Planning interventions for
English Language Learners
using English test results
By
Deborah Rhein, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
New Mexico State University
drhein@nmsu.edu
Speaker background
z Spent over a decade providing direct and
consultative services to school districts for
ELLs
z Currently a faculty member at New Mexico
State University
z Project director for Bilingual program in
communication disorders program at NMSU
Core Issues
z SLPs frequently asked to determine difference
versus disorder in students who are not native
speakers of English
z Usually requires use of assessments in both
languages
z If using a standardized assessment in English,
most SLPs opt to not use the normative data
Assessment purposes
Two purposes:
1) Establish benchmarks of child’s
language knowledge in all of his/her
languages
2) Determination of disability –make
statements about language-learning
ability
Establish benchmarks of child’s
linguistic knowledge
z Bilingual children have varied opportunities to
learn in either of their languages, all normative
data does need to be interpreted with caution
z Normative data provides estimates of child’s
linguistic knowledge in comparison to classmates
z This provides opportunities for SLPs to address
linguistic demands of the classroom
One option: Use of standardized
batteries but only reporting raw scores
Rationale:
Standardized batteries allow examiner to
explore several aspects of language
knowledge in relatively short period of time
Fear of misidentifying ELLs as having a
disability is primary reason for not using
English normative data
Option: Use of standardized batteries
but only reporting raw scores
Problems:
-Raw scores are meaningless in and of
themselves
-Raw score reporting do not allow examiners to
compare and contrast knowledge of different
aspects of language within a child
-Raw scores do not allow the examiner to
compare knowledge of English to classmates
and classroom demands
ESL requirement
z As long as a school has 10 or more students
who are not native speakers of English, must
provide and ESL program to assist students who
are learning English (the 10 students may have
10 different native languages)
z If fewer than 10 students, must have IEP for
second language, not special education
z Progress in learning English must be evaluated
yearly
Problem
z Referral for speech language evaluation may
occur when student is still receiving ESL services
z Referral for assessment often occurs after
student has been labeled FEP (Fully English
Proficient) and exited from ESL program
z FEP label usually means students receive no
classroom accommodations or modifications
Solution
z Results of our language assessment may
indicate areas where student still requires
modification/accommodations to succeed in
general classroom
z That data can only be obtained using
normative data that compares student to
monolingual peers
Reporting Scores for English CELF-IV
Subtest Raw Score Standard
Score
Concepts & 3 1 When compared
to monolingual
Directions peers
Word 12 4 When compared
Classes to monolingual
peers
Semantic 12 4 When compared
Relationships to monolingual
peers
Reporting Scores for English CELF-IV
Subtest Raw Score Scaled Score
Formulated 10 4 When compared
Sentences to monolingual
peers
Recalling 5 1 When compared
Sentences to monolingual
peers
Sentence 5 4 When compared
Assembly to monolingual
peers
Conclusion
z FEP label does not mean student doesn’t still
require accommodations/modifications to
succeed in general classroom
z Analysis of case indicates child would be at
significant disadvantage if placed in English-
only classroom without additional supports
Need to be very clear about limits and
purposes of using English norms
“For reporting purposes, raw scores have been
converted to standard scores, which compare
X’s performance to monolingual peers. Low
scores in a second language should not be
considered an indication of a language
disorder, but rather are useful in understanding
the disadvantage an incomplete acquisition of
English would create if a child were required to
function in an English classroom without
modifications or accommodations.”
--Rhein, 2009
Establishment of disability
Make statements about language-learning
ability
Core assumption: the child has had
adequate opportunity to learn that which
he/she is being tested on
Good reason for caution when using norms
based on monolingual peers
Using English test results to establish
disability
Normative scores of English results useful to
explore overall pattern of knowledge:
If scores are low in both languages in one
area, for example, syntax, that provides
some support for possible SLI, provided
language sample analysis and other sources
support this conclusion.
If using English norms, acknowledge
that comparisons are made to
monolingual peers
“Because comparisons are being made
between X, who is not a native speaker of
English and native speakers, low scores by
themselves should not be considered
evidence of a language disorder. However,
comparisons between the performance in
the first and second language may reveal
overall patterns of linguistic strengths and
weaknesses.”
--Rhein, 2009
Analysis of patterns in L1 and
L2
Caveat:
Because of possibility of L1
language loss, low scores in L1
are not always indicative of a
disability either
In addition:
z Standardized tests results only one part of an
evaluation
z Should include information on home and school
language use and history
z Performance measures from home and school
work
z Language sample analysis in both languages
CELF IV-Test Spanish English SS
SS Compared to monolingual peers
Concepts and 6 1 Compared to monolingual peers
Directions
Word Classes 10 4 Compared to monolingual peers
Semantic 11 4 Compared to monolingual peers
Relationships
Formulated 11 4 Compared to monolingual peers
Sentences
Recalling 6 1 Compared to monolingual peers
Sentences
Sentence 10 4 Compared to monolingual peers
Assembly
Analysis of patterns in L1 and L2
z X scores in Spanish are WNL except for two
subtests
z X’s scores are lowest on the same two
subtests (C&D and RS) in both languages
z These subtests rely on auditory memory
Conclusions
In general, X does not appear to have a
generalized language learning disorder.
However, X does display lower scores
in both languages on tasks rely heavily
on auditory memory.
Recommendations for further
evaluation
z Comprehensive evaluation of auditory
memory if other indications are present, to
include anecdotal evidence from parents
and teachers in both languages
z Consider possibility of referral for CAPD if
other indications are present
X’s English skills indicate need
z All X’s skills in English place him at disadvantage
compared to monolingual peers
z Provide opportunities for him to demonstrate
knowledge in ways that rely less heavily on
linguistic knowledge
z Example: If studying Aztecs, allow him to make a
temple or demonstrate by a dance research
materials rather than written report
Other recommendations for in class
scaffolding
z Introduce novel vocabulary in ways that
allows X to experience new word
z Provide multiple opportunities to use novel
vocabulary
z Break multi-step instructions down
z Older grades—provide advance organizers
for note-taking
Final thoughts
z ELL students require between 7 to 10 years
to develop academic English proficiency, so
should have classroom modification
opportunities throughout most of K-12
z Differentiating disorder versus difference is
only one part of our assessments—we have
an obligation to provide suggestions that will
help a child succeed whether or not there is
a disorder
