Read Microsoft Word - ELLSampleReport.doc text version

SAMPLE ELL PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT Date: Name: Birthdate: Age: PPS ID#: School: Grade: Tamara WIthers 11/28/1991 12 years, 4 months 122345 GENERIC SCHOOL 6 Parent: Address: Phone: Examiner: Mary WIthers 4533 SW Bungalow Dr. Portland, OR 97229 (503) 916-5100 Supervisor: Bette Midler Barry B. Manilow, M.Ed. School Psychologist

1. REASON FOR REFERRAL: Tamara was referred for an evaluation of special education eligibility and learning needs. The team is concerned about Tamaras communication, reading comprehension, and math reasoning skills. Tamara expends much extra effort to complete tasks. Tamara reportedly worries a lot and has some difficulty transitioning to new activities. The team would like information about Tamaras emotional functioning, or how her past trauma might be affecting her educational progress. The team would like to know if Tamara has a communication disorder (CD), a learning disability (LD) or an emotional disturbance (ED) that requires special education placement and services.

2. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION: A. Instruments Used: School Records Review Family, Medical and School History Physicians Statement Observations, Interviews, Curriculum Based Assessment of Work Samples Cross Cultural Comparisons, Group Achievement Test Scores and Response to Instruction IDEA Proficiency Tests (IPT 2) Differential Abilities Scale (DAS) Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG) Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Tests of Academic Achievement (WJ III ACH) Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT II) Dynamic Assessment Red Flag Matrix for ELL Students Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Family History: Tamara lives with her adoptive mother, Mary WIthers, and her younger adopted sibling, Bianca (age 9). The family speaks only English at home. Tamara and Bianca were born in Zanzibar. They are from different tribal affiliations and are not biologically related. Tamaras first language was Kitumbatu a derivative of Swahili (Bantu). Her second language was Swahili. Tamara did not go to school in Zanzibar. Tamara suffered significant trauma as a youngster. When Tamara was approximately five years old, her mother, father, and sister died of a medical condition, possibly malaria or typhoid fever. Tamara was placed in an orphanage. Ms. WIthers adopted Tamara when Tamara was about six years old. Ms. WIthers has provided an enriched living situation for Tamara. Tamara has many strengths including her athletic abilities, her work ethic, and her cheerful and outgoing nature.

1

Medical History: Ms. WIthers has been diligent in assuring that Tamara receives services for her early trauma and early lack of educational and cultural opportunities. Ms. WIthers reports that when Tamara was younger she raged at home and compulsively avoided people who were even mildly ill. Tamara has received counseling services in Nevada and Oregon. Dr. Gary Dorne diagnosed a depressive disorder (311). Tamara takes Seraquel to even out her moods. She currently attends Dougy Center for grief counseling. Tamaras vision and hearing are normal. Education History: Tamara started school in America two months before the end of first grade. She attended school in Las Vegas, Nevada, for three years. She received ESL, Title One, and private tutoring. Tamara attended fifth grade at Tripp Elementary in Portland, Oregon. Tamara has attended GENERIC SCHOOL since the beginning of her sixth grade year. Debbie Darling provided Tamaras last two years of ESL services. All five years of ESL services were pullout, not dual-language/bilingual education. Tamara best fits Ochoa & Ortiz Language Profile 4 or 7,with minimal first language and emergent (Profile 4) or fluent (Profile 7) second language skills. For a full description of Ochoa & Ortiz Language Profiles, please see the reference following the report. B. Observations, Interviews, Curriculum Based Assessment, Cross Cultural Comparisons, Group Achievement Test Scores & Response to Interventions: During the 3/15/2004 morning meeting, students listened to their teachers announcements and sang songs. Tamara sat, listened, and sang with the other students. She was on task over ninety-five percent of the time. When Mr. Perry asked if anyone had any questions, Tamara did not raise her hand. During later academic activities, Tamara looked at other students when she wasnt sure what to do. Tamara asked another student for help. She did not ask the teacher for help. Mr. Perry reports that although Tamara is improving in her ability to ask for help when needed, asking for help remains an appropriate goal. Tamaras written work products were compared to a students work. That student was also adopted at age seven from another country. That student had not suffered as much trauma as Tamara. Tamaras work was of similar quality although the other student produced more work. On an earlier observation (12/15/2003), Tamaras class created ornaments. Tamara worked slowly and asked peers rather than adults for help. On fifth grade writing samples, Tamaras word choice was basic. Tamaras ideas and content were good; she created suspense. Tamaras punctuation and capitalization were good. She used quotation marks, commas, periods, exclamation points, and apostrophes within contractions. Tamaras spelling was adequate; she misspelled some medial vowel diphthongs and digraphs within basic sight-word vocabulary words. For example, Tamara spelled "frend" for "friend." On consonants, Tamara sometimes substituted alveolar, velar, and glottal stops (e.g., "think" for "thing" and "sord" for "sort"). Tamara did not drop the "e" when adding "ing." Tamaras organization was fair. Tamara used some transition words and phrases ("then", "after that") and sequenced her ideas. Tamara first described the inside of a house and then the outside. She did not use introductory or summary statements effectively to establish the setting, characters, plot, or resolution of her story. On sixth grade writing samples, with the same prompt, Tamara improved her skills in each area. Tamaras word choice was better. She included colorful details that made her story interesting. Tamara did not make the same spelling mistakes on consonants and vowels. Still, Tamara misspelled irregular suffixes sometimes. She did not drop the "y" and add "ies" when making "candy" plural. She spelled heard "heared." Tamaras organization improved. Her story was much more sequential. Tamara used an introduction effectively. Her sentences connected ideas and the story flowed from beginning to end. Tamara used many more sequencing words and phrases such as "later on," "then," and "now." Tamara ended with a cliffhanger. Tamaras writing samples do not suggest the presence of a learning disability; her error patterns and her improvements are more indicative of second language acquisition patterns.

2

Tamaras performance on group achievement tests differs slightly (but not significantly) from the performance of another adopted student in her classroom. Tamara was close but did not quite reach state benchmarks in reading or math; she scored 218 in reading and 215 in math. Tamaras scores were similar to that of two female students with learning disabilities. Although Tamaras scores were similar, her progress has been much better than the progress of those two students. Unlike those students, Tamara made significant gains in reading and math from the previous year. (In 2003, Tamara scored 187 in reading and 206 in math.) Tamara has a history of making good progress when given adequate instruction. Tamaras response to instruction is excellent. In second grade, her first year of school, Tamara made excellent gains a phonics-based reading program. Tamara improved on measures of phonemic awareness and reading fluency. Her scores on standardized and informal measures improved. Observations during Testing: Tamara came willingly to the examiners office. Tamara spoke easily with the examiner about her interests. Testing conditions were adequate. Tamaras motivation was good. Tamara often took longer to complete problems. She sometimes asked for the directions to be repeated. The examiner repeated questions when the tests standardization requirements allowed him. Results should be a valid representation of Tamaras current functioning. C. English Language Learner Testing IPT-2 Date: June, 2004 Examiner: Debbie Darling

The IDEA Proficiency Tests, Second Edition, are individually administered assessments of academic skills. Tamara took the Writing Test for Grades 4-6. Tamara was asked to write an essay and three paragraphs from prompts of three pictures showing a sequence of events. Tamaras responses followed task demands. She added interesting details. Tamara scored ten of ten possible points in conventions, six of six possible points in writing skill and conventions, and two of three possible points in organization. Tamaras English Oral Language score of 5 (out of a possible 6) indicates that Tamara speaks conversational English at a proficient level; she demonstrates Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS). Tamaras Cognitive Academic Proficiency (CALP) levels, the more advanced language skills required for fluency and success on academic work, are given and discussed in Section E of the report. D. Cognitive Testing. DAS Date: 3/15/2004 Examiner: Manilow Category: Low Below Average Low Average Low Category: Below Average Below Average Low/Very Low Average Low Average

Test Name: Standard Score:Percentile: General Conceptual Ability (GCA) 79 8 Special Nonverbal Composite 83 13 Verbal (Gc) 77 6 Nonverbal Reasoning (Gf) 96 39 Spatial (Gv) 74 4 Subtest Name: Recall of Designs Word Definitions Pattern Construction Matrices Similarities Sequential & Quantitative t-score: Percentile: 39 14 38 12 30 2 44 27 35 7 52 58

3

The Differential Ability Scale is designed to control for cultural bias. It was developed using an international sample of multi-cultural students. Approximately 600 additional Black and Hispanic children were included in the standardization sample to provide more sensitivity to the responses of minority children. Despite the potentiality of greater sensitivity to minority students responses, Tamaras ethnic and language group was not represented, so possible increases in the DAS sensitivity compared to other cognitive tests might not exist. At a chronological age of 12 years, 3 months, Tamara obtained a GENERAL CONCEPTUAL ABILITY (GCA) score of 79 +/-6. Tamaras GCA score falls at the eighth percentile for her age and within the low range. Tamaras GCA must be interpreted with caution due to her cultural, language and history differences; these might contribute to the significant differences among her cognitive abilities. Research suggests that Tamara would be expected to score about fifteen standard score points lower on verbal composites that are highly culturally and linguistically loaded (the Verbal composite), and nearer the average score of 100 on tests that are lower in the degree of cultural and linguistic demand (the Nonverbal Reasoning and Spatial Reasoning composites). Additionally, Tamaras scores on the Spatial composite must be interpreted with extreme caution. Both are timed tests and later testing will show that Tamara requires additional time to complete tasks quickly. Her lower scores on Recall of Designs and Pattern Construction might be due more to her lower processing speed than visual-spatial weaknesses. In addition, Tamara expressed extreme frustration when she was first presented with the Patter n Construction materials. She made guesses at what was required rather than listening well to the instructions and demonstrations, and she gave up easily on some items. When she encountered a similar test on the UNIT later, she felt more confident, conformed to instructions, and did not give up as easily. The UNIT scores might be more reflective of her visual-spatial thinking than these DAS scores. If this is true, then her pattern of scores would also reflect the profile of a student who is learning English and experiencing some difficulties with verbal reasoning. Tamaras Verbal Reasoning is within the low range and at the sixth percentile for her age. The DAS Verbal Reasoning subtests measure verbal comprehension and knowledge (Gc). Verbal reasoning is highly correlated to reading, writing and math achievement, and it is highly affected by a students language and cultural acquisition. Tamara performed within the low range on Similarities, a subtest that measures two abilities: word knowledge (lexical skills) that is the primary factor, and determining verbal categories and classifications (logical and abstract thinking, or fluid reasoning skills). Tamara performed within the low average range on Word Definitions, a subtest that measures expressive language and knowledge of word meanings. These results suggest that Tamara might need assistance developing her vocabulary first, and then scaffolding to support more advanced interpretation of oral language and text. Teachers might want to pre-teach vocabulary words, particularly "third tier" words that are specific to certain subjects. Tamara is encouraged to play vocabulary games and listen to books on tape. Additionally, because of Tamaras history of anxiety and differing cultural expectations, teachers should Tamara to ask a question or signal when she doesnt understand a word or a verbal concept. Teachers should continue to "normalize" this process by remarking that all students are in the learning process and asking questions is expected and rewarded. Tamaras Nonverbal Reasoning is within the average range and at the thirty-ninth percentile for her age. Nonverbal reasoning subtests measure fluid reasoning (Gf). Tamaras DAS fluid reasoning score is a better estimate of her true ability than her UNIT fluid reasoning score because the DAS subtests are not timed. Tamara performed within the average range on Matrices, a subtest that measures inductive reasoning. Tamara performed within the average range on Sequential and Quantitative Reasoning. Tamaras Nonverbal Reasoning is significantly more developed than her other cognitive skills and represents a relative strength.

4

Because of the difference between Tamaras fluid reasoning and verbal skills, Tamara might grasp a concept and get frustrated when she cant put it into words. Tamara is encouraged to learn visual note taking or pictographic "idea capturing" techniques to web her ideas for later writing or oral presentation. Tamaras Spatial Reasoning score is reported, despite concerns about its validity. Spatial Reasoning subtests measure visual-spatial thinking (Gv). Visual-spatial thinking is not highly related to academics. Tamaras score is within the low range and at the fourth percentile for her age. UNIT scores on visual-spatial thinking are somewhat higher. Both tests results suggest that Tamara might not remember visual material well. She might need handouts, portable exemplars, or other visual reminders of how and when to do something.

UNIT

Date:

4/26/2004

Examiner: Manilow

Composite Memory Quotient Reasoning Quotient Symbolic Quotient Nonsymbolic Quotient FULL SCALE IQ Subtest Symbolic Memory Cube Design Spatial Memory Analogic Reasoning Object Memory Mazes

Standard Score* Percentile Rank Classification 95% Confidence 81 10 Low Average 75-91 84 14 Low Average 77-95 79 8 Delayed 72-90 86 18 Low Average 79-97 80 9 Low Average 75-89 Scaled Score* Percentile Rank Descriptive Classification 7 16 Low Average 8 25 Average 8 25 Average 7 16 Low Average 6 9 Low Average 8 25 Average

*Standard scores are used with composites and subtest scores. Composite standard scores between 90-109 are considered to be within the average range. Scores between 80-89 are considered to be within the low average range. Scores of 70-79 are within the delayed range. Scores of 69 and below are within the very delayed range. Scaled scores between 8-12 are average. Scores of 7 and below indicate lower than average functioning. The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) is an intellectual assessment instrument designed for children and adolescents who have speech, language, or hearing impairments. The examiner uses simple gestures to communicate instructions. The student responds by pointing, drawing, placing chips, or moving blocks. No words are spoken during the entire testing session. The UNIT is appropriate for students with color-vision deficiencies, those with different cultural or language backgrounds, and those who are verbally uncommunicative. Given Tamaras language profile, level of cultural acquisition, and developmental history, the UNIT might provide better information than other tests do on the two aspects of cognitive processing that it measures. The UNIT measures two constructs of intelligence: fluid reasoning (Gf) and visual-spatial reasoning (Gv). The UNIT does not measure processing speed; however, it contains several timed tests. Later testing will show that Tamaras processing speed is relatively weak and at the eleventh percentile. Therefore, Tamaras Cube Design and Mazes scores must be interpreted with caution because they are both timed tests.

5

Fluid reasoning (Gf) is the nonverbal ability to form concepts, make comparisons among concepts, draw inferences, make deductions, and use sequential reasoning skills. Fluid reasoning (Gf) is highly related to math reasoning achievement. The UNIT Analogic Reasoning test measures inductive reasoning, or the ability to discover the underlying rule, concept, or process that governs a problem by examining the characteristics of a set of materials. Tamara scored within the low average range. However, this score must be interpreted with caution. Tamara asked if the items were timed; the examiner urged her to do her best. Tamaras results might indicate when she "shuts down" due to anxiety. The other five UNIT subtests measure aspects of visual-spatial reasoning (Gv). Visualspatial reasoning has not been shown to relate highly to academic achievement, but information from these tests might aide in providing accommodations or teaching strategies that help support learning. Symbolic Memory, Spatial Memory, and Object Memory comprise the Memory Quotient, which measures visual memory. Tamaras visual memory skills are within the low average range and indicate an area of possible weakness. Tamara might profit when information is presented with explicit memory aides or pneumonic devices that are designed to heighten retention. Mazes measures visual-spatial scanning. Tamaras Mazes score in within the average range. Cube Design measures spatial relations; Tamara scored within the average range. The UNIT hypothesizes three additional constructs: reasoning, reasoning with symbolic material, and reasoning with non-symbolic material. Although reported, the team should interpret these scores with extreme caution due to their mixed factorial properties and their debatable clinical or educational utility. Tamaras Reasoning Quotient is within the low average range. The Symbolic Quotient measures a students reasoning when he or she uses "mental language" (sub-vocalization or self-talk). Because most academic material is symbolic in nature, the test developers theorize that the Symbolic Quotient might also predict academic achievement. Tamaras score is within the delayed range, but it is not significantly different than her Nonsymbolic Quotient. The Nonsymbolic Quotient measures purely visual-spatial reasoning. Tamaras score is within the low average range.

WJ III COG

Date: 5/27/2004

Examiner: Manilow Standard Score 100 117 113 96 116 91 82 81 87 79 96 98 89 99 79 98 90% Confidence 93-108 108-126 104-123 86-107 104-129 84-99 76-87 74-87 80-94 76-82 92-100 90-107 82-95 90-108 71-86 88-109 Percentile Rank 51 88 81 41 86 28 11 10 19 8 40 46 22 47 8 45

Composite or Test Phonemic Awareness III Auditory Processing (Ga)* Sound Blending Incomplete Words Auditory Attention Sound Awareness Processing Speed (Gs) Visual Matching Decision Speed Rapid Picture Naming Pair Cancellation Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Working Memory Numbers Reversed Auditory Working Memory Memory for Words

6

*For academic purposes, ability scores between 90 and 110 fall within the average range. Scores below 85 indicate areas of weakness. Scores above 115 indicate areas of strength. Because Tamaras birthday is approximate and she has been in school for six years, Tamaras WJ III COG and WJ III ACH scores are based on grade. Age- and grade-based WJ III scores, however, are very similar (within the standard error of measure for each reported score). Therefore, the team can make comparisons with Tamaras other tests scores using appropriate caution. Tamaras Phonemic Awareness is within the average range. Phonemic awareness is a crucial pre-reading ability. It includes blending sounds into words, rhyming, substituting sounds, and reversing sound patterns. Tamara has a good "ear" for the sounds of the English language, which she speaks with no discernibly different accent. Tamaras phonemic awareness skills will improve as she acquires more English vocabulary and reading fluency, and that the team might consider continuing to provide additional support in literacy in order to maximize Tamaras learning potentials. Tamara performed better (high average range) on auditory processing tests that required fewer working memory skills, such as auditory attention (ignoring background noise) and sound blending. Tamaras Processing Speed (Gs) is within the low average range and at the eleventh percentile for her age. Processing speed is the ability to work quickly and accurately on familiar information that does not require much mental processing. Tamara performed best on Pair Cancellation, a processing speed task that used simple pictures. Pair Cancellation has the lowest linguistic demand of the four WJ III COG processing speed tests. Pair Cancellation is a continuous performance test much like those used to help diagnose AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Inattentive Type (ADHD-I). Tamaras average score, along with direct observation and history, suggest that the team might be able to rule out ADHD-I as a contributing factor to Tamaras challenges. Tamara performed scored within the low range on Rapid Picture Naming, a measure of Rapid Automatic Naming, or RAN. Although lower processing speed scores and lower RAN scores are often seen in students with learning disabilities, they are also frequently seen in students who have a history of trauma, anxiety, or depression. Because Tamaras basic reading skills and spelling are adequate, the team might consider if Tamaras lower processing speed and RAN skills are more related to emotional than cognitive factors. Tamaras Short Term Memory (Gsm) is within the average range. Short-term memory is comprised of memory span (how much a person can remember in order) and working memory (the ability to hold several pieces of information in immediate awareness, reorder or rework the pieces, and then use the information within a few seconds). Tamara performed better on the rote memory span task (Memory for Words) than on working memory tasks. The discrepancy among her scores might be partially explained by the slightly higher degree of linguistic demand on Auditory Working Memory test, but when the examiner asked Tamara, she explained that she had an easier time remembering things in order, and she had an easier time when she only had to remember numbers or words. When she had to remember both, and categorize them before repeating them, she got frustrated. Results from the WJ III COG suggest that although Tamara demonstrates a weakness in a basic psychological process (processing speed) that this weakness might be due to factors other than a learning disability. Results also suggest that Tamara might profit from visual representations when working with higher order analysis such as making predictions, using categorization skills, developing hypotheses for writing, and analyzing social and academic interactions.

7

E. Academic Testing WJ III ACH Date: 3/12/2004 Examiner: Manilow Standard Score 88 93 90 92 96 85 83 90 86 93 101 79 77 82 75 83 95 92 78 99 79 83 99 99 96 106 91 100 91 106 84 80 86 86 92 84 82 Percentile Rank 21 32 25 30 40 16 13 26 17 31 54 8 6 11 5 13 37 29 8 47 8 13 48 48 40 67 28 49 28 66 14 9 Z= -2.47 17 18 29 15 11 Grade Equivalent 4.4 4.7 4.5 5.0 5.1 3.7 3.2 4.4 4.5 5.4 6.7 3.6 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.9 5.4 4.8 3.3 6.3 3.3 3.3 6.3 6.2 5.1 8.9 4.5 6.4 4.1 8.9 2.8 2.0 3.1 4.3 5.1 4.1 3.3 4 4 3 CALP 3

Composite or Test Broad Reading Basic Reading Skills Letter Word Identification Reading Fluency Word Attack Reading Comprehension Passage Comprehension Reading Vocabulary Broad Mathematics Math Calculation Skills Calculation Math Fluency Math Reasoning Applied Problems Quantitative Concepts Broad Written Language Basic Writing Skills Spelling Writing Fluency Punctuation and Capitals Written Expression Writing Samples Editing Phoneme/Grapheme Knowledge Word Attack Spelling of Sounds Oral Language (extended) Listening Comprehension Understanding Directions Oral Comprehension Oral Expression Story Recall Story Recall Delayed Picture Vocabulary Total Achievement Academic Skills Academic Fluency Academic Applications

3

3

3-4

8

*Standard scores between 90 and 110 fall within the average range. Scores below 85 indicate areas of weakness. Scores above 115 indicate areas of strength. WIAT II Date: Examiner: Manilow Standard/ Raw Score 94 96 92 100 18 362 Score Quartile* 2 2 2 2 1 2 Percentile Rank 34 39 30 50 5.6 3.8 6.8 Grade Equivalent

Composite or Diagnostic Reading Composite Word Reading Pseudoword Decoding Reading Comprehension Target Words Reading Speed

*Grade-Based Norms

*Standard scores between 90 and 110 fall within the average range. Scores below 85 indicate areas of weakness. Scores above 115 indicate areas of strength. Quartile scores indicate the bottom (first); lower-middle (second); upper-middle (third) and upper (fourth) twenty-five-percent ranges for each grade level. ACADEMIC SKILLS, FLUENCY, APPLICATIONS & CALP Overall, there are no significant differences between Tamaras reading, math, and written language, skills, fluency, and applications. Tamara has specific intra-achievement differences that will be addressed in the following sections. Tamaras total achievement score of 86 falls at the eighteenth percentile and within the low average range for her age. This score indicates that Tamara will profit from exposure to grade level academic materials although some modifications and accommodations might be made. Specific recommendations are addressed below. Tamaras Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) levels are below what would be expected given five years of ESL services. Tamara should have CALP levels of at least 5 in all areas. READING On the WJ III ACH, Tamaras reading achievement is within the low average range and at the twenty-first percentile for her age. On the WIAT II, Tamaras reading achievement is within the average range and at the thirty-fourth percentile for her age. Tamaras word identification skills are within the average range on both tests. Tamara used a phonetic or "sounding out approach when pronouncing unfamiliar words. Tamara often corrected her pronunciation errors. Tamara read "nonsense" words with predictable phonetic or orthographic patterns. She performed within the average range on both tests. (Poor nonsense word reading is a strong indicator of learning disabilities. Tamaras average skills in phonemic awareness and nonsense word reading do not indicate a learning disability in basic reading skills.) On the WJ III ACH, Tamara read simple sentences and answered "yes" or "no" comprehension questions at an average rate compared to same-age peers. The WJ III ACH fluency task asks students to use reasoning skills and is not a simple measure of oral reading fluency or speed. However, the WIAT II reading fluency tasks do not require students to apply reasoning skills and Tamaras score is also within the average range. (Poor reading fluency is a strong indicator of reading disabilities in older students. Tamaras scores do not indicate a learning disability in reading fluency.)

9

Tamaras reading comprehension on the WJ III ACH is within the low average range. Tamaras Passage Comprehension score is within the low average range. Tamara pronounced words she read and supplied synonyms, antonyms, or analogies at an average level. Tamaras Reading Comprehension score on the WIAT II was within the average range. Tamaras better performance on the WIAT II is due to the nature of the reading comprehension tasks. On the WJ III ACH, reading comprehension is gauged by a "cloze" procedure; students read and supply missing words within the reading passages. The WJ III ACH Passage Comprehension test requires a greater grasp of semantics and syntax. On the WIAT II, students read passages and are asked comprehension questions. Many of the questions require using fluid-reasoning skill as well as reading comprehension skill. Tamara did very well on questions that required her to sequence ideas, predict events, make inferences, and determine cause and effect. Tamara did not do as well on recognizing the stated or implied details in the reading passages. MATHEMATICS Overall, Tamaras mathematics achievement is within the low average range and at the seventeenth percentile for her age. On the first section, Tamara solved math problems on a page. Tamara performed math calculations on an average level. Tamara performed all basic operations with regrouping with nearly one hundred percent accuracy; Tamara did not divide a four-digit by a two-digit number. Tamara added and subtracted fractions with common denominators. Tamara did not multiply or divide fractions. Tamara did not perform operations on mixed numbers. Tamara multiplied two numbers with decimals but did not put the decimal point in the correct place in her answer. Tamara multiplied a negative and a positive integer. Tamara did not solve for x on a very basic algebra equation. On the second section, Tamara was asked to solve easy basic operation questions (+,,x,./.) as rapidly as possible. Tamaras math fluency is low compared to same-age peers. Tamaras accuracy was good but her speed was poor. Tamaras relatively poor processing speed (Gs) is most evident in her math and writing fluency scores. Math and writing are not yet "automatic" processes for Tamara. She might need some assignments shortened or some deadlines extended. On the third section, the examiner read math story problems aloud while Tamara read along silently or looked at graphics that represented the problem. Tamara answered math reasoning problems on a low average level. Tamara often knew the math process but she did not know the underlying concept involved. Therefore, Tamara did not estimate well and relied on her knowledge of process to verify her answers. Tamara told time to the half-hour on an analog clock. She determined elapsed time. Tamara did not solve problems with money or percents. Tamara had difficulty solving multiple step math problems. On the fourth section, the examiner asked Tamara questions that measured her conceptual understanding of underlying math processes, or quantitative concepts. Tamara scored within the low range. Tamara did not determine place value, round to the nearest one hundred, or perform a very basic division problem with a visual clue (determining one-third of twelve apples). Tamara performed poorly on a WJ III ACH "number series" task similar to the DAS sequential reasoning subtest. Several factors seemed important to Tamaras performance. One factor was the amount of assistance she received. On the WJ III ACH, Tamara was given fewer instructions, fewer sample items, and less guided practice. Second, an item analysis of both tests suggests that Tamara relied on her knowledge of math processes rather than determining the quantitative relations among the numbers she saw. Tamara tried to figure out a "hard-and-fast" rule that would explain the number series. This lowered her score on both tests. A

10

third factor, anxiety, might have lowered her WJ III ACH score. Tamara had more performance anxiety on the "academic" test than on the "learning games" tests, most of which she reportedly enjoyed. Fourth, Tamara had difficulty shifting set, or moving from more basic operations (addition and subtraction) to more difficult operations (multiplication and division). Finally, Tamara performed relatively well determining the "rule" for number series when only one operation was involved. She did not solve number series problems when two or more steps were required (e.g., divide and add one, or add one, then two, then three to each number in the series). These last two factors impacted her scores on both tests. For more information on Tamaras math and cognition, please refer to the section on dynamic assessment. WRITING Overall, Tamaras written language is within the low average range and at the thirteenth percentile for her age. Tamaras spelling is at the average level. Tamara spelled nonsense words at a high average level. Both of these skills would be affected if Tamara had a learning disability in reading or writing. Tamaras punctuation and capitalization skills are average. Tamara is still working on using apostrophes to show possession. Tamara has average abilities to edit or spot the mistakes in written work. Tamara wrote at a low rate when compared to same-age peers. This writing fluency task requires students to form short sentences from three words and a picture prompt. It is therefore highly affected by word knowledge as well as processing speed. When spelling is not counted, Tamaras written expression is at low average level. Tamara displayed strengths and weaknesses on her WJ III ACH writing sample similar to those on her classroom work samples. Tamaras word choice, sentence structure, and grammar were adequate. Tamara used summary and topic sentences. On the most difficult items, Tamara missed or misread key concepts in the prompts that would have guided her in connecting the ideas within paragraphs. Tamaras sentences almost always related the characters emotions, not actions. ORAL LANGUAGE Overall, Tamaras oral language skills are within the average range and at the twentyeighth percentile for her age. Tamaras listening comprehension is relatively more developed than her oral expression. This pattern is often seen in students with communication disorders and/or English language learners. Tamaras most developed oral language skill was in Oral Comprehension; her score fell at the sixty-sixth percentile. Tamara heard sentences from a recording and supplied the missing word at the end of the sentences. This oral language "cloze" procedure score can be compared with her passage comprehension score, a reading "cloze" procedure. Tamara performed significantly better on the oral language test. This result suggests that if Tamara does not have a reading disability, the team can expect Tamaras reading comprehension to improve significantly with instruction. Tamaras score on the other listening comprehension test, Understanding Directions, also fell within the average range. Tamara followed two- and three-step directions well. Tamara had difficulty with directions that required a simultaneous answer rather than a sequential answer (e.g., "Point to this and that."). Tamara also had difficulty with conditional directions (e.g., "If this is present, then do that"). Tamara mistook right and left. However, in testing of limits, Tamara identified right and left. Tamaras Oral Expression score is within the low average range. Tamara Picture Vocabulary score is at the seventeenth percentile. Tamara had the most difficulty remembering

11

and retelling stories. Her Story Recall score fell at the ninth percentile. Tamara did not remember the connected text that was read to her. Tamara had particularly poor skills in remembering the connected text after completing a few other subtests. Tamara did not remember the character names, main ideas, or plots from any of the stories. When comparing Tamaras skills, the examiner hypothesizes that Tamara might have difficulty processing the amount of verbal information presented in the stories. The verbosity, rather than the complexity, of information might have been the primary factor in Tamaras poor Story Recall Delayed score. If there is no opportunity to provide diagrams or visuals, teachers might want to give Tamara short, concise directions and avoid lectures. F. Dynamic Assessment & Analysis of Test Behaviors Dynamic assessment provides insights in to strategies that might be effective in improving Tamaras math reasoning. Dynamic assessment is a test-teach-retest procedure that discovers what kind of help [and how much help] a student needs to master a concept. Three sessions are recommended. Because of time constraints, only one was completed. Once WJ III ACH Form B math testing was completed, the examiner helped Tamara through the problems she had missed. The examiner used nonverbal hints, verbally emphasized key words, explained purposes, provided links to previous learning, and solved parts of the problems so Tamara might solve the subsequent parts. Attention/Discrimination: Tamara initiated and maintained focus well. Tamara often needed test items repeated. Tamara had difficulty processing embedded information (when vital information was included in phrases and not simple, straightforward sentences). On easy items, Tamara easily stated what information was relevant and what was extraneous. Comparative Behavior: Tamara often commented on the similarity among types of math problems. Tamara has a basic math vocabulary. She didnt need reviews of key words like "of" and "and." Tamara needed no or slight examiner intervention to recognize similar problems and transfer her new knowledge to the new problems. For example, when the examiner showed Tamara how to multiply two fractions, she easily applied her knowledge to the next item. Planning: · Tamara easily grasped and restated the goal and plan of the activity. She did not require extended explanations of the intent or meaning of math tasks. Tamara understood temporal sequencing (days, months, and years). When two-step math problems were introduced, Tamara often solved them independently. Even with sustained help, Tamara had difficulty solving three and four step math problems. Visual methods of sequential organization proved only marginally useful; Tamara might require multi-sensory approaches, including tactile strategies, to sequence multiple-step problems. Tamara relied on process knowledge yet she had difficulty explaining her process for solving problems. Moreover, Tamara did not use trial and error strategies effectively. Self-Regulation/Awareness: · Tamara has poor math estimation skills; she often did not check her estimation or ask herself if an answer made "quantitative sense." Tamara required significant intervention to use this rmeta-cognitive strategy.

12

· ·

Tamara used scratch paper effectively without prompting on math problems. She recognized this and agreed that she should continue to use orthographic models to solve story problems. Tamara waited for instructions to end before beginning each task.

Transfer: · Tamara needed only slight prompts to transfer her knowledge to other, more advanced problems. For example, when asked to reduce a fraction to its simplest term on one problem, the examiner explained what that meant. The next time the examiner asked Tamara to reduce a fraction, she did so, accurately, without prompting. · On a few items, the examiner had to reframe or rephrase the question several times until Tamara understood. Teachers might need to be prepared to explain things several different ways in order for Tamara to grasp more advanced math concepts. · Tamara usually responded well to verbal explanations that were paired with visual demonstrations. Teachers might wish to continue to use multi-modal instruction techniques. · Tamara did not identify or count coins when she saw pictures of coins. However, when she saw real coins, Tamara determined their names and values. She used the coins to compare to the pictures of the coins and solved problems accurately. Tamara might profit from math activities that stress links to real world tasks such as grocery shopping, budgeting and carpentry. Affect: Anxiety; Motivation; Tolerance to Frustration: Tamara did not appear or report anxiety in the testing situation. She expressed her desire to do well and tried hard. When Tamara got frustrated, she continued to try to solve problems. Tamaras motivation is very high. She usually attempts all items and doesnt give up easily. Tamaras high motivation and tolerance to frustration might explain why she often does better than might be expected given her life challenges. Dynamic Assessment Modifiability Scale Tamara usually required only slight to moderate interventions on most items. The examiners slight effort resulted in high student responsiveness and transfer. On the most difficult items, Tamara met the examiners moderate high effort with moderate responsiveness and low transfer. Tamara needs fewer words and learning objectives well within her proximal zone of development.

Examiner Effort Student Responsiveness Transfer

High/Moderate Moderate Low

Moderate Moderate Moderate

Slight High High

G. Red Flag Matrix Tamaras teachers and parent reported on items included on the PPS Red Flag Matrix, a qualitative measurement tool that reflects atypical development and learning patterns inconsistent with second language skill development. Most domains reflected no concerns. However, the team noted severe concerns with Tamaras developmental history of early trauma. The team had moderate concerns with Tamaras present psychiatric diagnosis (mood disorder) and medical protocol. Tamaras Bantu and Puucu language proficiency is poor. The team had mild concerns with her intellectual and communication testing and CALP acquisition when compared to peers.

13

H. Behavioral Testing BASC SCALE Behavioral Index Hyperactivity Aggression Conduct Problems Internalizing Problems Anxiety Depression Somatization (Additional Clinical Scales) Atypicality Withdrawal School Problems Attention Problems Learning Problems Adaptive Skills Social Skills Leadership Study Skills Symptoms Respondent A) Mary WIthers, Parent B) Jerry Perry, Teacher t-score A B 63 63 60 65 58 52 62 45 47 72 57 NA 54 NA 37 38 39 NA 49 47 44 54 44 50 58 49 44 43 51 50 49 51 54 55 46 59 percentile A B 90 90 86 92 83 64 88 34 42 96 79 NA 69 NA 12 13 14 NA 57 52 33 76 25 63 79 64 30 23 65 55 50 61 63 70 38 78 Date: 2/9/2004 Date: 6/9/2004 range A At Risk At Risk At Risk At Risk Average Average At Risk Average Average Significant Average NA Average Average At Risk At Risk At Risk NA B Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average

Externalizing Problems

NA=Not Available on the parent version, L=Low, A=Average, R=At Risk, S=Clinically Significant. The BASC is a questionnaire that parents teachers fill out in order to assess the social competencies, behavior problems, emotional difficulties of students. The BASC yields T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. On behavior scales, scores above 70 are within the clinically significant range and indicate significant problems. T scores from 60 to 69 are within the "at risk" range and indicate possible problems. "At risk" scores may also indicate existent problems that are not as severe but might require continued monitoring. On adaptive scales, scores below 30 are considered significantly low and indicate skill deficits. A statistical analysis indicates that both raters responded truthfully and consistently. Tamaras Behavioral Symptoms Index scores fall within the "at risk" (home) and average (school) ranges; Tamaras scores are not similar to scores of students who have been diagnosed with emotional disturbances. Tamaras Adaptive Skills scores fall within the "at risk" (home) and average (school) ranges. Home and school ratings are significantly different (.01) on all composites except Internalizing Problems. The overall similarity coefficient is ­0.01. The differences in ratings might be explained by Tamaras behavior in specific situations, by any significant improvement in Tamaras functioning between February and June 2004, in the respondents interpretation of items, or in the respondents bases of comparison with other children. Tamaras school rating indicates no significant problem behaviors or adaptive skill deficits. Tamaras home rating indicates possible problems with hyperactivity, aggression, and anxiety. A number of these items are related to the DSM-IV criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Ms. WIthers reports that although Tamara never pouts, she is almost always a "sore

14

loser." Tamara often blames others. She sometimes argues with adults, interrupts, teases others, or breaks others things. Tamara sometimes threatens other people, is overly active and impulsive, and rushes through things. Tamaras Atypicality score is within the clinically significant range. Tamara often repeats one activity over and over. She sometimes complains about being able to block out unwanted thoughts. Sometimes Tamara has strange ideas or seems out of touch with reality. Tamaras home rating indicates "at risk" adaptive skills. At times, Tamara does not interact successfully with peers and adults nor work well with others. Targeted behaviors for interventions at school include joining social groups or clubs, attending after school activities, not throwing tantrums, and offering to help others. Additional home-based interventions include accepting responsibility, interrupting correctly, giving compliments, and respecting others physical and emotional space (not hitting or threatening). 4. SUMMARY AND CONLCUSIONS: Tamara WIthers is a twelve-year-old grade student at GENERIC SCHOOL. She was referred for an evaluation of special education eligibility and learning needs. The team would like to know if Tamara has a learning disability, communication disorder, or emotional disturbance. Tamara was born in Tanzania, lost her family to disease, was placed in an orphanage for a year and a half. Tamara was adopted when she was about seven by Mary WIthers. Ms. WIthers has assured that Tamara received medical and counseling interventions for her early trauma. Tamara takes Seraquel and attends grief-counseling sessions. Tamara has attended school for five years in America. She has had five years of ESL pullout services. Tamaras scores on ESL testing and work samples indicate that she is making excellent progress. Tamara functions relatively well academically within the classroom. With help, Tamara completes and turns work in. Her portfolio is complete. Tamara has traditionally responded well to academic interventions. Nevertheless, Tamaras scores on other formal and informal measures of second language acquisition (CALP) indicate that she has not made all of the gains expected with five years of ESL and general education services. Although her growth might be slower than peers or other ESL students, it should be noted that Tamara has many of the skills necessary for language, math and literacy skill acquisition. Tamaras auditory processing is within the high average range. Tamara is sensitive to the sounds of language and has learned how to speak English with no accent. Tamaras fluid reasoning ability is probably within the average range. Fluid reasoning supports math reasoning skill learning. Although Tamaras math reasoning scores are lower than her fluid reasoning skills, this might be explained by the fact that Tamara tends to rely to heavily on the process of solving math problems rather than slowing down and using her conceptual reasoning skills. Tamara might require direct instruction on how to access her nonverbal fluid reasoning skills (how to remember to use them, and how put words to them to help her solve problems). Despite her strengths, Tamara has several possible cognitive and/or emotional factors might impair her learning. Tamara has difficulty with short-term auditory and visual memory. She has particular difficulty when she must divide and categorize the material that she hears. Tamaras processing speed is at the eleventh percentile for her age. She will need more time to complete work, shortened assignments, and visual organization materials that break tasks down into their parts. Other memory aides such as inspiration software, Carnegie notes, and planners might prove increasingly important, as Tamara gets older. Teachers must also make sure that Tamara demonstrates mastery of material before they move on; if Tamara learns something incompletely, its unlikely that she will be able to reconstruct it later.

15

The team must take special consideration when considering whether Tamara has a learning disability based on her lower academic scores and her pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Tamaras lower scores on some measures of memory and processing speed might be related to early trauma and second language acquisition. When corrected for anxiety issues, Tamaras profile of test scores (ranging from the least to the most demanding on language development) resembles other English Language Learners; her scores are highest on the least demanding and the lowest on the most demanding. However, the team should consider that Tamaras specific language and verbal reasoning test scores are even lower than expected given her time in ESL classes and her cultural acquisition. A communication evaluation is essential to determine if Tamara has a communication disorder. Tamaras academic achievement scores indicate that in most academic areas, Tamara will profit from instruction in the general education classroom with minimal accommodation. However, Tamara is still struggling in math reasoning and written expression. She might need additional specialized instruction in order to improve these skills. As reported, Tamaras math reasoning skills are lower than expected given her average fluid reasoning ability. These math reasoning skills might be affected by her lower verbal reasoning scores and her over-reliance on process rather than conceptualization. There is some evidence that Tamaras math reasoning performance was affected by anxiety and might respond well to a period of intervention. Tamara did not use the more effective strategy of estimating based on quantitative concepts, and teachers might need to provide explicit instruction and practice in conceptualization and estimation skills. Tamara evidences some anxiety within the classroom. She relies on peers and might feel uncomfortable asking questions or for accommodations. However, Tamaras school ratings do not indicate concerns with problems with poor behavior or lack of adaptive skills. Tamaras home ratings and interviews indicate concerns with anxiety, oppositional behavior, obsessions or compulsions, and mild social skill deficits. Although Tamaras scores on these ratings do not indicate an emotional disturbance across settings, the team will continue to consult with Tamaras community therapist and medical providers regarding Tamaras mental health needs and offer counseling services if they are appropriate. Tamara often compensates for her academic and life challenges with her outstanding strengths. The team recognizes Tamaras resilience in overcoming many challenges, and might provide her encouragement on her current challenges by reminding her of her successes. Tamaras strengths include her work ethic, her excellent motivation, her athletic genius, and her cheerful and outgoing personality. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS: After reviewing assessment results, team members will consider the most appropriate eligibility, services, and placement for Tamara. The Speech and Language Pathologist will advise the team on Tamaras communication abilities. Tamara is commended for not only surviving her early environment but for flourishing in her current one. Ms. WIthers and the team is encouraged to continue to provide enrichment opportunities, to acknowledge Tamaras outstanding strengths, and to give Tamara lots of opportunities to use her strengths at school, at home, and in the community. Tamara should continue to help others, particularly younger students, to learn the athletic and academic skills she has mastered.

16

The team is encouraged to continue to consult with medical and counseling providers regarding Tamaras trauma and anxiety. Tamara seemed to express her emotions well in writing. Writing, dance, and other expressive therapeutic modalities might prove beneficial. Tamara will need assistance developing her vocabulary. Teachers might want to pre-teach vocabulary words in all subjects. Tamara is encouraged to play vocabulary games and listen to books on tape. Tamara is encouraged to ask questions when she doesnt understand a word or a verbal concept. Teachers should continue to "normalize" this process by remarking that all students are in the learning process and asking questions is expected and rewarded. Because of the difference between Tamaras average fluid reasoning and poor verbal skills, Tamara might grasp a concept and get frustrated when she cant put it into words. Tamara is encouraged to learn visual note taking or pictographic "idea capturing" techniques to web her ideas for later writing or oral presentation. Math and writing are not yet "automatic" processes for Tamara. She might need some assignments shortened or some deadlines extended. Tamaras math skills might be improved by concentrating on quantitative concepts and relations, estimation, and other Piagetan approaches. Tamara profits most from new concepts that are presented well within her proximal zone of development and might shut down if her mastery level of new material is less than 90%. Tamara might not remember visual material well. She might need handouts, portable exemplars, or other visual reminders of how and when to do something. Tamara might profit when information is presented with explicit memory aides or pneumonic devices that are designed to heighten retention. If there is no opportunity to provide diagrams or visuals, teachers might want to give Tamara short, concise directions and avoid lectures. Although Tamara is improving in her ability to ask for help or for accommodations when needed, asking for help remains an appropriate goal. Targeted behaviors for interventions at school include joining social groups or clubs, attending after school activities, not throwing tantrums, and offering to help others. Additional home-based interventions include accepting responsibility, interrupting correctly, giving compliments, and respecting others physical and emotional space (not hitting or threatening).

____________________________ Barry B. Manilow, M.Ed. School Psychologist

17

Information

Microsoft Word - ELLSampleReport.doc

17 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

21081


You might also be interested in

BETA
Microsoft Word - ELLSampleReport.doc