Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

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
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).
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
RTI/CBM
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Current Methods of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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?
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
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
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)
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.
18

Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NASPCONVENTION2013

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

Uneven Literacy Performance

MINI SKILLS SESSION:

Why Focus on EL Students? cont.

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

Ethical/Legal Standards, cont.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

Address issues of language, appropriateness of norms and

.findings are not primarily the result of cultural factors or

School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how

Learning Trajectory for EL

Current Assessment Methods

Suggestions for Assessment

What Works Clearinghouse:

Dr. Cristina Griselda Alvarado

Learning Trajectory for EL Students

Expected Trajectory: BICS vs. CALP

Typically acquired in 1-2 years

Cognitive Academic Language

Typically acquired in 2-7 years

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

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

Possible Factors Contributing to

But sometimes, its due to:

Factors Contributing to Delayed L2

Factors Contributing to Delayed L2

Importance of Home Support

Deficit in phonological skills

Research shows that children who are

Importance of Native Language

Immigrant students who

Importance of Native Language

Review records, interview parents, etc.

Studies show that students

If students have certain strengths in their L1, and those

Domains of Cross-Linguistic Transfer:

Simple model of reading (Tumner and Gough)

Competent reading rests on the development of basic

The hands and feet of genius

Multiple components of reading must be taught in a

Its All About the Word

Children must learn how

Well Maybe Not All

Word Reading Must Become:

This is true in any

Integrate Multiple Systems

For EL student, each of these areas

Concepts learned well in one

National Literacy Panel on

Profiles of both groups with

Definition of Dyslexia: NICH and IDA

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is

Characteristics of Students With

Most reading problems have

Each of these reading

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Different writing systems

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Alphabetic languages differ

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

In more consistent orthographies