Triennial Summary - CASPOnline



PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL REPORTTRIENNIAL ASSESSMENTCASE STUDY #2Grade: 4th Gender: FemaleNative Language: SpanishASSESSMENT PROCEDURES:File Review, Interviews, Observations, Tests:Ortiz Picture Vocabulary Acquisition Test (Ortiz PVAT)Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR)ASSESSMENT FINDINGS:BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWSParent concernsParent reports that student refrains from speaking in public because she is afraid that people will not understand her. Parent’s academic concern is that she forgets meaning of words and how to read them.Teacher input Teacher describes student as a very quiet, passive, but friendly student. Socially she is doing very well. She has lots of friends and converses with them constantly; she has become more confident as the year has gone by. Student is able to understand verbal directions and function within the general education classroom with only mild impairment. She is very well behaved but her lack of verbal participation is somewhat problematic. Academically, Student performs at grade level in math and shows no difficulty in handwriting or fine-motor skills. Her reading decoding and fluency skills are just below grade level at the end of 3rd grade (DRA 38 and 100 words/minute), however, her comprehension is more problematic and at the end of 2nd grade level (DRA 28). Student is in the middle intervention group for 4th grade. Writing in general is also somewhat problematic. In Spanish, her reading level is a bit lower at a beginning 2nd grade level (DRA 20) as she has more difficulty decoding in Spanish than in English; her fluency is at 66 words per minute in Spanish at 2nd grade level. Home background/ Language developmentStudent lives with both parents and her younger brother. Spanish is the primary language at home although Student uses English to communicate with her six year old brother. Student began to be exposed to English at the age of 3 when entering a HeadStart preschool. Student has demonstrated a history of speech and language impediments in both English and Spanish. In kinder, Student’s Spanish speaking ability was assessed at the Limited Spanish Speaker (LSS) level. Since Student’s primary language is Spanish and was determined to be a student learning English, she was administered the California English Language development Tests (CELDT) each year. Her scores in this test indicate growth year after year in her oral English proficiency.CELDT ResultsListeningSpeakingKinderBeginning BeginningFirst GradeIntermediateEarly IntermediateSecond GradeEarly AdvancedIntermediateThird Grade (ELPAC scores)Somewhat DevelopedWell DevelopedCELDT not administered in her 3rd grade year to any student – Replaced by the ELPAC test.Educational historyPrevious psychoeducational evaluations: Student was initially evaluated by SDUSD at age 3 years 10 months in 2013 by the preschool assessment team and identified as a student with a Speech/Language Impairment (SLI). Student presented with average intellectual ability and a moderate/severe deficit in receptive language, a severe deficit in the area of expressive language, and a significant impairment in speech intelligibility. Within her last triennial evaluation Student’s nonverbal intellectual ability fell within High Average to Above Average range, adequate long-term memory, with weaknesses noted in perceptual speed. Substantial academic progress was reported at that time. There was not sufficient evidence that a learning disability was present at the time but was recommended to monitor for this. Student has been enrolled at Elementary School’s Dual Language English/Spanish program since Kindergarten. Report cards in all grades indicate great attendance and behavior. Over the years, reading and writing appear equally developed in both languages (approaching grade level). Math has been a strength for Student, but in 3rd grade she dropped to approaching grade level, likely due to increased reading demands in the curriculum. California State testing results in 3rd grade for ELA was standard not met; while Math was one point away from meeting standard. By her 3rd grade IEP, Student was reading near grade level expectations with satisfactory comprehension. She was able to produce written paragraphs with minimal spelling errors. Student was performing very well in math without additional support. Challenges in specific sound production in her speech were still apparent, particularly in spontaneous speech. She was appropriately meeting all her annual goals. Continued services were recommended at 4 hours per week of specialized academic instruction in the general education classroom, and 22 hours per year of speech and language therapy in a separate setting. OBSERVATIONS/DIRECT EXAMINATIONDirect examinationStudent presented as very shy and quiet, used a soft voice and short phrases, and appeared self-conscious when the examiner had difficulty understanding her as her speech intelligibility continues to be limited. Student was able to provide her full date of birth. Her favorite thing to do in school is math and science; as her least favorite she stated not liking reading and writing tests because they are difficult for her. TEST RESULTSCognitive AbilitiesOrtiz Picture Vocabulary Acquisition Test (Ortiz PVAT)The Ortiz PVAT is a test that assesses the ability of a child, youth, or young adult to comprehend the meaning of spoken English words (i.e., receptive vocabulary). Student’s performance was compared against the English Learner norms to assess vocabulary acquisition in English relative to other English learners of the same age who have similar exposure to English. Compared to same-age peers who have been exposed to English for 67% of their lives (English learner norms), Student's ability to recognize spoken English words is average; however, she interestingly only identified nouns with 62% accuracy. In addition, with respect to the level of instruction required for continued academic growth and success in English, Student's vocabulary acquisition is below the level typically associated with same-age native English-speaking peers (English Speaker norms). Student’s performance indicates not yet acquiring cognitive academic language proficiency. Classroom instructional modifications should continue to be used to accommodate her level of English comprehension.*Compared to other English learners of the same age who have similar exposure to EnglishFeifer Assessment of Reading (FAR)The FAR is a diagnostic instrument that assesses specific cognitive and academic processes in reading that impact reading ability. FAR Score SummarySubtestRaw ScoreStandard scoreDescriptive CategoryPhonological TestsPhonemic Awareness (PA)9188Low AverageOral Reading Fluency (ORF)1.4486Low AverageFluency TestsRapid Automatic Naming (RAN)87102AverageVerbal Fluency (VF)2098AverageVisual Perception (VP)1195AverageOrthographical Processing (OP)2890AverageComprehension TestsSemantic Concepts (SC)1663Very LowWord Recall (WR)989Low AverageMorphological Processing (MP)681Below AverageSilent Reading Comprehension585*Low Average*Literal comprehension: 33% correct Inferential comprehension: 15% correctSubtest descriptionsThe Verbal Fluency (VF) subtest requires the examinee to rapidly name items from a particular category or items that start with a particular letter in 60 seconds.The Visual Perception (VP) subtest requires the examinee to identify letters printed backward from an array of letters or from an array of words in 30 seconds.The Orthographical Processing (OP) subtest requires the examinee to recall the letter or group of letters that are in a target word after being presented with the word for 1 second.The Semantic Concepts (SC) subtest is a multiple-choice test requiring the examinee to select the word that is either similar in meaning (synonym) or opposite in meaning (antonym) to a target word.The Morphological Processing (MP) subtest is a multiple-choice test requiring the examinee to choose the morpheme that best completes an incomplete target word.Academic AchievementThe measures of academic achievement were administered by the Special Education Teacher. Please refer to that report for a complete narrative of results. As in the FAR results, WJ-IV achievement results indicate that Student does demonstrate a significant challenge in comprehension of inferential information (Passage Comprehension SS=69) compared to literal information (Reading Recall SS=101), which is consistent with her oral comprehension profile as reported by the speech/language pathologist.CONCLUSIONS:Student has been identified with a speech and language impediment that has been able to make appropriate academic progress. However, she is mildly impacted in her verbal classroom participation due to her speech difficulty, and in reading comprehension and writing. She has at least an average or higher cognitive ability, as well as grade level math skills, and demonstrates adequate fluency abilities that contribute to reading fluency potential. Based on her progress in word reading, a disability in basic reading skills is not suspected. However, Student’s reading comprehension is impacted, specifically as it relates to inferential comprehension, which is similar to her difficulties with inferential oral comprehension. Student presents with somewhat limited word knowledge on top of her history of language challenges and would explain her challenges with reading comprehension as the cognitive academic language demands of the curriculum continue to increase. This should be partly the focus of her interventions. Classroom instructional modifications should continue to be used to accommodate her level of English comprehension. Producing written work is also a relative weakness but also likely impacted by overall language challenges. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the IEP team to consider a Specific Learning Disability as Student’s handicapping condition due to language impacting her listening and reading comprehension. Eligibility Criteria (5 CCR § 3030)(a) A child shall qualify as an individual with exceptional needs … if the results of the assessment … demonstrate that the degree of the child's impairment [based on the identified disability] requires special education in one or more of the program options authorized by Education Code section 56361. The decision as to whether or not the assessment results demonstrate that the degree of the child's impairment requires special education shall be made by the IEP team. The IEP team shall take into account all the relevant material which is available on the child. No single score or product of scores shall be used as the sole criterion for the decision of the IEP team as to the child's eligibility for special education.It is recommended that the IEP team consider the following handicapping condition: (10) Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may have manifested itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The basic psychological processes include attention, visual processing, auditory processing, sensory-motor skills, cognitive abilities including association, conceptualization and expression.…(ii) The pupil exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments. (A) Specific learning disabilities do not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download