expression

76

5

(NOTE: Standard Scores range from a low of 40 to a high of 160, with 100 as the average score.)

The above Sample Special Education Evaluation Initial Comprehensive Psychoeducational Report does not address issues related to culture and linguistic diversity.

93

APPENDIX E QU I C K RE F E RE N C E G U I D E f o r L i nk i n g A s s e s s m en t an d I n t e r ve n t i o n Re co mme n da t i o n s

chart starts on the following page

94

95

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Orthographic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols)

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill Notes

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness PAL Rhyming Tasks, NEPSY Phonological Processing Part A, WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) WJIII Sound Awareness WJIII Sound Blending Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

• Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• • •

• • •

• • • •

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

___________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

Kindergarten

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading

96

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word meanings and word usage. ______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in thinking strategies that improve skills in deriving meaning from text.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction aimed at improving the ability to reason with verbal information.

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• Vocabulary tasks on Standardized Measures such as the WPPSI-III, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments • WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test • WJIII Passage Comprehension Sub-test • KTEA-II Reading Comprehension • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

• Reasoning tasks on Standardized measures such as the WISCIII, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Informal assessments

Word Comprehension (Vocabulary)

Passage Comprehension

Reasoning with verbal information

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in accurately naming the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

PhonologicOrthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 1-18) WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 4-29) WJIII Letter Word Identification Sub-test (Items 1-16) PAL Rapid Automatic Naming Letters Task Criterion-Referenced Curriculum-Based Measures, Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • • • • • • •

Notes

Automaticity (Early PreReading Stage: Letter Naming, i.e. associating a unique verbal label with each letter)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Kindergarten)

97

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness and basic phonological processing.

• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4 & 5) • PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks • NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B • WJIII Incomplete Words • Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness NEPSY Phonological processing Part A, WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) WJIII Sound Awareness WJIII Sound Blending Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • • • • • • • • •

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Grade 1

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading

98

____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in accurately naming the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet.

KTEA-II Ltr-Wd Rec (Items 1-18) WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 4-29) WJIII Letter Word Identification Sub-test (Items 1-16) PAL Rapid Automatic Naming-Letters Task Criterion-Referenced Curriculum-Based Measures, • Informal assessments

• • • • • •

Automaticity (Early PreReading Stage: Letter Naming, i.e. associating a unique verbal label with each letter)

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

• PAL Receptive Coding Task • Informal assessments

Use these tasks when word reading inefficiencies unrelated to phonologicallybased word decoding difficulties are suspected.

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Recommendation For Direct Instruction Intervention when Deficiencies are Identified (STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods

• Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Orthographic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 1)

99

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding • WIAT-II Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test • WJIII Word Attack Sub-test • Informal assessments

• KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 19-99) • WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 48-131) • WJIII Letter-Word Identification Sub-test (Items 17-76) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Many 1st grade children cannot do this task and will receive raw scores of 0 on standardized measures of word attack. In these cases, the raw score of 0 should not be interpreted as a standard score.

Some 1st grade children cannot read any words.

When that is the case, a recommendation should be made to attempt to help the child learn to read words.

PhonologicOrthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

Word Attack Skills (decoding using the Alphabet Principle, phonics, and structural analysis; PhonologicOrthographic association Intermediate and Advanced Stages: Words)

Word Recognition Skills (reading words in isolation)

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the recognition of basic sight words.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Notes

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 1)

100

• Reasoning tasks on Standardized measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Informal assessments

Reasoning with verbal information

KTEA-II Reading Comprehension WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test WJIII Passage Comprehension Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

• • • • •

KTEA-II Word Recognition Fluency KTEA-II Decoding Fluency TOWRE Word and Nonword PAL Rapid Automatic Naming Tasks Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

Passage Comprehension

• • • • • • •

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• Vocabulary tasks on Standardized Measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Some 1st grade children will be unable to do this task because they are not reading words

Notes

Word Comprehension (Vocabulary)

Automaticity (Later Stage: Word Recognition Speed)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction aimed at improving the ability to reason with verbal information.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in thinking strategies that improve skills in deriving meaning from text.

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word meanings and word usage.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction and practice in reading frequently encountered words and words that are not decodable (sight words) quickly and efficiently.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 1)

101

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (1-3) NEPSY Phonological Processing Part A, WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) WJIII Sound Awareness WJIII Sound Blending Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B WJIII Incomplete Words Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

• • • • •

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• • • • • • • • •

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Grade 2

__________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness and basic phonological processing.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading

102

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

• PAL Receptive Coding Task • Informal assessments

Use these tasks when word reading inefficiencies unrelated to phonologicallybased word decoding difficulties are suspected.

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Orthographic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 2)

103

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments • KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding • WIAT-II Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test • WJIII Word Attack Subtest • Informal assessments

• KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 19-99) • WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 48-131) • WJIII Letter-Word Identification Sub-test (Items 17-76) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Phonologic-Orthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

Word Attack Skills (decoding using the Alphabet Principle, phonics, and structural analysis; PhonologicOrthographic association Intermediate and Advanced Stages: Words)

Word Recognition Skills (reading words in isolation)

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the recognition of basic sight words.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Notes

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 2)

104

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in thinking strategies that improve skills in deriving meaning from text.

• • • • •

Passage Comprehension

KTEA-II Reading Comprehension WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test WJIII Passage Comprehension Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word meanings and word usage.

• Vocabulary tasks on Standardized Measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Word Comprehension (Vocabulary)

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction and practice in reading frequently encountered words and words that are not decodable (sight words) quickly and efficiently.

KTEA-II Word Recognition Fluency KTEA-II Decoding Fluency TOWRE Sub-tests PAL Rapid Automatic Naming Tasks Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

Most 2nd grade children will not require assessment at this level; automaticity assessment will be focused on word reading.

• • • • • • •

Automaticity (Early PreReading Stage: Letter Naming, i.e. associating a unique verbal label with each letter)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in accurately naming the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Automaticity (Later Stage: Word Recognition Speed)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 1-18) WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 4-29) WJIII Letter Word Identification Sub-test (Items 1-16) PAL Rapid Automatic Naming-Letters Task Criterion-Referenced Curriculum-Based Measures, Informal assessments

Notes

• • • • • • •

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 2)

105

Reasoning with verbal information

Fluency

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Some 2nd grade children will not be able to perform these fluency tasks.

Notes

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in reading strategies that improve speed and accuracy of word reading in combination with accurate comprehension of what is being read. ______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction aimed at improving the ability to reason with verbal information.

• Reasoning tasks on Standardized measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Informal assessments

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

• KTEA-II Rdg Comprehension (Consider passage reading words a second and comprehension score together) • WIAT-II Comprehension (Consider Comprehension score and reading rate quartile together) • WJIII Reading Fluency Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Partial List of Possible

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 2)

106

Many 3rd grade students will not have difficulties with these simple phonemic awareness tasks even if they have phonological processing deficits that interfere with word reading.

These tasks are used to identify persistent deficits in phonological processing.

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Reading Process/Skill

NOTE: At these age/grade levels, Phonological Processing tasks are used to help confirm or rule out developmental phonological dyslexia as the basis for reading difficulties. At this grade/age level, specific recommendations typically are not made for improving phonological processing skills; intervention recommendations address bypass and compensation strategies that teach word decoding and structural analysis skills.

Refer to the recommendations under Word Recognition Skills for appropriate intervention strategies.

• • • • •

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B WJIII Incomplete Words Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (1-3) NEPSY Phonological Processing Part A, WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) WJIII Sound Awareness WJIII Sound Blending Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• • • • • •

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Grade 3

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading

107

Most 3rd grade students will not have difficulties with this task.

Use these tasks when word reading inefficiencies unrelated to word decoding difficulties are suspected.

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Notes

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Phonologic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

• PAL Receptive Coding Task • Informal assessments

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

• Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 3)

108

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the recognition of basic sight words.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

• KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 19-99) • WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 48-131) • WJIII Letter-Word Identification Sub-test (Items 17-76) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding WIAT-II Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test WJIII Word Attack Sub-test Informal assessments

Word Recognition Skills (reading words in isolation)

Many 3rd grade students will not have difficulty with these tasks even if they have persistent deficits in phonological processing that make it difficult for them to use this skill effectively.

_____________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

PhonologicOrthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

• • • •

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Word Attack Skills (decoding using the Alphabet Principle, phonics, and structural analysis; PhonologicOrthographic association Intermediate and Advanced Stages: Words)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

Notes

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 3)

109

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction and practice in reading frequently encountered words and words that are not decodable (sight words) quickly and efficiently.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word meanings and word usage.

______________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in thinking strategies that improve skills in deriving meaning from text.

• Vocabulary tasks on Standardized Measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments • • • • •

Word Comprehension (Vocabulary)

Passage Comprehension

KTEA-II Reading Comprehension WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test WJIII Passage Comprehension Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

KTEA-II Word Recognition Fluency KTEA-II Decoding Fluency TOWRE Sub-tests PAL Rapid Automatic Naming Tasks Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

• • • • • • •

Automaticity (Later Stage: Word Recognition Speed)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in accurately naming the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet.

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Item 1-18) • WIAT-II Word Rdg Sub-test (Items 4-29) • WJIII Letter Word Identification Sub-test (Items 1-16) • PAL Rapid Automatic Naming-Letters Task • Criterion-Referenced • Curriculum-Based Measures, • Informal assessments

Notes

Automaticity (Early PreReading Stage: Letter Naming, i.e. associating a unique verbal label with each letter)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 3)

110

____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction aimed at improving the ability to reason with verbal information.

• Reasoning tasks on Standardized measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Informal assessments

Reasoning with verbal information

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in reading strategies that improve speed and accuracy of word reading in combination with accurate comprehension of what is being read.

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• KTEA-II Rdg Comprehension (consider words a second passage reading rate and comprehension score together).

• WIAT-II Comprehension (Consider Comprehension score and reading rate quartile together) • WJIII Word Fluency Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Fluency

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grade 3)

111

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

• PAL Receptive Coding Task • Informal assessments

Use these tasks when word reading inefficiencies unrelated to word decoding difficulties are suspected.

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

NOTE: At these age/grade levels, Phonological Processing tasks are used to help confirm or rule out developmental phonological dyslexia as the basis for reading difficulties. At this grade/age level, specific recommendations are not made for improving phonological processing skills; intervention recommendations address by-pass and compensation strategies that teach word decoding and structural analysis skills. Refer to the recommendations under Word Recognition Skills for appropriate intervention strategies.

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) • PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks • NEPSY Phonological Processing Subtest Part B • WJIII Incomplete Words • Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Reading Process/Skill

Grades 4-12

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading

112

Automaticity (Early Pre-Reading Stage: Letter Naming, i.e. associating a unique verbal label with each letter)

Word Recognition Skills (reading words in isolation)

Word Attack Skills (decoding using the Alphabet Principle, phonics, and structural analysis; Phonologic-Orthographic association Intermediate and Advanced Stages: Words)

Reading Process/Skill

Sometimes Grade K and Grade 1, Always Grades 2 and above

Notes

KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 19-99) WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 48-131) WJIII Letter-Word Identification Sub-test (Items 17-76) Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

• •

• KTEA-II Ltr & Wd Rec (Items 1-18) • WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test (Items 4-29) • WJIII Letter Word Identification Sub-test (Items 1-16) • PAL Rapid Automatic Naming-Letters Task • Criterion-Referenced • Curriculum-Based Measures, • Informal assessments

• • •

•

KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding WIAT-II Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test WJIII Word Attack Sub-test Informal assessments

• • • •

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in accurately naming the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet.

____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the recognition of basic sight words.

____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of phonics and/or structural analysis skills for decoding skill development.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grades 4-12)

113

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word meanings and word usage.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in thinking strategies that improve skills in deriving meaning from text. __________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in reading strategies that improve speed and accuracy of word reading in combination with accurate comprehension of what is being read.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction aimed at improving the ability to reason with verbal information.

• Vocabulary tasks on Standardized Measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments KTEA-II Reading Comprehension WIAT-II Reading Comprehension Sub-test WJIII Passage Comprehension Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

• • • • •

• KTEA-II Reading Comprehension (consider words a second passage reading rates with comprehension score) • WIAT-II Comprehension (Consider Comprehension score and reading rate quartile together) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments • Reasoning tasks on Standardized measures such as the WISC-III, WISC-IV, DAS, SB5, WJIII • Informal assessments

Passage Comprehension

Fluency

Reasoning with verbal information

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction and practice in reading frequently encountered words and words that are not decodable (sight words) quickly and efficiently.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Word Comprehension (Vocabulary)

PAL Rapid Automatic Naming Tasks Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• • • •

Notes

Automaticity (Later Stage: Word Recognition Speed)

Pre-Reading and/ or Reading Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Reading (Grades 4-12)

114

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Orthographic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols)

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

• Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (1-3) PAL Rhyming Tasks, NEPSY Phonological Processing Part A, WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) WJIII Sound Awareness WJIII Sound Blending Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• • • • • • •

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Kindergarten

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

WRITING

115

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in forming letters and words using a pencil and/or pen and paper.

PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) WIAT-II Alphabet Writing Task (K-2) PAL Finger Sense Task NEPSY Finger Discrimination Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessment (work samples) WIAT-II Spelling Sub-test (Items 1-12) WJIII Spelling of Sounds Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

• • • • • • • • • • •

Graphomotor Processes

Pre-Spelling/ Spelling

Usually involves producing letters that are associated with specific phonemes.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word spelling using a method that presents spelling in an organized scope and sequence that emphasizes phonics and structural analysis skills.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

PhonologicOrthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) • WIAT-II Alphabet Writing Task (K-2) • Informal assessments

Notes

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography /

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Kindergarten)

116

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness and basic phonological processing.

• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) • PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks • NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B • WJIII Incomplete Words • Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (1-3) • NEPSY Phonological Processing Part A, • WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) • WJIII Sound Awareness • WJIII Sound Blending • Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Grades 1-2

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

WRITING

117

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Orthographic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols)

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Notes

PhonologicOrthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill (STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

___________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

• Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• PAL Receptive Coding Task • PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) • WIAT-II Alphabet Writing Task (K-2) • Informal assessments

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 1-2)

118

PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) WIAT-II Alphabet Writing Task (K-2) PAL Copying Task A PAL Copying Task B PAL Finger Sense Task NEPSY Finger Discrimination Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessment (work samples) KTEA-II Spelling Sub-test WIAT-II Spelling Sub-test PAL Word Choice Task WJIII Spelling of Sounds Sub-test WJIII Spelling Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments KTEA-II Written Expression Sub-test WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test WJIII Writing Samples WJIII Punctuation and Capitalization WJIII Editing Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessment (work samples)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Pre-Spelling/ Spelling

Written Expression (Mechanics, Spelling, Syntax, Semantics, Organization, Ideation)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• • • • • • • • •

Notes

Graphomotor Processes

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill

________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in the use of correct punctuation and capitalization when writing sentences. ________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction in sentence structure and grammar usage when writing sentences. ________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction to improve word selection, use and variety when writing sentences. __________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in how to generate ideas to guide writing content production.

________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word spelling using a method that presents spelling in an organized scope and sequence that emphasizes phonics and structural analysis skills.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in forming letters and words using a pencil and/or pen and paper.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 1-2)

119

Writing Fluency

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill Notes

• WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test (Word Fluency Item) • WJIII Writing Fluency Subtest • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) (STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction for improving the speed of production of written material.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 1-2)

120

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Notes

Phonologic Capacity Early stage: Phonemic Awareness (Sub-word level sound awareness and production)

Writing Process/Skill

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonemic awareness and basic phonological processing.

• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) • PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks • NEPSY Phonological Processing Sub-test Part B • WJIII Incomplete Words • Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (1-3) PAL Rhyming Tasks, NEPSY Phonological Processing Part A, WIAT-II Word Reading Sub-test Items 30-40) WJIII Sound Awareness WJIII Sound Blending Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

• • • • • • •

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Grade 3

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

WRITING

121

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in phonics.

• Voicing the sound associated with single letters or letter clusters on specific items of Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

PhonologicOrthographic Association; (Early Stage: Letters and Letter Clusters)

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

Most 3rd grade students will not have difficulties with this task.

Usually assessed as part of the reading skills assessment; performance likely to impact early spelling skill acquisition.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

Orthographic Capacity Early Stage: Orthographic Awareness (Recognizing the letters of the alphabet as a distinct code different from other symbols) • PAL Receptive Coding Task • PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) • WIAT-II Alphabet Writing Task (K-2) • Informal assessments

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in orthographic awareness, that is, in discriminating lower and upper case letters from other symbols (such as numbers) and nonsymbols (geometric shapes, etc).

Notes

• Letter recognition items on Standardized Achievement Tests, • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Writing Process/Skill

Writing (Grade 3) Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

122

__________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction for improving the speed of production of written material.

• WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test (Word Fluency Item) • WJIII Writing Fluency Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments

Writing Fluency

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word spelling using a method that presents spelling in an organized scope and sequence that emphasizes phonics and structural analysis skills.

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • KTEA-II Spelling Subtest • WIAT-II Spelling Sub-test • PAL Word Choice Task • WJIII Spelling of Sounds Sub-test • WJIII Spelling Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Spelling

Writing Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grade 3)

123

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Writing Process/Skill

These tasks are used to identify persistent deficits in phonological processing.

Notes

• • • • • PAL Receptive Coding Task PAL Expressive Coding Task PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) WIAT-II Alphabet Writing Task (K-2) Informal assessments

• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) • PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks • NEPSY Phonological Processing Subtest Part B • WJIII Incomplete Words • Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Grades 4-6

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

NOTE: At these age/grade levels, Phonological Processing tasks are used to help confirm or rule out developmental phonological dyslexia as the basis for reading difficulties. At this grade/age level, specific recommendations typically are not made for improving phonological processing skills; intervention recommendations address by-pass and compensation strategies that teach word decoding and structural analysis skills. Refer to the recommendations under Spelling Skills for appropriate intervention strategies.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

WRITING

124

PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) PAL Copying Task A PAL Copying Task B PAL Finger Sense Task NEPSY Finger Discrimination Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessment (work samples)

KTEA-II Spelling Sub-test WIAT-II Spelling Sub-test PAL Word Choice Task WJIII Spelling of Sounds Sub-test WJIII Spelling Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

• • • • • • •

Spelling

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • • • • • • • •

Notes

Graphomotor Processes

Writing Process/Skill

________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word spelling using a method that presents spelling in an organized scope and sequence that emphasizes phonics and structural analysis skills.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in forming letters and words using a pencil and/or pen and paper.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 4-6)

125

______________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction for improving the speed of production of written material.

______________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in note-taking strategies and techniques.

• WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test (Word Fluency Item) • WJIII Writing Fluency Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments • PAL Note-Taking Part A • PAL Note-Taking Part B • Informal assessments

Usually Grades 1 and above

Often Grades 4 and above

Note-taking

______________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in how to generate ideas to guide writing content production.

_____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in how to better organize extended text production (paragraphs, letters, reports, etc).

______________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction to improve word selection, use and variety when writing sentences and paragraphs.

_____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction in correct sentence structure and grammar usage when writing sentences and paragraphs.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in applying correct punctuation and capitalization when writing sentences and paragraphs.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Writing Fluency

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

• KTEA-II Written Expression Sub-test • WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test • WJIII Writing Samples • WJIII Punctuation and Capitalization • WJIII Editing • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessment (work samples)

Notes

Written Expression (Mechanics, Spelling, Syntax, Semantics, Organization, Ideation)

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 4-6)

126

Orthographic Capacity Later Stage: Encoding or Immediate Memory for Orthography

Phonologic Capacity Later Stage: Phonological Processing (Sub-word level sound analysis and manipulation)

Writing Process/Skill

These tasks are used to identify persistent deficits in phonological processing.

Notes

NOTE: At these age/grade levels, Phonological Processing tasks are used to help confirm or rule out developmental phonological dyslexia as the basis for reading difficulties.

At this grade/age level, specific recommendations typically are not made for improving phonological processing skills; intervention recommendations address by-pass and compensation strategies that teach word decoding and structural analysis skills. Refer to the recommendations under Spelling Skills for appropriate intervention strategies.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in focusing attention on letter features and quickly attending to and visually scanning and registering all the letters of a word.

• Informal assessments: The PAL tasks can be used in an informal assessment capacity at these grade levels: • PAL Receptive Coding Task • PAL Expressive Coding Task • PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness (4-5) • PAL Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes Tasks • NEPSY Phonological Processing Subtest Part B • WJIII Incomplete Words • Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

Grades 7-12

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

WRITING

127

Spelling

Graphomotor Processes

Writing Process/Skill Notes

KTEA-II Spelling Sub-test WIAT-II Spelling Sub-test WJIII Spelling of Sounds Sub-test WJIII Spelling Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

The PAL tasks can be used in an informal assessment capacity at these grade levels: • PAL Word Choice Task

• • • • • •

Informal assessment: The PAL tasks can be used in an informal assessment capacity at these grade levels: • PAL Alphabet Writing Task (K-6) • PAL Copying Task A • PAL Copying Task B • PAL Finger Sense Task • Informal assessment (work samples)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

_____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in word spelling using a method that presents spelling in an organized scope and sequence that emphasizes phonics and structural analysis skills.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in forming letters and words using a pencil and/or pen and paper.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 7-12)

128

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction for improving the speed of production of written material.

__________________________should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in note-taking strategies and techniques.

• WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test (Word Fluency Item) • WJIII Writing Fluency Subtest • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessments • PAL Note-Taking Part A • PAL Note-Taking Part B • Informal assessments

Note-taking

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in how to generate ideas to guide writing content production.

__________________________should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in how to better organize extended text production (paragraphs, letters, reports, etc).

__________________________should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction to improve word selection, use and variety when writing sentences and paragraphs.

__________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate instruction in correct sentence structure and grammar usage when writing sentences and paragraphs.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in applying correct punctuation and capitalization when writing sentences and paragraphs.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Writing Fluency

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • KTEA-II Written Expression Sub-test • WIAT-II Written Expression Sub-test • WJIII Writing Samples • WJIII Punctuation and Capitalization • WJIII Editing • Criterion-Referenced measures • Curriculum-Based measures • Informal assessment (work samples)

Notes

Written Expression (Mechanics, Spelling, Syntax, Semantics, Organization, Ideation)

Pre-Writing and/ or Writing Process/Skill

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Writing (Grades 7-12)

129

• • • • •

Numerical Operations Knowledge/Skills

KTEA-II Math Computation Sub-test WIAT-II Numerical Operations Sub-test WJIII Calculation Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

• KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications • WIAT-II Mathematics Reasoning Subtest • WJIII Quantitative Concepts –Number Series Sub-test • WJIII Applied Problems Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Mathematics Reasoning

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications (Number Concepts Items Subarea) • WIAT-II Numerical Operations Sub-test (Items 1-7) • WIAT-II Math Reasoning Sub-test (Items 1-16) • WJIII Quantitative Concepts (Items 1-20) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Basic Mathematics Concepts

Mathematics Skills

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

____________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in performing numerical operations in the areas of **. (** Specify area requiring attention, e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc.)

_________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in strategies and techniques for solving mathematics reasoning problems using mathematics operations and concepts appropriate for current grade level placement.

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction that teaches basic mathematics concepts including **. (**Specify the concepts that need to be taught, e.g., grasping oneto-one correspondence, counting, recognizing numerals, using number names to count, identifying numbers by name, identifying geometric shapes, ordinal numbers, etc.)

Kindergarten

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

MATHEMATICS

130

Numerical Operations Accuracy

Mathematics Skills

Notes

Process oriented observations and error analysis applied to the sub-tests listed under Numerical Operations Knowledge/Skills

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in strategies and techniques for self-monitoring performance and checking work for accuracy, and correcting errors.

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Mathematics (Kindergarten)

131

_________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in strategies and techniques for solving mathematics reasoning problems using mathematics operations and concepts appropriate for current grade level placement.

• KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications • WIAT-II Mathematics Reasoning Sub-test • WJIII Quantitative Concepts –Number Series Sub-test • WJIII Applied Problems Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Mathematics Reasoning

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction that teaches basic mathematics concepts including **. (**Specify the concepts that need to be taught, e.g., grasping one-to-one correspondence, counting, recognizing numerals, using number names to count, identifying numbers by name, identifying geometric shapes, ordinal numbers, etc.)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications (Number Concepts Subarea items) • WIAT-II Numerical Operations Sub-test (Items 1-7) • WIAT-II Math Reasoning Sub-test (Items 1-16) • WJIII Quantitative Concepts (Items 1-20) • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Basic Mathematics Concepts

Mathematics Skills

Grades 1-4

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

MATHEMATICS

132

__________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in techniques for initially storing, and/or improving speed and accuracy of retrieval of, basic math ** facts. (**Specify area of facts, e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)

• • • •

Mathematics Facts Fluency WJIII Math Fluency Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

_________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in strategies and techniques for self-monitoring performance and checking work for accuracy, and correcting errors.

Process oriented observations and error analysis applied to the sub-tests listed under Numerical Operations Knowledge/Skills

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in performing numerical operations in the areas of **. (** Specify area requiring attention, e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc.)

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

Numerical Operations Accuracy

KTEA-II Math Computation Sub-test WIAT-II Numerical Operations Sub-test WJIII Calculation Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Informal assessments

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • • • • •

Notes

Numerical Operations Knowledge/Skills

Mathematics Skills

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Mathematics (Grades 1-4)

133

________________should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in strategies and techniques for solving mathematics reasoning problems using mathematics operations and concepts appropriate for current grade level placement.

______________should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in performing numerical operations in the areas of **. (** Specify area requiring attention, e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc.)

• KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications • WIAT-II Mathematics Reasoning Sub-test • WJIII Quantitative Concepts –Number Series Sub-test • WJIII Applied Problems Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments • KTEA-II Math Computation Subtest • WIAT-II Numerical Operations Sub-test • WJIII Calculation Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Mathematics Reasoning

Numerical Operations Knowledge/Skills

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s) (STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction that teaches advanced mathematics concepts including **. (**Specify the concepts that need to be taught, e.g., telling time, learning meaning and abbreviations for measurement units such as ounces and pounds, etc.)

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) • KTEA-II Math Concepts & Applications (Number Concepts Subarea items) • WIAT-II Math Reasoning Subtest (Items 17-67) • WJIII Quantitative Concepts (Items 21-34) • WJIII Quantitative Concepts –Number Series Sub-test • Criterion-Referenced measures • Informal assessments

Notes

Advanced Mathematics Concepts

Mathematics Skills

Grades 5-12

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

MATHEMATICS

134

________________________ should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in techniques for initially storing, and/or improving speed and accuracy of retrieval of, basic math ** facts. (**Specify area of facts, e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)

Note: All of these guidelines should be adhered to in addition to the considerations of the needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse students as presented in this document.

George McCloskey, Ph.D. and Laurie McCloskey, October, 2004, SPARK Training Program

WJIII Math Fluency Sub-test Criterion-Referenced measures Curriculum-Based measures Informal assessments

• • • •

Usually Grades 5-6 Sometimes Grades 7 and above

Mathematics Facts Fluency

Examples of Recommendations For Instructional Intervention(s)

(STUDENT NAME) should be provided developmentally appropriate direct instruction in strategies and techniques for self-monitoring performance and checking work for accuracy, and correcting errors.

Partial List of Possible Assessment Methods (See Test Resource Guide) Process oriented observations and error analysis applied to the sub-tests listed under Numerical Operations Knowledge/ Skills

Notes

Numerical Operations Accuracy

Mathematics Skills

Guidelines for Linking Achievement Assessment and Recommendations for Intervention

Mathematics (Grades 5-12)

APPENDIX F REPORT OF STUDENT LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT Student Name: ___________________________ DOB: _________OSIS: ________________________ Grade: ___ Language(s) Assessed:_______________________________________________________ Place of Birth: ________________________________________________________________________ Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Preferred Mode of Communication: _______________________________________________ Does student have a medical condition that interfered with the assessment?

Describe: ____________________________________________________________________________ Other factors impacting the assessment:____________________________________________________ Evaluator: ___________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND INFORMATION Current Language Proficiency Level: English_____

Date_____

Instrument/Procedures__________________________________________________________________ Native Language_____ Date______ Instrument/ Procedures___________________________________________________________________________ Academic Program: ______ General Education ______ Related Service Only ______ Special Education Teacher Support Services ______ Collaborative Team Teaching

______ Self-Contained

135

______ Special School Language Program: ____Bilingual

____ESL ACHIEVEMENT INFORMATION

English: Instrument/Procedure __________________________________________ Reading Grade Level ______

Math Grade Level ______

Writing Grade Level _______

LAB-R _____or ELA for Grades 3-8 or NYSESLAT Score (if applicable) _____ Date ________________ Spanish LAB (if applicable) __________ Date __________________________________________

Native Language: Instrument/Procedure __________________________________________ Reading Grade Level ______

Math Grade Level ______

Writing Grade Level _______

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES Individualized Standardized Language Proficiency Test(s): ______________________________________ Other methods of assessment of language proficiency: ____Dialogue/Questions and Answers ____Story-telling/re-telling _____ Picture Description ____Student Interview ____Parent Interview _____Other (Describe): ____________________________

OBSERVATIONS Setting(s) and Date(s): _______________________________________________________________足足足足___

136

Describe Student’s Behavior: ____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Did student’s learning difficulties affect his/her performance on language tasks? How? ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Describe student’s performance on the different sub-tests of the standardized test and other methods of assessment utilized: English :_____________________________________________________________________________ Native Language: _____________________________________________________________________ Accommodations made during the assessment: ______________________________________________ Language Proficiency Levels

RECEPTIVE

Native Language

English

EXPRESSIVE

Native Language

English

Syntax (Form)

Semantics (Content)

Pragmatics (Use)

Determination and Recommendation of Student’s English Language Proficiency Level: English: ____Beginning _____Intermediate _____Advanced Native Language: ____Beginning _____Intermediate _____Advanced

137

INSTRUCTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

138

APPENDIX G Teams may use the following form to substantiate the presence of a disability in conjunction with second language acquisition needs: STATEMENT OF CO-EXISTENCE OF DISABILITY AND LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY Student Name___________________DOB__________CSE#_________OSIS_____________ 1) Is there evidence in the history, observations, and reports of: YES

NO

YES

NO

An inability to learn information presented in BOTH the native language and English?

Academic difficulty over a long period of time and across content areas despite the delivery of instruction according to the student’s linguistic and cultural needs?

Academic difficulty to an extreme which warrants intensive intervention?

Pre-referral provision of academic intervention services provided according to the student’s linguistic and cultural needs?

Psycho-educational evaluations that are a fair representation of the student’s cognitive and linguistic needs?

Informal assessments that accurately portray both the student’s present level of cognitive functioning and level of English language proficiency?

2) Is there evidence that the student’s disability and Limited English Proficiency is due to: a lack of instruction in reading or math?

prolonged absence from school?

disruption in formal education?

NOTE: If “YES” is selected in any of the columns in item 2, the team must attach a rationale explaining the presence of a disability despite these conditions.

139

NOTE (Check if applicable): 3 Due to the lack of appropriate test instruments, the team assessed this student using non-standardized techniques and is, therefore, unable to apply the formula. A statement explaining where the discrepancies are found is attached.

4 Although this student does not exhibit a severe discrepancy, the team believes the student is learning disabled. A statement explaining the teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reasons for determining the student is learning disabled is attached.

Based on the data in the observations and reports, there is a co-existence of a disability and Limited English Proficiency. This student requires special education supports and/or services, as described on the IEP to benefit from instruction.

YES___________________NO_______________________

Signatures:

_______________________Parent/Legal Guardian ___________________General Education Teacher

__Monolingual __Bilingual

_______________________District Representative ___________________Special Education Teacher

__Monolingual __Bilingual

_______________________School Social Worker

___________________ School Psychologist

__Monolingual _Bilingual

__Monolingual ___Bilingual

_______________________Other

__Monolingual __Bilingual

* One member of the team must be bilingual.

APPENDIX H

140

APPENDIX H Gui de-C om pon e nt s of C u l t ur al l y/L i n g ui s t i cal l y Val i d As s e s s me nt

chart starts on the following page

P

141

142

Student is taught knowledge and skills assessed in a manner consistent with most proficient language, prior experiences, length of time spent in US schools, cultural values

Class observation is conducted by educator knowledgeable in the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s culture/language and in the content area being observed.

Observer looks for 5 critical opportunities to learn: Linguistic Competence, Contextualized Learning, Joint Productivity, Instructional Conversation, Challenging Curriculum

Six important cultural linguistic factors include Language Competence Acculturation; Experiential Background; Culture Values; Higher Order Thinking; Teaching/Learning Styles

Various home and parental values and norms must be identified and understood including primary language, acculturation, time in the community, access to and use of community resources, participation in school/community

Relevant Classroom Observation

Determining Cultural and Linguistic Factors

Parent/Home Values/ Norms Identified

Description

Opportunities to Learn

Item

Student abilities and development in these six areas are clearly identified and documented

Parents provide input to help educators best understand the child; Educators are very familiar with the home and community culture/values and are able to relate this knowledge to the learning situation

Parents are not consulted and/or educators do not know specific home or community values/norms

Highly qualified observer completes one or more classroom observations and is able to observe and clearly document evidence of 5 critical aspects reflecting opportunities to learn

Student is taught in most proficient language, has been provided numerous and appropriate opportunities to acquire knowledge/skills

Appropriate Decision Point Occurs When:

Student skills and abilities in these areas along with specific considerations relative to a suspected problem are NOT identified and considered

Observer lacks cultural or language background and/or one or more of the 5 critical opportunities to learn are not evident

Few/no provisions or accommodations are made to address second language needs, proficient language abilities, acculturation levels or cultural values

Red Flag

Circle Y (Yes) for the each item after it is addressed in the Assessment of CLDE learners

Gui de- Co m ponen t s o f C ul t ur al l y/L i n g ui s t i cal l y Val i d A ssessm ent

Y

Y

Y

Y

143

All assessment instruments used must be valid and reliable for their intended purposes and targeted populations

The assessment process and all components (e.g., observations, interviews, formal testing, classroom based testing) must be culturally and linguistically appropriate

Valid Instruments

Valid Process

Assessment process is conducted by individuals lacking cultural competence and/or linguistic knowledge

Assessment devices used were NOT developed with sufficient samples of the population for which they are used to make educational decisions

Most proficient language is unknown or child receives little instruction in proficient language and/or is NOT academically assessed in most proficient language; ESL methods are NOT used

Red Flag

Assessment process reflects cultural and linguistic competence and values

Assessment devices used to make educational decisions are valid and reliable for use with CLD learners

Student is assessed in most proficient language and taught through use of ESL methods and/or most proficient language

Appropriate Decision Point Occurs When:

Y

Y

Y

Copyright. Adapted from J.J. Hoover (in press). Differentiating learning differences from disabilities: Meeting diverse needs through multitiered response to intervention. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Student is assessed in most proficient language; Student is taught in most Proficient language and/or ESL methods are used

Description

Appropriate Language Usage

Item

APPENDIX I Considerations Prior to Making a Referral

chart starts on the following page

144

145 145

May be associated with limited English proficiency level and/or level of Acculturation (i.e., process of adapting to new environment such as a new school or classroom); Some cultures encourage children to be quiet as a sign of respect

Some cultures teach that things are out of the control of individuals (i.e., external locus of control) and this should not be misinterpreted as not caring or requiring intervention The concept of time is often perceived differently in various cultures and may be significantly different than time emphasized in U.S. schools Shy behavior may be associated with the process of adjusting or acculturating to a new environment (e.g., U.S. schools/classrooms) and/or with learning English as second language Some cultures may teach that assertive behavior (e.g., standing up for oneself) is desirable social behavior; inexperience with U.S. classroom rules may also account for acting out behaviors

Some cultures may value group performance over individual achievement and thus students may be unfamiliar with independent, competitive learning preferring cooperative group learning Value or significance of school may vary by culture as other priorities in that culture may take priority (e.g., family needs; spring harvest)

Tests in English become an English test for limited English proficient students; test results in English must be interpreted relative to the learnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s English proficiency level Students from different cultures or linguistic backgrounds may initially experience difficulty while adjusting to new cultural expectations and learning a new language, temporarily negatively impacting a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s self concept

Confusion with locus of control

Indifference to time

Social Withdrawal

Acting out/aggressive behavior

Difficulty with independent work

Perceived lack of significance of school achievement

Poor performance on tests taken in English

Low self-esteem

Making Considerations to Avoid Misinterpreting Assessment

Extended periods of silence

Exhibited Behaviors Results

Considerations Prior to Making a Referral

146

Different cultures may view everyday concepts differently than the mainstream culture (i.e., personal space, sharing of belongings, gender, meaning of color, directions) and knowledge of how cultures views these and related items is necessary to make informed decisions Stress associated with adjusting to a new culture and/or learning a new language often results in increased anxiety in learners until they feel more comfortable in the new environment and develop higher levels of English language proficiency Unfamiliarity with formal schooling and classroom expectations is often experienced by children new to U.S. schools; They require additional time and support to become more accustomed to U.S. schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s behavioral and learning expectations Preferred styles of learning are reflective of cultural values and styles of ELLs may be different than typically emphasized.

Teaching strategies typically used in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s classrooms may conflict with cultural views and/or be inappropriate for students with limited English language proficiency levels.

Differences in perception of everyday items

Increased anxiety

Difficulty observing school/class expectations

Preferences in style(s) of learning

Inability to learn through teaching/classroom strategies

Copyright. Adapted from J.J. Hoover. Data-Driven Decision-Making in a Multi-Tiered Model. In J.K. Klinger, J.J. Hoover & L.M. Baca (eds.).

English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or learning disabilities? (In Press) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Making Considerations to Avoid Misinterpreting Assessment

Exhibited Behaviors Results

APPENDIX J INITIAL REFERRAL TO THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION A referral for a special education evaluation may be made by the parent, a physician, an agency responsible for the health and welfare of the child, a staff member at the child’s school or district, a court officer, an individual on his or her own behalf, if he or she is 18 years of age or older or is an emancipated minor. When a student is suspected of having a disability, a written referral is made to the Chairperson of the Committee on Special Education (CSE) or the Building Administrator.

When the referral is made to the Chairperson, a copy of the referral must be forwarded to the principal of the student’s school, if that school is a New York City public school, within 5 school days.

If the referral is given to a Building Administrator, he/she records the date the referral was received, initials it and transmits it within twenty-four (24) hours to the CSE. Student’s Last Name ___________________________ First Name D.O.B. ___/___/___ New York City ID # ____________________ School _________________________ Grade Parent/Guardian ____________________________ Preferred Language of Parent Address ________________________________________________________________ Apt. # City __________________________ State ________________________ Zip Home Phone (______)

Work Phone (______)

Is the student/family assisted by a Community-Based Organization (CBO)?

Yes No If yes, specify type of Services (e.g., case management, foster care agency, etc.) and the name of CBO, if known ____________________________________________________________ Has the student ever lived outside of the United States?

Yes

No

Number of years in a non-English language school system ______________ Length of residency in United States __________ Classroom/Homeroom Teacher

147

Language Student Speaks/Understands LAB-R or NYSESLAT Score (if applicable) _________

Date _________ Has the parent been notified of this referral? Yes If yes, indicate date

No

Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Last Name ____________________First Name _______

State the reason for referral / specific nature of problem:

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.

Instructional Grade Level at which student is currently functioning (if ELL student, also include grade level in native language):

Reading

Grade Level ELLs _______________

Spelling

_______________

_______________

Mathematics

_______________

_______________

Written Language

_______________

_______________

Other _________________

_______________

_______________

2.

Is the student a hold-over in grade?

3.

Does the student have a Personal Intervention Plan (PIP)? Yes If yes, please attach a copy.

No

4.

Is the student entitled to bilingual instructional services? Yes

No

If yes, has the student received bilingual instructional services? Yes How long? ______________

5.

Student is entitled to ESL services? Yes

If yes, has the student received ESL services?

6.

Attendance Pattern:

Yes

Good

Grade Level in Native Language for _______________

No

No

No Yes

Poor

No

How long? ________________________

Truant

Number of Cumulative Days Absent (excluding suspensions): ____________

148

7.

Wears Glasses Hearing Aids

Yes Yes

8.

Does the student have health problems?

Is the student on any medication?

Yes

No No Yes

No

No

If yes, please describe:

9.

Please attach a copy of the most recent results of the child’s hearing and vision screening.

Student’s Last Name ___________________________

First Name ___________________________ 10.

Description of Academic Performance: Describe the specific strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance (academic subjects, visual motor development, writing skills, etc.) Use additional sheet of paper if necessary. For ELL students describe specific strengths and weaknesses that student has when performing in the native language and when performing in English.

• • • • • • •

Academic performance in both L1 and L2 in mathematics, science, social studies, and other academic areas.

Scores from native language assessments (e.g., EL SOL, ELE) Scores and sub-scores re: progress towards English language proficiency (including from Interim Assessments) Were exams administered in student’s native language, if ELL student?

Were test accommodations provided for ELL students?

If yes, which accommodations were provided?

Student’s oral and written language proficiency in both L1 and L2

149

11.

Describe student behavior, providing as much detail as possible. Include chronology and frequency of behavior and suspensions. Use an additional sheet of paper if necessary. For ELL students include information on the following: • Is student in process of acculturating to the majority culture, if new to USA? • Is student’s behavior appropriate in his/her culture?

• Has cultural disparity been ruled out as basis of behavior concerns?

B. INTERVENTION STRATEGIES Describe Tier I intervention services (i.e. differentiated instruction within the core curriculum) and Tier II intervention strategies (i.e. more intensive interventions above and beyond the core curriculum) used in an attempt to resolve any problems stated in Section A. Include results and resource persons used and their titles. Use an additional sheet of paper if necessary. If the requested information is available in another format (e.g. AIS reports, PPT records), it is not necessary to complete the descriptive information, simply attach the documentation and write “see attached”. Include and indicate language(s) used with interventions provided.

Strategy 1:

Date Initiated _______________

Date Terminated ______________

Intervention provided by _____________________________________________

(Name and Title)

Number of Days Student Received Services ______________

Description:

Student’s Last Name ___________________________

First Name ___________________________

150

Strategy 2:

Date Initiated _______________

Date Terminated ______________

Intervention provided by _____________________________________________

(Name and Title)

Number of Days Student Received Services ______________

Description:

Strategy 3:

Date Initiated _______________

Date Terminated _____________

Intervention provided by _____________________________________________

(Name and Title)

Number of Days Student Received Services ______________

Description:

CONFERENCES WITH PARENT/GUARDIAN List the dates of parental contacts held with the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parent/guardian to discuss school related performance:

151

INSTRUCTIONAL/PROGRAMMATIC INTERVENTIONS

If no instructional/programmatic interventions were attempted at Tier I and Tier II, please provide an explanation below:

Attach additional pages if necessary.

Printed Name of Person Completing Referral ___________________________________________________

Title __________________________

Signature of Referring Person ___________________________________________________ Title __________________________

Date Sent to CSE/Building principal Administrator __________________________

152

REFEREN CES Ambert, A. & Dew, N. (1982). Special education for exceptional bilingual students: A handbook for educators.

Milwaukee, WI: Midwest national Origin Desegregation Assistance Center.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1993, March). Definitions of communication disorders and variations. ASHA, 35 (Suppl. 10), 40â&#x20AC;&#x201C;41.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000).Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of schoolbased speech-language pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.

Brisk, M.E. (2000). Good school for bilingual students: Essential conditions. In Z.F. Beykont (ed.), Lifting Every Voice: Politics and Pedagogy of Bilingualism, (pp. 209-220). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Bursztyn, A.M. (2001). Psychological vistas on pre-referral interventions for culturally and linguistically diverse students. pp. 39-67. In M. Lupi, Ed. A Monograph on Prereferral Intervention Strategies for Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students. New York: New York State Education Department - Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities.

Collier, C. (2004). Separating Difference from Disability. Ferndale, Wa.: CrossCultural Developmental Education Services.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill.

De Valenzuela , J.S. & Baca, L. Procedures and Techniques for Assessing the bilingual exceptional child. In Baca, L. & Cervantes H. (2004). The Bilingual Special Education Interface. 4th edition, (pp. 197-198) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Fahey, K.R. and Reid, K.D. (2000). Language Development, Differences and Disorders. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. page. 81.

Geary, D.C. (1994). Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mathematical development: Research and practical applications.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gibbons, P. (1991). Learning to Learn in a Second Language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hamayan, E.V. & Damico J.S. (Eds.) (1991), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families and the special education system: Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

153

Hoover, J. John, Klinger, J., Baca, L., Patton, J. (2008). Methods for Teaching Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Hurley, S.R. and Tinajero, J.V. (2001). Literacy Assessment of Second Language Learners. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kayser, Hortensia (October 32, 2001). Assessing language Proficiency and Dominance. In From the Hart, Retrieved March 28, 2006 from http://www/bilingualtherapies.com/Dr-says/old_articles/10 _03_01.html.

Krashen, S. D. (1981) Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Schooling and language-minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 51-79). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.

Krashen, S., Long, M., and Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, Rate and Eventual Attainment in Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4): 573-582.

Levine, M. (1998) Developmental Variations and Learning Disorders, Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Lynch, E. (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence. In E. Lynch & M. Hanson (Eds.), Developing crosscultural competence (pp. 35-62). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

McLaughlin, Barry (1992) Myths and Misconceptions about Second Language Learning: What Every Teacher Needs to Unlearn. Educational Research Report 5. The national Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Nicolosi, L., Harryman, E., & Kresheck, J. (1989). Terminology of communication disorders: Speech-language hearing. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21 (8), 5-14.

Ortiz, A.A. (2002). Prevention and early intervention. In Artiles, A.A., & Ortiz, A.A. (Eds.) English Language Learners with special education needs: Identification, Assessment, and Instruction. Washington, DC: Center.

Thonis, E. (1983) The English-Spanish Connection. Northvale, NJ, Santillana.

154