WIXLIB

Basics 2 Checklist DataSkill AreaPre WritingYesNoXCommunicates in WritingResponds to Auditory StimuliXReceptive Language (Verbal)XExpressive Language (Verbal)XArticulationXReceptive Language (Non Verbal)*XWords IndependentlyXAttends to Printed MaterialXReading ReadinessXBasic Reading SkillsXReading ComprehensionOverall Indication Student is Fluent in English*XX23

RECLASSIFICATIONSCENARIO 1 “Maria” Cont’d.Note: *The student received an overall “no” in the receptivelanguage and reading comprehension areas; however, themulti-disciplinary reclassification team (to include specialeducators and English language development experts)determined that these relative weaknesses were due to thestudent’s autism versus language differences when comparedto high performance in English language skill areas. Theteam in this scenario determined the student was fluent inEnglish since they felt the Basics 2 checklist data indicatesthe student has acquired and intermediate or above level ofEnglish language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading,and writing.24

SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.Criteria 2: Teacher EvaluationRemember: Incurred deficits in motivation & academic successunrelated to English language proficiency do not preclude astudent from reclassification.Maria’s teachers indicated that they feel she has developedEnglish language proficiency as evidenced by her day to dayclassroom performance (not related to her autism ordisability)?25

SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.Criteria 3: Parent Opinion and ConsultationMaria’s parent(s) feel she has acquired the English skillsneeded to be successful in school?26

SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.Criteria 4: Comparison of Performance in basic skills“Performance in basic skills” means the score and/orperformancelevel resulting from a recent administration of theCalifornia English–Language Arts Standards Test (CST inEnglish–language arts).Maria took CAPA Level IV (for her 6th grade level) versus CST asindicated in her IEP. She scored at the low end of “proficient” onthe CAPA in ELA. Relying on the Maria’s CAPA Test data, thereclassification team determined that Maria met Criteria 4.27

SCENARIO 1 CONT’D.Should Maria be reclassified?Yes, in this scenario the reclassification team felt that Maria metthe four CBE reclassification criteria and made the decision todesignation her as RFEP.28

QuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.SCENARIO 2QuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.Jorge is a 8th grade student who is eligible for specialeducation as learning disabled. He is a highly verbalstudent but struggles with a reading and writingdisability due to visual processing. He functions atapproximately the 7th grade level in math and 4th- 5thgrade level in reading and writing. He was classified asan English Learner upon entering school inkindergarten.29

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.Jorge’s CELDT Scores are as erallEarlyAdvancedX (upper end)30

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency using anobjective assessment instrumentAlthough Jorge did not meet the CELDT assessmentcriteria for proficiency since he did not obtain an overallproficiency level of early advanced or higher and writingwas at the early intermediate level, The IEP team mayconsider other measures to determine if Jorge isproficient since his overall CELDT level is in the upperend of intermediate.and .31

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.The team took in to consideration other curriculum basedmeasures from the classroom in reading and writing whenJorge was allowed to use his accommodation of using a wordprocessor and spell checker and and auditory assistance withsounding out multiple-syllable words. The team also reviewedpast test results from WJIII and TOWL. The IEP team ruled outthat lack of proficiency in reading writing was not due to lack ofproficiency in English by analyzing the types of error patterns hemade and by reviewing his overall progress made towardsachieving his IEP goals in reading and writing.32

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.Criteria 2: Teacher EvaluationJorge’s teachers felt he has developed English languageproficiency as evidenced by his day to day classroomperformance (not related to his learning disability)?Remember: Incurred deficits in motivation & academicsuccess unrelated to English language proficiency do notpreclude a student from reclassification.33

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.Criteria 3: Parent InputJorge’s parent(s) felt he has acquired the English skills neededto be successful in school.34

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.Criteria 4: Comparison of Performance in basic skills“Performance in “basic skills” means the score and/orperformance level resulting from a recent administration of theCalifornia English–Language Arts Standards Test (CST inEnglish–language arts).”Jorge’s CST scores fall slightly below the midpoint of basic in in ELA whenprovided accommodations of more time, directions read aloud andparaphrased, and testing broken in to shortened time segments; however, thereclassification team felt that “factors other than English language development”were the reason his scores were low (his learning disability).Remember: For pupils scoring below the cut point, school districts should attempt todetermine whether *factors other than English language proficiency (such as a disability)are responsible for low performance on the CST in English–language arts and whether it35is reasonable to reclassify the student.(CBE CELDT Adopted Guidelines 2009-2010)

SCENARIO 2 CONT’D.Should Jorge be reclassified?Yes, in this scenario the reclassification team felt that Joregemet the four CBE reclassification criteria and made thedecision to designation him as RFEP.36

QuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.SCENARIO 3QuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.Yu Li is a 3rd grade student who is eligible forspecial education as having mental retardation.She functions at approximately the K grade levelin math and Pre K level in reading and writing.She was classified as an English Learner uponentering school in first grade. Yu Li’s IEPstipulates that she will take an alternativeassessment to CELDT (Basics 2 checklist).37

SCENARIO 3 Cont’d.Criteria 1: Assessment of language proficiency using anobjective assessment instrumentYu Li was administered an alternate measure Basics 2 toCELDT in order to determine if she was proficient in English(listening, speaking, reading, and writing). The reclassificationteam wanted to see if Yu Li’s academic achievement wascommensurate with her cognitive skills since she has lowcognitive ability.38

Yu Li’s Basics 2 Checklist data is as follows:Skill AreaYesNoPre WritingXCommunicates in WritingXResponds to Auditory StimuliXReceptive Language (Verbal)XExpressive Language (Verbal)XArticulationXReceptive Language (Non Verbal)XWords IndependentlyXAttends to Printed MaterialXReading ReadinessXBasic Reading SkillsXReading ComprehensionXOverall Indication Student is Fluent in EnglishX39

SCENARIO 3 Cont’d.Criteria 1 Cont’d.: Yu Li’s reclassification team analyzed her2nd Basics 2 data to determine if she has acquired sufficientEnglish language skills to allow her to function in an academicEnglish environment. The team did take in to consideration herlow cognitive ability. The team noted that Yu Li has onlyreceived services as an English language learner for 3 years.The team felt that Yu Li’s limited progress in English may bedue to her low cognitive ability since students functioning in herintellectual range learn new information much more slowly thantheir typical developing peers. The team felt strongly thatalthough her disability impacts her ability to acquire English,she continues to need further development in ELD in order to40 1.make optimal academic progress. Yu Li did not meet criteria

SCENARIO 3 Cont’d.Criteria 2: Teacher EvaluationYu Li’s teachers felt she has not yet developedEnglish language proficiency as evidenced by herday to day classroom performance. They do feel thather disability impacts her rate of learning, but feelthat it is in Yu Li’s best interest to continue receivingEnglish language development services. Theteacher noted that Yu Li’s error patterns were typicalof those seen by other English learners as a younger41age.

SCENARIO 3 Cont’d.Criteria 3: Parent InputYu Li’s parent(s) feel she has not acquired the Englishskills needed to be successful in school (asappropriate to her cognitive level)? They feel she ismaking appropriate progress towards her IEP goalsbut feels she needs continued ELD services.42

SCENARIO 3 Cont’d.Criteria 4: Comparison of Performance in basic skillsYu Li takes the CAPA not CST. Based on her level 1CAPA performance, Yu Li continues to score belowbasic and the reclassification team did not feel Yu Limet this criteria.Should Yu Li be reclassified as RFEP at this time? NoShe did not meet any one of the four CBE reclassificationcriteria.43

SCENARIO 3 Cont’d.Should Yu Li be reclassified?No, She did not meet any one of the four CBE reclassificationcriteria.44

QUESTIONSQuestion 1:Is reclassification to RFEP the responsibility of the IEP team forEL students in special education?Answer: No. Each LEA must establish policies and procedures to designatewhich staff or the team members that are responsible for reclassification of ELstudents. The English Learner Division at the CDE advises that reclassificationis not the jurisdiction of the IEP team. However, if the LEA has designated theIEP team as the EL reclassification team for students with IEPs, it may anacceptable practice for the IEP team, in collaboration with staff members whohave expertise in the reclassification of English learner, to reclassify students toRFEP. It is best practice for English learner and special education staffmembers to work together collaboratively to make reclassification decisions forstudents with disabilities.5 CCR § 1130345

QUESTIONSQuestion 2:May a school EL reclassification team use “alternative criteria” toreclassify a student who is EL to RFEP?Answer: No. There is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternativereclassification criteria”. LEAs must follow the four criteria established by theState Board of Education. However, within the four established reclassificationcriteria there is flexibility in the way the way teams apply the guidelines thatmay be relevant to students with disabilities. It is also recommended that LEAstaff consult or collaborate with special educators in making reclassificationdecisions.5 CCR § 1130346

QUESTIONSQuestion 3:May a school classify a student that has severe disabilities and isnon-verbal as FEP upon entry?Answer: No. There is no provision that allows an LEA to use “Alternativecriteria” to classify a student as EL even upon entry if it is deemed that thestudent is an English learner based on the language survey. The IEP team maydetermine if the student needs an alternative assessment to CELDT and whatthat alternative will be (this must be an IEP team decision).5 CCR § 1130347

QUESTIONSQuestion 4:May a school designate a student who uses American SignLanguage (ASL) as FEP even though they are EL based on theenrollment survey ?Answer: Based on communication with the English Language Learner Division atCDE in April, 2010, it was agreed that for the purposes of CELDT testing and identifyingstudents as English learners who use ASL and have an IEP or 504 Plan the followingwould apply:1) Non-English speaking parent, student uses ASL - CELDT testing required; studentmay be considered an English learner2) English speaking parent, student uses ASL - No CELDT testing required3) Parent uses ASL, student is hearing - No CELDT testing required; student may ormay not be under IEP/5044) Parent uses ASL, student uses ASL - No CELDT testing required485 CCR § 11303

QUESTIONSQuestion 5:For the first reclassification criteria that a student must passdemonstrate English language proficiency on CELDT (with anoverall proficiency level of early advanced or higher and: Listeningscore of intermediate or higher, Speaking score of intermediate orhigher, Reading score or intermediate/higher, and Writing score ofintermediate/higher), may the IEP team use the results of the“Alternative assessment” designated by the IEP team as theObjective assessment instrument?49

Question 5 AnswerYes, as long as the student demonstrates Englishproficiency in all four domains: listening, speaking,reading, and writing – this may be at the functionalskills level.50

QUESTIONSQuestion 6:For the fourth reclassification criteria - Comparison ofperformance in basic skills 2), may the reclassification team usedata from the CMA or CAPA assessments since the student doesnot take CST.Answer: The CBE has not currently revised the CELDT ReclassificationGuidelines to include the assessments that IEP teams may designate asalternative measures to CST. It is presumed that it would be acceptable to usethese measures as the data source for criteria number 4, as not allowing themmay be considered discriminatory.51

Students in Special Education Program Requirements for English Learners in SPED: English learners who receive special education services should be placed in the EL instructional setting their IEP team determines will most effectively help them meet the linguistically appropriate goals specified in their IEP. Remember to specify EL services in .