BilingualAssessment - Metro Speech Language Network

Report
Bilingual SpeechLanguage Assessment
Lynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLP
Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP
OBJECTIVES
• Present current trends in bilingual assessment
• Address language disorder vs. language difference
• Present methods for establishing language dominance
• Discuss assessment with interpreters/ELL teachers
MONOLINGUAL SLPs
• More clearly define the role of a monolingual SLP in a
bilingual assessment
-Monolingual SLP role working with a bilingual
SLP
-Monolingual role working with an interpreter/
ELL teacher
BILINGUAL SLPs
• Share your own resources and procedures
• Learn more about other approaches
BASIC OUTLINE
 Present two recent articles published in the area of
bilingual assessment
 Go over basic components of bilingual assessment
process
 Present case study #1
 Present case study #2 (if time permits)
 Share bilingual resources
 Question and answer time with panel of bilingual
SLPs
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL
SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
CONCEPTUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a
response regardless of the language in which it is
produced (Pearson et al. 1993)
MONOLINGUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a
response based on the language in which it is produced
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
•
Historical approach to bilingual assessment was
a) Test the student in his/her dominant language
b) Monolingual SLP tests in English, bilingual SLP
tests in Spanish
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Limitations to historical approach
 Some but not all vocabulary overlaps across
languages
 Even typically developing bilinguals may present as
delayed in both languages in earlier stages
(under age 5)
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Limitations to historical approach
 Total knowledge of bilinguals in a single language is
not comparable to monolinguals
 Code switching is used to add knowledge
 Vocabulary is influenced by frequency of exposure to
specific words and context
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Two studies on the semantic skills of typically
developing (TD) bilingual children
 STUDY 1- To what extent do bilingual children
produce overlapping responses?
 STUDY 2- Does conceptual scoring yield more valid
results?
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
STUDY 1
-55 TD bilingual children (4;0-7;11)
11 primarily English (PE)- 80% or more
7 bilingual English (BE)
13 bilingual Spanish (BS)- 50-80%
24 primarily Spanish (PS)
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
 Naming characteristic properties of familiar items
(different items in S + E), expressive and receptive
 Same concepts were targeted (object shapes, colors,
sizes, functions) but with different questions
ex: describe a school bus/dime como es un
camion/troca
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
 Item content taken from concepts familiar to
preschool children as indicated by teacher-child
interaction data collected in bilingual preschool
 Literature review on language development and
cultural relevance in each language
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Three sets of scores generated
 Monolingual Score: English question + Correct English
response= 1 point
 Total Response Score: English question + correct
English response + correct Spanish response= 2
points
 Conceptual Score: English question + correct Spanish
or English response= 1 point
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Study 1 Results
 Only significant differences between total and
conceptual scores for the BE children on Spanish
subtest
 Lower variability in conceptual score than total score
 PS, BS, BE groups: Monolingual scores moderately
lower than total/conceptual scores
-total/conceptual scores were not significantly
different than monolingual scores
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Study 1 Results
 Children produce more vocabulary in dominant
language
 Even PE and PS students knew vocabulary in nondominant language
 TD children from bilingual backgrounds likely to
produce unique vocabulary (based on environmental
demands in each language)
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
STUDY 2
 Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results?
 Naming characteristic properties of familiar items
(Phase 2 of Study 1 items)
 40 TD bilingual children (5;0-6;1)

age/lang background closely matched Study 1
participants
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
 Expressive items from semantic subtest
-characteristic properties, functions, analogies,
linguistic concepts, similarities and differences,
comprehension of passages
Example: Functions
-What do you do with scissors?
-Spanish (What do you do with a bat?)
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Study 2
 For Spanish-speaking bilinguals, conceptual score
more likely to be in average range than monolingual
 For testing in English, monolingual and conceptual
scores were similar
 BS and BE group provided more responses in English
during Spanish subtest than Spanish items during
English subtest
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Study 2 Results: Table 4. Percentage of participants who were accurately
classified as typically developing when primarily Spanish- or primarily Englishspeaking children’s average monolingual score was used to set the cutoff.
Spanish
conceptual
Score
Spanish
monolingual
score
English
conceptual
score
English
monolingual
score
BS
80
70
90
80
BE
80
50
100
100
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
 Bilinguals will benefit from conceptual scoring
 Results from translated tests (CELF 4 Spanish) must
be carefully considered (children may consider these
requests for new info, may not display overlapping
knowledge)
 All students (even PE + PS) likely to have some
unique skills in their non-dominant language
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
 Allowing (and encouraging if necessary) children to
code switch facilitates use of full range of vocabulary
* to do this effectively, children must be
aware that administrator is bilingual
 To what extent are cutoff points (e.g., -1.5 SD, -2SD)
useful tools for determination of eligibility with
bilingual children?
 Further studies needed to establish normative data
on conceptual scoring
CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)
Limitations to Study
 Relatively small sample size
 Only assessed vocabulary development
 Restricted to typically developing children
 Presents a testing approach for which valid/reliable
tools are rare/may not exist
BESA- Bilingual English Spanish Assessment
 Three subtests (in both Spanish and English) to
address morphosyntax, semantics, and phonology
 The test norms were derived using data from over
600 bilingual children living in the US including 16
dialects
 Normed for children (ages 4 years, 0 months through
6 years, 11 months) who have varying levels of
Spanish-English bilingualism
 http://www.ar-clinicalpubl.com/
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
ARTICLE INFORMATION
 Lexical Diversity and Omission Errors as Predictors of
Language Ability in the Narratives of Sequential
Spanish–English Bilinguals: A Cross-Language
Comparison
 Peggy F. Jacobsona and Patrick R. Waldena
 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology •
Vol. 22 • 554–565 • August 2013
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF STUDY
 This study explored the utility of two commonly
employed (Language Sample Analysis)LSA measures
in English and Spanish during a standard narrative
retell task.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
 Second LSA measure: the total number of word and
morpheme omission errors
 First LSA measure: lexical diversity, determined by
calculating the number of different words (NDW) and
the D statistic.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
ABILITY VS. PROFICIENCY
 Ability refers to a child’s individual capability for
learning language, whereas proficiency indicates a
child’s relative attainment of each language.
 Proficiency improves over time, but ability shapes the
rate and extent of growth in proficiency.
 Part of bilingual assessment: separating ability from
proficiency.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
BILINGUAL LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
 Consistent with linguistic and processing deficits, children with
BLI perform lower on behavioral language measures relative to
other bilingual children having similar amounts of exposure to
the language in question.
 Moreover, children with BLI exhibit slower rates of vocabulary
acquisition and higher rates of grammatical errors and are
likely to experience persistent academically related language
difficulties (Peña & Bedore, 2009).
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
INFORMATION ABOUT LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
 Generally, bilinguals do not receive equal amounts of
input in each language.
 Semantic development is driven more by input.
Alternatively, morphosyntactic development is driven by a
combination of input (exposure) and output (language
use).
 Language experience corresponds, in part, to the type of
bilingualism (Simultaneous vs. Sequential)
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY
 48 children, 26 Typically Developing (TD) and 22 with
BLI
 The overwhelming majority (46/48, 96%) were early
sequential bilinguals.
 Estimates of relative language proficiency were
obtained using the Woodcock Munoz Language
Survey (WMLS) in English and Spanish.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
HOW DATA WAS COLLECTED
 Language samples were collected in Spanish and
English
 Lexical diversity was calculated two ways: NDW
(Number of Different Words) and the use of the D
statistic
 Grammatical errors counted were omissions of single
words and bound morphemes across languages.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY
(Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
RESULTS
 The omission of words and bound morphemes was
found to be the best predictor of impairment across
languages and age levels.
 Lexical diversity was not the best predictor of
language ability.
 Most common omission errors: English (regular past
tense –ed) Spanish (clitic pronouns, articles, and third
person plural verb inflection –n (e.g., está for están)
ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY
(Jacobsona and Waldena, 2013
QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STUDY
 Do lexical diversity measures and omission errors
predict BLI?
 Is there an advantage for using the newer D statistic
over the standard NDW measure to estimate lexical
diversity?
 How are lexical diversity and the number of omission
errors tied to oral language proficiency?
ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY
(Jacobsona and Waldera, 2013)
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
 Language Sample Analysis is a valuable tool in
bilingual assessment.
 Measures for this study can be readily applied to
other languages.
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
A) Pre-screen
-Comment/concern from school provider/
administrator
-Comment/concern from parent
-Classroom observation
-Other??
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
B) Screening
I. Classroom observation
II. Screening tool- formal or informal
III. Language sample
IV. Informal conversation with teacher
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
C) Referral
I. Demographic Info
II. Parent Interview
-languages at home, literacy level of
parents, home activities,
developmental history, health
information
III. Language Proficiency
-ELL teacher report, ACCESS/CELA
scores, supports provided
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
C) Referral (ct’d.)
IV. Education history
-history in/out of district,
interventions, language of
instruction, ESL supports
V. Educational team members
-names, titles, and contact info
C) Referral
Adams 12 Referral Form
Aurora Referral Form
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation
*Establishment of dominant language
-Parent report
-School provider report
-Informal pre-assessment
-other options: language proficiency
screening (Student Oral Language
Observation Matrix), recess/lunch
observation
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation
*Establishment of dominant language
-ASK THE STUDENT!
-Woodcock Munoz Language Survey
-Different types of language dominance:
receptive vs expressive
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation
I. “Standardized” Assessment
II. Language Sample
-language sample
sentence length, grammar skills,
vocabulary, amount and type of
code-switching, length of sample,
organization, overall level of comfort
III. Classroom observation
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation
IV. Student Records- CELA, ACCESS, grades,
incident reports, etc.
V. Gathering of additional information if
necessary- parent report, school provider report,
additional testing, additional observation
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores
• IDEA guidelines: use a variety of measures and tools,
and do not rely on any single measure
• Limitations of standardized tests that are in other
languages and/or norm-referenced on individuals who
speak a language other than English:
- linguistic and cultural biases
- standardization samples do not take education
levels, acculturation levels, background
experiences, bilingual abilities, or dialect
differences into account
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores
• Students who are not reflected in the normative group
for the test’s standardization sample: test scores are
invalid
• Formal tests may be administered informally to gather
more information about the student’s language
abilities, but the scores are invalid
- rewording, providing additional prompts,
repeating items, asking student to explain
incorrect answers
- conceptual scoring
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores
• Many scores should not be reported
• All scores should be interpreted with caution
• Example statements
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Colorado Severity Rating Scales
• Appendix discusses use with CLD students
• Can be used as additional data point in body of
evidence
-should not be overemphasized or used alone
•Must be used in collaboration with ELD teacher
Example statement #1:
This evaluator has arrived at the conclusion that XXX difficulties in XXX are not
primarily due to a lack of English proficiency or other cultural factors.
XXX's speech and language skills must be considered within the context of XXX
status as an English language learner. Though XXX communicated primarily in
XXX, XXX did also demonstrate language skills in XXX. This evaluator has
carefully considered these factors (as well as parent and teacher report,
therapist observation, standardized assessment results, and a language
sample) in determining XXX eligibility for special education services. The
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Fourth Edition (CELF 4) Spanish
Edition was used to evaluate XXX language skills. The CELF 4 Spanish Edition is
standardized for Spanish-language administration; however, so as to best
account for XXX overall language skills, this evaluation was completed under
the principles of conceptual scoring. Therefore, items were presented in both
languages, and responses were accepted in both languages. For these
reasons, standard scores are not reported. The results are considered to be an
accurate reflection of XXX overall communication skills.
Example Statement #2
XXX's speech and language skills must be considered within the
context of XXX status as an English language learner. Though XXX
communicated primarily in XXX, XXX did also demonstrate language
skills in XXX. This evaluator has carefully considered these factors (as
well as parent and teacher report, therapist observation, standardized
assessment results, and a language sample) in determining XXX
eligibility for special education services. The Preschool Language
Scales Fifth Edition (PLS 5) Spanish Edition was used to evaluate XXX's
speech and language skills. The test is standardized for administration
in both XXX and XXX. For this reason, items were presented in each
language and XXX responded in each language. The results are
considered to be an accurate reflection of XXX overall communication
skills. Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP, XXX.
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
E) Determination of Eligibility
"Standardized
Assessment"
Parent Report
School Provider
Report/School
Records
Classroom
Observation
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
F) IEP MEETING
I. Previewing information with the interpreter
II. Confirm that observations of language
dominance/overall performance is consistent
with what is happening at home
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
G) Guidelines for working with an interpreter when
assessing a student in another language: slideshow
presentation from Teresa Gillespie at DPS (teresagillespie.wikispaces.dpsk12.org
I. Meeting before the assessment (briefing)
II. During the assessment
III. After the assessment (debriefing)
IV. Report of evaluation results with the use of an
interpreter
V. Helpful suggestions
VI. Resources
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Speech Assessment
• Phonemes develop similarly in each language
• Varying phonotactics create most speech difficulties
• Generally speaking, speech sound production
impairments/delays will be present in both languages
• Observation and language sample are effective for
evaluating intelligibility
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Speech Assessment
• Contextual Probes of Articulation
Competence-Spanish Edition (CPAC-S)
-Norm-referenced 3:0-8:11
• WHEN IN DOUBT, ASSESS!!
CASE STUDY #1
I. Pre-screen and screening
EMAIL #1
Lead SLP,
Kate suggested that I email you about this student - Joe(Freshman) who
has an eligibility review on 10/8.
He states that he thinks in both Spanish and English (doesn't have to
translate much). Very slow to answer questions in English and answers
are very abbreviated. When asked an open ended question, does not
supply specific information. The 2010 ER does not have testing data to
support his decreased fluency/verbal output in English conversation.
The 2010 ER did give him 160 minutes with the LS and/or SLP with goals
in academics - none in speech.
EMAIL #1 Ct’d.
Following AR the SLP was removed from services. His grades are probably
reflecting a lot of hard work and concerted effort on his part - working at his
highest level. He has C's. He reports that French is the hardest. Kate, Jane,
and I question his placement in this class. He is labeled as ELL. He doesn't
really know what he wants to do after HS but I talked to him about a career
in sports where he decided he would like to work for a team taking care of
equipment.
Parents: Dad works in carpet and is bilingual. Mom takes care of youngest
sibling (age 1) and is trying to learn English. ***We'll need an interpreter for
the IEP. He stated that he needs lots of help with spelling in both English
and Spanish. Doesn't really have hobbies - plays video games (sports) and
sports outside.
EMAIL #1 Ct’d.
So my questions are:
What happened with the scars on his head? I did find out that he
has a history of a benign neoplasm (brain surgery) - no date. Does
he have a history of brain injury as a result of the surgery? Should he
be tested "bilingual testing for SL eligibility? I think he is low in both
languages but since I don't speak Spanish, not sure.
Is there a waiting list to get bilingual testing at XHS and from my
information, should this be explored?
Thanks for your help – SLP #1
EMAIL #2
SLP #1,
You can contact Eric Schliemann, our bilingual SLP, to receive
consultation and potential testing in Spanish for this student!
Sounds complex!
Lead SLP
EMAIL #3
Eric,
Wanted to let you know that my time as sub is over Monday the 28th. SLP
#2 will be the FT SLP at XHS. So please follow up with her on Joe’s referral
for Bilingual testing. SLP #1
EMAIL #4
Hi SLP,
I did receive the referral packet for Joe. Thank you for sending it. At this
point, it looks like the IEP has been completed so I am not sure how the
Bilingual Consultation Team can be of assistance to you. Please let us
know! Eric
EMAIL #5
Hey Eric,
The team had the IEP meeting, but did not give Speech services, because
we need more information to determine if there is a need. The idea is
that once the bilingual information/testing is completed, we will then
have another meeting with the family and add speech services at that
time through an amendment process, should this be needed. If you have
any additional questions, just let me know.
Thanks!
SLP #2
II. Referral Form/Information
A) Parent Interview
II. Referral Form/ Information
B) Referral Form
II. Referral Form/ Information
C. ACCESS/ CELA Scores
CELA
07-08
OVERALL PROFICIENCY
1
08-09
09-10
10-11
2
1
3
11-12
3
II. Referral Form/ Information
C. ACCESS/ CELA Scores
ACCESS SCORES
Listening
2.9
Speaking
6.0
Oral Language
4.4
Overall Language
2.9
III. Evaluation
A. CELF 4 Spanish Edition
Results
Receptive Language- 77
Expressive Language- 85
III. Evaluation
B. Language Sample
In Spanish: The boy is fishing. The boy trapped a fish.
He tried to get it out but he couldn’t. He thought it
was a fish but it was a turtle.
In English: The kid tries to get the turtle away from
the dog. The turtle tries to chase. The leave to a safe
place where they were before…the kid’s mad at the
dog ‘cause the turtle dies…the frog is on top of the
turtle and the dog’s happy.
IV. Additional Evaluation Information
A. CELF Teacher Rating Form
TEACHER
#1
TEACHER #2
IV. Additional Evaluation Information
B. Teacher Report
Teacher #1
Joe has quite a bit of difficulty following multiple step directions. He is
unable to follow multiple steps without repeat and clarification.
Understanding new ideas is the same. He understands simple concepts,
but struggles with higher level thinking. Hope that makes sense. Joe can
follow directions after a routine has been established. New directions
and directions with multiple steps he struggles with. He appears to be
progressing somewhat slower than his peers.
Teacher #2
No concerns but he is in a class with three teachers. We have a 1 to 6
ratio and that might be the difference.
IV. Additional Evaluation Information
C. School-Based SLP Report
• Limited interactions with student
• Not particularly outgoing
• English language skills appear slightly low though
within functional limits
IV. Additional Evaluation Information
D. Bilingual Psych Report
Report on Cognitive Testing results:
I don’t think I will give him a Spanish language
evaluation because the school psych gave him the
KABC and he did okay. He was quite low on working
memory and a little low on long-term. Reasoning and
visual processing is within the average range. He
seems like a kid with the profile of a student with a
learning disability.
IV. Additional Evaluation Information
E. Bilingual SLP Observation
• Used social language to interact with peers
• Limited participation in classroom
discussion
• Responded to one teacher question with a
complete sentence
V. Additional “Standardized” Testing
Results
• Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test
Spanish Edition- 107 (for highest age range- 12)
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Fourth Edition- 93
CASE STUDY #2
Background information:
 4th grade student
 Initial evaluation
 Lived and went to school in Mexico in kindergarten
and first grade, has been in APS since second grade
 Parents sent him to US to live with his grandma
 Behavior issues due to separation from his parents
 Received interventions through RTI for reading and
behavior since third grade, math since fourth grade
CASE STUDY #2
Language Proficiency:
 Spanish is primary language spoken at home, but has
an uncle and cousins that speak some English to him
 Student has been exposed to English for only 2.5
years
 His grandma reported that he uses more Spanish at
home; student reported that he felt he was stronger
in English
 2nd grade CELA: Speaking-EI, Listening-B
 3rd grade ACCESS: Speaking-2.5, Listening-2.9
CASE STUDY #2
Additional information:
 On the referral form, the referring teacher said that his
growth in English was behind his other ELL peers.
 During a cultural interview with the student’s grandma,
she did not indicate any concerns with his communication
abilities in Spanish at home.
CASE STUDY #2
Evaluation results
 Tested in English by school SLP, tested in Spanish by
district bilingual SLP
 CELF-4 Spanish results:
- Core language score 83 (interpret with caution)
- Strengths: repeating sentences, word classes,
formulating sentences
- Weaknesses: concepts and following directions,
expressive vocabulary, and understanding paragraphs
(did better with this in English
CASE STUDY #2
Evaluation results, ct’d.
 Language sample:
- simple, complete sentences with correct grammar
- able to explain how to do something in sequence
- used past tense to tell a story about pictures
- needed prompting to give more details and
information
- able to answer inference questions
 Articulation: substituted j/rr, but completely
intelligible in spontaneous speech
CASE STUDY #2
Analysis and Conclusions
 Spanish dominant
 Demonstrated basic, foundational language skills in
Spanish
 Weaknesses in expressive vocabulary and following
directions with concepts – due to underlying language
disorder, or lack of exposure to these words/concepts?
 Decision at IEP meeting: did not qualify for SLI at this
time; language skills should be re-evaluated again in 1-2
years.
BILINGUAL SLP Q & A
• Share bilingual resources
• Question and Answer
RESOURCES
 Bilingual SLP Providers Group:
(http://groups.google.com/group/co-bilingual-slpproviders)
 Colorín Colorado (www.colorincolorado.org)
 2 Languages 2 Worlds
(2languages2worlds.wordpress.com)
 ASHA position
(www.asha.org/practice/multicultual/issues/pp.htm)
 Bilingual Therapies (www.bilingualtherapies.com)
RESOURCES
 Bilinguistics (www.bilinguistics.com)
 The Speech Stop (www.thespeechstop.com)
 Omniglot (online encyclopedia of writing systems and
languages: www.omniglot.com)
 Phonetic inventories
(www.asha.org/about/leadershipprojects/multicultural/Phono.html)
RESOURCES
 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Consortium
(contact Julie Ignacz at
[email protected])
 Colorado Bilingual Mental Health Network
- contact Cameran: [email protected]
- website: http://www.sharedwork.org/web/rtico-bilingual-school-psychologists/home
 Speak Colors Spanish Language app for iPads
RESOURCES
 Teresa Gillespie from Denver Public Schools (teresa-
gillespie.wikispaces.dpsk12.org)
 Adams 12 Bilingual Consultation Team
(https://sites.google.com/a/adams12.org/bct-2/)
 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Toolkit provided
through CDE (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/cld)
 Colorado Severity Rating Scale
(http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/sli_guideli
nes_0.pdf)
QUESTIONS? EMAIL US!
Lynette- [email protected]
Eric- [email protected]

similar documents