Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Justification pro con
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Justification pro con

184
views

Published on

This is a handout I developed for explaining when and when not it is appropriate to refer orplace ELL students in Special Education.

This is a handout I developed for explaining when and when not it is appropriate to refer orplace ELL students in Special Education.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
184
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Dr. Collier’s List of When Is SpedLEP Justified Versus When NOTSped referral is justified 1. Poor communicative proficiency in the home as compared to siblings and age peers in bilingual environments, especially when this lack is noticed by the parents. 2. English language development that appears to be significantly different than that of peers who are also learning English as a additional language. 3. Documentation that student’s acquisition of English is within normal range for his peer group, age, culture/language population, length of time in ESL, etc. but there are specific learning and/or behavior problems unrelated to culture shock or language transition. 4. Specific sensory, neurological, organic, motor, or other conditions that impact learning and behavior when having reliable documentation that culture shock or language transition contributes but is not the determining factor for the learning and behavior problems. 5. Social use of language or lack thereof continues to be inappropriate (e.g., topic of lesson is rocks and the student continues to discuss events that occurred at home without saying how they relate to rocks). 6. Grammatical structures continue to be inappropriate in both languages even after extensive instruction (e.g., student cannot produce the past tense in either Spanish or English indicating difficulty with grammatical tenses). 7. Student is demonstrating limited phrasing and vocabulary in both languages (e.g., her sentences in both languages demonstrate limited or no use of adjectives and adverbs and both languages are marked by a short length of utterance). 8. Student’s productions in both languages demonstrate a lack of the possessive form indicating that she has not acquired this morphologic structure by the appropriate age. Again, both languages may be marked by a short length of utterance 9. Student’s response to specific structured interventions addressing his presenting problem is documented to be more than 40% below ELL/CLD peers within individualized instructional intervention. 10. Student’s response to specific structured interventions addressing her presenting problem is documented to be unsustainable without substantial individualized specially designed instruction. 11. Others as documented across at least 6 to 8 weeks of intensive instructional intervention when having reliable documentation that culture shock or language transition contributes but is not the determining factor for the learning and behavior problems.© 2011 Dr. Catherine Collier Page 1All Rights Reserved
  • 2. Sped referral is not justified 1. Learning and/or behavior problems are attributable to culture shock or language transition issues, such as silence, unresponsiveness, heightened anxiety, code switching, response fatigue, confusion in locus of control, etc. 2. Below normal rate of acculturation when documentation that this delay is related to inadequate or inappropriate instruction or intervention. 3. Leveling out or below normal rate of language acquisition when documentation that this sustained language ‘ceiling’ is related to inadequate or inappropriate levels of language instruction (e.g. less than 50 minutes a day in sheltered English or no content support in the primary language). 4. Social responses to language are based on cultural background (e.g., comfort level in asking or responding to questions) 5. Pauses between turns or overlaps in conversation are similar to those of peers with the same linguistic and cultural background. 6. Grammatical errors due to native language influences (e.g., student may omit initial verb in a question—You like cake? (omission of Do)). 7. Word order in L1 may differ from that of English (e.g., in Arabic, sentences are ordered verb-subject-object while Urdu sentences are ordered subject-object-verb). 8. A student whose native language is Korean may have difficulty using pronouns, as they do not exist in her native language. A student may use words from L1 in productions in L2 because of his inability or unfamiliarity of the vocabulary in L2 (e.g., “The car is muy rapido.” In this case, the student knows the concept as well as the needed structure but cannot remember the vocabulary). 9. Native speakers of Russian may not use articles as they do not exist in that language. A student whose native language is Spanish may omit the possessive (‘s’) when producing an utterance in English (e.g., “Joe crayon broke” or She will say “the crayon of Joe broke,” applying a structure that is influenced by the rules of her L1. She still demonstrates understanding of the morphologic structure for possession but is demonstrating errors in structure that are directly influenced by her L1.) 10. Student’s response to specific structured interventions addressing his presenting problem is documented to be within 50% or closer to that of his ELL/CLD peers within individualized instructional intervention. 11. Student’s response to specific structured interventions addressing her presenting problem is documented to be sustainable with continuing differentiated learning support with the instruction and instructional intervention program. 12. Others as documented across at least 6 weeks of intensive instructional intervention when having reliable documentation that culture shock or language transition is the determining factor for the learning and behavior problems.© 2011 Dr. Catherine Collier Page 2All Rights Reserved