The Pre-Referral and Referral Process: Appropriate

interventions and identification

National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational

Systems

National Staff Development Council

December, 2005

Elizabeth Kozleski

Shelley Zion

www.nccrest.org

The Pre-Referral and Referral Process:

Appropriate interventions and identification

Academy One:Culturally and Linguistically

Responsive Pre-referral Interventions

Learning Outcomes

• Understand Early Intervening,• Three Tier RtI, and • Prereferral Processes

What is PreReferral?

Demographic Context

• In 2003, 42% of public school students were part of an ethnic or racial minority, and 19% of all school age children spoke a language other than English at home. (NCES, 2005)

• In 2000, 8% of all public school children were labeled as having mental retardation (MR), emotional disturbance (ED), or a specific learning disability (SLD). Boys are twice as likely as girls to receive one of these labels. Black students account for 17% of the public school population, but are disproportionately represented in all three categories, accounting for 33% of students classified as MR, 27% of students classified as ED, and 18% of students classified as SLD.

Although examining rates of representation can alert educators to the existence of a problem, ultimately a key question in dealing with disproportionality in special education is

“Are we identifying and serving the ‘right’ students?”

What is pre-referral intervention?

•Emerged in the 70’s, in response to concerns about inappropriate identification and labeling

•Has been presented in a variety of models

•Focuses on differentiating between academic and behavioral difficulties that are a result of inappropriate or inadequate instruction and those that are a result of disability

•Assumes that interventions will be attempted prior to referral to special education

•Often is seen as a first step to special education

Response to intervention

Tier 3: SPED

Tier 3: SPED

Tier 2: Focused Intensive Instruction

Tier 2: Focused Intensive Instruction

Tier 1:Robust Scientifically Based InstructionTier 1:Robust Scientifically Based Instruction

CR RtI

• When RtI is implemented with culturally and linguistically diverse learners, it is critical that the prereferral intervention process is culturally and linguistically responsive; that is, educators must ensure that students’ socio-cultural, linguistic, racial/ethnic, and other relevant background characteristics are addressed at all stages, including reviewing student performance, considering reasons for student difficulty or failure, designing alternative interventions, and interpreting assessment results (Ortiz, 2002).

Reasons for Academic Difficulty

• Inadequate match between student’s learning characteristics and the learning environment

• Lack of effective modifications• Disabilities that impede academic

performance

Key Elements of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pre-Referral Intervention

• Prevention of school underachievement and failure of CLD students

• Early intervention for struggling learners

• Diagnostic/prescriptive teaching

• Availability of general education problem-solving support systems

(Garcia & Ortiz, 2004)

Activity

• Code the responses for the first question, “what are pre referral interventions” using the following ideas:– Prevention of school underachievement and failure of

CLD students– Early intervention for struggling learners– Diagnostic/prescriptive teaching– Availability of general education problem-solving

support systems

Key Element 1: Preventing School Underachievement and Failure Among culturally and linguistically diverse Learners

ALL Educators are responsible for educating

ALL students

ALL Educators are responsible for educating

ALL students

Collaborative relationships with families

Collaborative relationships with families

On Going PL for culturally responsive practices

On Going PL for culturally responsive practices

Wide range of education services and programs

Wide range of education services and programs

ALL Educators are responsible for educating

ALL students–Basic philosophy that ALL students can learn, and all adults are responsible for ensuring success –Educators have high expectations for all students, regardless of cultural, linguistic, economic, or other characteristics–Additive view of culture and language–Student success or failure is seen as a result of match/mismatch between learning environment and learning needs–Teachers have regular opportunities to plan and coordinate services–Curricula and instruction is culturally responsive and builds on students “funds of knowledge”–Students are actively engaged in the instructional process, in dialogue with teachers

Wide range of education services and programs

• Special education is less likely to be viewed as the logical alternative for struggling students if a wide array of programs and services are available-– Early childhood education– Title I– Bilingual/ESL– Community based programs

Collaborative relationships with families and communities

• See families as valuable resources to school improvement efforts, student support, and academic progress

• Work from a framework of cultural reciprocity

• Value language, culture, educational goals

On Going Professional Learning for

Culturally Responsive Practices

• Cultural self awareness• Attitudes/expectations• Beliefs, knowledge, and skills

Key Element Two: Early Intervention for Struggling Learners• Instead of waiting for students to fail,

early intervention must happen as soon as learning difficulties are noted….

Activity

• Activity: Classroom Scenarios of Struggling Learners

• Time Limit: 35 minutes• Step 1: Think about Struggling Learners in

your classroom (5-10 mins.)• Step 2: Discuss scenarios in small groups

(15 minutes)• Step 3: Large group debriefing (10-15

mins.)

Focus Questions For Scenarios

1. Based on the information provided, what do you think is going on? If there is a problem, what do you think it might be?

2. What do you see as possible schoolwide, classroom, and learning factors contributing to the student's academic and/or behavioral difficulties?

3. How do you think the teacher should address these issues? Who should be involved in this process?

Key Element 3: Diagnostic/Prescriptive Teaching

• Learner Assessment• Curriculum and Instruction• Learner Assessment• Refined Curriculum and Instruction

– What, How, When, How long, how much practice, the nature of scaffolds

PL Principles

Context

Individual

Community &Institutional Histories

Discourse, social, & cultural factors

Participants, artifacts, & structures

Power Relationships

Dominant & Subordinated Viewpoints

Sociocultural histories

Psychological characteristics

and temperament

Key Element 4: Availability of General Education Problem-Solving Support Systems

• Peer or Expert Consultation• Sharing Instructional Resources• Co-Teaching• Cognitive Coaching• Teacher Assistance Teams• Professional Learning Communities

– Data Driven Conversations

Next Steps: What happens after pre-referral?

• Haven’t been taught• Data driven referrals

– Prevention, Robust Classroom Instruction

– Scaffolded, Direct Instruction

ReferencesReferencesAnderson, L. W., & Pellicer, L. O. (1998). Toward an understanding of unusually successful programs for economically disadvantaged students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3(3), 237–263.Barron, V., & Menken, K. (2002, August). What are the characteristics of the shortage of teachers qualified to teach English Language Learners? AskNCELA No. 14. Retrieved May 31, 2004 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/14shortage.htm.Chalfant, J., Pysh, M., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within—building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(3), 85–96.Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18–36.Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Report of the National Research Council’s Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Erickson, F. (2001). Culture in society and in educational practices. In J. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 31–58). New York, NY: Wiley.

ReferencesFletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Francis, D. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.García, S. B. (2002). Parent-professional collaboration in culturally-sensitive assessment. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special needs: Identification, assessment and instruction (pp.87–103). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.García, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150–168.García, S. B., Wilkinson, C. Y., & Ortiz, A. A. (1995). Enhancing achievement for language minority students: Classroom, school, and family contexts. Education and Urban Society, 27, 441–462.Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.King-Sears, M. E., Burgess, M., & Lawson, T. L. (1999). Applying curriculum-based assessment in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(1), 30–38.

ReferencesLeinhardt, G. (1992). What research on learning tells us about teaching. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 20–25.Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds.). (1998). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., & Neff, D. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141.Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321–332.

ReferencesOrtiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early intervention for English Language Learners. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English Language Learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 31–63). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.Ortiz, A. A., & García, S. B. (1990). Using language assessment data for language and instructional planning for exceptional bilingual students. In A. Carrasquillo & R. E. Baecher (Eds.), Teaching the bilingual special education student (pp. 25–47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University.Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). An analysis of special education as a response to the diminished academic achievement of Chicano/Latino students: An update. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.) (pp. 310–332). London: Routledge/Falmer.Santamaría, L. J., Fletcher, T. V., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Effective pedagogy for English Language Learners in inclusive classrooms. In A. J. Artiles, & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 133–157). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46 (5), 4–13.Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (Eds.). (2003). Redefining LD as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems [Special issue]. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3) 137–146.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wang, M. C., & Kovak, J. A. (1995). Bridging the achievement gap in urban schools: Reducing educational segregation and advancing resilience-promoting strategies. In B. Williams (Ed.), Closing the achievement gap: A vision to guide change in beliefs and practices (pp. 9–24). Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.

www.nccrest.org

Identifying School-

wide Patterns

of Student Performan

ce

Looking at Student Work to Target

Instruction

Referral Process

Strength Based

Assessment

Exploring

Culturally

Responsive

Pedagogy

Applying Culturall

y Responsi

ve Practices

and Pedagog

yPracticing

Cultural Respons-

ivity

Mining Meaningfu

l Data

Tiered Literacy

Intervention

Intensive Literacy

Instruction in the Classroo

m

Culturally Responsive Literacy Practices

Pre-referral Process

Appreciating

Culture and

Cultural Responsiv

e-ness

Uncovering

Diversity

Creating Culturally Responsi

ve Systems

Fostering Team

Leadership

Engaging Stakeholders in

Culturally

Responsive

Systems

Culturally Responsiv

e Practices

Data Mining

English Languag

e Learners

The Special

Education Process

Cultural Responsivi

ty

Collaborative

Leadership Teams

Spotlighting Issues of Power

and Privilege to Create Change

AC

AD

EM

IES

Principle 1

Professional Learning is focused on improving learning within a diverse, multicultural community.

The diverse, multicultural context that characterizes most contemporary communities must be grounded in the outcomes, content, and activities of any professional learning activity.

Principle 2

Professional Learning engages educators in joint, productive activity through discourse, inquiry, and public practice.

Effective professional learning is reached by continuous, collaborative interaction with colleagues through discussion, knowledge development and understanding, and directed inquiry around practice.

Principle 3

Professional Learning is a facet of daily practice, not a compartmentalized activity.

Since professional learning is embedded within practice, it becomes part of daily discourse, shared discussions about student learning and student products, as well as more formalized mentoring and coaching, meetings, study groups, and examination of evidence from inquiry cycles.

Principle 4

Professional Learning results in improved learning for students who have been marginalized from the academic and social curricula of the US public school system.

Professional learning scaffolds teacher learning so that the influence of individual cultural identity and values on individual and systems practices are understood, mediated by expanding professional knowledge of the sociocultural dimensions of learning, and its impact assessed through student involvement and performance in academic and social curricula.

Principle 5

Professional Learning influences decisions about what is taught and why.

Since professional learning is generative, educators’ knowledge will expand and become more complex as it develops. It is expected that professional learning will result in examination and improvements to the content and process of instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse learners.

Principle 6

Professional Learning is focused on the diffusion of professional knowledge to build sustainable educational communities focused on improving learning outcomes for students and their families who are culturally and linguistically diverse.

As educators gain knowledge, they also have the responsibility for sharing and mentoring others both in the practice of professional learning and in the expanded knowledge that comes from such activity.

Facilitator’s Manual• Academy Abstract• Academy Outcomes• Academy Agenda• Academy Materials• Appendices and Enclosed CD• NCCRESt Academies• Facilitator Note• Tips for Facilitating Leadership Academies• Professional Learning Principles• Special Facilitation Tips• Academy• Glossary• Resources

Material Design

• Tips for getting started

• Tips for moving things along

• Tips for managing activities

• Tips for lecturettes

• Tips for participant questions

• Tips for leave-taking

Features