Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practices in Psychoeducational Reports for English Language Learners

Abstract

Past researchers suggested there are a number of shortcomings in the psychoeducational evaluation process and practices used with English language learners (ELLs). In the present exploratory study, the authors descriptively examined the assessment practices used in the special education eligibility determination process for ELLs as documented in 34 psychoeducational evaluation reports in one southwestern state. The authors reviewed psychoeducational evaluation reports prepared by school psychologists to determine (a) the extent to which school psychologists adhered to legal and ethical guidelines in the evaluation of ELLs for special education eligibility and needs and (b) how school psychologists account for cultural and linguistic differences in the evaluation process. Results indicated that school psychologists rarely used culturally and linguistically responsive practices such as the use of interpretation and translation services and language proficiency data, as well as limited adherence to legal and ethical recommendations. We address implications for training and practice.

KEYWORDS:

• English language learners
• special education
• psychoeducational evaluation
• school psychology

APPENDIX

Psychoeducational Report Evaluation Protocol

Report #: ________________  Coder Initials ___________

Examinee Background Information

If any of this information is not provided, please write NG (Not Given)

1. Age:  _______________

2. Grade:  _______________

3. Gender:  Male/Female

4. Race/Ethnicity:  __ White __Black __Hispanic __Native American __Asian/PI __ Other:____

5. Country of Origin:  ______________________________

   1. Language of Instruction in Country of Origin:  _______________

   2. Length of Time in Country of Origin School System:  _______________

   3. Length of Time in the US School System:  _______________

6. Home Language:

   1. First language learned (L1):  _______________

   2. Second language learned (L2):  _______________

   3. Other languages learned (list in order of most used to least used): _____________________________

   4. Language(s) used at home: L1 _________ @ ___% of time; L2 ___________ @ ___%

   5. Is the child identified as LEP? Yes/No/Unknown

   6. Language Proficiency Data (English and Native Language): Provided? Yes/No

      Test Used: ___________ Test Used: ___________

      Language of Administration:____ Language of Administration:_____

      Date of Administration:_____ Date of Administration:_____

   7. Current Language of School Instruction:_________

   8. Current Language of School Support Services:_________

   9. Has Child Received Bilingual Education? Yes/No/Unknown

      1. If so, describe the type of program:_________

      2. How many years did the child participate in the program? ______________

      3. Grades of participations: _____ through ________

7. Does the child have a previously identified disability? Yes/No/Unknown

   If yes, circle all that apply:

   __Learning disability __Speech/language impairment __Hearing Impairment __Deafness

   __Cognitive disability __Other Health Impairment __Visual Impairment __Deaf-blindness

   __Emotional disability __Orthopedic Impairment __Autism __TBI

   __Developmental Disability __Multiple Disabilities __Other:__

   Has this child been identified as gifted and talented or twice exceptional?:

   __No. __Yes. Describe:_____ ___Don't know

   Basic Assessment Practices

8. What other school professionals participated in this evaluation (i.e. Speech and Language Pathologist, ESL Teacher)?____________________

9. What was the reason(s) for the evaluation?____________________

10. Is there evidence of collaboration among school staff (i.e. RTI meetings, problem-solving meetings, interviews with school staff)? Solely holding an IEP meeting or eligibility meeting with the team does not constitute collaboration.

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

11. Was the assessment conducted by the school-based school psychologist?

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

12. Was a bilingual assessment team member(s) utilized for this evaluation?

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

13. If a bilingual assessment team was utilized, did the school psychologist assigned to the school have a role in this evaluation process?

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

14. For this evaluation, did a school psychologist utilize bilingual assessment practices? This does not include nonverbal assessment.

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

15. Are prereferral interventions discussed?

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

16. Is there evidence of the RTI process in these evaluations? This should be explicitly stated and not implied. If “progress monitoring” is stated, this qualifies as RTI.

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

17. Are school psychologists assessing or examining acculturation or other cultural factors that could influence the student's educational experience?

    This could be through a formal acculturation measure (i.e. Acculturation Quick Screen) or informally through interview.

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

18. Does the examiner discuss potential cultural differences that could influence educational experiences?

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

19. Does the examiner discuss potential limitations of their evaluation due to cultural and/or linguistic factors?

    One way an evaluator might do this is to provide a disclaimer that the results should be interpreted with caution due to cultural/linguistic factors.

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

20. How was selection of cognitive, academic, and social-emotional assessments modified for culturally and linguistically diverse students?

    1. Not addressed

    2. Justification provided: _______________

21. How did the school psychologist address language proficiency in this evaluation?

    1. Administering their own language proficiency measure? YES  NO

    2. Utilizing existing data: e.g.,____________________

    3. Collecting qualitative data: e.g.,____________________

    4. Not addressed

22. Did the school psychologist utilize interpreters/translators during this evaluation process?

    ____No.  ____Yes. Describe:____________________  ____Don't know

Table

Legal Requirements per IDEA (Section 614)

For this section, you will only be marking a check in ONE of these three boxes (yes, no, don't know) for each of the criterion. It will be easiest to complete the following pages AFTER you have completed reading the full report.

Note. LEP = Limited English Proficient, ESL = English as a Second Language, RTI = Response to Intervention, IEP = Individualized Education Program, IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Table

Table