Culturally Responsive Practices In Schools: Checklist To Address Disproportionality

The Checklist to Address Disproportionality

Madison (WI) Metropolitan School District University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

November 2007 This document can be found online at http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/disp-cadse-cklst.doc Table of Contents

Process 3

Purpose 4

Related Wisconsin Requirements 5 Sections of the Checklist: Overview 6

Section I: Culturally Responsive Beliefs and Practices of Schools and General Education Classrooms 8

School Culture and Supports 9 Instructional Team Beliefs 12 Instructional Team Practices 15

Section II: Culturally Responsive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (EIS) & Referral to Special Education 18

Section III: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision Making: Evaluation and Eligibility Determination 23

A: Assessment and Evaluation - K-12 24 B: Eligibility Determination - K-12 27 C: Review of Existing Data - Early Childhood 32 D: Assessment and Evaluation – Early Childhood 36 E: Eligibility Determination – Early Childhood 39 F: Review of Existing Data – Transfer Students 43 G: Eligibility Determination – Transfer Students 47 2 This project was developed to address disproportionality of students of color in special education. It was funded by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction through a mini-grant on disproportionality. The product was completed through a collaborative effort between the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD), the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh (UW-O), and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI).

Process

These materials were developed over a two-year period. During Year One, the UW-O research team met with MMSD staff to outline the project and set up timelines. The UW-O team then completed the research phase of the project. A comprehensive literature review around disproportionality was conducted. As well, the team reviewed IEP team records from MMSD. Seventy-five records of initial evaluations for special education and transfer records were reviewed, including files from elementary, middle, and high school. Records of students evaluated for specific learning disabilities (SLD) and/or emotional behavioral disabilities (EBD) were reviewed, as were records of some students who were white, some who were African American, and some who were Native American.

The next step was the validation process. A focus group of special education program support teachers, school psychologists, and others involved in the special education assessment process met to provide input on questions such as exclusionary factors, referral beliefs and practices, assessment factors, IEP team factors, staff needs and suggestions. Approximately one month later, a second focus group, consisting of the MMSD positive behavioral supports team, met to provide their perceptions of the pre-referral intervention process, consideration of exclusionary factors, general education experiences, and the conceptualization of the checklist. A final set of five focus group sessions were conducted with special education and program support teachers, school psychologists, related services personnel, principals, and other district administrators, for specific feedback on the draft checklist. A survey of MMSD staff on checklist items helped reduce the number.

Positive feedback on the use of checklist included the following:

 Useful in helping staff articulate professional development needs and school improvement goals;  Led to deeper discussions about students of color and more patience in pre-referral interventions;  Led to better documentation of pre-referral interventions and eligibility determination discussions; and,  Caused staff to look beyond student deficits and focus more on environmental context.

Staff expressed some concerns and raised issues such as:

 Consistency in using the checklist from team to team and school to school;  Some factors (e.g., economic disadvantage, culture) were difficult to evaluate and discuss with parents;

3  More specific guidelines (e.g., how long to try an intervention before formal referral) were needed;  Still a professional judgment call;  Need for more support options for at risk students;  Difficult to determine impact of factors on learning and behavior – issue of primacy; and,  Some parents viewed discussion of factors as barriers to necessary services.

Year Two development activities were focused on implementation of the checklist. It was field tested in 10 MMSD elementary schools, with goals including:

 Sharing local subgroup data with staff to convince them the severe nature of the disproportionality problem at their school;  Providing related staff training to all staff prior to implementing the checklist;  Aligning the checklist with other existing paperwork (e.g. IEP forms) to ensure consistency;  Integrating the implementation of the checklist with other existing structures/programs to avoid redundancy;  Compiling a list of concrete examples of culturally responsive practice;  Arranging opportunities for staff to observe culturally responsive practices whenever appropriate; and,  Ensuring teacher buy-in vs. perception of a top-down approach or flashy bandwagon.

The guiding principle for implementation was Equal Treatment Criterion of Fairness1. Simply stated, this principle means “given the same behaviors or symptoms, the same decisions are made at the referral, assessment, and placement steps regardless of the race or ethnicity of the student”.

As implementation continued, checklist items were continually reviewed and decisions made about combining or eliminating some items to focus in on key items and create a useable tool. In addition, two offshoots were developed – one for early childhood and one for evaluating transfer student records. Finally, draft checklists were forwarded to WDPI for review, revision, and dissemination.

Purpose

The overrepresentation of racially, culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse (RCELD) students in special education is well documented. (For purposes of this checklist, any reference to students of RCELD shall include students of racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity). Any effort to respond to the issue of a disproportionate number of students of RCELD being placed into special education programs must consider both external and internal factors. This is not only a special education issue and some sections of the

1 Reschly, D.J. (1988) . Minority MMR overrepresentation and special education reform. Exceptional Children, 54, 316-323.

4 checklist address issues broader than special education eligibility. Some sections are related to the special education evaluation process, but others look at school climate and pre-referral strategies.

The checklist is designed to assist school staff in thinking more deeply about issues and practices which may contribute to the overrepresentation of RCELD students in special education. It will help staff in identifying and discussing relevant external factors (e.g., impact of high stakes assessment and accountability demands, school district priorities and policies, etc.) and internal factors (e.g., school culture and supports, regular education teacher beliefs and practices, early intervening services, and IEP processes at the referral, evaluation, and special education eligibility determination stages).

The purpose of the checklist is to:

1. guide schools in eliminating the misidentification of students of RCELD in special education and to 2. ensure that only students with disabilities (an impairment(s) and a need for special education) are placed into special education programs based upon a comprehensive evaluation process and application of existing eligibility criteria.

This checklist is not intended to be used for teacher or program evaluation. The checklist is designed for school-age students (K-12). There is an adapted checklist for use with early childhood students, and another variation for transfer students. The process reflected in the checklist promotes a multi-tiered, problem-solving approach. This approach provides focus on early intervening services and accurate special education identification that will reduce the achievement gap and address the disproportionate representation of students of RCELD in special education.

As the checklist is used, keep in mind no one question stands alone as critical, or automatically generates a response one way or the other in a section. One must review and consider the instrument as a whole and factor in all of the responses to all of the questions when making decisions.

Related Wisconsin Requirements

In conducting appropriate assessments to determine special education eligibility, IEP teams in Wisconsin must ensure:

“That assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this section are selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory and are provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.” (§115.782(2)(a) 3 a, Wisconsin Statutes)

5 Further, there is one exclusionary factor applicable to all disability areas:

“…The team may not determine that a child is a child with a disability if the determinant factor for the determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction, as defined in 20 USC 6368 (3), or lack of instruction in math, or because the child has limited proficiency in English.” (§115.782 (3) (a), Wisconsin Statutes)

The Wisconsin eligibility criteria for emotional behavioral disability (EBD) does not include any exclusionary factors specific to EBD. There is a paragraph in the criteria which is neither inclusionary nor exclusionary, and reads as follow:

“The IEP team may not identify or refuse to identify a child as a child with an emotional behavioral disability solely on the basis that the child has another disability, or is socially maladjusted, adjudged delinquent, a dropout, chemically dependent, or a child whose behavior is primarily due to cultural deprivation, familial instability, suspected child abuse or socio-economic circumstances, or when medical or psychiatric diagnostic statements have been used to describe the child’s behavior.” [Wisconsin Administrative Code PI 11.36(7)(d)]

The Wisconsin eligibility criteria for specific learning disability (SLD) were in the process of being revised at the time this checklist was developed (2005-2007). However, IEP teams have a continuing responsibility to consider the “effects of a visual, hearing or physical (motor) disability; cognitive disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage; or limited English proficiency on the student’s achievement level.” [DPI Sample Form ER-2, Additional Documentation Required When Child Is Evaluated For Specific Learning Disabilities, Item H. Available at http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/form-er2.doc ]

Finally, when assigning IEP team participants, it is important to remember the “spirit” of the law requires adequate expertise for decision making. The “letter” of the law establishes the minimum participants for an IEP team, but often adding more participants is good practice as the team works to gather information for sound decision making.

Sections of the Checklist: Overview

Section I : Culturally Responsive Beliefs and Practices of Schools and General Education Classrooms

This section is designed to review the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the school-wide and general education classroom practices, services and programs. It provides a school and general classroom profile which establishes necessary context in assessing any student’s academic and behavioral performance, and can be reviewed or completed annually for each school. District-wide support for the completion of this section is critical, and it is important to identify any school-wide issues which may contribute to disproportionality.

6 This section could be completed on an annual basis, or more frequently if circumstances warrant. Input from the responses will assist schools in developing an improvement action plan, and this could serve as part of a school improvement plan.

Section II: Culturally Responsive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (EIS), Pre-Referral Interventions, and Referral for Special Education

This section focuses on the early coordinated interventions including classroom specific supports, school wide supports, and time limited specialized support. It is more selective, since not all students’ educational experiences will be reviewed and assessed at this stage. There is an assumption that school personnel will not view a special education referral of a student of RCELD as inevitable. Use of the checklist encourages development of appropriate supplementary services and accommodations to address a student of RCELD who has academic and behavioral concerns within the general education classroom, and is completed for each student when early intervening services are needed.

Section III: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision Making – Evaluation and Eligibility Determination

At this stage, the student has been referred for special education evaluation, during which specific issues, beliefs, and practices pertaining to special education referral, assessment, and eligibility determination are reviewed and assessed. There are three parts of the checklist in this section:

 Evaluation and eligibility determination for students K-12;  Review of existing data, evaluation and eligibility determination for early childhood age students; and,  Review of existing data, evaluation and eligibility determination for transfer students.

The following individuals were instrumental in the development of the checklist:

Madison (WI) Metropolitan School District, Division of Educational Services: Sara Halberg, Dr. Jack Jorgensen University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Special Education Department: Dr. Bert Chiang, Dr. Craig Fiedler, Dr. Barbara Van Haren Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Special Education Team: Lynn Boreson, Dr. Donna Hart-Tervalon, Patricia Williams

Special thanks to Jerry Wieland, Green Bay Area Public Schools, for his review and comments.

7 The Checklist to Address Disproportionality

Section I: Culturally Responsive Beliefs and Practices of Schools and General Education Classrooms

School/District Name: ______

Completed by: ______

Date Completed: ______

8 I. Culturally Responsive Beliefs and Practices of Schools and General Education Classrooms

Respondents: The school can determine the respondents that are best suited to complete the section of the checklist. The individuals completing this section of the checklist should have knowledge about school wide policies and practices. Quality Indicators: Examples of best practices are offered to illustrate appropriate responses to the critical questions. The list may be edited to reflect options available locally. Rubrics: A rubric is provided for each critical question to assess to what degree the school has addressed each item.

Note: To be as inclusive as possible, references to families within this checklist may refer to biological parents, step-parents, adoptive or foster parents, legal guardians, other family members such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. and to “social family members.” Social family members are not biologically related members of the student’s family, but, nevertheless, play an important part in the student’s family life and upbringing.

Critical Questions Respondent Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable) School Culture and Supports  School environment contains 1. Does the school culture support evidence of contributions/work 1. The school makes little or no attempt to acknowledge and celebrate and celebrate diversity and view from individuals with diverse diversity. students of RCELD (racial, cultural, backgrounds on a regular basis, 2. The school acknowledges and celebrates diversity during a special time ethnic and linguistic diversity) as not just during a special week or of the school year. assets? month 3. The school and classrooms acknowledge and celebrate diversity on a  Classrooms contain evidence of regular basis. contributions/work from 4. Acknowledgement and celebration of diversity permeates the school and individuals with diverse classrooms with frequent and varied examples. backgrounds  Students of RCELD are regularly recognized and honored for their work  Bilingual programming  Materials translated for non- English speaking families

 School has established procedures 1. The school does not have a positive behavioral support system in place. 2. Does the school have a positive that emphasize positive behaviors 2. The school has begun to implement a positive behavioral support system behavioral support system for ALL and regularly recognizes students for for all students. students? displaying appropriate behaviors 3. The school has implemented a positive behavioral support system for all  School staff have been trained in the students and staff have been trained in its use. implementation of a positive 4. The school has implemented a positive behavioral support system for all behavioral support system  Classroom incentive plans for students, staff have been trained in its use, and school staff regularly positive behavior discuss the effectiveness of school-wide positive behavioral support interventions.

9  Numerous examples of regular 3. Has the school principal collaboration between general and 1. The prevailing attitude of school staff fosters isolation and little or no established an attitude amongst staff special education teachers collaborative interaction between general education teachers, special education that “all students are our students”  IEPs of students of RCELD in teachers, and other support staff (e.g., related services, ESL). 2. The prevailing attitude of school staff fosters minimal collaborative interaction as opposed to an attitude of “my inclusive classes are regularly shared with general education between general education teachers, special education teachers, and other support students and your students?” teachers and include numerous staff. examples of classroom 3. The prevailing attitude of school staff fosters regular collaborative interaction accommodations/modifications between general education teachers, special education teachers, and other support  Master schedules allow maximum staff. time for shared planning and 4. The prevailing attitude of school staff fosters extensive and effective teaching collaborative interaction between general education teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff.  Classroom time in general education 4. Do teachers (e.g. general settings is devoted to social skills 1. There is little or no collaboration between general education teachers, special education, ESL, special education) instruction and problem solving education teachers, and other support staff (e.g., related services, ESL). work collaboratively to support all skills 2. There is minimal collaboration between general education teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff. students?  When necessary, students of RCELD in general education 3. There is regular collaboration between general education teachers, special classrooms have behavioral education teachers, and other support staff. management systems that address 4. There is extensive and effective collaboration between general education individual cultural differences teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff.  Peer support mentors are provided  Co-teaching observed  Co-planning observed

5. Are differentiated reading  Reading teachers or specialists are 1. There are no differentiated reading interventions provided to students of RCELD interventions (e.g., Title I, Read providing services to students of in general education classrooms. All students in general education receive the same 180, Reading Recovery) available to RCELD in inclusive environments type and intensity of reading instruction. 2. General education teachers receive consultation services from special education students of RCELD?  Reading teachers/specialists are regularly consulting with general teachers, reading teachers or other specialists periodically. There is some education teachers on reading differentiation of reading interventions for students of RCELD in general education interventions and the effects of the classrooms. interventions 3. General education teachers receive consultation and direct services from special  Multiple reading levels and education teachers, reading teachers or other specialists regularly. There are instructional groupings are used by numerous examples of differentiation of reading interventions for students of general education teachers RCELD in general education classrooms.  ESL, Special Ed and General Ed 4. General education teachers receive consultation and direct services from special staff receive common professional education teachers, reading teachers or other specialists on a regular and consistent development basis. There are numerous examples of differentiation of reading interventions for  When necessary, 1-to-1 reading students of RCELD in general education classrooms. support is provided daily

10  Problem-solving teams are 6. Has the school adopted a problem active and engaged in problem 1. The school has not implemented a problem solving process to review the solving approach that values solving discussions on a regular academic performance of students of RCELD. assessment to drive instructional basis 2. The school has implemented a problem solving process to review the decisions?  Examples of problem-solving academic performance of students of RCELD. Systematic implementation teams implemented interventions and monitoring of recommended interventions is inconsistent. with data on targeted behavior(s) 3. The school has implemented a problem solving process to review the of a student of RCELD for a academic performance of students of RCELD. Systematic implementation reasonable amount of time. and monitoring of recommended interventions is usually provided.  Problem-solving teams provided 4. The school has implemented a problem solving process to review the follow-up support and academic performance of students of RCELD. Systematic implementation monitoring of planned and monitoring of recommended interventions is always provided and there interventions is ample evidence of revisions to interventions based upon analyzed  Families encouraged to performance data. participate in problem solving discussions  Data from general education classroom interventions designed to provide academic and/or behavioral support to a student of RCELD  Principal regularly commits 7. Do school teams receive additional resources to address 1. There is little or no administrative support/additional resources provided sufficient administrative support the needs of a student of RCELD to address the needs of students of RCELD. when expressing concerns about  Problem-solving teams regularly 2. On an infrequent basis there is some administrative support/additional meeting the needs of students of shares concerns with the resources provided to address the needs of students of RCELD. RCELD? administration about 3. On a regular basis there is some administrative support/additional issues/resources impacting a resources provided to address the needs of students of RCELD. students of RCELD 4. On a regular basis there is effective administrative support/additional  Professional development resources provided to address the needs of students of RCELD. School support is provided to assist teams can count on administrative advocacy and creative problem solving general education teachers in in attempts to address the needs of students of RCELD. meeting the needs of students of RCELD  School/home connection activities

11  School examples of services 8. Has the school established a available to all students (e.g., 1. The school has not implemented a multi-tiered (e.g., prevention, multi-tiered model of intervention school-wide positive behavioral intervention, and specialized support) model of intervention services. services? support system, instructional 2. The school has implemented a multi-tiered model of intervention strategies in reading and math, services but differentiated interventions for students of RCELD in need are differentiated curriculum, test inconsistent. taking strategies) 3. The school has implemented a multi-tiered model of intervention  School examples of time limited services and there are numerous examples of differentiated interventions specialized services for students for students of RCELD in need. of RCELD (e.g., extra support in 4. The school has implemented a multi-tiered model of intervention the classroom, small group or services and the extent of differentiated interventions for students of 1:1 instruction, home support, students is significant. tutors, after school programs)  School examples of long term intensive specialized support services for students of RCELD (e.g., collaboration with community programs, crisis response plan)  Clear guidelines and criteria have been established to move students from one tier to another

Instructional Team Beliefs

 School and classroom 1. School teams believe that general education classroom performance problems of 9. Do school teams actively environmental assessment is students of RCELD primarily stem from student deficits and special education consider other possible explanations conducted to determine possible referral is the preferred option. (e.g., insufficient instruction, explanations for the problems 2. School teams believe that general education classroom performance problems of students of RCELD may not always stem from student deficits but special limited English proficiency, family experienced by the student of RCELD education referral tends to be the preferred option. risk factors) for the student of  Systematic use of curriculum-based 3. School teams believe that general education classroom performance problems of RCELD who has low achievement, assessment and error analyses data students of RCELD may stem from multiple issues (e.g., student deficits, rather than automatically assuming  Problem-solving teams cultural/linguistic/family risk factors, and mismatch between instructional and a disability? recommendations focus on positive learning styles) and numerous general education classroom interventions are behavioral interventions & student employed prior to special education referral. strengths 4. School teams believe that general education classroom performance problems of  Delineated and comprehensive students with RCELD may stem from multiple issues. Based upon a thorough referral process analysis of the instructional environment, an extensive array of general education classroom interventions are implemented prior to special education referral.

12 10. Does the Instructional Team  If applicable, the instructional 1. The impact of excessive absences or family mobility were not actively consider whether absence team discusses a student of considered by the Instructional Team. or parent/family mobility of the RCELD and his/her excessive 2. Excessive absences or family mobility were discussed by the student of RCELD negatively school absence or past history of Instructional Team, but there was no detailed analysis of the impact on the impacts continuity of general mobility. continuity of general education classroom instruction for the student of education classroom instruction?  Strategies to increase attendance RCELD. have been documented 3. Excessive absences or family mobility were discussed by the  Student and family support from Instructional Team with detailed analysis of the impact on the continuity of school staff for attendance issues general education classroom instruction for the student of RCELD.  Home visits 4. Excessive absences or family mobility were discussed by the Instructional Team with detailed and incisive analysis of the impact on the continuity of general education classroom instruction for the student with RCELD, and recommendations on how to minimize the instructional impact in the future.

 School hosts events for 11. Has the Instructional Team parents/families of students of 1. The school has made little or no effort to collaborate with families of made concerted efforts to reach out RCELD on a regular basis (e.g., students of RCELD. to parents/family members of potluck meals, parent groups) 2. The school has made some effort to collaborate with families of students students of RCELD by fostering  School provides opportunities of RCELD by inviting them to school meetings. collaboration, mutual trust, and for parents/family members of 3. The school regularly reaches out to families of students of RCELD by respect? students of RCELD to actively involving them in school meetings and problem solving participate in regularly discussions. scheduled meetings outside the 4. The school actively seeks the involvement and decision making input of school setting (e.g, at families of students of RCELD and is committed to learning about the community centers) culture of those families and empowering them.  School administration promotes staff knowledge of diverse cultures  Problem-solving teams include parents/family members of students of RCELD in meeting discussions to formulate instructional and behavioral recommendations  Staff members offer to meet with parents outside the school setting (e.g., home visits or community sites)

13 1. The Instructional Team does not use peer supports in general education 12. Does the Instructional Team use  General education classroom classrooms. peer supports in the classroom? instructional groupings promote 2. The Instructional Team sometimes uses peer supports in general heterogeneous groups of education classrooms but instruction is usually whole class and teacher students working together directed.  Implement flexible groupings of 3. The Instructional Team regularly uses peer supports in general education students for different purposes classrooms and instruction is divided between whole group teacher directed  Reading buddies and small group student directed (e.g., cooperative learning groups, peer  Cooperative learning groups tutoring) learning.  Cross age peer tutoring 4. The Instructional Team regularly uses peer supports in general education classrooms and continuously seeks to empower students to take a more active responsibility for their learning and supporting each other.  General education classroom 13. Does the Instructional Team materials include stories and 1. The Instructional Team rarely incorporates culturally responsive incorporate culturally responsive perspectives from diverse cultures materials, content, and teaching practices. materials and content in the  General education classroom 2. The Instructional Team periodically incorporates culturally responsive curricula and use culturally instruction is varied (e.g., small materials and content but culturally responsive teaching practices are rarely group, cooperative learning high responsive teaching practices? displayed. teacher-student interaction)  High energy and animation in the 3. The Instructional Team regularly incorporates culturally responsive classroom, real world relevant materials, content, and teaching practices. learning activities, increased 4. The Instructional Team regularly incorporates culturally responsive teacher-student interactions materials, content, and teaching practices and school staff. School staff  Culturally responsive instruction constantly seek to add to their knowledge of culturally responsive practices including: acknowledging students’ and the academic performance data of students of RCELD in general differences as well as their education classrooms is regularly reviewed and analyzed to determine the commonalities, validating students’ effectiveness of staff practices. cultural identities in classroom practices, educating students about diversity, promoting equity and mutual respect among students, assessing students’ ability and achievement validly, motivating students to become active participants in their learning, encouraging students to think critically, challenging students to strive for excellence, assisting students in becoming socially and politically conscious  Instructional use of multiple intelligences & various learning styles

14 1. The Instructional Team does not systematically gather and analyze 14. Does the Instructional Team  Analyses of problem behaviors classroom performance data to identify the reasons for behavior, learning or actively seek to identify the reason are regularly conducted to assess other difficulties of a student of RCELD. for a RCELD student’s behavior, students of RCELD 2. The Instructional Team periodically gathers classroom performance data learning or other difficulties?  General education classroom but no attempt to systematically analyze that information to identify the examples of informal, reasons for behavior, learning, or other difficulties of students with RCELD curriculum-based, authentic is made. assessments on academic 3. The Instructional Team regularly gathers and analyzes classroom performance of students of performance data to identify the r4asons for behavior, learning or other RCELD difficulties of the student of RCELD.  General education classroom 4. The Instructional Team regularly gathers and analyzes classroom examples of error analyses performance data to identify the source(s) of behavior, learning, or other conducted on academic work of difficulties for the student of RCELD. This analysis of classroom students of RCELD performance data yields tentative hypotheses as to possible instructional  Parents are consulted to gain a environment variables that may be impact behavior, learning or other better understanding of parent difficulties. The Instructional Team seeks to verify these tentative expectations for the student hypotheses by collecting student performance data.

Instructional Team Practices

 General education classroom 15. Does the Instructional Team use examples of understanding 1. The Instructional Team does not consider the impact of culture on culturally responsive behavior behavioral differences of students of school performance of a student of RCELD. management practices by RCELD (e.g., expressed preference 2. The Instructional Team discussed the student’s culture but no systematic considering the impact of culture on for working individually or in analysis of its impact on school performance of a student with RCELD was groups, listening and responding school performance of a student of style, peer interaction patterns, conducted. RCELD? responses to authority, verbal and 3. The Instructional Team discussed the student’s culture and conducted a nonverbal communication, turn systematic analysis of its impact on school performance of a student of taking behaviors) RCELD.  General education classroom rules 4. The Instructional Team discussed the student’s culture and conducted a and procedures are accommodating systematic analysis of its impact on school performance of a student of to diverse student behavioral styles RCELD. The systematic analysis of the student’s culture and potential  Staff confer with family about home impact on behavior included staff discussions with the family about home expectations and behavior expectations and behavior management practices and staff self-assessments management practices of their own cultural expectations and practices.  Staff engage in self-assessments of their own cultural expectations and practices

15 1. The Instructional Team does not establish a classroom environment 16. Does the Instructional Team  General education classroom accepting of student differences. The classroom environment is managed establish a classroom environment examples of understanding poorly and is not conducive to student learning. that accepts individual student differences of students of 2. The Instructional Team does not establish a classroom environment differences and is positive, RCELD accepting of student differences. The classroom environment is primarily structured, and well managed?  General education classroom positive and well managed will all students having the same behavioral rules and procedures are expectations. accommodating to diverse 3. The Instructional Team does allow for individual student differences in student learning styles establishing its classroom environment. The classroom environment is  General education classroom primarily positive and well managed with some modification of classroom procedures and routines are rules and behavioral expectations to accommodate for individual student actively taught to students with differences. periodic reminders 4. The Instructional Team does allow for individual student differences in  General education classroom establishing its classroom environment. The classroom environment is transitions are short and smooth primarily positive and well managed with extensive modification of  General education teacher- classroom rules and behavioral expectations to accommodate for individual student interactions are positive student differences. The classroom environment establishes a climate that celebrates student differences. 1. The Instructional Team quite often does not maintain realistic and high 17. Does the Instructional Team set  General education teacher’s expectations for the achievement of students of RCELD. realistic, high expectations and expectations for achievement for 2. The Instructional Team usually maintains high expectations for the standards for students of RCELD? students of RCELD are realistic achievement of students of RCELD but quite often those high expectations  General education teachers set are unrealistic because the Instructional Team does not regularly engage in high expectations for students of culturally responsive teaching practices. RCELD 3. Instructional Team regularly maintains realistic and high expectations  Standards-based curriculum for for the achievement of students of RCELD. Realistic and high expectations all students for students of RCELD are periodically supported by culturally responsive teaching practices. 4. Instructional Team regularly maintains realistic and high expectations for the achievement of students of RCELD. Realistic and high expectations for students of RCELD are regularly supported by culturally responsive teaching practices.  Students are specifically taught 1. Systematic instruction in learning strategies is rarely, if ever, provided to students 18. Are learning strategies thinking skills, specific learning of RCELD. explicitly taught to students of strategies, cognitive behavioral 2. Learning strategies are sometimes explicitly taught to students of RCELD in RCELD? skills (e.g., stop-and-think) and general education classrooms. those skills are modeled 3. Learning strategies are regularly explicitly taught to students of RCELD in  All teachers regularly explain general education classrooms. how/why student’s responses are 4. Learning strategies are regularly explicitly taught to students of RCELD in correct and incorrect general education classrooms. Thinking skills used in completing and evaluating  Balanced literacy instruction with assignments are regularly clearly communicated to the students. thinking skills taught

16  General education teacher 19. Does the Instructional Team employs a variety of teaching 1. The Instructional Team does little or no differentiated instruction for accommodate the needs of students methods and materials students of RCELD. of RCELD through differentiated  Students of RCELD receive instruction that reflects the interests additional review and practice in 2. The Instructional Team regularly provides differentiated instruction in at and experiences of students of difficulty areas in the general least one of the five factors of instruction: RCELD? education classroom (1) content = what is taught,  General education classroom (2) process = how content is taught, teacher engages in direct, (3) product = how students demonstrate content mastery, frequent, and continuous (4) affect = how students connect their thinking and feelings, and monitoring of instruction and (5) learning environment = how the classroom is designed and students are student progress performance grouped.  General education classroom examples of differentiated 3. The Instructional Team regularly provides differentiated instruction in 2 instruction to address the needs or 3 of the five factors of instruction (see #2 above). of students of RCELD  General education classroom 4. The Instructional Team regularly provides differentiated instruction in 4 examples of individualized or 5 of the five factors of instruction (see #2 above). behavioral supports to address the needs of students of RCELD  Instruction builds upon existing student knowledge and experiences

Based on an analysis of the above statements, it is recommended that the following goals should be addressed in the improvement action plan:

Section II: Culturally Responsive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (EIS) & Referral to Special Education

Student:______Student #:______

School: ______Grade:______

Date completed: ______

18 II. Culturally Responsive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (EIS) and Referral

Critical Questions Respondent Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable)

1. Were early intervening or pre-  Building team meets as quickly 1. Student did not make progress. The duration, frequency and intensity of referral services provided in a as possible after a teacher intervention were below the level suggested. timely manner, for a reasonable identifies a need for EIS 2. Student did not make progress. The duration, frequency and intensity were duration, and with an intensive  Clear plan for student consistent with recommendations. enough approach? interventions 3. Student did not make progress. The duration, frequency and intensity of intervention exceeded the recommendations. 4. Student making progress with prevention/early intervention supports.  Previous year’s teachers are 2. Did the student receive a routinely invited to initial 1. One intervention has been tried. variety of services to address building team meetings to ensure 2. At least two intervention have been tried. individual needs? a smoother transition 3. Multiple, different strategies have been tried. 4. The team has implemented the appropriate interventions.  Counseling sessions are scheduled with students of RCELD to review expectations  A time/place for students of RCELD to receive individualized assistance with homework assignment has been established  Regular collaborative discussions to 1. The classroom teacher works in isolation and selected interventions to improve 3. Did the student’s classroom consider (a) specific student progress independently. teacher initiate and receive accommodations for individual 2. The classroom teacher consulted with at least one other staff member about support to select and implement students, (b) teacher and staff roles strategies to meet the student’s needs. appropriate interventions? and responsibilities are specified, 3. The classroom teacher consulted with other members of problem-solving teams. and (c) plans for monitoring, 4. The classroom teacher and his/her Instructional Team differentiated instruction for adjusting, and providing feedback this student and planned strategies to minimize learning barriers during regular co- are drafted and implemented planning sessions. cooperatively 19 1. Follow-up did not occur. 4. Did systematic follow-up  A team member is designated to 2. Follow-up and progress monitoring occurred only at the end of the implementation occur to ensure that be responsible for systematic period. Implementation lacked consistency and systematic approaches. interventions were implemented follow-up 3. Follow-up and monitoring usually occurred. Systematic implementation and as designed and student progress consistency may occasionally be lacking. was monitored? 4. Systematic follow-up occurred and adjustments were made as needed to ensure fidelity of implementation and progress monitoring occurred regularly.  Clear guidelines are established 5. Were the student’s parents/ for staff to use various 1. The student’s parents/family were not involved. family involved as an equal communication methods to 2. The student’s parents/ family were informed of concerns about the student. partner in the problem-solving report student progress to 3. The student’s parents/family were invited to participate in problem-solving but no process? parents/family members accommodations were made for the family.  Staff meets with parents/families 4. The student’s parents/family had an equal voice in problem-solving and decision- to prepare them to participate in making. problem solving discussions before those meetings take place.

6. Were community-based  Parents/family members are 1. Community-based services were not considered. services for the student and referred to appropriate 2. Community-based services were discussed, but follow-up with the family to his/her family considered and community agencies and connect them to services did not occur. offered, if appropriate? programs 3. Appropriate community-based services were considered and suggested.  Parents can have easy access to 4. Community-based services were considered. The student’s family was able to program brochure or flyers about select from several appropriate options and were assisted in accessing the desired community based services service(s).

 Building team records document 7. Based on review of existing discussion about cultural 1. Cultural difference was not considered. data, was cultural difference differences (e.g. interaction with 2. Cultural difference was discussed, but no detailed analysis of its effect on the considered a factor contributing authority figures, varied student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. to the student’s learning, expectations of school 3. Cultural difference was discussed with detailed analysis of its effect on the behavior, or other difficulties? personnel) and the effect on student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. . student’s learning, behavior, or 4. Cultural difference was discussed with detailed and incisive analysis of its effect on other difficulties the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties.  Building team records document 1. Excessive absences were not considered. 8. Based on review of existing discussion about the number of 2. Excessive absences were discussed, but no detailed analysis of its effect on the data, were excessive absences excused/unexcused absences, student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. considered a factor contributing truancies, and tardiness and the 3. Excessive absences were discussed with detailed analysis of its effect on the to the student’s learning, effects on student’s learning, student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. behavior, or other difficulties? behavior, or other difficulties 4. Excessive absences were discussed with detailed and incisive analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties.

20  Building team records document 9. Based on review of existing discussion about stressors in 1. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were not considered. data, were family risk factors home situation such as exposure 2. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were discussed, but no detailed analysis and/or family mobility to toxic substances or of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. considered a factor contributing violence/abuse and the effect on 3. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were discussed with detailed analysis of to the student’s learning, student’s learning, behavior, or its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. behavior, or other difficulties? other difficulties 4. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were discussed with detailed and incisive  Building team records document analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. discussion about the number of schools attended both within and outside of the district and its effect on student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties  Building team records document 10. Based on review of existing discussion about stressors (e.g. 1. Life stressors were not considered. data, were life stressors death of parent/family member, 2. Life stressors were discussed, but no detailed analysis of its effect on the student’s considered a factor contributing witness to violence, immigration learning, behavior, or other difficulties. to the student’s learning, trauma) and the effect on 3. Life stressors were discussed with detailed analysis of its effect on the student’s behavior, or other difficulties? student’s learning, behavior, or learning, behavior, or other difficulties. other difficulties 4. Life stressors were discussed with detailed and incisive analysis of its effect on the  Building team records document student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. discussion about various environments and the effect on student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties

11. Based on review of existing  Building team records document 1. Mismatch between instructional and learning styles was not considered. data, was mismatch between discussion about curriculum 2. Mismatch between instructional and learning styles was discussed, but no detailed instructional and learning styles changes, differentiated analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. in reading and/or math instruction, and the effect on 3. Mismatch between instructional and learning styles was discussed with detailed considered a factor contributing student’s learning, behavior, or analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. to the student’s learning, other difficulties. 4. Mismatch between instructional and learning styles was discussed with detailed and behavior, or other difficulties? incisive analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties.

21 12. Based on review of existing  Building team records document 1. Environmental and socioeconomic status were not considered. data, was environmental or discussion about environmental 2. Environmental and socioeconomic status were discussed, but no detailed analysis of socioeconomic status considered or socioeconomic status and the its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. a factor contributing to the effect on student’s learning, 3. Environmental and socioeconomic status were discussed with detailed analysis of student’s learning, behavior, or behavior, or other difficulties. its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. other difficulties? 4. Environmental and socioeconomic status were discussed with detailed and incisive analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties.

Based on an analysis of the data, is there a reason to suspect the student may have an impairment?

 Yes  No

Discussion:

Section III: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision Making – Evaluation and Eligibility Determination

Student:______Student #:______

School: ______Grade:______

This section of the checklist contains 2 parts:

A: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Assessment and Evaluation K-12 B: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Eligibility Determination K-12

23 A. Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Assessment and Evaluation K-12

Critical Questions Respondents Indicators of Quality Rubric Evidence and Documentation  Evaluation included standardized  IEP Evaluation 1. Were multiple tests that were normed based on 1. The evaluation included no standardized tests and Report measures/modalities of aculturally representative no informal evaluations such as curriculum-based  List measures of evaluation, including population measures, social history, observations, etc. evaluation: non-verbal instruments, 2. The evaluation included some standardized tests  Evaluation included other informal, and minimal evaluations such as curriculum-based when appropriate, age appropriate assessments, social measures, social history, observations, etc. conducted across settings and language history, observations, 3. The evaluation primarily included standardized and time and were they etc. from multiple sources in tests, and some informal evaluations such as social appropriate for the multiple environments history, observations, etc.  Other: student of RCELD?  Multiple perspectives were 4. The evaluation was comprehensive and included gathered by involving multiple standardized tests, informal evaluations parent/family, teacher, and student such as social history, observations, etc. and non- verbal measures when appropriate. (if appropriate)  Standardized tests included non- verbal measures when appropriate

1. Observation report did not provide numeric data, 2. Did observations of the  Observation report provided (e.g., % of time on task or # of interruptions; and  IEP Evaluation student of RCELD numeric data (e.g., % of time on did not include possible cultural reasons for Report include measurable and task or # of interruptions) identified behaviors. 2. Observation report provided minimal numeric  List data: observable data?  Narrative report providing possible data and minimally included possible cultural cultural reasons for identified reasons for identified behaviors. behaviors 3. Observation report provided some numeric data, and some possible cultural reasons for identified behaviors.  Other: 4. Observation report provided comprehensive numeric data, and possible cultural reasons for identified behaviors.

24 1. Evaluation included no social history with 3. Did the evaluation  Evaluation included a social history no information gathered from student or  IEP Evaluation team gather and consider with information gathered from a parent/family Report information about the home visit, non-school observation, .2. Evaluation included a social history with  Types of student’s home and etc. minimal information gathered from student or environmental family culture?  Multiple perspectives were parent/family evaluation: gathered including parent/family, 3. Evaluation included a social history with and student (if appropriate) some information gathered from student or parent/family  Other: 4. Evaluation included a comprehensive social history with information gathered from student or parent/family 1. When social/emotional/behavioral or 4. When significant  IEP team included appropriately medical concerns were expressed in the  Consent for Initial social, emotional, qualified staff who engaged in referral, IEP team did not include appropriate Evaluation Form behavioral or medical assessment activities staff, and/or no individually determined & IEP Evaluation concerns were expressed  Composition of IEP team and evaluation procedures. Report in the referral, were evaluation procedures were 2. When social/emotional/behavioral or  Staff Involved appropriate personnel, individually determined medical concerns were expressed in the and Activities: including pupil services referral, IEP team included some appropriate personnel, included or staff and/or some individually determined consulted in the evaluation procedures. evaluation activities, and 3. When social/emotional/behavioral or were evaluation medical concerns were expressed in the  Other: procedures individually referral, IEP team included many appropriate determined? staff and/or several individually determined evaluation procedures. 4. When social/emotional/behavioral or medical concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team included all appropriate staff and a completely individualized evaluation.

25 1. IEP team members did not involve 5. Were parents/family  IEP team members routinely parents/family or student, as appropriate in the  IEP Evaluation members and student, as provided written materials evaluation process. Report appropriate, regularly according to law and in native 2. IEP team members minimally involved  Dates and involved throughout the language, made phone calls or parents/family or student as appropriate in the documentation of evaluation process? home visits to garner parent/family evaluation process. parent/family member input 3. IEP team members involved parents/family contact or student as appropriate by providing one or Other: more of the following: written materials according to law and in native language, phone calls or home visits, etc. to garner input through out the evaluation process. 4. IEP team members involved parents/family or student as appropriate in the evaluation process by routinely providing written materials according to law and in native language, phone calls or home visits, etc. to garner input and involvement through out the evaluation process.

26 B. Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Eligibility Determination K-12

Critical Questions Respondents Indicators of Quality Rubric Evidence and Documentation

1. Were multiple attempts to involve  Alternative means for 1. Minimal or no efforts were made  IEP Evaluation parents /family members made during participation were to involve parents/family members. Report eligibility determination? offered such as 2. Three good faith attempts were  List evaluation teleconference, meeting made to involve parents/family tools and outside of school members. procedures: setting etc. 3. Three good faith attempts were  Transportation was made to involve parents/family arranged for the members and only one alternative for parents/family members participation was offered such as  Criteria documentation transportation was arranged to  Other: and checklist completed encourage attendance by after discussion and parents/family members, conclusion is reached at teleconference, meeting outside of IEP meeting school setting etc. 4. Three good faith attempts were made to involve parents/family members and more than one alternative for participation was offered such as transportation was arranged to encourage attendance by parents/family members, teleconference, meeting outside of school setting etc.

27 1. No classroom strategies to 2. Was the student’s RCELD a primary  IEP records document minimize racial, linguistic, cultural,  IEP Evaluation explanation for learning, behavior, or discussion about ethnic differences were provided. Report other difficulties? cultural or language 2. Few classroom strategies to  Other: differences and the minimize racial, linguistic, cultural, effect on student’s ethnic differences were provided, learning, behavior, or such as: behavioral and/or academic other difficulties support in their primary language at  The student has had appropriate level and duration, behavioral and/or incorporating the student’s home academic support in culture when establishing classroom their primary language norms and curriculum, involving the at appropriate level and parent and other staff/consultants of duration that race in developing strategies that  Classroom or other eliminate racism. settings provided 3. Some classroom strategies to strategies to minimize minimize racial, linguistic, cultural, RCELD differences ethnic differences were provided, were provided (e.g., such as: behavioral and/or academic incorporating the support in their primary language at student’s home culture appropriate level and duration, when establishing incorporating the student’s home setting norms and culture when establishing classroom curriculum, involving norms and curriculum, involving the the parent and others of parent and other staff/consultants of the same RCEL group that race in developing strategies that in developing eliminate racism. strategies, activities, 4. A number of classroom strategies and understanding of to minimize racial, linguistic, the child’s background cultural, ethnic differences were  Specific interventions provided, such as: behavioral and/or were documented academic support in their primary language at appropriate level and duration, incorporating the student’s home culture when establishing classroom norms and curriculum, involving the parent and other staff/consultants of that race in developing strategies that eliminate racism.

28 1. Student’s attendance is within 3. Were excessive absences the primary expectations and has not impacted the  IEP Evaluation explanation for the student’s learning,  IEP records document success of the student. Report behavior, or other difficulties? discussion about the 2. Student’s attendance exceeds 10  # of absences and number of excused, days, but has not impacted the timeframe: unexcused absences, success of the student. truancies, and tardiness 3. Student’s attendance exceeds 10 and its effect on days and has impacted the success of student’s learning, the student.  Other: behavior, or other 4. Student’s attendance greatly difficulties exceeds 10 days considered for habitual truancy and has significantly impacted the success of the student. 1. The student has not attended more 4. Was family mobility the primary  IEP records document than one school.  IEP Evaluation explanation for the student’s learning and discussion about the 2. The student has attended more than Report behavior, or other difficulties? number of schools one school, but the change has not  Other: attended both within affected the continuity of instruction and outside of the or success of the student. district, and the effect 3. The student has attended more than on student learning, one school and mobility has behavior, or other somewhat affected the continuity of difficulties instruction and success of the student 4. The student has attended multiple (3 or more) schools and mobility has significantly affected the continuity of instruction and success of the student.  IEP records document 1. IEP records indicate no discussion 5. Were life stressors (i.e., divorce, death discussion about stressors in about life stressors and the effect on  IEP Evaluation of a family member) or other factors the home situation, exposure to student’s learning, behavior or other Report primary explanation for the student’s toxic substances, difficulties. 2. IEP records document minimal  List any learning, behavior, or other difficulties? violence/abuse  IEP records document discussion about life stressors and the relevant discussion about stressors effect on student’s learning, behavior or stressors: such as death of parent/family other difficulties. member, witness to violence 3. IEP records document some discussion and the effect on student about life stressors and the effect on difficulties student’s learning, behavior or other  Other:  IEP records document difficulties. discussion about various 4. IEP records document full discussion environments and the effect on about life stressors and the effect on student difficulties student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.

29 1. The student received insufficient 6. Was insufficient instruction in instruction in reading and math (2 or  IEP Evaluation reading and/or math  IEP records document more of the following factors: no Report the primary explanation for the student’s discussion about curriculum changes, methodology  Other: learning, behavior, or other difficulties? curriculum changes, delivered as intended, and consistent inadequate instruction, exposure to instruction) and there methodology, etc. that was negative impact on student may have lead to a lack success . of learning 2. The student received inadequate instruction in reading and math (1 or more of the following factors: no curriculum changes, methodology delivered as intended, and consistent exposure to instruction) and there was negative impact on student success. 3. The student received insufficient instruction in reading and math (no curriculum changes, methodology delivered as intended and consistent exposure to instruction) and there was no impact on student success. 4. The student received sufficient instruction in reading and math (no curriculum changes, methodology delivered as intended and consistent exposure to instruction) and there was no impact on the student’s success. 1. The student has experienced three or 7. Were environmental and/or  IEP records document more factors and the factors have  IEP Evaluation socioeconomic factors the primary discussion about the impacted student’s success. Report 2. The student has experienced two explanation for the student’s learning, environment, factors and the factors have impacted  Other: behavior, or other difficulties? socioeconomic status, student’s success. and other cultural 3. The student has experienced one or no factors and the effect on factors and the factors have not impacted student’s learning, student’s success. behavior, or other 4. The student has experienced one or no difficulties factors.

30 1. IEP records indicate no discussion 8. Were exclusionary factors addressed about environmental, socioeconomic  IEP Evaluation when discussing specific criteria  IEP records document disadvantages, and cultural factors. Report components during eligibility discussion about 2. IEP records document minimal  Other: determination? environmental, discussion about environmental, socioeconomic socioeconomic disadvantages, and disadvantages, and cultural factors. cultural factors 3. IEP records document some discussion about environmental, socioeconomic disadvantages, and cultural factors. 4. IEP records fully document discussion about environmental, socioeconomic disadvantages, and cultural factors.

31 Checklist to Address Disproportionality: Early Childhood

Student: ______Age/DOB: ______

Environment: ______

C: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making - Review of Existing Data Early Childhood D: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making - Assessment and Evaluation Early Childhood E: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making - Eligibility Determination Early Childhood

32 C: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making - Review of Existing Data Early Childhood

Critical Questions Respondent Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable) 1. The child did not have any opportunities for 1. Did the child have adequate  Individualized Family Service Plan enrichment and developmentally appropriate activities. opportunities for exposure to, (IFSP) or other records document 2. The child had minimal opportunities for enrichment and participation in, experiential discussion about opportunities for social and developmentally appropriate activities. enrichment and developmentally interactions with peers and participation 3. The child had adequate opportunities for enrichment appropriate activities? in developmentally appropriate activities and developmentally appropriate activities. 4. The child had numerous opportunities for enrichment and developmentally appropriate activities.

2. Based on review of existing  IFSP or other records document 1. Cultural difference was not considered. data, was cultural difference discussion about cultural differences (e.g. 2. Cultural difference was discussed, but no analysis of considered a factor contributing interaction with authority figures, varied was documented. to the student’s social-emotional expectations of child care providers) and 3. Cultural difference was discussed with detailed skills, acquisition and use of the effect on student’s social-emotional analysis of its effect documented. knowledge and skills (including skills, acquisition and use of knowledge 4. Cultural difference was discussed with detailed and early language/communication and skills, and use of appropriate thorough analysis of its effect documented. and early literacy), and/or behaviors to meet his/her needs use of appropriate behaviors to meet his/her needs?

 IFSP or other records document discussion 3. Based on review of existing data, about proximity expectations, topics of 1. Linguistic difference was not considered. was linguistic difference considered conversation, nonverbal communication and 2. Linguistic difference was discussed, but no detailed analysis a factor contributing to the student’s family expectations placed on oral and written was included. social-emotional skills, acquisition communication and the effect on student’s 3. Linguistic difference was discussed with detailed analysis and use of knowledge and skills, positive social-emotional skills, acquisition was included and/or use of appropriate behaviors and use of knowledge and skills and/or use of 4. Linguistic difference was discussed with detailed and incisive to meet his/her needs? appropriate behaviors to meet his/her needs analysis was included.

33 4. Based on review of existing  IFSP or other records document 1. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were not data, did family risk factors discussion about family risk factors considered. and/or family mobility influence and/or stressors, and/or the effect on 2. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were the student’s student’s social-emotional skills, discussed, but no analysis of their effects was included. social-emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge and 3. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were acquisition and use of skills, and/or use of appropriate behaviors discussed with analysis of their effect was included. knowledge and skills and/or to meet his/her needs 4. Family risk factors and/or family mobility were use of appropriate behaviors to discussed with detailed analysis of their effects. meet his/her needs?  IFSP or other records document discussion about family mobility and its effect on student’s social-emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and use of appropriate behaviors to meet his/her needs

5. Based on review of existing  IFSP or other records document 1. Life stressors were not considered. data, were life stressors discussion about stressors (e.g. death of 2. Life stressors were discussed, but no analysis of their considered a factor contributing parent/family member, witness to effect on the student was included. to the student’s violence, immigration trauma) and the 3. Life stressors were discussed with analysis of their social-emotional skills , effect on student’s social-emotional skills, effect on the student included. acquisition and use of acquisition and use of knowledge and 4. Life stressors were discussed with detailed analysis of knowledge and skills, and/or use skills, and/or use of appropriate behaviors their effect on the student included. of appropriate behaviors to meet to meet his/her needs his/her needs?

6. Based on review of existing  IFSP or other records document 1. Environmental and socioeconomic status were not data, was environmental or discussion about environmental or considered. socioeconomic status considered socioeconomic status and the effect on 2. Environmental and socioeconomic status were a factor contributing to the student’s positive social-emotional skills, discussed, but no detailed analysis of its effect on the student’s acquisition and use of knowledge and student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. social-emotional skills , skills, and use of appropriate behaviors to 3. Environmental and socioeconomic status were acquisition and use of meet his/her needs discussed with detailed analysis of its effect on the knowledge and skills , and/or student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties. use of appropriate behaviors to 4. Environmental and socioeconomic status were meet his/her needs? discussed with detailed and incisive analysis of its effect on the student’s learning, behavior, or other difficulties.

34 Based on an analysis of the data, there is reason to suspect the child has an impairment that is not primarily a result of the external factors addressed in this section (C):

___ Yes

___ No

Comments:

35 D: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making - Assessment and Evaluation Early Childhood

Critical questions Respondents Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable) Evidence and Documentation

1. Were multiple measures/modalities of  Evaluation included 1. The evaluation included no evaluation, including non-verbal standardized tests that standardized tests and no informal  IEP Evaluation instruments when appropriate, conducted were normed based on evaluations such as curriculum-based Report across settings and time and were they culturally representative measures, social history, observations,  List measures of appropriate for the student of RCELD? population etc. evaluation:  Evaluation included 2. The evaluation included some other informal, age standardized tests and minimal appropriate evaluations such as curriculum-based assessments, social and measures, social history, observations, language history, etc. observations, etc. from 3. The evaluation primarily included multiple sources in standardized tests, and some informal multiple environments evaluations such social history,  Multiple perspectives observations, etc. were gathered by 4. The evaluation was comprehensive  Other: involving and included multiple standardized parent/family, and tests, informal evaluations such as teacher social history, observations, etc. and  Standardized tests non-verbal measures when appropriate. included non-verbal measures when appropriate

36 2. Did observations of the student of  Observation report 1. Observation report did not provide  IEP Evaluation RCELD include measurable and provided numeric data, numeric data, (e.g., % of time on task and # Report observable data? (e.g., % of time on task of interruptions); narrative report did not include possible cultural reasons for  List data: or # of interruptions) identified behaviors.  Narrative report 2. Observation report provided minimal providing possible numeric data and the narrative report cultural reasons for minimally included possible cultural identified behaviors reasons for identified behaviors.  Other: 3. Observation report provided some numeric data, and the narrative report included some possible cultural reasons for identified behaviors. 4. Observation report provided comprehensive numeric data, and the narrative report included possible cultural reasons for identified behaviors.

3. Did the evaluation team gather and  Evaluation included a 1. Evaluation included no social or consider information about the student’s social and language language history with no information  IEP Evaluation home and family culture? history with gathered from student or parents. Report information gathered 2. Evaluation included a social or  Environmental from a home visit, non- language history with minimal evaluation school observation, etc. information gathered from student or  Other: parents.  Multiple perspectives 3. Evaluation included a social or were gathered by language history with some information involving gathered from student or parent. parent/family, and 4. Evaluation included a complete student (if appropriate) social or language history with information gathered from student or parent.

37 1. When significant social, emotional, 4. When significant social, emotional,  IEP team included behavioral or medical concerns were  Consent for behavioral or medical concerns were appropriately qualified expressed in the referral, IEP team did not Initial Evaluation expressed in the referral, were staff who engaged in include individually determined evaluation Form & IEP procedures. appropriate personnel, including pupil assessment activities 2. When social, emotional, behavioral or Evaluation Report services personnel, included or  Composition of IEP medical concerns were expressed in the  Staff Involved consulted in the evaluation activities, and team and evaluation referral, IEP team included some and Activities were evaluation procedures individually procedures were individually determined evaluation  Other: determined? individually determined procedures. 3. When social, emotional, behavioral or medical concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team included several individually determined evaluation procedures. 4. When social, emotional, behavioral or medical concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team included a completely individualized evaluation. 1. IEP team members did not involve 5. Were parents/family regularly  IEP team members parents/family as appropriate in the  IEP Evaluation involved throughout the evaluation routinely provided evaluation process. Report process? written materials 2. IEP team members minimally  Dates and according to law and in involved parents/family as appropriate documentation of native language, made in the evaluation process. parent/family phone calls or home 3. IEP team members involved contact visits to garner parents/family by providing one or Other: parent/family member more of the following: written materials input according to law and in native language, phone calls or home visits, etc. to garner input through out the evaluation process. 4. IEP team members involved parents/family in the evaluation process by routinely providing written materials according to law and in native language, phone calls or home visits, etc. to garner input and involvement through out the evaluation process.

38 E: Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making - Eligibility Determination Early Childhood

Critical Questions Respondents Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable) Evidence and Documentation

1. Were adequate attempts to involve  Alternative means for 1. Minimal or no efforts were made to  IEP Cover Sheet parents /family members made during participation were involve parents/family members.  Other: eligibility determination? offered such as 2. Three good faith attempts were made teleconference, meeting to involve parents/family members. outside of school 3. Three good faith attempts were made setting etc. to involve parents/family members and  Transportation was only one alternative for participation arranged for the were offered such as transportation was parents/family arranged to encourage attendance by members parents/family members,  Criteria documentation teleconference, meeting outside of and checklist school setting etc. completed after 4. Three good faith attempts were made discussion and to involve parents/family members and conclusion is reached more than one alternative for at IEP meeting participation were offered such as transportation was arranged to encourage attendance by parents/family members, teleconference, meeting outside of school setting etc.

39 1. No classroom strategies to minimize 2. Was the student’s RCELD a primary  IEP records document racial, linguistic, cultural, ethnic  IEP Evaluation Report explanation for learning, behavior or discussion about differences were provided.  Other: other difficulties? cultural or language 2. Few classroom strategies to minimize differences and the racial, linguistic, cultural, ethnic effect on student’s differences were provided, such as: learning, behavioral, or behavioral and/or academic support in other difficulties their primary language at appropriate  The student has had level and duration, incorporating the behavioral and/or student’s home culture when academic support in establishing classroom norms and their primary language curriculum, involving the parent and at appropriate level and other staff/consultants of that race in duration developing strategies that eliminate  Classroom or other racism. settings provided 3. Some classroom strategies to strategies to minimize minimize racial, linguistic, cultural, RCELD differences ethnic differences were provided, such were provided (e.g., as: behavioral and/or academic support incorporating the in their primary language at appropriate student’s home culture level and duration, incorporating the when establishing student’s home culture when setting norms and establishing classroom norms and curriculum, involving curriculum, involving the parent and the parent and others of other staff/consultants of that race in the same RCEL group developing strategies that eliminate in developing racism. strategies, activities, 4. A number of classroom strategies to and understanding of minimize racial, linguistic, cultural, the child’s background ethnic differences were provided, such  Specific interventions as: behavioral and/or academic support were documented in their primary language at appropriate level and duration, incorporating the student’s home culture when establishing classroom norms and curriculum, involving the parent and other staff/consultants of that race in developing strategies that eliminate racism.

40 3. Was family mobility the primary  Family mobility has 1. IEP records indicate no discussion explanation for the student’s learning, not been an issue and about mobility and its impact on the  IEP Evaluation Report behavior or other difficulties? the student has been success of the student.  Other: able to attend the same 2. IEP records document minimal school and school discussion about mobility and its impact district or remain in the on the success of the student. same environment 3. IEP records document some (e.g., day care, discussion about mobility and its impact preschool, etc.) on the success of the student. continuously 4. IEP records document full  When the student has discussion about mobility and its impact attended more than one on the success of the student. school and/or environment, there is documentation of contact with previous settings to gather relevant information and provide for reasonable continuity programming

4. Were life stressors (i.e., divorce, death  Educationally relevant 1. IEP records indicate no discussion of a family member, etc.) the primary information is provided about life stressors and the effect on  IEP Evaluation explanation for the student’s learning, about the impact of life student’s learning, behavior or other Report behavior or other difficulties? stressors on the difficulties.  List any relevant student’s learning, 2. IEP records document minimal stressors: behavior or other discussion about life stressors and the difficulties effect on student’s learning, behavior or  Community resources other difficulties. have been identified for 3. IEP records document some  Other: the family and discussion about life stressors and the assistance with effect on student’s learning, behavior or referrals made, if other difficulties. appropriate 4. IEP records document full  Information has been discussion about life stressors and the shared across agencies effect on student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.

41 5. Were environmental and/or  IEP records document 1. The student has experienced three or  IEP Evaluation socioeconomic factors the primary discussion about the more factors and the factors have impacted Report explanation for the student’s learning, environment, student’s success. 2. The student has experienced two factors  Other: behavior or other difficulties? socioeconomic status, and the factors have impacted student’s and other cultural success. factors and the effect 3. The student has experienced one or no on student’s learning, factors and the factors have not impacted behavior, or other student’s success. difficulties 4. The student has experienced one or no factors.

6. Were all other suspected disabilities  IEP documents other 1. IEP records indicate no discussion  IEP Evaluation considered prior to determining a disabilities considered about other disabilities considered and Report significant developmental delay during and rejected, including reasons student did not meet criteria.  Other: eligibility determination? reasons the student did 2. IEP records document minimal not meet the criteria discussion about other disabilities considered and reasons student did not meet criteria. 3. IEP records document some discussion about other disabilities considered and reasons student did not meet criteria. 4. IEP records fully document discussion about other disabilities considered and reasons student did not meet criteria.

42 Checklist to Address Disproportionality: Transfer Students

Student: ______Age/DOB: ______

School/grade: ______Disability(ies): ______

Date completed: ______By: ______

F. Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Review of Existing Evaluation Data Transfer Students G. Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Eligibility Determination Transfer Students

43 F. Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Review of Existing Evaluation Data Transfer Students

Critical Questions Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable) Evidence and Documentation 1. The evaluation included no standardized tests 1. Were multiple  Evaluation included standardized and no informal evaluations such as curriculum-  IEP Evaluation Report measures/modalities of tests normed on culturally based measures, social history, observations, etc.  List evaluation tools and evaluation, including representative population 2. The evaluation included some standardized tests procedures: non-verbal instruments  Evaluation included informal, age- and minimal evaluations such as curriculum-based when appropriate, appropriate assessments, social measures, social history, observations, etc. conducted across settings history, classroom observations, 3. The evaluation primarily included standardized and time, and were they etc. from multiple sources in tests, and some informal evaluations such as appropriate for the multiple environments curriculum-based measures, social history,  Other: student of RCELD?  Multiple perspectives were observations, etc. gathered by involving 4. The evaluation was comprehensive and included parent/family, teacher, and student multiple standardized tests, informal evaluations (if appropriate) such as curriculum-based measures, social history,  Standardized tests included non- observations, etc. and non-verbal measures when verbal measures when appropriate appropriate.

44 2. Did observations of the  Observation report provided 1. Observation report did not provide numeric  IEP Evaluation Report student of RCELD numeric data, (e.g., % of time on data, (e.g., % of time on task or # of interruptions)  List data: include measurable and task or # of interruptions) and the report did not include possible cultural observable data? reasons for identified behaviors.  Narrative report providing possible 2. Observation report provided minimal numeric cultural reasons for identified data, and the report minimally included possible behaviors cultural reasons for identified behaviors. 3. Observation report provided some numeric data, and the report included some possible cultural  Other: reasons for identified behaviors. 4. Observation report provided comprehensive numeric data, and the report included possible cultural reasons for identified behaviors.

3. Did the evaluation  Evaluation included a social history 1. Evaluation included no social history with no  IEP Evaluation Report team gather and consider with information gathered from a information gathered from student or  Types of environmental information about the home visit, non-school observation, parent/family. evaluation: student’s home and etc. 2. Evaluation included a social history with family culture? minimal information gathered from student or  Multiple perspectives were parent/family. gathered by including 3. Evaluation included a social history with some parent/family, and student (if information gathered from student or appropriate) parent/family.  Other: 4. Evaluation included a comprehensive social history with information gathered from student or parent/family.

45 1. When social/emotional/behavioral or medical 4. When significant  IEP team included appropriately concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team  Consent for Initial social, emotional, qualified staff who engaged in did not include appropriate staff, and/or no Evaluation Form & IEP behavioral or medical assessment activities individually determined evaluation procedures. Evaluation Report concerns were expressed  Composition of IEP team and 2. When social/emotional/behavioral or medical  Staff Involved and in the referral, were evaluation procedures were concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team Activities: appropriate personnel, individually determined included some appropriate staff and/or some including pupil services individually determined evaluation procedures. personnel, included or 3. When social/emotional/behavioral or medical  Other: consulted in the concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team evaluation activities, and included many appropriate staff and/or several were evaluation individually determined evaluation procedures. procedures individually 4. When social/emotional/behavioral or medical determined? concerns were expressed in the referral, IEP team included all appropriate staff and a completely individualized evaluation. 1. IEP team members did not involve 5. Were parents/family  Parents/family were provided parents/family or student, as appropriate, in the  IEP Evaluation Report members and student, as written materials according to evaluation process.  Dates and documentation appropriate, involved procedural requirements and in the 2. IEP team members minimally involved of parent/family contacts: throughout the evaluation family’s native language parents/family or student, as appropriate, in the process? evaluation process.  IEP team members made phone 3. IEP team members involved parents/family or calls or home visits to gather student, as appropriate, by providing required  Other: parent/family input notices, materials in the family’s native language, and seeking input through phone calls or home visits. 4. IEP team members involved parents/family or student, as appropriate, in the evaluation process by providing required notices, materials in the family’s native language, and seeking input by multiple means including phone calls or home visits.

46 G. Culturally Responsive IEP Team Decision-Making – Eligibility Determination Transfer Students

Critical Questions Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the # most applicable) Evidence and Documentation

1. Were multiple  Alternative means for participation 1. Minimal or no efforts were made to involve  IEP Cover Sheet attempts to involve were offered such as teleconference, parents/family members. documentation of 3 parents /family meeting outside of school setting etc. 2. Three good faith attempts were made to involve attempts to involve members in eligibility  Transportation was arranged for the parents/family members. parents determination? parents/family members 3. Three good faith attempts were made to involve  Other:  Criteria documentation and checklist parents/family members and only one alternative completed after discussion and for participation was offered such as transportation conclusion is reached at IEP meeting was arranged to encourage attendance by parents/family members, teleconference, meeting outside of school setting etc. 4. Three good faith attempts were made to involve parents/family members and more than one alternative for participation was offered such as transportation was arranged to encourage attendance by parents/family members, teleconference, meeting outside of school setting etc.

47 2. Was the student’s  Classroom strategies to minimize 1. IEP records indicate no discussion of classroom  IEP Evaluation Report RCELD a primary racial, linguistic, cultural, ethnic strategies to address the student’s racial, cultural,  Other: explanation for differences were provided (e.g., ethnic and linguistic diversity and its impact on the learning, behavior or incorporating the student’s home student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. other difficulties? culture when establishing classroom 2. IEP records document minimal discussion of norms and curriculum, involving the classroom strategies to address the student’s racial, parent and others of the same RCL cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity and its group in developing strategies, impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other activities, and understanding of the difficulties. child’s background 3. IEP records document some discussion of  Specific interventions were classroom strategies to address the student’s racial, documented cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity and its impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. 4. IEP records document complete discussion of classroom strategies to address the student’s racial, cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity and its impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.

3. Was excessive  Student’s attendance is within 1. IEP records indicate no discussion about attendance  IEP Evaluation Report absence the primary expectations and has not impacted and no provision of instructional support services to  Attendance records address excessive student absences and its impact on the explanation for the the success of the student student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.  Other: student’s learning,  Support services (e.g., tutoring, after 2. IEP records document minimal discussion and behavior or other school assistance, etc.) have been provision of instructional support services to address difficulties? provided to assist a student with excessive student absences and its impact on the excessive absences to make up the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. material missed 3. IEP records document some discussion and provision  If appropriate, the school nurse has of instructional support services to address excessive been involved student absences and its impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.  If appropriate, a medical excuse has 4. IEP records fully document discussion and ample use been required of instructional support services to address excessive student absences and its impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.

48 4. Was family mobility  Family mobility has not been an 1. IEP records indicate no discussion about  IEP Evaluation Report the primary explanation issue and the student has been able to mobility and its impact on the continuity of  Other: for the student’s attend the same school and school instruction and success of the student. learning, behavior or district continuously 2. IEP records document minimal discussion about other difficulties?  When the student has attended more mobility and its impact on the continuity of than one school and/or school instruction and success of the student. district, there is documentation of 3. IEP records document some discussion about contact with previous schools to mobility and its impact on the continuity of gather relevant educational instruction and success of the student. information and provide for 4. IEP records document full discussion about reasonable continuity of instruction mobility and its impact on the continuity of and curriculum instruction and success of the student..

5. Were life stressors  Educationally relevant information is 1. IEP records indicate no discussion about life  IEP Evaluation Report (i.e., divorce, death of a provided about the impact of life stressors and the effect on student’s learning,  List of any relevant family member, stressors on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. stressors: immigration trauma) the behavior or other difficulties 2. IEP records document minimal discussion about primary explanation for life stressors and the effect on student’s learning, the student’s learning,  Community resources have been behavior or other difficulties. behavior or other identified for the family and 3. IEP records document some discussion about difficulties? assistance with referrals made, if life stressors and the effect on student’s learning, appropriate behavior or other difficulties.  Other: 4. IEP records document full discussion about life  Information has been shared across stressors and the effect on student’s learning, agencies behavior or other difficulties.

49 6. Was insufficient  School personnel provided the 1. IEP records indicate no discussion about  IEP Evaluation Report instruction in student with differentiated and instruction in reading and/or math and its impact  Other: reading and/or math effective instruction in reading and on the student’s learning, behavior or other the primary explanation math (appropriate curriculum, difficulties. for the student’s methodology, etc.) 2. IEP records document minimal discussion about learning, behavior or instruction in reading and/or math and its impact other difficulties?  School personnel established an on the student’s learning, behavior or other ongoing data collection and student difficulties. progress monitoring system to 3. IEP records document some discussion about evaluate the effectiveness of instruction in reading and/or math and its impact instructional interventions on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. 4. IEP records fully document discussion about instruction in reading and/or math and its impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.

7. Were environmental  School personnel documented and 1. IEP records indicate no discussion about  IEP Evaluation Report and/or socioeconomic considered the impact of these environmental, cultural, and/or family  Other: factors the primary factors on eligibility socioeconomic status and the impact on the explanation for the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. student’s learning, 2. IEP records document minimal discussion about behavior or other environmental, cultural, and/or family difficulties? socioeconomic status and the impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. 3. IEP records document some discussion about environmental, cultural, and/or family socioeconomic status and the impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties. 4. IEP records document full discussion about environmental, cultural, and/or family socioeconomic status and the impact on the student’s learning, behavior or other difficulties.

50 8. Were exclusionary  IEP records document discussion 1. IEP records indicate no discussion about  IEP Evaluation Report factors addressed when about environmental, socioeconomic environmental, socioeconomic disadvantages, and  Other: discussing specific disadvantages, and cultural factors cultural factors. criteria components 2. IEP records document minimal discussion about during eligibility environmental, socioeconomic disadvantages, and determination? cultural factors. 3. IEP records document some discussion about environmental, socioeconomic disadvantages, and cultural factors. 4. IEP records fully document discussion about environmental, socioeconomic disadvantages, and cultural factors.

9. Were Wisconsin  WDPI eligibility criteria checklists 1. IEP records do not provide any specific  IEP Evaluation Report eligibility criteria were used with documentation and information that Wisconsin eligibility criteria were  Other: discussed and was examples of how the student met or addressed in the student’s specific area(s) of documentation of how did not meet the criteria disability. the student met or did 2. IEP records provide some information that not meet those criteria? Wisconsin eligibility criteria were addressed in the student’s specific area(s) of disability. 3. IEP records provide some information that most of the Wisconsin eligibility criteria were addressed in the student’s specific area(s) of disability. 4. IEP records provide sufficient information that all of the Wisconsin eligibility criteria were addressed in the student’s specific area(s) of disability.