The importance of context

The importance of looking at EL assessment data in context with additional student information cannot be overstated. Gill shares the example of testing two students in the same grade on their vocabulary. If they both receive the same score and are both equally low, we may assume that both have a learning challenge. 

But consider this additional context: Student A is from a household where their parents have little formal education, or don’t read in the language they share with their child. There is a strong chance that Student A may have gotten every answer right about a word they had been exposed to - meaning the challenge may not be with their learning abilities at all, and rather point to their language learning journey.

On the other hand, Student B is from a household where both parents have high levels of education. In this scenario, it is likely that this student missed many words that they had been exposed to numerous times - and this student is much more likely to have a learning challenge.

In order to most accurately and equitably approach decision making for students, particularly ELs, we must recognize that standardized test results are only a small piece of the big picture.

Critical Data Process: Questionnaire and data collection

The critical data process  consists of a 16-part questionnaire and data pull, all designed to uncover information about a students’ educational profile and history. It is important for a team of professionals to be involved in this process. Educators should come from a variety of content areas and specializations who can contribute observations about the student in different settings, and ideally there should be at least one bilingual person at the table.

Once an EL student has met initial criteria (i.e. falling behind or struggling in class even after receiving Tier 1 supports), the team will examine additional information like:

• What happened during their formative years of learning? - Questions like when they started to learn English, what types of programs they’ve been in before, and what their schooling looked like in their native language if they attended school outside of the US.
   
• In-depth conversation with parents - Some of these questions will be answered in a parent interview, which is a crucial opportunity to learn about the students’ childhood and whether they received a “typical educational background” in their culture or not, uncovering any additional anecdotal data or context that has shaped the students’ performance in school today.
   
• Comparison data amongst peers - Our “norm” or our typical standards and average that we measure student performance against is usually based on our average for English-speaking students: “But when we're able to look at students with backgrounds in different languages and see their language journeys, see their growth, we're really looking at what is typical growth for different languages as well in English acquisition and get a clearer picture of how a student is progressing,” says Herseth. We can use this data to get a better understanding of their language development, such as how they are progressing in English as compared to like peers in the school.

The comparison data pulled for the ELL critical data process includes students who entered the US around the same time or were born here, or potentially share the same background i.e. home language. Tools like Ellevation Platform can streamline finding and analyzing this data.

With all of this information collected and analyzed, the team of professionals will collectively decide:  Is this student growing typically as another student would with their background, or do they have concerns related to a suspected disability? Does it make sense for this student to have an evaluation for special education, or does it make sense to provide more intervention for this student?

Systemic challenges and improvements

Often the conclusion of the team involved in the critical data process may be that an EL student does not need to move forward with an evaluation for special education services at this time; rather, they would benefit from increased language supports and interventions in the mainstream classroom. 

It is important that districts offer their classroom teachers the right training and tools to develop their instructional practice to ensure all students have access to inclusive, supportive learning environments. There must be a district-wide understanding that language supports are not an intervention; they’re a right of a student.  Often, IEP referrals for ELs come from a lack of understanding of how language is developed, but those who are bilingual or who have spent time learning a second language understand that struggle is not a deficit or disability - it’s a normal part of the process. 

Additionally, there should be a wider lens of school and district context. Is there documented evidence that the individual school is delivering services that their students are benefitting from, based on proof? If the school is performing lower compared to other schools in the district in the state or has a significantly higher number of referrals for ELs, this almost always means there is a systems level problem that needs to be addressed.

In education, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and truly understanding all students as individuals is no small undertaking.  But Gill offers this valuable perspective: “If this was your child, what would you hope those grown ups were doing?” This important, worthwhile work of ensuring that all students are given the time and support they need to learn a new language and succeed academically is a crucial step in promoting more equitable opportunities for all.