Special Education Services for English Language Learners Presented by TUSD’s Language Acquisition Dept. Spring 2012

 Welcome and introductions  Anticipatory set: Defining the issues  The referral process for ELLs  Activity: Modeling a withdrawal by SPED criteria  Closure: Advocating for ELLs  Workshop evaluations on PD website

 Participants will discuss SPED qualification procedures and documentation regarding referral, evaluation, and placement of ELLs.  Participants will demonstrate an understanding of their placement and advocacy responsibilities by describing appropriate responses to various scenarios

 TUSD enrollment: About 55,000  ELL enrollment: About 3,200 ELLs (6%)  725 of 3,200 (23%) qualify for SPED services  Another 23 (0.6%)ELLs qualified for GATE  ADE calls both groups “dual label students”  What percent of SPED students are ELLs?

 Of the total TUSD enrollment, about 7,500 receive SPED services (13.6%)  Of the total ELL enrollment, about 725 receive SPED services (22.6%)

At the initial meeting, the pre-referral team (child study group) must review the child’s:  Home Language Survey responses  Status per AZELLA (IFEP, ELL, RECLASS,ELLAR)  Academic record  Academic language development  Degree of acculturation  Educational background in L1  Behavior as reported in classroom observations

 If it is determined that language acquisition issues are involved, the pre-referral team will assess the student’s native language proficiency.  If the pre-referral team determines that the concerns extend beyond typical language acquisition issues, it will ask the school’s Multidisciplinary Education Team and the EXED Multicultural Team for a final decision.

 The school’s MET and the EXED MT will review the findings and decide whether the student:  Is not a candidate for EXED evaluation but other interventions would be appropriate or  Is a candidate for EXED evaluation in L1; or in L2; or in L1 and L2

 Once the evaluation results are obtained, the MET & the EXED MT shall discuss and document:  Validity of results  Information used to determine eligibility  Procedures used  Possible exceptions  Once the evaluation review and discussion is completed, the MET & MT shall decide either:  No, the child is not eligible for EXED services, but other interventions are appropriate; or  Yes, the child is eligible for EXED services

If the student is eligible, Section 12 of the IEP (Instructional Accommodations) shall state:  That primary language support may be provided (EE/ELLs are exempt from BE waiver requirement)  How the services and accommodations will help the student overcome language barriers  Whether and to what extent services shall include DL or ELD program placement

 The effects that the student’s language and culture may have had on the student’s educational experience  If and how diagnostic instrument procedures were altered  Any translation and/or interpretation used in the administration of diagnostic instruments and procedures  Procedures followed to ensure cross validation of formal diagnostic measures with other data available about the student

 ELL-SPED students are eligible for withdrawal by IEP if the nature of the handicapping condition, as noted in the student’s IEP (Item #15, Part 2), is so severe that it does not permit the students to respond in any meaningful way to the regular reclassification procedure

 ELL-SPED students who are not eligible for IEP withdrawal using Option #1 because the handicapping condition, though severe, does not preclude a meaningful response to the regular reclassification procedure, may be withdrawn through the alternative reclassification procedure outlined below if all four of the following stipulations apply:

 The student’s documented disability involves severe language impairment or severe reading and/or writing impairment.  The student’s scores in the last three years of AZELLA testing fail to show a consistent pattern of improvement from one level to a higher level (Pre-emergent, Emergent, Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient) in any one of the four domains (listening, speaking, reading or writing).  Though the student may respond meaningfully to the regular reclassification procedure, the IEP team believes the student’s disability—rather than any deficiencies in the ESL instruction— prohibits the student from ever achieving AZELLA proficiency.  The IEP team includes the ELD or Dual Language teacher and/or a member of EXED’s Multicultural Team.

Does this student qualify for option 1 or option 2?

 Working with a partner, take a look at the paperwork for various EE/ELL students  Decide if the student would qualify for withdrawal based on SPED criteria  Decide whether they qualify for Option 1, Option 2, or neither.

 Schools may use ILLPs rather than the standard 4-hour ELD model if there are 20 or fewer ELLs in a three-grade.  EE/ELLs at the secondary school level are exempt from being counted toward the 20 student limit.

 Language arts grades for ELLs should be based on the ELP standards rather than the language arts academic standards.  Providing appropriate accommodations is not the same as addressing the students’ needs for English language development.

 Gnawing discomfort led him to seek help. A treatment then ensued. With blessed anesthesia masking pain, the tissue was removed. The wound healed shamelessly naked skin, but naming being done, he embraced his doom and announced, “I ate.”

 Hocked gems financing him, our hero defied the scornful laughter. "Think of it as an egg, not a table," he said. Then three sturdy sisters sought proof, forging vast calmness, and sometimes over turbulent peaks and valleys, until at last welcomed winged creatures appeared, signifying momentous success.

 Applying what you have learned today, how might you advocate for your ELL students who are placed in mainstream classrooms?