1. Northwest Regional ESD Inservice Aug. 24, 2006 English Language Learners with Special Needs: A Framework to Distinguish Language from Disability By R. Marisol Jimenez ELL/Migrant Coordinator

2. Demographics: Oregon Trends 199212,605 2% 200244,129 8 % The ELL population increased by 250% compared to 4% overall school age growth. 200452,168 11% 5th fastest growing state for ELL population

3. Equal Educational Opportunity: Legal Foundations Lau vs. Nichols: US Supreme Court Meaningful Education: “Equity of educational opportunity is not achieved by merely providing all students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum where the lack of English proficiency effectively forecloses the student from any meaningful education.”

4. In Short English Language Learners are a rapidly growing population in Oregon. The Civil Rights Law mandates effective programs and practices for ELL’s to provide equal access to an education given language needs.

5. Concern Overrepresentation of ELL’s in SPED. Underrepresentation of ELL’s in SPED.

6. RESPONSE Understanding how language is acquired. Understanding learning needs of ELL’s. Understanding how Response to Intervention (RTI) supports ELL’s.

7. Language Acquisition Stages Stages Language for School Language for School Contextural Factors Contextural Factors Language Proficiency Language Proficiency

8. Stages of Language Acquisition Pre-productionEmergent1 Pre-productionEmergent1 Early productionEmergent2 Early productionEmergent2 Speech emergenceDeveloping3 Speech emergenceDeveloping3 Intermediate fluencyDeveloping4 Intermediate fluencyDeveloping4 Advanced fluencyTransitional5 Advanced fluencyTransitional5 Proficient6

10. Contextual Factors Affecting Second Language Acquisition Primary LanguagePrimary Language Access to LanguageAccess to Language Age/ Prior EducationAge/ Prior Education Learning styleLearning style Peers and role modelsPeers and role models MotivationMotivation Cultural BackgroundCultural Background Quality of InstructionQuality of Instruction Home SupportHome Support Aida Walqui, 2000

12. Disability Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Does the student have a Learning Disability? IDEA (1975) Significant Discrepancy Model (Achievement and intellectual ability) IDEA (2004) Response to intervention (RTI) as an alternative

13. What is Response to Intervention? The practice of providing high- quality instruction and intervention matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about change in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions. (Batsche et al., 2005)

14. Response to Intervention & ELL’s Intent of NCLB: “…to hold State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools accountable for increases in English proficiency and core academic content knowledge of English proficient children.”

15. Response to Intervention: Supporting ELL’s Potential to affect change for ELL’s by providing a basis from which to use research-based instruction. Tying this instruction to the needs of ELL’s to drill down to strengths and needs. Examine other possible reasons for lack of academic achievement to determine needed interventions. Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006

16. The Role of ELP Standards Accelerating ELL Achievement Identifies targets for English language development Guides teachers as they address the academic language particular to the content areas Provides pathways for ELLs to achieve content area standards Will Flores, 2005

17. Lau Remedies: Components of an Effective ELL Plan Must identify and assess ELLs Must provide a program that addresses English Language Development Must provide access to core academic content Must be grounded in current research on best practices Must evaluate program effectiveness using data Must provide access to all school programs and services Must provide adequate resources, staff and professional development

18. A 3 Tiered Model of RTI Proposal by Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006 Tier 1 : Universal Screening & Interventions Collect Baseline Data Linguistically & Culturally Appropriate Instruction If a student becomes a focus of concern: instructional program & general ed. curriculum is modified to match language proficiency level. Similar to a pre-referral or Student Study team process, should last at least 6-8 weeks. (Collier, 2001)

19. A 3 Tiered Model of RTI Proposal by Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006 Tier 2 : Change in Instructional Environment Different interventions-small group setting. Instructional materials may be different than gen. ed. Instruction provided by a specialist. “Double dose” of targeted instruction. ←Student makes progress = Cycle back to Tier 1. →Student does not make good progress = Moves to Tier 3.

20. A 3 Tiered Model of RTI Proposal by Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006 Tier 3 : Intense Individual Instruction Refer S – Formal Assessment in L1 and L2. Acculturation level assessment. Profile of S’s cognitive abilities and areas of strengths, concerns identified. To inform instructional decisions, guide developmentally, linguistacally & culturally appropriate IEP development. Ask why previous interventions may not have been effective. S found eligible for SPED receive intensive, tailored instruction on an on going basis.

21. RTI Model Challenges Predicated upon effective, developmentally appropriate, lingustically & culturally appropriate instruction in the general ed. Classroom. Less than 20% of the 56% of public school teachers in the U.S. that have at least one ELL in their class are certified to teach ELL students. (Waxman, Tellez & Walberg, 2004) Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006

22. RTI Model Challenges MOST multidisciplinary school teams charged with making eligibility decisions for ELL’s lack training & experience in differentiating language difference from true disability. (Collier, 2001;Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001;Hosp & Rechsley, 2003) Use of RTI without a foundation in culturally & linguistically appropriate practices, may lead to even more disproportionate representation of ELL’s in SPED. Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006

23. Key Factors in RTI & ELL’s 1.Systematic way to examine specific variables inherent to ELL’s: L1 & L2 proficiency, educational history including bilingual models, immigration pattern, socioeconomic status, and culture. 2.Information about students’ cognitive processing profiles 3.Interpretation of all assessment data in nondiscriminatory ways. Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006

24. Benefits of RTI for ELL Students Increased accountability for achievement monitoring effective instruction. “True” peer comparison, not national norms. Increased collaboration in schools. (ELL specialists, speech & language therapists, school psychologists, counselors, teacher teams, etc) Accountability by ALL teachers for ALL the students in their classrooms. Julie Esparza Brown & J. Doolittle, 2006

25. Thank You