NASPCONVENTION2013

2/10/2013

Why Focus on EL Students?

Growing Numbers of ELs in U.S. Schools

From 1997-98 to the 2008-09 school years, the number of

EL students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, a 51
percent increase (Batalova & Terrazas, 2010).

Uneven Literacy Performance

30% of EL 4th graders reaching basic reading competency
compared to 70% for non-EL
29% of EL 8th graders compared to 77% of non-EL

MINI SKILLS SESSION:

IDENTIFYING ENGLISH
LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA
Dr. Catherine Christo, Megan Sibert, & Natasha Borisov

Why Focus on EL Students? cont.

The dropout rate for EL students is 15 to 20 percent higher

than for the general student population (Sheng, Sheng, &
Anderson, 2011).
EL students are overrepresented in special education
programs (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).
ELL students have lower academic achievement as
compared to non-ELL students (Brooks, Adams, & MoritaMullaney, 2010).
There is a lack of research, best practice guidelines, or
definitive protocol for this population

Ethical/Legal Standards

NASP Guidelines

Ethical/Legal Standards, cont.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

Address issues of language, appropriateness of norms and

cultural as well as linguistic differences

IDEA

.findings are not primarily the result of cultural factors or

environmental or economic disadvantage

School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how

diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and
school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or
behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy,
counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into
account individual characteristics
Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of
the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of
students, families,
School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively
pursue knowledge of the students disabilities and developmental,
cultural, linguistic, and experiential background,

Presentation Outline
1.

Learning Trajectory for EL

students

2.

Learning to Read

3.

Dyslexia Defined

4.

Current Assessment Methods

5.

Suggestions for Assessment

6.

Case Studies

7.

Interventions

8.

Q&A

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
1

NASPCONVENTION2013

2/10/2013

Resources

What Works Clearinghouse:

Reading Rockets

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx
For practice guides and reviews of intervention
programs
English Language Learners resources
Parent friendly

Dr. Cristina Griselda Alvarado

Learning Trajectory for EL Students

www.educationeval.com/.../EvidenceBased_Bil_ed_Programs.

Expected Trajectory: BICS vs. CALP

L2 Acquisition Stages
Silent Period
Focusing on
Comprehension

Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS)

Typically acquired in 1-2 years

Cognitive Academic Language

Proficiency (CALP)

Typically acquired in 2-7 years

Source: Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of

research on academic achievement in a second language.
TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-624.

Stage 1:
Preproduction
(first 3
months)

Stage 2:
Early
Production
(3-6 months)

Stage 4:
Intermediate
Fluency
(2-3 years)

Stage 3:
Speech
Emergence
(6 months 2
years)

Improved comprehension
Adequate face-to-face
conversational proficiency
More extensive vocabulary
Few grammatical errors

Focusing on
comprehension
Using 1-3 word
phrases
May be using
routine/formulas (e.g.,
gimme five)

Increased comprehension
Using simple sentences
Expanded vocabulary
Continued grammatical
errors

Source: Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005).

Possible Factors Contributing to

Delayed L2 Acquisition
Mostly, its due to:

But sometimes, its due to:

Factors Contributing to Delayed L2

Acquisition

Cultural
Factors
Deficits in
Phonological
Skills

Delayed
Second
Language
Acquisition

Family
Factors

Personal and
Intrinsic
Factors

Environmental
Factors
L1 Schooling
Quality and
Quantity

Poor self-concept
Withdrawn Personality
Anxiety
Lack of Motivation
Traumatic Life Experience
Difficult Family Situation
Different Cultural Expectations
Limited Literacy of Parents in Native
Language
Poor Instructional Match
Unaccepting Teachers and/or School
Community

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
2

NASPCONVENTION2013

2/10/2013

Factors Contributing to Delayed L2

Acquisition, cont.

Importance of Home Support

Deficit in phonological skills

(both for L1 and L2) is
indicative of dyslexia
Later exposure to L2

Research shows that children who are

exposed to L2 before age 3 have better
reading performance than children
exposed to L2 in 2nd and 3rd grade.

Importance of Native Language

Literacy
In U.S. schools where all
instruction is given in
English, EL student with no
schooling in their first
language take 7-10 years or
more to reach age and
grade-level norms of their
native English-speaking
peers.

Immigrant students who

have had 2-3 years of first
language schooling in their
home country before they
come to the U.S. take at least
5-7 years to reach typical
native-speaker performance.

Source: Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in
Language and Education, 1(4).

Importance of Native Language

Literacy cont.
Neural mechanisms within parieto-temporal
regions of impaired readers in second
language learning are similar to that of the
impaired reading in a mother language.
Whenever possible, look for patterns of
language acquisition difficulties in students
native language.

Review records, interview parents, etc.

Good to Know

Studies show that students

whose primary language is
alphabetic with letter-sound
correspondence (e.g.,
Spanish) have an advantage
in learning English as
opposed to students who
speak non-alphabetic
languages (e.g., Chinese).

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
3

NASPCONVENTION2013

2/10/2013

Cross-Language Transfer

If students have certain strengths in their L1, and those

strengths are known to transfer across languages, then we
can expect that the students will develop those
proficiencies in their L2 as their L2 proficiency develops

Domains of Cross-Linguistic Transfer:

Phonological Awareness
Syntactic Awareness
Functional Awareness
Decoding
Use of Formal Definitions and Decontextualized Language

Learning to Read

Basic Assumptions
(Regardless of Language Status)

Simple model of reading (Tumner and Gough)

Decoding

Reading

Competent reading rests on the development of basic

skills

Comprehe
nsion

The hands and feet of genius

Multiple components of reading must be taught in a

systematic, explicit manner that also immerses children in
language and text

Its All About the Word

Children must learn how

visual information is linked
to speech the words and
sounds they know.
The first steps in becoming
literate, therefore, require
acquisition of the system for
mapping between print and
sound
Ziegler and Goswami, 2006

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
4

NASPCONVENTION2013

Well Maybe Not All

2/10/2013

Word Reading Must Become:

Story structure
Language
Background
knowledge
Comprehension

Fast

Accurate
Effortless

This is true in any

language and the
crux of the problem
in dyslexia across
languages.

Automatic (Almost)

Integrate Multiple Systems

Bilingual Environments

1.
2.
3.
4.

Visual system
Phonology
Working memory
Language

5.
6.
7.
8.

Orthographic
Phonological
Context
Meaning

For EL student, each of these areas

must be considered!

Concepts learned well in one

language can be transferred to
another
Knowledge of phonemes may be
absent for English Learners

Training helps
Children with no phonological
problems catch up with their peers
in phonological processing in 1 to 2
years

National Literacy Panel on

Language Minority Children

Profiles of both groups with

reading problems are very similar

Definition of Dyslexia: NICH and IDA

Dyslexia

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is

neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by
difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word
recognition and by poor spelling and decoding
abilities.
These difficulties typically result from a deficit
in the phonological component of language
that is often unexpected in relation to other
cognitive abilities and the provision of
effective classroom instruction.
Secondary consequences may include
problems in reading comprehension and
reduced reading experience that can impede
growth of vocabulary and background
knowledge.

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
5

NASPCONVENTION2013

Characteristics of Students With

Reading Problems

Possible Causes

Most reading problems have

to do with decoding and
spelling
Some readers may
understand the system but
lack fluency
Some readers have trouble
with comprehension

Visual processing
Temporal processing
Phonological
processing
Rapid Naming
speed
Orthographic
processing

Each of these reading

problems require
different interventions!

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Different writing systems

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Alphabetic
Logographic
Syllabic

Alphabetic languages differ

Similar or different alphabet
Opaque vs. transparent
orthographies
For example Spanish
consonants but not vowels

2/10/2013

Directionality of print
Can transfer knowledge
learned in one language
to another

Common manifestation is
lack of rapid word
recognition.
Grain size theory

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

In more consistent orthographies

dyslexia manifests as problems in
fluency rather than accuracy.

Children become accurate decoders

by first grade

Phonological processing, Rapid

naming, Orthographic processing

Current Methods of
Assessment

Results have inconsistent results

Spanish all three predicted reading
in kindergarteners

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
6

NASPCONVENTION2013

Factors Contributing to Difficulties when

Assessing ELs with LD

Who are EL Students?

Identifying EL students

2/10/2013

NCLB definition:

Typical EL students and ELs with LD share

many characteristics:

1) Age 3-21
2) Enrolled or preparing to
enroll in elementary or
secondary school
3) Not born in the U.S., native
language other than English,
comes from an environment
where English isnt the dominant
language
4) whose difficulties in
speaking, reading, writing, or
understanding English may
deny him the ability to meet the
states proficiency level to be
successful in an English-only
classroom

Poor comprehension
Difficulty following directions
Syntactical and grammatical errors
Difficulty completing tasks
Poor Motivation
Low Self-Esteem
Poor Oral Language Skills

It has been suggested that linguistic diversity may increase assessment errors
and reduce the reliability of assessments
Lack of teachers trained in bilingual and multicultural education to meet and
assess EL students needs
Mistaking basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) for cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP)

Assessment in English
Pros:

Cons:
Accommodations can be made
(to test itself or to test
procedure) to provide a more
valid picture of the ELL students
abilities:
Provides information about the
students level of
functioning/ability in an
English-speaking environment

Students may not thoroughly

understand task instructions or
particular test items due to limited
English proficiency
Compromises test validity:

Student not represented in the norm

group
Changing/simplifying language to
improve understanding of test
instructions breaks standardization

Students demonstrate slower

processing speeds and are more
easily distracted during assessments
conducted in a language with which
they are less familiar

Assessment in English

Assessment in Native Language

Checklist of Test Accommodations

Before Conducting the Test:

Make sure that the student has had

experience with content or tasks
assessed by the test

Modify linguistic complexity and text

direction

Prepare additional example items/tasks

During the Test:

Allow student to label items in receptive

vocabulary tests to determine
appropriateness of stimuli

Ask student to identify actual objects or

items if they have limited experience
with books and pictures

Use additional demonstration items

Record all responses and prompts

Test beyond the ceiling

Provide additional time to

respond/extra testing time

Reword or expand instructions

Provide visual supports

Provide dictionaries

Read questions and explanations aloud

(in English)

Put written answers directly in test

booklet
(modified from Szu-Yin & Flores, 2011)

Pros:
May provide a more
accurate inventory of
students knowledge
and skills
Interpreters can be
utilized to facilitate
testing if psych doesnt
speak students native
language

Cons:
Language-specific
assessment for each
and every student are
not available
If they are unfamiliar
with the educational
context, using
interpreters may
compromise test
validity

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
7

NASPCONVENTION2013

Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

Nonverbal Assessment
Pros:

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

Attempts to eliminate
language proficiency as a
factor in the assessment
May provide a better/more
accurate estimate of students
cognitive abilities

Strengths of this method:

Cons

2/10/2013

Weaknesses of this method:

Often does not fully eliminate

language
Offers a limited perspective
of a students academic
potential
Fails to provide information
about linguistic proficiency in
students native language or
in English

Widely used and understood

Provides fairly clear-cut criteria for which students have and do not have
SLD/Dyslexia
Uses norm or criterion-referenced standardized tests

IQ scores based on tests administered in English lack validity and

reliably for bilingual children whose language proficiency in English is
still developing
IQ is likely to be underestimated when tests are given in English,
lessening likelihood of identification of SLD in ELL students
Gap between scores of immigrant and indigenous children on IQ tests
becomes smaller the longer the immigrant student has been in the
English-speaking country (Ashby et al.)
Content of IQ tests may lack any overlap with content covered in or
important to the academic context

Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
RTI/CBM

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
CBM- continued
Strengths:
CBM reading measures have been found to be a sensitive measure of
reading progress for bilingual Hispanic students
Direct link between assessment and instruction
Found to be very useful for native English-speaking students
Data-based decision making about placement
Weaknesses:
Very little research done regarding use of CBM specifically with bilingual
students
Relationship between reading fluency and reading proficiency in ELLs
learning to read in English is not clear
Curriculum being taught is not necessarily culturally unbiased or sensitive

Uses multiple measures of functioning/ability (CBM) and monitors

students to ensure they are progressing or are identified as needing
more support
Focuses more on supporting students needs and less on labeling their
challenges
Ensures appropriate and effective curricula are being implemented with
fidelity and integrity

Doesnt consider many ecological variables

Doesnt provide scientifically based research on the varying population
that RTI is purported to benefit

Current Methods of
Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:
Focuses on individual students performance pattern
Can interpret pattern of scores in comparison to typical
pattern of English Learners
Provides information that may be helpful in designing
interventions

Weaknesses:

Doesnt consider many ecological variables

Limits of using cognitive processing measures with English
Learners

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
8

NASPCONVENTION2013

When Should You Refer

ELs for Special Ed?

2/10/2013

Questions to Consider

Depends on the system

your school follows:
RTI, PSW or
discrepancy approach?

Are the instruments being used appropriate for the student?

Will a variety of tests, instruments, or procedures be used to
determine if a child is a child with a disability?
Will actual test scores be provided or will the test results be
reported descriptively?
Will the student be evaluated in his or her native language? Why or
why not?
Are bilingual personnel available to complete the evaluation?
If there are no bilingual personnel available, will interpreters be
used to evaluate the child?
Will the student be evaluated in the language of instruction?
Has the assessment process been explained to the parents in their
native language if necessary?

Source:
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/
pdf/curriculum/bilingual/CAPELL_SP
ED_resource_guide.pdf

Recommendations for Best Practice

Assess students in both native language

and English
Thorough analysis of language
proficiency using a broad range of test
results and observation (multiple data
sources)
Provide information on:
best educational placement for the student
type of instruction that would be most
beneficial
the point at which student will be ready to
transition from bilingual education to
English-only education

Assessment and Diagnosis

Recommendations for Best Practice

Use of observations
and interviews in
multiple settings, times,
and events
Assessment of
portfolios, work
samples, projects,
criterion-referenced
tests, informal reading
inventories, and
language samples.

(APA, 1985; IDEA, 1990, 1997)

Best Practice Guidelines (Cline, 1995)

The active involvement of EL and bilingual

support teachers at every stage
Recording and reviewing information on a
students knowledge and use of native
language and of English
Setting and reviewing of specific
educational goals that include language
and cultural needs
Arrangement of appropriate language
provision
Investigation of social, cultural, and
language isolation and peer harassment
Using interpreter when appropriate
Placing student performance in context

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
9

NASPCONVENTION2013

Multidimensional Assessment Model for

Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI)

Models for Assessing CLD/Bilingual Students

Ortiz, Ochoa, Dynda (2012)

Contemporary Intellectual
Assessment

A grid that provides nine profiles for a

practitioner to choose from and takes into
consideration 3 major variables about the
student:

MAMBI
C-LIM

Current grade
Type of educational program
Proficiency in both L1 and L2

Guajardo Alvarado
www.educationeval.com

Once these variables are accounted for,

the practitioner is left with the method of
evaluation most likely to yield valid results:

Best Practices in Special

Education Evaluation of
Students Who are Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse
Bilingual Special Education
Eval Woodcock Test

Nonverbal Assessment
Assessment primarily in L1
Assessment primarily in L2
Bilingual assessment both in L1 and L2

2013

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests

Alvarados 4 Steps to Bilingual Special

Education Evaluation

Available in Flanagan, Ortiz, and Alfonso:

Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment

PATTERN OF EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF

CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
LOW

MODERATE

1.
HIGH

LOW

PERFORMANCE
LEAST AFFECTED

INCREASING EFFECT OF
LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE

MODERATE

3.

HIGH

DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING

2.

4.

INCREASING EFFECT OF
CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

PERFORMANCE
MOST AFFECTED
(COMBINED EFFECT OF
CULTURE & LANGUAGE
DIFFERENCES)

Gathering of student information

Oral language proficiency and
dominance testing
Achievement testing
Cognitive testing
The language or languages of each
step is dictated by the individual
students language exposure, language
dominance, and academic background
and by the objective of the assessment.

Informal Ways to Assess Language

Dominance

Determining Language Dominance

2/10/2013

Alvarados model for determining language

dominance:
Using a test that has two language forms that
have been statistically equated in order to allow
comparison of abilities and skills between those
two languages.
Two steps are proposed:
1: the core language of the cognitive battery is
determined on the basis of the students dominant
language
2: the appropriate scale is selected on the basis
of the students language status in his/her
dominant language
In the Woodcock tests, the Batera III COG is
statistically equated to the WJ III COG. Likewise
the Batera III APROV is statistically equated to
the WJ III ACH.

Language student prefers

talking in
Which language
produces better phrasing
Speech therapists can
test
What movies do they
watch
(English or Spanish)
Friends on playground

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
10

NASPCONVENTION2013

2/10/2013

Current
Academic
Variables

Considering Contexts, Academic

Variables, & Processing

Context: Culture

Processing

Context: Language

Context

Ethnicity
Birthplace
Number of years
in the U.S.
Parent Education
(where, what
level, quality, in
L1/L2)

Context: Education

Context

Impact of poverty environmental and neurological

Dyslexia may manifest in one language and not
another
Understanding of text structure
Nature of first language may impact how quickly
students learn second

Context

Proficiency in L1 & L2
Students primary/dominant language
CELDT scores
Language(s) spoken at home
Primary language of parent(s) and sibling(s)
Parent language proficiency in L1 & L2
Exposure to English
School
Family
Media

Cultural/Linguistic Factors

Context

Schooling in another country

Duration
Quality
Years of formal school
In L1 & L2
Curriculum used
EL program or other special education/intervention
program
Educational progress
Previous work samples
Prior language proficiency levels/CELDT scores

Context

Phonetic may be easier to transfer

Language loss for native language

Semi-lingualism
Process and conditions of learning second language

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
11

NASPCONVENTION2013

Current Academic Variables:

Teacher/Classroom/School

Curriculum
Teacher training in
teaching EL students
Teaching strategies
used
Direct & systematic
Use of visuals,
concrete objects
Opportunities for
hands-on learning
Scaffolding
techniques
Varied instructional

grouping
Interventions
Frustrational/instructio
nal/mastery levels
Progress monitoring
data
Research/evidencebased?
Rate of improvement
Minutes of ELD per
day
Language use in
classroom

Current Academic Variables:

Student Variables

Current level of

performance

(compare to EL &

non-EL peers)
Math

ELA

Peer groups, quality

of peer interaction,

behavior
Classrooms
Playground

Difficulty in determining:
benchmarks
expectations
appropriate growth

Lack of growth can be due to variety

of factors, such as:
Language
SES
Instruction

IDEA 2004 explicit on this

As defined in NCLB

Contain the 5 areas noted in National Reading

Panel

Has child had high quality, research based

interventions?

School history
Data from an RtI model

Types of interventions
Progress made

Sources of information

History
Direct observations
Performance of other students
Interviews with teachers/parents to further
clarify problem

How CBM Can Help EL Students

Current
Academic
Variables

Determine whether instructional programs

are addressing needs of EL population as a whole
Inform instructional decisions for struggling EL readers
Compare target students to peers

Using CBM with ELs

Current
Academic
Variables

Current
Academic
Variables

Has child had adequate reading instruction.

Problems With CBM and ELs

Current
Academic
Variables

Home
History
Interaction with
adults
School
Home
History
Personality

Rule Out Lack of Instruction

Current
Academic
Variables

2/10/2013

Current
Academic
Variables

Used to:
Screen for students at risk of learning difficulties
Monitor progress of all students
Monitor progress of selected students
Determine whether instruction/intervention is effective
Making special education decisions

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
12

NASPCONVENTION2013

Using CBM with ELs

DIBELS found to better predict

low risk than at risk

Useful but need more research

Relationship between oral
reading fluency and
comprehension

ELs have different growth rates

than non-ELs
Start lower so even with same
slope dont catch up
Fluency probes over-predict
reading scores
Have weaker relationship with
future reading than for non-EL

Current
Academic
Variables

More extraneous variables that

can lead to measurement error

Reading Components and Processing

Processing
National Reading Panel

Phonemic Awareness in L1
and L2
Phonics in L1 and L2
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension

In comparison to peers
In comparison to self

Appropriate
instruction/intervention

Other processes related to

reading

Lack of research on effective

intervention
Targeted intervention

Phonological Processing
Most common for English only
Associated with reading deficits in most
languages but strength of relationship
varies
Phonological processing in English predicts
reading for EL reading disabled.

Difficult to determine directionality and

causality

Cross language impact

Spanish phonological processing linked to
English reading

Rapid naming
Working memory

Oral Language

Weakness in Cognitive Process

Related to Reading

Current
Academic
Variables

Kindergarten phonemic
segmentation fluency poor
predictor of later decoding
Oral reading fluency may be
better than maze fluency for
predicting later comprehension
Diversity of ELs
IDELS: Spanish version of DIBELS
AIMSweb Spanish reading

How to determine
underachievement

Using CBM with ELs

Classifies EL at risk better than

non-EL

RTI with ELs

Current
Academic
Variables

2/10/2013

New Directions
Processing

Processing

Basing assessment in phonological

skills
Less culturally biased than IQ testing
Phonological processing skills
relevant to alphabetic literacy can
be developed by exposure to any
language
Phonology is a surface feature of
language and native-like
familiarity in the phonology of a
new language should be developed
more quickly than CALP skills (2
years vs. 5-7 years)

(Frederickson and Frith, 1998)

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
13

NASPCONVENTION2013

Cognitive Processes

Swanson et al (2012) ELs and bilinguals w/w/o RD

Short term memory (core phonological loop) problem or

Working memory deficit impacting controlled attention

Spanish and English

Naming speed,
Orthographic
processing
Working memory

Consider

Spanish working memory and word reading

English phonological processing and naming speed

Some in Spanish

May also be

Available Tests
WJ Bateria
Phonological
processing
Long term storage
and retrieval
Some working
memory

Some rapid naming

TOPPS (researcher
developed version of
CTOPP)
CELF
WISC IV
TAPS

Processing

Naming speed English

Strongest measures

Reading disabled students who are EL and bilingual

have similar cognitive profiles
Phonological processing

Cognitive Processes

Processing

2/10/2013

CHC factors,
Berninger (PAL II)

Processing

DAS II
ROWPVT, EOWPVT
Woodcock Munoz
Language
Survey-R
BVAT-NU

Case Example

Ling-lee, 11 years, 6th grade

Adopted from China at age 10 years

She lives with her parents and younger sister, who
is also from China
Has low vision and she began to wear glasses
after coming to the U.S.
Parents have limited information about her early
health history
Currently in good health with the exception of
seasonal allergies
Problem behaviors when Ling-lee first arrived
are mostly gone and she does well socially
Attends Chinese school and hip-hop dance
Ling-lee states likes math best also language
arts because it makes you think and learns
something new every day. Likes social studies
least but learns interesting things - doesnt get it
sometimes.

Reasons for Referral

Does Ling-lee have dyslexia?

Does Ling-lee have dyscalculia?
How can the school and her parents best help Linglee to learn?

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
14

NASPCONVENTION2013

Educational History

Previous Evaluations

Attended school through 2nd grade in China; picked up English quickly

upon coming to the United States.
Chinese School teacher said that her skills in reading and writing in
Mandarin where at the 4th grade level. Currently she is receiving As
and Bs in her classes at Chinese School.
Attended private school for 4th grade.
She began at Ivy in 5th and is currently in 6th
Outside tutoring in Barton based reading and math
Able to decode but struggles with comprehension (mother notes in both
oral and written)
Problems with directionality in math and reading
CST 2011 Far Below Basic; CELDT scores Early Intermediate in Listening,
Speaking and Reading and Beginning in writing.
Special Education evaluation on 10/2011

Placed due to academic underachievement in reading, writing and math and

processing disorder in attention. Goals in math, reading, written language

Academic: WJ-III (10/2011)

Spelling weakest

Cognitive: K-ABC II (4/2010)

Long-Term Retrieval = Average

All other scores in the Below
Average range

Verbal =16th percentile; Visual =

27th percentile;
Attention/Concentration = below
average

TAPS 3

Phonological Processing, Visual

Motor Skills, & Memory = Average
Language Understanding very
weak

BASC-2

WISC IV

WRAML 2

Word Identification = 14th

percentile

Fluency & Reading Comprehension

= Well Below Average
Written Language = Below Average

Math Calculations & Math Fluency

= Average Range
Reading

SS=85, 16th percentile; VCI = 3rd

percentile; WM = 4th percentile; PS
= 24th percentile

Mother: Clinically Significant

Hyperactivity, Conduct Problems,
Depression
Teacher: No clinically significant
areas

Assessment Results

Behavior During Testing

2/10/2013

Friendly, conversed with the examiner regarding topics such

as vacations, friends and family pets responded
appropriately in conversations but did little reciprocal
questioning or expansion on topics.
Generally Ling-lee worked quickly difference between
her response pattern, depending on the area being
assessed math consider and monitor her response much
more than in written language.
Ling-lee did not display signs of inattention as has been
noted in previous testing, though she was eager to complete
the testing so that she could do other things.
Occasionally language issues were noted; for example, in
asking for repeated instructions when the instructions were
complex.

KAUFMAN TEST OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEEMENT II

Subtest Score Percentile
Cluster/Subtest
(mean=100)
READING
Letter and Word Recognition
WRITTEN LANGUAGE
Written Expression
READING RELATED SUBTESTS
Nonsense Word Decoding
TEST OF WORD READING
EFFICIENCY
Standard Score
(Range)
Sight Word
92
Efficiency
Phonemic
Decoding
Efficiency

90

92

30th

61

<1st

92

30th

GRAY ORAL READING TEST 5

Standard
Percentile
Score
Rate
7
16th
Accuracy
8
25th
Fluency
7
16th
Composite

Comprehension

16th

PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNER II (PAL-II)

Skills
Scaled Score
Composite/Subtest
Phonological
Pseudoword Fluency
8
Pseudoword accuracy
7
Morphological Decoding
Find the Fixes
9
Morph Decoding Fluency
6
Morph. Decoding Accuracy
7

Related Processes
Composite/Subtest
Orthographic Coding COMP.
Receptive
Expressive
Phonological Coding
Syllables
Phonemes
Rimes

Silent Reading Fluency

Morphological/syntactic Coding

Are They Related

Does It Fit
Sentence Structure
Rapid Automatic Naming/
Switching Total
Letters
Letter groups
Words
Verbal Working Memory
Letters
Words
Sentences/Listening
Sentences/Writing

10
3
2
11

Sentence Sense Accuracy

Sentence Sense Fluency
Orthographic Spelling
Word Choice Accuracy

4
3
12

Word Choice Fluency

12

Scaled Score
8
9
8
5
5
5
7

11
12
9
6
3
9
10

Assessment Results, cont.

Cluster/Subtest
BASIC CONCEPTS
Numeration
Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Data analysis
OPERATIONS
Mental Computation
Addition/Subtraction
Multiplication/Division
APPLICATIONS
Foundations of Problem Solving
Applied Problem Solving

KEYMATH 3
Standard Score Scaled Score Percentile
(mean=100)
(mean=10)
7TH

78 (73-82)
8
7
6
6
6

30th

92 (86-98)
10
9
8

7th

78 (69-97)
7
5

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
15

NASPCONVENTION2013

Carlos, 8 years, 3rd grade

Background Information

Latino boy, resides in San Francisco with his

mother, father, twin sister, and older brother
(20)
Hearing and vision are within normal limits.
Carlos was born in San Francisco to parents
of Mexican descent.
Spanish is primary language, though some
English is spoken in the home, as well.
Primary language of instruction is Spanish,
though he receives some instruction in English,
and he often prefers to speak English in
informal conversation.
Carlos reports that his English is not really
good, and that Spanish is all he speaks at
home.

Assessment Results: DAS-II

Composite/Cluster

Standard Score

Special Nonverbal
Composite

98

45th

Average

97

42nd

Average

Nonverbal Reasoning
Spatial Cluster

Percentile

T-Score

Descriptor

50th

100

Clusters/Subtests

Average

Percentile

Descriptor

Nonverbal Reasoning Cluster

Matrices

48

42nd

Average

Sequential &
Quantitative Reasoning

48

42nd

Average

50

54th

Average

51

54th

Average

Spatial Cluster Subtests

Recall of Designs
Pattern Construction

Test of Auditory Processing Skills-3 (TAPS 3)

Index

Standard Score

Percentile

Descriptor

Phonologic

90

25th

Average

Memory

83

13th

Bilingual Verbal Ability TestsNormative Update (BVAT-NU)

Cluster/Subtest

Standard Score

Percentile

Descriptor

Bilingual Verbal
Ability

89

23rd

Below Average

English Language
Proficiency

86

18th

Below Average

Picture
Vocabulary

86

17th

Below Average

Oral Vocabulary

95

37th

Average

88

21st

Verbal Analogies

Below Average
*Norms based on age

Test of Auditory Processing Skills 3:

Spanish Bilingual Edition (TAPS-3: SBE)

Percentile

Subtest

Scaled Score

Percentile

Word Memory

37th

Sentence Memory

16th

37th

Memory

Phonologic
Word Discrimination

37th

Phonological Segmentation

25th

Phonological Blending

16th

2nd

Cohesion
Auditory Comprehension

Carlos is currently a 3rd grade student at Elementary

School in San Francisco, in the Bilingual Pathway. Most
academic instruction is delivered in Spanish
Receives daily English Language Development (ELD)
support.
His teacher reports that his reading, writing, and math
skills are improving, but that he continues to require
additional support.
He received speech/language therapy in the past,
but was exited from those services following his last
triennial evaluation.
Attends the afterschool program.
Described as a very sweet, motivated, and
cooperative young boy.
His teacher states that Carlos is very intelligent,
respectful, and has high self-esteem.

Below Average
Scaled
Scores

Subtest

2/10/2013

Cohesion

Memory
Number Memory Forward

16th

Number Memory Reversed

37th

Word Memory

<1st

Sentence Memory

25th

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
16

NASPCONVENTION2013

Test of Visual Perceptual Skills 3 (TVPS-3)

2/10/2013

Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII)-Test of

Achievement (Norms based on age)

Cluster

Standard Score

Percentile

Descriptor

Overall

76

5th

Low

Basic Processes

80

9th

Below Average

Subtests SS/Percentile

Sequencing

65

1st

Very Low

Complex Processes

75

5th

Story Recall 86/18th

Picture Vocabulary 71/3rd
Understanding Directions 73/3rd
Oral Comprehension 93/31st
Writing Fluency 88/21st
Writing Samples 89/23rd
Letter-Word Identification 88/21st
Word Attack 99/48th
Passage Comprehension 77/6th
Reading Vocabulary 87/19th
Calculation 121/92nd
Math Fluency 96/39th
Applied Problems 79/8th
Quantitative Concepts 91/27th
Reading Fluency 91/28th

Low
Scaled
Scores

Cluster

Percentile

Basic Processes

VMI:
112, 79th
Percentile

Visual Discrimination

5th

Visual Memory

5th

Spatial Relations

25th

Form Constancy

9th

1st

Figure Ground

5th

Visual Closure

5th

Sequencing
Sequential memory
Complex Processes

Cluster areas for

determining Specific
Learning Disability
according to IDEA

MATH REASONING
83/12th

ORAL EXPRESSION
71/3rd

LISTENING
COMPREHENSION
80/10th

READING FLUENCY
91/28th
MATH CALCULATION
114/83rd
READING
COMPREHENSION
77/6th

WRITTEN EXPRESSION
READING FLUENCY
87/20th
91/28th
BASIC READING
SKILLS 93/31st

Bateria III Pruebas De Aprovechamiento

(Norms based on age)

Bateria III Tests of Achievement:

Bateria III Cluster areas for
determining Specific Learning
Disability according to IDEA
Rememoracion de cuentos 87/20th
Vocabulario sobre dibujos 66/1st
EXPRESION ORAL 68/2nd
Comprension de indicaciones
62/1st
Comprension Oral 73/3rd
COMPRENSION AUDITIVA
59/<1st
Fluidez en la escritura 87/19th
Muestras de redaccion 98/45th
EXPRESION ESCRITA 92/31st

Identificacion de letras y palabras

111/77th
Analisis de palabras 109/73rd
DESTREZAS BASICAS en LECTURA
112/78th
Comprension de textos 87/19th
Vocabulario de lectura 81/11th
COMPRENSION de LECTURA
80/9th
Problemas Aplicados -Conceptos cuantitativos 88/22nd
RAZONAMIENTO en
MATEMATICAS -Fluidez en la lectura 47 FLUIDEZ
en la LECTURA 47

Interventions

The following reading interventions are

recommended by What Works
Clearinghouse for use with ELL students:

Enhanced Proactive Reading

Read Well
SRA Reading Mastery/SRA Corrective Reading

Interventions

Interventions
AIM for the BESt: Assessment and Intervention Model for the
Bilingual Exceptional Student

Common elements in the above intervention programs:

Incorporates pre-referral intervention, assessment, and intervention

strategies
Uses nonbiased measures
Aims to improve academic performance for culturally and
linguistically diverse students and aims to reduce inappropriate
referrals to special education

formed a central aspect of daily reading instruction

between 30 and 50 minutes to implement per day
intensive small-group instruction following the principles of
direct and explicit instruction in the core areas of reading
extensive training of the teachers and interventionists

How?

Use of instructional strategies proven to be effective with language-minority

students
Allows teachers flexibility to modify instruction for struggling students
Supports teachers with a team of professionals
Uses CBM and criterion-referenced tests to assess in addition to standardized
test data

Model holds promise for improving educational services provided

to limited English-proficient students(Ortiz et al., 1991)

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
17

NASPCONVENTION2013

References

References, cont.

Alvarado, C.G. (n.d.). Bilingual special education evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals using
Woodcock tests.
Ashby, B., Morrison, A. & Butcher, H.J. (1970). The abilities and attainments of immigrant children. Research in
Education, 4, 73-80.

Ascher, C. (1991). Testing Bilingual Students. Do We Speak the Same Language? PTA Today, 16(5), 7-9.

Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1994). Curriculum-Based Measurement Reading with Bilingual Hispanic Students: A
Validation Study with Second-Grade Students.

Batalova, J., & Terrazas, A. (2010). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United
States. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=818#1a

Becker, H., & Goldstein, S. (2011). Connecticut administrators of programs for English language learners: English
language learnes and special education: A resource handbook. Retrieved from CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf.

Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive

learning communities for ELL students: Transforming school principals'
perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-151.

Christo, C. Crosby, E. Zoraya, M. (In press). Response to Intervention and Assessment of the Bilingual Child. In A.
Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Clinton, A. (in press) Semi-lingualism: What neuroscience tells us about the complexities of assessing the bilingual
child from low socio-economic backgrounds. In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA
Publications

Cline, T. (1998). The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children. British journal of Special
Education, 25 (4), 159-163.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in Language and
Education, 1(4).
Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities. Clearing
House: A Journal Of Educational Strategies, Issues And Ideas, 84(6), 244-248.
Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H.-K., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: a crosslinguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. [Article]. Journal of Research in
Reading, 35(4), 372-392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x
de Ramrez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Evaluation of Reading
Skills of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners in Bilingual Education Classrooms. [Article]. School
Psychology Review, 35(3), 356-369
Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological Testing of Linguistic-Minority Students: Knowledge Gaps and
Regulations. Exceptional Children, 56(2), 145-52.
Frederickson, N.L. & Frith, U. (1998). Identifying dyslexia in bilingual children: A phonological approach
with Inner London Sylheti speakers. Dyslexia, 4, 119-131.
Linan-Thompson, S., & Ortiz, A. A. (2009). Response to Intervention and English-Language Learners:
Instructional and Assessment Considerations. [Article]. Seminars in Speech & Language, 30(2), 105-120.
Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English learners response to intervention:
Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185-195.

Cline T (1998) The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children British journal of Special

References, cont.

2/10/2013

References, cont.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A

policy brief. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.ncte.org/library/
NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchBrief.pdf
O'Bryon, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2010). Bilingual school psychologists' assessment practices with English language
learners. [Article]. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1018-1034. doi: 10.1002/pits.20521
Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y.-J., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The Role of
Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special Education: Implications for
Response to Intervention. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316-333. doi:
10.1080/15235882.2011.628608
Ortiz, S. O., Ochoa, S. H., & Dynda, A. M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations:
Moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P.
L., (3rd Edition), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (p. 526-552). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Considerations in Implementing
Intervention Assistance Teams to Support English Language Learners. Remedial And Special Education, 27(1), 5363.
Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A Framework for Serving English Language Learners with Disabilities. Journal
Of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 72-80.
Petitto, L.A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span: Implications for
education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 185-197.
Pollard-Durodola, P., Crdenas-Hagan, E., Tong, F. (In press). Implications of bilingualism in reading assessment. .
In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Ramus F, Rosen S, Dakin SC, Day BL, Castellote JM, White S, Frith U. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia:
insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126, 841865.

Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005). 'Bilingual Education and Second-Language Acquisition'.
In Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. New York: The Guildford
Press.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & O'Hanlon, L. (2005). Nonbiased Assessment of English Language Learners: A
Tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(3), 178-185.
Sandberg, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2011). English Learners: Challenges in Assessment and the Promise of
Curriculum-Based Measurement. [Article]. Remedial & Special Education, 32(2), 144-154. doi:
10.1177/0741932510361260
Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2012). Cognition and Literacy in English Language Learners
at Risk for Reading Disabilities. [Article]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 202-320. doi:
10.1037/a0026225
Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Fulbright RK, Skudlarski P, Todd-Constable R, Marchione KE,
Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Gore JC. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with
developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52,101110
Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. J. (2011). Dropping out of school among ELL students: Implications to
schools and teacher education. Clearing House, 84(3), 98-103.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census
population profile maps. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/
2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_main.html
Wilda, L.-R., Ochoa, S. H., & Parker, R. (2006). The Crosslinguistic Role of Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency on Reading Growth in Spanish and English. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 87-106
You, H., Gaab, N., Wei, N., Cheng-Lai, A., Wang, Z., Jian, J., & Ding, G. (2011). Neural deficits in second
language reading: fMRI evidence from Chinese children with English reading
impairment. Neuroimage, 57(3), 760-770.

CHRISTO,BORISOV,SIBERT
18