Data-Driven Implementation of Tiered Interventions with English Learners, Session 3
Articles,  Blog

Data-Driven Implementation of Tiered Interventions with English Learners, Session 3


>>ASHLEY GADDIS:
Thank you again for joining. Today’s webinar is titled
Data-driven Implementation of Tiered Interventions
with English Learners. This is session three of a
three-part webinar series hosted by the Connecticut English
Learner Research Partnership at REL Northeast & Islands. Again, my name is Ashley
Gaddis and I’m the dissemination manager here. Here you can see an overview
of this workshop series. Session 1 was on February
1st, session 2 on March 1st, and today is session 3. As I said earlier, we will
be focusing our work today on identifying appropriate
data-based interventions for English learners. And we will have some time
at the end, as we did with all webinars, all of the webinars,
to do some team planning for next steps. Here you can see we
have two learning goals for today’s webinar. Our goals are to engage
instructors in understanding how to implement RTI,
or scientific-based research interventions, to
improve instruction for English learner students. Another goal is to engage
educators in understanding how to use data through
instructional methods to improve the identification of culturally
and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. And these are actually the
overarching goal for the entire three-part webinar series. Here is today’s agenda. We will begin
with a welcome and introduction. Next we will be focusing
on identifying appropriate interventions for English
learners in Tiers 2 and 3. Next we will talk
about developing individualized education programs
or IEPs for English learners. We will, towards the end of the
webinar, leave some time for you to do some team planning as
a group, and then we will have closing remarks. Also, throughout the
webinar, there will be different interactions and activities
and handouts for to you work on. This webinar is hosted by
the Connecticut English Learner Research Partnership,
facilitated by REL Northeast & Islands. You can see here
that the long-term goal of this partnership is to examine
data use in two specific areas. One is the identification
of disabilities among English learner students, and that
is why this webinar series is taking place and
resources were put towards it. And another piece is to examine
data use in the provision of high-quality instruction that
meets the diverse needs of the English
learner student population. As you can see, the big focus is
on working with English learners and English
learners with disabilities. Here are the goals for today’s
session: To equip participants with the knowledge and skills to
make better informed data-driven decisions regarding appropriate
interventions for English learner students in Tiers 2
and 3, to reflect on the content covered during all three
sessions as this is a concluding webinar, and then to identify
concrete next steps that you can use in your schools
and districts for applying strategies, recommendations,
and considerations in the local context — in your local
context, particularly related to data sources and their use. And here are today’s
two presenters, Sarah Moore and Lindsey Massoud. So, at this time, I am going to
turn it over to Sarah who will begin her presentation. Have a great session, Sarah.>>SARAH MOORE:
Great. Thanks so much. We are delighted to be here for
this final session in our series Data-Driven Implementation
of Tiered Interventions with English Learners. Thank
you, everyone, for joining us. We are excited
to follow up and wrap up. These are the key sources we
have used throughout the series and we will
also be drawing on them today. They are two IES practice
guides: Assisting Students Struggling with Reading:
Response to Intervention and Multi-tier Intervention in
the Primary Grades and Teaching Academic Content to English
Learners in Elementary and Middle School. Also, the OELA English Learner
Toolkit, as well as the CAPELL Handbook on SRBI for ELs, which
is the Scientific Research-Based Interventions for English
Language Learners: A Handbook to Accompany
Connecticut’s Framework for RTI. For today’s session we will also
draw on a fairly new guide from the CCSSO about English
Learners with Disabilities. So, let’s talk about identifying
appropriate interventions for English
learners in Tiers 2 and 3. First, let’s briefly review
the three tiers of response to intervention. In Tier 1,
students receive high-quality classroom instruction. For English learners, this would
mean provision of ESOL services as well as culturally
and linguistically responsive instruction. In Tier 2, students receive
supplemental instruction. So, for English learners, this
would mean interventions that are differentiated to meet
language and content learning needs, as well
as involvement of ESOL staff. In Tier 3, students
receive intensive interventions. So, for English learners,
this would involve curriculum modifications based on learning
needs, including English language development, staff
training in working with English learners, and involvement
of an ESOL specialist. So, across the tiers,
educators should conduct screening assessment
and progress monitoring. So, for English learners, this
would include involvement of an ESOL specialist, assessment and
screening tools that have been both researched with English
learners and also those which are available in students’
native languages, if that’s possible, of course, making
comparisons with true peers, and consideration of broad range
of data, including, of course, English learners’
English proficiency levels. So, in revisiting some of
our conversations from the last session, before we dive in
today, let’s take a few minutes to talk through the kinds of
Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports you have implemented with
English learners in your schools or districts. Maybe you have done some of
this as a result of some of the discussions we
had over the last two sessions. So, we will give you about two
minutes to chat, and once you have discussed, please post your
thoughts in the chat box and we will do a little group debrief. In the next couple of slides we
will revisit Isabel and Adnan as well as your student. So thinking about them as
examples might help to sort of generate thinking and discussion
around your consideration of this chat. Okay. Well, we can presume that
there is rich discussion being carried out in your individual
sites as we move through this exciting continued
presentation about data-driven decision making. So, we’ll move on in the
interests of time, unless folks have thoughts, go ahead and post
them in the existing chat box and we can maybe revisit. So, as I mentioned, let’s
reconsider Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports for Adnan, Isabel,
and your case study student. Thinking back on Isabel’s
background and the data we’ve reviewed to distinguish between
language-based versus other learning challenges, what Tier
2 and Tier 3 supports might be appropriate
to support her needs? Talk with your colleague for
a couple more minutes and then share
your thoughts in the chat box. Great. I see that East
Hartford, perfect, more specific information
on her struggles with literacy. Well, it is difficult with just
the limited information that we have. Fortunately, one of
the recommendations from the IES practice guide that we are going
to discuss involves facilitating literacy development,
and I think that would apply to Isabel’s case. South Windsor and Hartford
Public Schools, it looks like you’re sharing some thoughts. Yeah,
Tier 2 reading intervention. M-hmm. And then for Adnan, you
are saying nothing at this point but check English learner
instruction to ensure that he has daily push and supports
as well as explicit instruction. Yes, absolutely. And we will talk about ensuring
that interventions are occurring not only in the push in general
education setting in addition to pull-out if that’s the program
model that’s being used in a particular setting. And Hartford Public Schools said
we would consider the following interventions:
Foundational skill interventions,
chunking materials. Yes, absolutely. And that’s something that we
will talk about a little later on in the session. And
then modifying text complexity. Yes. And chunking materials
is, of course, one way to get at that. Hartford Public Schools says
reciprocal teaching and memory devices. Absolutely. Yeah. I think that would help,
particularly in terms of the challenges
that we have seen from Isabel. Okay. I think we are going to
— we will wait for Torrington Public Schools and
then we will move on to Adnan. Okay. Continue ESL pull-out, and
consider having Isabel also meet with a literacy coach. Yeah. That’s a great idea;
additional time with an English learner specialist. Great. So, let’s
move to thinking about Adnan. In thinking about his
background and the data that we have reviewed in
terms of distinguishing between language-based versus other
learning challenges, what Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports might
be appropriate for supporting his needs? You should talk with your
colleagues for about two minutes again and share your thoughts
and we’ll discuss further. Hartford Public Schools: Working
with general education teachers to support
interventions. Absolutely. And that is a lot of —
that need is, in large part, the genesis of this series
of sessions is intentionally involving not only ESOL
specialists but also general education teachers, as well
as literacy experts, special education experts. So it is really about coming
together as a team and ensuring that we are taking into account
the multi-faceted considerations of these kids’ backgrounds and
data sources for distinguishing between language versus
other learning challenges. So, Tammy says, since he is a
refugee, making sure his social and emotional needs
are being met. Absolutely. That’s critically important for
kids who have come from refugee or students with limited
or interrupted formal education backgrounds that we account
for social and emotional learning supports. And we will talk about that when
we discuss considerations for all students when implementing
the interventions versus considerations, particularly
for English learners. East Hartford Public Schools
says check his native language literacy skills. Yes. And this is something that,
again, has come up repeatedly and consistently as we have had
these discussions, the dearth of available resources related
to native language literacy assessment and
native language in general proficiency assessment. We will wait for Torrington
Public Schools and then we will move on. East Hartford, we already talked
about that, checking the native language literacy skills. So, Torrington suggests that we
do not refer Adnan for any Tier 1 or Tier 2 supports because he
has not been in the country for long enough. We would take him more for
individualized coaching from an ESL teacher. That’s an excellent point and
one that I think for which there is salience across these
series and it really gets at the importance
of varied data sources. And this is a very general
example of sort of demographic background and personal
background that’s really fundamentally important
in making these decisions around whether we are going
to, in fact, engage in and implement interventions. So, let’s take a few minutes to
just glance back at your notes and handouts from
last time and our first session. If you have been thinking about
one or more students with whom you have worked in your
particular school or district and how what we have been
discussing and what we will be discussing today might apply to
them and provision of supports for
them that are needs-responsive. So, in the next two sections we
will review recommendations from three of today’s resources:
the IES practice guide, which is Assisting Students Struggling
with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-tier
Intervention in the Primary Grades, Scientific
Research-Based Interventions for English Language Learners:
A Handbook to Accompany Connecticut’s Framework for RTI,
and finally the IES Practice Guide: Teaching Academic
Content to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School. So, in the IES Practice Guide on
RTI, the third recommendation is for teachers
to provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three
foundational reading skills. This should occur in small
groups of students who score below the benchmark
on universal screening. The guide also recommends that
these homogeneous groups consist of three to four students and
use curricula that address key components of the target skills. So, instructions should be
systematic and build over time. It suggests three
particular practices to carry out this recommendation. First, use a curriculum
that addresses the components of reading instruction, and this
gets at some of the thoughts and recommendations that you posted,
that some of you posted in the chat earlier. This includes phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency, and
should also relate to students’ needs and developmental levels. Second, implement this program
for three to five times a week for
approximately 20 to 40 minutes. And, finally, build skills
gradually and provide a high level of teacher-student
interaction with opportunities for practice and feedback. The CAPELL SRBI for English
Learners publication provides guidance on monitoring
progress when implementing tiered instruction. First, of course, use the data
sources we have reviewed over the past two sessions. As we have discussed, however,
use caution to ensure that multiple data sources are
reviewed that represent a range of oral and written
language and literacy skills. The CAPELL publication suggests
that when considering Tier 2 interventions for potentially
dually-identified English learners, teachers should
separate students into small groups of, again, ideally three
to five students and make sure the content and activities are
decisively different than those which were
involved in Tier 1 instruction. So, interventions should
be conducted five days a week, again, eight to ten weeks,
in 20 to 40, maybe 30-minute mini lessons. As interventions are
implemented, educators should use data to determine
whether students are making adequate progress. If by the end of
the intervention they have made appropriate progress, of course,
then they should be removed from the intervention and
returned to Tier 1 instruction. If there is only some progress,
students should be regrouped and the Tier
2 intervention should be rerun. If there is very little
progress, educators should consult with colleagues
and consider moving to more intensive intervention
activities in Tier 3. So the CAPELL publication
on SRBI suggests that when implementing Tier 2
interventions with students who are English learners, teachers
should take into account a few considerations in terms of what
interventions would look like for all students versus for
those who are English learners. So, for example, English
learners in Tier 2 instruction may vary in
time and intensity from Tier 1. Content may not be matched
well to English learners’ backgrounds, including
their academic, social, socio-emotional, and/or
behavioral needs, which is what sort of refers back to some
of the discussions we had about Adnan. So, teachers should make
adaptations to account for these mismatches, such
as using systematic and explicit instruction, including modeling,
numerous examples, and varied opportunities
for sharing feedback. We should focus on
academic language and vocabulary instruction with numerous
opportunities for practice, and we should provide frequent
and structured opportunities for students to further develop
their oral language skills. So, additional considerations
when implementing Tier 2 interventions have to do with
grouping and student-to-teacher ratios, which may be more varied
when we working with English learner students. For example, non-English
learners would be grouped homogeneously, so students with
similar needs, with a teacher to student
ratio of up to 1 to 4 or 1 to 6. But when working with English
learners, it may be difficult to group homogeneously if there
are no true peers available, for example. Teacher-to-student ratios might
be much smaller or larger if there are few students
or limited staff available with expertise
in the schools or in districts. In addition, when implemented
for all students, Tier 2 interventions would be based on
the Common Core State Standards. But when working with English
learners, interventions would also need to account for
the linguistic demands that are embedded in standards and
other curricula and instruction. So, teachers, therefore, should
consider the following when implementing
Tier 2 with English learners. Address specific reading
and math skills as determined, again, by available data. Incorporate reading, writing,
listening, and speaking in authentic contexts. Involve re-enforcement,
repetition, practice, and redundancy of vocabulary skills
and strategies taught in core reading and math lessons. To inform consideration of what
Tier 2 supports might look like in the classroom, we have drawn
from the IES Practice Guide: Teaching Academic Content and
Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School. The authors recommend that
English learners benefit from word learning strategies to
help them figure out the meaning of words. Ways to do this might include
context clues, teaching about word
parts, or referencing cognates. In addition to providing
direct instruction on academic vocabulary words, teach students
to independently figure out the meaning of unknown words by
using context clues, word parts, again, morphology, and cognates. So, before I move on
to discussions of Tier 3, let’s chat briefly with our colleagues
about what we just discussed with
regard to Tier 2 instruction. Based on what we have just
discussed, what is one action step you would want to take for
designing and implementing Tier 2 interventions
with the English learners? Maybe chat for two or three
minutes and then share or post your thoughts to the chat box. So, keep chatting about one
action step that you might want to take for
designing and implementing Tier 2 interventions. Okay. It looks like Hartford
Public Schools and Bloomfield are typing your action steps. Excellent, yes. So, Bloomfield is recommending
that we develop an English language plan, I presume,
an ELP, similar to an IEP with clear
goals and assessment criteria. I think it is very important
particularly in these scenarios where we don’t have access,
for example, to native language proficiency assessments on
levels and we don’t have access to other assessments in
students’ native languages that we set clear objectives
and benchmarks so that we have guideposts from which
to implement instruction to accurately assess the extent to
which we are accomplishing the goals
and objectives we have set out. So, Hartford Public Schools:
Look at student time in a program of an English learner
and other data from different assessments and create a plan
for the student with specific goals. Yes, plan. We got that. Yes, absolutely. Again, I think a lot of this
comes down to being very careful and deliberate and strategic
about planning and taking into account, again, the numerous
sources of data that inform the development of our plans, and
then along the way being very careful to engage in this
progress monitoring steps, and then designing actions based
on what we are finding as we are conducting and
engaging in progress monitoring. So, Tammy Swift says document
what interventions have already been done and make sure new
strategies and interventions are done with fidelity. Yes, absolutely. I think often we are challenged
when we are working with English learners who we are considering
maybe dually-identified or culturally and linguistically
diverse, exceptional students with a lack of consistency and
coherence across the resources available to serve them. And, again, it speaks
to the need to have experts from several different areas,
including special education experts and English learner
experts and maybe literacy experts, who all together are
working collaboratively and, of course, consulting other
key involved individuals, like parents, for example. East Hartford Public Schools:
Explore different ways to group our English learners
together for interventions. Yeah, absolutely. We have talked a lot about
— and this is a similar point Hartford Public Schools says
assess who their like peers are in order
to measure student progress. That’s what I was just going
to say is we have talked a lot about the importance of true
peers or like peers and ensuring that our sort of — our point
of reference for students is appropriate. Because if we are not starting
from appropriate and reasonable and realistic point
of reference, then the other assessments that we are sort of
making around these students may or may not be really valid. Those are all excellent points
and we hope that some of these action steps will be followed
after the conclusion of today’s session. Okay.
So, we are going to move on. So, in the IES Practice Guide
on RTI, the fifth and final recommendation
refers to what to do in Tier 3. Provide intensive instruction
daily that promotes the development
of various components of reading proficiency to students
who show minimal progress after reasonable time in
Tier 2 small group instruction. This recommendation includes
focusing on a small number of high-priority skills
in a one-on-one or small group setting. So, regular progress monitoring
can demonstrate whether the program is working for the
students or whether changes need to be made. It recommends practices to carry
out this recommendation, and these are to implement
concentrated instruction that is focused on a small but targeted
set of reading skills, adjust the overall lesson pace,
schedule multiple and extended instructional sessions
daily, include opportunities for extensive practice
and high-quality feedback with one-on-one instruction, planned
and individualized Tier 3 instruction using input from
a school-based RTI team — so, again, here we are with the
importance of that team — and ensure that Tier 3 students
master a reading skill or strategy before moving on. When is a special
education referral appropriate? If an English learner does not
make progress typical of true peers and has been through a
minimum of two rounds of Tier 3 intervention with fidelity,
then it is advisable to have the student assessed for the
existence of any exceptionality. It is important to note,
however, that federal and state guidance has reiterated that RTI
or SRBI may not be used to delay or deny timely
initial evaluations for students suspected
of having a disability. A referral received at any
time, regardless of the tier of intervention a child may be
receiving, must be reviewed by a planning and placement team. So, Tier 3 interventions
incorporate intensive and research-based small group
instruction, additional time each day during, before,
or after school, progress monitoring every week with
instruction adjusted based on findings, all education
personnel working together to assist the child, parents
involved and provided with data about their child’s performance,
and assistance that may be both in the general classroom and
in pull-out classrooms, which is similar to what someone had
suggested earlier in one of our chat boxes. So, the CAPELL publication
on SRBI suggests that when implementing Tier 3
interventions with students who are English learners, teachers
should take into account a few considerations in terms of what
interventions should look like for all students versus
those who are English learners. So, first, when Tier 3
interventions are conducted with non-English learners, they are
short term, 8 to 20 weeks, and are well matched
to students’ specific academic, social/behavioral needs. They are also more
intensive and individualized than Tier 2 interventions. With English learners,
interventions may include modified curriculum from Tiers
1 and 2 because students need additional language supports
necessary for accessing core content. So, therefore, curriculum
instruction must be further adapted to address English
learners’ specific language and content learning needs. So, as we discussed
earlier in terms of what Tier 3 interventions might look like
with all students versus English learners, non-English learners’
Tier 3 instruction would be delivered to homogeneous groups,
so students with similar needs, with a teacher-to-student ratio
of up to 1 to 3, and would be developed based on
the Common Core State Standards. For English learners, it
may not be possible to deliver instructions
to homogeneous groups and the student-to-teacher ratios may
vary depending on the English learners in a class or school,
their backgrounds, and available instructional expertise. So, when working with English
learners, teachers should be sure to carefully and frequently
monitor students’ progress. And although content will, of
course, also be based on Common Core State Standards, it may
also include new and different resources that account
for students’ language learning needs as well as other language
proficiency-related standards. So, again, drawing from
the IES Practice Guides, Tier 3 interventions might
involve provision of scaffolded instruction that includes
frequent opportunities for students to practice and
review newly learned skills and concepts in a range of
contexts to promote retention. So, to scaffold instruction,
activities should be broken down into smaller, manageable units. Someone talked about this,
again, also earlier in our chat this notion of chunking. Rather than giving all of the
instructions to the activity, begin with the description,
then teachers might check for comprehension, and
then continue the description. So, we might be then breaking
a task down into smaller parts when teaching complex tasks,
such as listening comprehension and text-based comprehension. Teaching should also be
explicit and systematic with ample modeling and think-alouds. English learners will benefit
from structured instructions because they will recognize
the various aspects that come in sequence. So, we show students clearly how
to perform a particular task and go over the steps with them,
making sure that the thinking processes are overt and visible. Also, teachers in Tier 3 should
be exceptionally careful to frequently check
for understanding and integrate numerous
diverse scaffolding strategies. A Tier 3 intervention might
also involve, given that English learners are more likely to have
an incomplete understanding of instructions, paraphrasing
complex instructions in a text to help everyone understand. So, before I move on to
discussion of IEPs, let’s chat briefly with your colleagues
about what we have discussed regarding Tier 3 instruction. So, based on what we have just
discussed, what’s one action step you might take for
designing and implementing Tier 3 interventions with
English learners in your site or setting? Again, let’s take about two
minutes and then we will do a large group debrief. So, in thinking about action
steps that you might take for designing and implementing Tier
3 interventions, folks might share
what you have been discussing. So, we see Hartford
Public Schools is typing. Okay. So, carefully analyze the
data from Tier 2 instruction and design Tier 3 instruction to
meet more individualized needs of the student. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, again, we have talked
about the critical importance of ascertaining the extent to which
we should be moving from one tier to the next and ensuring
that as we move — that moving from one tier to the next is, in
fact, the appropriate next step, and the sort of basic area
of need, in so doing, involves revisiting varied types of data
sources, and, again, ensuring that the data sources we are
reviewing are valid and reliable and really genuinely represent
a student’s language, literacy, and content learning levels. So, Tammy is typing. Yeah. So, Tammy is pointing
out that she thinks it is important to note that tiered
interventions can go from 8 to 20 weeks and sometimes we rush
to the next tier after one round of eight weeks. And, again, it is being
very cautious and careful around these database decisions that we
are making and the implications of what may happen in the next
tier and ensuring that we are not over or under identifying
English learners who may or may not have exceptional needs. Yeah. I think sort of in the
context of already a very tight timeline in schooling
in general, that’s a really important point. So, thank you, Tammy. Torrington
Public Schools is typing. Okay. Once we hear from
Torrington, we will move on to just some general questions or
comments or discussion before moving on to
Lindsey’s discussion of IEPs. Okay. We’ll move
on to our general questions. And one idea that Lindsey and
I had been talking about as we were preparing for today’s
session is also thinking about ways in which we could
incorporate English language development into Tier 3 or
otherwise modify an intervention from something that
you would typically do with an English-only student or a native
English speaker, monolingual English-speaking student,
so various strategies and activities that you might use
more typically with monolingual English students. How would we adapt those
so we could engage in the same intervention but it
would be appropriate for English learners? Anyone have thoughts in
that area or other questions you would like to share? Anyone have any thoughts about
the point that Tammy brought up about timing of interventions
in terms of number of weeks, for example? How that might vary depending
on particular backgrounds or characteristics
of an English learner? SIOP strategies are great for
general teaching but several can be used for Tier
2 or Tier 3, tiered vocabulary. Yes, absolutely. And CAL was a co-creator of the
SIOP model and we have a robust PD team that implements SIOP
professional development and technical assistance supports. And, absolutely, we highly and
often recommend utilizing SIOP strategies that can then
be adapted for culturally and linguistically
exceptional students. Maybe another minute and then
we will move on to a discussion of IEPs. Maybe folks have more thoughts
on those as we get to a little bit
more specific practice-based. So, Tammy says teaching
of phonics within context and keeping in mind native language
sounds a student may or may not have. Therefore, phonics
instruction should look different for English learners. Absolutely. Yes. And this is something that is
again teaching about the various language parts for not only oral
language development but also literacy development. So,
yeah, that’s an excellent point. Thank you, Tammy. Okay. I think we will move
on and Lindsey will take over. Thanks, everyone.>>LINDSEY
MASSOUD: Great. Thanks, Sarah. And we are going to
talk a little bit about IEPs for English learners. And, so, the first thing that
I wanted to do with you all, we had sent this in an email,
hopefully at least some of you got it, maybe you had a
chance to look at it, maybe not. We totally
understand if you have not. We understand
being super busy for sure. So, maybe you have
some thoughts on it already. Maybe you have something
new to share as we look at it. So, as Ashley had mentioned
earlier, if you want to download now the handout called
IEP Checklist or you can also download it from the link that I
just posted in the chat, the IEP Checklist is actually pages
11 and 12 of this document. This is chapter 6, I believe, of
the English Learner Toolkit from the Office of English
Language Acquisition at the U.S. Department of Education. It has
a lot of good tools in there. We went through tool number two
in our previous session and this is tool number
three within that toolkit. There are a lot of recommended
items within this checklist, 17 of them. Each of them can help us ensure
we are addressing elements of IEP planning that may
be specific to English learners; for example, considering English
language proficiency, cultural background, and appropriate use
of assessment and other data as we have been discussing
throughout this series. But we thought it would be
useful to look at this together briefly so that we can do
a little bit of thinking about what from this checklist do we
already do and what’s something that
maybe we can do in the future. So, if you guys can just have
that open, that would be great for what we are about to do. Okay. So, what we want
to do now is look at this checklist together. If you are attending
individually, look through the checklist based on what
your school or district does. If you are attending as a
team, discuss it with your team. We will give you
a couple of minutes to do that. And identify one checklist item
that your school or district already includes in the IEP
development process for English learners and then share an idea
related to that area with the group in the chat box. And then the other chat box
is for identifying a challenge related to implementing
the different checklist items. Share that as a question
with the group in that other chat box. Feel free to answer individually
or as a team as usual and just post
in each of those chat boxes. So, we
know this might take a minute. We have
got two minutes on the clock. But respond with your team and
just let us know what questions you have and what ideas you have
for implementing these items. Okay. So, our two minutes are
up. No one has responded yet. Hopefully you are having
really rich discussions with your groups. I will give you just a little
bit more time to feel free to respond. But if you don’t
want to respond, that’s fine. And I think we can just take
this tool as something that we can take back to our contacts
and maybe reflect on as a group. As usual, we have included
in your handouts a page for identifying some next steps that
you can do sort of in shorter and longer time periods. So, this tool could be something
that you might incorporate into those next steps
when you do your team planning. Examining this along with
your teammates and identifying something that you might want to
do in your context could be one action step for following
up on this series of sessions. Okay. So, I was about to move
us along, but I see Hartford is typing. Maybe it’s just taking a little
extra time for discussion. So, we will wait for a response
or two and then we will move along and
talk about some recommendations. And this is something, too,
for others of you if you have questions about this
or comments, thoughts, as we continue
to go through the presentation. You can always use the standard
chat once we have moved out of this view as well. Can you
put the handout links back up? Yes, Jenny, they are
looking for the handout links. So, I have — I can post
the link to the tool online. Oh, yes. There she goes. Thank you, Jenny. So, there, you see it there. The IEP Checklist is what
we have titled it, but this is actually the entire chapter 6 of
the toolkit and the checklist is on pages
11 and 12 of that document. All right. So, Hartford has
commented: Through integration of the CELP standards,
general Ed and TESOL specialists collaborate on planning
and progress monitoring. Fantastic. That’s great to hear. We love that you are using your
English language proficiency standards and the TESOL
specialist is also involved. So, that’s something that
we will talk about a little bit more in just a minute. That collaboration approach and
some of the things that we can think about when we are trying
to incorporate multiple people in the process. So, fantastic. Okay. So I think we can move
along and we will talk through some recommendations. We know there was a lot in that
checklist, so it is something, like I said, that you might want
to come back to later and do some thinking about. So, we are going to talk through
four recommendations that come from this CCSSO English Learners
with Disabilities Guide that just came out last fall. We’ve found it very useful. It might be something that you
could check out as well for your planning and sort of processing
of some of the information that we have been discussing
throughout this series. They have four
key recommendations specifically regarding development
of IEPs for English learners. Feel free to jot notes on page
two of your handout if you have it there regarding
practical steps you might take to
implement the recommendations. You can take some notes as we go
through, and then those can also play a role in your team
planning following this session. So, the first recommendation
is the IEP team should include a staff member who can address the
impact of language and culture on students’ goals and services. So this could be an ESOL
specialist or someone else who has certification in
bilingual education or English language development. As we have discussed in previous
sessions, and as Hartford just mentioned as well, it
is important to understand how a student’s performance is
being impacted by their language abilities in both
English and their home language. And an ESOL specialist or other
staff member with training and expertise regarding English
learner education can offer a critical perspective on
how language should be addressed within the IEP. So, this recommendation
critically entails greater involvement of ESOL staff
in collaboration among educators with different specialties, so
we wanted to spend just a couple of minutes to consider factors
that can contribute to effective team-based decision making. We know this can be really
difficult, logistics get in the way, timing, and, you know,
everyone’s roles and whether you are at different
schools and things like that. In thinking about how to create
effective collaboration, we wanted to specifically look at
these recommendations based on a report developed by the San
Diego Unified School District. The report is based on the
district’s implementation of a special education project
regarding establishment and study of the work of
transdisciplinary teams, or they abbreviate it to
TDTs, throughout their program, throughout the report. Their approach builds upon the
theory that single discipline assessments provide a snapshot
from a very limited perspective, but that interdisciplinary or
transdisciplinary teams wherein members convene to discuss
assessment findings and form joint recommendations can
result in more child-centered assessment and can
enhance the assessment and subsequent interventions. So, definitely with English
learners, we would love to see that with a specific focus
on English learners and their language abilities. So, one theme — I will just
highlight a few themes that I noticed across
these recommendations, the characteristics
of effective school-based teams. One theme is just mutual
respect and open communication. So, they cite positive, open
communication as an important characteristic of an effective
school-based team, having respect for one another,
willingness to be flexible and open-minded, which, of course,
requires respecting the ideas that you hear from others and
general agreement on the mission or role of the team. In other words, you have to be
on the same page, working toward a goal
with a collaborative mindset. Another theme is the competence
and organization of the work, that there
is shared responsibility and accountability among team
members and no one is taking the bulk of the load. Team members have expertise,
competence, good work ethic, everyone is committed, and
brings their own relevant areas of expertise. They also mention site-level
administrative support, which I am sure we can all
recognize as critical to ensuring effectiveness
of the work that we do. Then with scheduling, they
recommend being on site together one day a week and meeting
regularly, but that could be only 30 minutes a week. We know even finding 30
minutes can be really, really tricky sometimes. According to them, you
don’t have to meet every day. You don’t have
to see each other constantly. Sometimes just a short
time together weekly can be really useful. Yeah. So this report, I wanted
to mention, I’m going to post the link for you. This report includes a lot
of really useful resources in addition to
these notes about collaboration. So they include a graphic
conveying how transdisciplinary teams engage in data
collection and problem-solving. So a lot of the kinds of things
that we have been talking about, they have a graphic
displaying how that can work with diverse teams. They have a list of questions
that can guide planning and interpretation meetings,
so something that you could go through as a team. They have a number of templates
for documenting team meetings and decision-making processes,
and they have a meeting guide for team-based IEP development,
so a lot of really rich resources about working
as a team in developing IEPs and going through this process of
looking at data collaboratively and analyzing it together,
making decisions together. They also have
guidance regarding conducting ethnographic
interviews with parents. So, on a slightly different
topic, we will be talking about parents in a minute, but
I wanted to mention this here since we
are talking about this report. We have talked a lot
about getting information from parents, and this resource is
one way that you might be able to sort of systematically engage
parents around what’s going on with their kid. Get information from people who
know the student best in sort of a systematic way with some
guidance from other educators who have been doing this. They also have
a number of resources for performance-based assessment. The report doesn’t focus on
English learners specifically, but it includes some resources
and items that address English learner skills and
English and their home language. And we believe because
for English learners having that collaborative piece and the
involvement of ESL experts, the recommendations and resources
regarding interdisciplinary decision making have a lot
of rich implications for how we work with dually-identified
English learners and develop IEPs for English learners. So, we wanted to — we are going
to talk a little bit more about collaboration and do
a little interactive — a little interactivity in a second. So, if you can look in the chat
real quick before we move on to the next activity. So, within this activity, we are
going to look at the link that Sarah posted. So, if everyone can look at the
chat really quick, the link that Sarah posted that says
this really long, crazy URL, simplifymy.s3
blah-de-blah-de-blah, and ends with collaboration continuum. I will talk through it so
you don’t need to read the whole thing. But if you want to look at that
tool as we talk about the next, I just wanted to take a couple
of minutes for us to do a little bit of self-analysis regarding
our teams and how we are doing as far as collaboration. Where are we in terms of
having shared goals and that kind of thing? This is just
a tool that was used by the U.S. Office of Special
Education Programs to look at collaboration, so if you want
to open that up and I will just quickly
talk through the five levels. So, I think, Jenny, we can stay
maybe in this view for a minute so that they have the link there
if they want to look at that. I will talk through the five
levels and then we will switch to our poll. So you have the first level
of collaboration in this view is contact where you have
shared ideas and information. So, open, honest dialogue
encourages exploration of commonalities, development
of relationships to facilitate discussion
of potential activities. So you are talking to
one another, you’re sharing some ideas,
but that’s kind of it so far. The second
is cooperation or shared goals. In cooperation, relationship
building fosters the development of cooperative activities. Because it is a process,
it often begins with informal engagements that offer
small yet tangible benefits. So it sometimes occurs only one
way, for example, information or data sharing. There is some action involved,
some goals that are common to the team members, but that is
sort of as far as it has gone. The third level they talk
about is coordination, shared achievement of goals. So these cooperative activities
move beyond as needed or ad hoc, a framework organizes efforts
and ensures that everyone in the group understands who does what,
when, and where, so there is some structure. Activities are planned with
consideration given to schedules and staff availabilities. And communication tools
may be developed to support coordination efforts. So, it relies on formal or
informal agreements to achieve a desired common outcome. We are moving a little bit more
structured, a little bit more regular in this
third level called coordination. The fourth level they have
is collaboration where you have shared resources. So information is not only
shared, but something new is created. It is a new way of doing
things that involves change. The change required is more
ambitious than cooperation and coordination and much
more difficult to develop and sustain. That’s collaboration. The fifth level they call
convergence and they describe that as systemic infrastructure. So this is collaboration about
a specific function or idea, and that has become extensive,
ingrained in that context, so it’s no longer
recognized to others as a collaborative undertaking. It instead has moved to the
level of infrastructure, becomes a critical
system that is relied upon. And that’s convergence. So, as you go along this
continuum, you get a little more investment, a little more risk,
but also a little bit more of a benefit. So, in thinking about that,
hopefully you guys have either looked at that or been
thinking about it as I was talking through it. So, Jenny, we can
move to the poll now, I think. So, we wanted to have you guys
just think a little bit about where your team, or if you are
meeting as an individual, think about people you work with in
your school or district, where is your school
or district on this continuum. Is there contact where
you are just sharing some ideas? Is there cooperation
where you have common goals? Is there coordination where
you have shared achievement of goals? Collaboration where you
are really sharing resources, creating something new, it’s
starting to become systemic, or convergence where
it is really ingrained, a systemic infrastructure. And then feel free to share also
in the chat to the right what is one way that you
or your colleagues have improved collaboration
in your local context. So, if you have an idea
of something practical that you have done that you feel like
has helped you collaborate with others in your local context,
then that would be great to share as well. Okay. Great. Thank
you for posting your thoughts. Okay. So, it looks like we are
sort of skewed toward the bottom part of the continuum. Forty percent of you —
well, it is changing as I talk. Thirty-six just contacts where
you are sharing some ideas, some cooperation, shared goals,
a couple saying coordination, shared achievement of goals, and
one individual or group saying that their team has
reached the collaboration shared resources stage. So, all right. And we have a couple
of comments shared as well. We have Cathy Bosco, thanks for
responding, saying by using a developmental language plan, it
has solidified student programs for individual measures and
growth, while also providing PD as needed for certain teams
of teachers based on population. That’s why I’m feeling that our
district is somewhere between coordination
and collaboration. Great. And then Colchester is sharing
that their team meets on a regular basis, including the EL
specialist, administrators, and support staff to
discuss concerns, updates, et cetera. Fantastic. So, it sounds like some of you
are really engaging in a little bit more structured kinds of
collaboration and that’s great. I think for those of you who
are still trying to encourage a little bit more collaboration,
I would definitely recommend taking a look at the San Diego
report, it has some really great tools in there, as well as just
thinking about some of those characteristics
of teams that they said. Maybe you try to implement
a one-day-a-week, 30-minute meeting with some key
folks or something like that. So, hopefully these resources
can help in continuing to grow in this
area amongst your team as well. Okay. So, I
think we can move along. The second recommendation from
the CCSSO guide about developing IEPs for English learners is
that parents should be integral members of IEP teams, partners
in the process, instead of simply informed about what’s
going on or used as resources, even though those are important
elements of their role as well. As we discussed throughout the
series, they are an important source of data about the
students, and they are important partners in the process. You could look at the
ethnographic interview guidance in the San Diego report,
as I mentioned, as one resource. And parents’ thoughts and
feedback about services that are needed should be incorporated
throughout the process. So, some strategies for
parent and family engagement in developing IEPs are
providing translators for meetings with parents. That could be an in-person
translator or a translation service
over the phone or the Internet. Consider whether translators
have experience with education, RTI, and special education,
and perhaps even training some translators on a state
or district’s RTI and special education processes and policies
since some of these things do get tricky, sort of technical. So it may be something to think
about whether there are some translators who you might engage
in some of this learning about the process specifically. There are communication tools
that you can create that may go a long way in helping families
engage with this process, maybe a document, a video, audio,
in families’ home languages, if possible. I know some of you are dealing
with many, many home languages, so we know that can
be a challenge, but as possible. Glossaries of key terms used in
ESL and special education with definition in English
and other languages as possible. That may be really helpful to
some of these families engaging in these conversations
for the first time. You can do structured
interviews, as we mentioned. And you might consider, too,
if there is a family who has a really good understanding of the
RTI process, special education, maybe their kid has been
involved in this for a while, you might consider having them
work with additional parents. So, thinking about families
who really understand and might themselves serve as resources
and could take some of the burden off of you all as well. The third recommendation from
the CCSSO guide is to consider a student’s progress in English
language development related to the state’s ELP standard, so
the CELP, when writing academic learning goals
for dually-identified students. We have discussed throughout
the series students’ English language proficiency
should be considered when making instructional decisions
for them, both within the data analysis and
in the planning for instruction. Academic learning goals are
accomplished via use of language and, of course, we need to
also help students continue to develop their
English language proficiency. So, when considering and
incorporating English language development into a student’s
IEP, your team could think about and plan ways to incorporate
a student’s home language, which is, of course, an
important support, as well as other academic learning. In addition, again,
multiple data points should be incorporated into progress
monitoring plans, and these should include information
on students’ progress with both English language
development as well as other academic learning goals. And note that this is important
for all English learners with disabilities, even those
who produce little or no oral speech. Their English
language development is still an important element
of their education and should be addressed in whatever way
is appropriate for that student. For this recommendation,
I’m going to post in the chat a couple
of other resources for you. One is a website on Colorín
Colorado, which some of you might
be familiar with that website. They have a site that
is specifically about IEPs for English learners. And they have a few videos
there which may be helpful. In one video they address that
often when decisions are made regarding IEP development, the
disability takes precedence and maybe the student is even
taken out of ESL or bilingual instruction, but they make
the point that you need strong native language skills also to
help learn English and address other learning goals as well. There is a video there as well
on progress monitoring, how to get data when school
records are scarce, which we have talked about. Sometimes with a newcomer,
it may be difficult to identify some of their information. And they talk about both
conversations with parents and dynamic assessment, so
that’s something else that may be useful in your thinking. And here is one more resource. This is an IEP checklist from
San Joaquin County based on the work of Jarice Butterfield
— hopefully I’m saying her name right, I’m not sure — and it
includes language supports that an IEP team could choose
to incorporate for students. That may be something as you are
thinking about IEPs for English learners and working with the
team that may be something that could offer some additional
thoughts and scaffolds to help with your planning. So, just a couple of other
practical resources for you to consider. So, the final and fourth
recommendation from the CCSSO Guide on Developing IEPs
for English Learners is that training should be offered to a
variety of personnel involved in EL IEP development, including
special education personnel, general education teachers, and
including ESOL professionals. So while including ESL experts
is critical to the process, regardless of training provided
to other educators, provision of training to all educators
involved will greatly enhance the ability of the whole team
to appropriately address English learners’ learning needs. So, some things to consider
for training that your district could
choose to provide for educators. It could include a discussion
about aligning English language goals with
other academic learning goals. We have discussed this with
interventions and the whole SRBI process, how important it
is to integrate English language development
with other learning goals. That could be something that
your district could consider maybe doing some
more in-depth training about. In addition, there are unique
and complementary roles for English language services and
special education services, and so you might talk with teams
further about the ways that these roles can
be complementary to one another. And then I wanted to
post one final resource for you. So this is a link to a
PowerPoint presentation, but it has some examples
of IEPs for English learners. You might find that useful as
you think about developing these IEPs and some of the ways
in which you can incorporate English language development. You may find that PowerPoint
useful as well because they do have specific examples
of how they have done that with English learners. So, that brings us
to if anyone has any questions. We know we have once again
discussed a lot today and have covered a lot of information. But if you have questions or
final comments, ideas, thoughts, we would love to hear
anything that’s on your mind. Okay.
We don’t see any questions. But you should
have our contact information. And since this is our last
session, if you have follow-on questions, we would be happy
to hear from you any time, of course. All right. So I will pass it
back to Sarah to close us out.>>SARAH MOORE:
Great. Thank you, Lindsey. Lots of valuable,
realistic, practical resources. So, we just wanted to
take a couple of minutes to talk through team planning since
that’s sort of a fundamental part of how we are
trying to frame these sessions. So, summary of today’s
learning, our goals were to equip participants with the
knowledge and skill to make better informed decisions,
reflect on all the content from the past couple sessions, and
identify concrete next steps for applying
strategies, recommendations, and considerations for you all. What we would suggest — and
we understand that one way that this has maybe been playing
out is that you have planned to stick around and continue
chatting after the close of the session — is discuss with your
team the guiding questions that we have here. What are the
implications of today’s learning for your practice? And what’s one action step you
would like to take tomorrow, an action step for this month, and
an action step for this year? We will give folks a couple of
questions if you want to share thoughts on those in the chat. Okay. So we will move along. We just wanted to request that
you share feedback by taking the survey
that is linked in the chat box. And here’s our
contact information for additional questions. And, Ashley,
I will let you close us out.>>ASHLEY GADDIS: Great.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Again, I want to thank
everyone for joining us today. As I said earlier, today’s
webinar is being recorded or was recorded and it will be
archived and uploaded to the IES YouTube channel. We will send you a link when
that recording is available to the public, and we will also
be sending you a follow-up email with all slides and materials
that were used in this webinar. Thank you, again, for
participating in this series, and we hope you have
a wonderful rest of your day.>>LINDSEY
MASSOUND: Thanks, everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *