Introduction
English Language Learners (ELLs) or
Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) are the fastest developing subgroup of students in
the United States. Scientists foresee that English Language Learners will
constitute around 25% of the country's students in 2025. ELLs are those who
speak a language other than English at home and whose English reading,
composing, and comprehension abilities are too low to benefit from receiving
instruction completely in English.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(“NCLB”), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (“IDEA”), and
Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA) of 2015 address the general and special
education needs of ELL students. “ESSA requires states to include the
acquisition of English language proficiency by ELLs/MLLs as one factor in overall statewide accountability provides
states with two accountability options regarding recently arrived ELLs/MLLs
(including whether to administer the English Language Arts assessment during
the first year of arrival, and how to hold schools and districts accountable
for their Maths and English Language Arts progress), and requires states to set
uniform ELL/MLL identification and exit criteria, as well as a timeline for
ELLs/MLLs to reach proficiency” (NYC DE).
IDEA, NCLB, and ESSA also provide
for the special education of ELL students. The legislation considers an EB
student not eligible for special education services if the basis of his/her
disability is the child’s limited English proficiency. Also, the student is
ineligible if environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage are the
determining aspects of the disability. (Mikutis, p. 2)
THE ISSUE
Despite the legislative requirement
of nondiscriminatory assessments and the use of the student’s native language
for the evaluation, many students are improperly placed in special education
programs, impeding their access to general education and creating a disproportionate number of ELL students in special education programs.
Improperly placed EBs in special education account for about 75% of the total
ELLs in SpEd. (Mikutis, p. 2)
The literature identifies
disproportionality regarding overrepresentation and underrepresentation. Mark
Guiberson, in his book “Hispanic Representation in Special Education: Patterns
and Implications”, states that “overrepresentation occurs when the percentage
of minority students in special education programs is greater than that in the
school population as a whole.” On the other hand, underrepresentation happens
when authorities do not place students with special needs in the appropriate
program. Disproportionality creates a “national issue, rooted in state-to-state
disparities, of disproportionate numbers of LEP students in special education
programs” (Mikutis, M. p. 3).
WHY DISPROPORTIONALITY HAPPENS
Researchers distinguish four factors
that influence the disproportionate patterns of identification of disabilities
in ELL students: professionals’ knowledge of second language development and
disabilities, instructional practices, intervention strategies, and assessment
tools.
Professionals’ Knowledge of Second
Language Development and Disabilities
According to Artiles and Ortiz
(2002); Kushner and Ortiz (2000); Zehler et al. (2003) most teachers in general
and special education do not have the proper knowledge to address the education
needs of children from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Educators
may confuse the EB’s patterns of language acquisition with a learning
disability symptom (Piper 2003). The time span for ELLs to acquire a second language
is 2-3 years to learn basic interpersonal communication skills (Cummins 1979)
and 5-7 years to acquire academic language proficiency (Cummins 1979, 2000;
Hakuta 2001). Teachers may incorrectly identify these time spans as a learning
disability instead of a language development issue (Cummins 1984; Ortiz 1997).
Instructional Practices
Despite
that, the law requires that all children receive ELA and math research-based
curriculum instruction before considering their evaluation for special
education. Most EBs are receiving instruction in mainstream monolingual
classrooms, hence, placing them in unsuitable learning environments (Cummins
1984; Ortiz 1997). Also, most of the
mainstream teachers do not have training in second language acquisition and
development or special education (Zehler et al. 2003).
Intervention Strategies
Researchers
have concluded that the intervention strategies for ELL students struggling
academically are inappropriate (Garcia and Ortiz 2006; Klingner and Edwards
2006). Teachers do not have access to or training in effective intervention
strategies for ELLs. In consequence, students are identified erroneously as
having a learning disability.
Assessment Tools
The
linguistic complexity of the diagnostic tests to determine a child disability
may falsely identify an ELL as having or not having a disability (Abedi 2006;
Skiba, Knesting, and Bush 2002). Also,
the result relies on the judgment and the qualifications of the evaluators, and
the psychometric accuracy of the tool (Klingner et al. 2008; Ortiz and Graves
2001).
ADVOCACY STRATEGY
This advocacy strategy has three
objectives
- Raising awareness of parents
about the disproportionate representation of ELLs in Special Education and
the reason why this is happening.
- Educating parents about the
rights they have concerning their child’s education and evaluation.
- Educating parents about the
steps and demands they must make to ensure that their children receive
research-based instruction, that their teachers are certified as bilingual
teachers or ESL, and that the evaluation they receive is customized in the
child’s domain language.
- Raising awareness of minority
elected officials about the issue and encouraging them to establish a task
force to fight for a sound education for ELL.
The advocacy strategy will have
three steps:
- Elaboration of three brochures
in the languages of the target population: One brochure on
disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education; another on
rights of parents of ELLs education; and a third on parents’ self-advocacy
to demand their rights. (SEE SAMPLE BROCHURE ATTACHED)
- Designing a website where an expanded version of the content of the three brochures is included. The
website will include links to other information sources and advocacy
offices.
- Organizing a public forum
regarding the issue of ELL education and disproportionate representation
in special education with the elected officials in a different school
districts.
Creating an alliance with minority
elected officials and other community leaders to form a task force to fight for
a sound education for the children of our immigrant parents is a first step to
secure the success of this advocacy project. Furthermore, the involvement of
the elected officials will secure the resources necessary to carry on the
project. Also, the task force will become a powerful and influential voice that
cannot be silenced.
References
Abedi,
J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education
eligibility. Teachers
College Record, 108(11), 2282–303.
Artiles,
A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J.J., and Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity
in
minority disproportionate representation: English language
learners in urban
school districts. Exceptional
Children, 71(3), 283–300. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010085.pdf
Artiles,
A.J., and Ortiz, A.A. (Eds.). (2002). English
language learners with special
needs:
identification, placement, and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Cummins,
J. (1984). Bilingual and special
education: issues in assessment and
pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Cummins,
J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic
interdependence, the optimum age question, and some other
matters. Working
Papers
on Bilingualism, 19, 121–29.
Retrieved May 4, 2007, from www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html.
Cummins,
J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy:
bilingual children in the crossfire.
Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Garcia,
S.B., and Ortiz, A.A. (2006). Preventing disproportionate representation:
culturally and linguistically responsive prereferral
interventions. Teaching
Exceptional
Children, 38(4), 64–68.
Hakuta,
K. (2001). A critical period for second language acquisition? In D.B. Bailey,
J.T.
Bruer, F.J. Symons, and J.W. Lichtman (Eds.), Critical thinking about critical
periods. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Klingner,
J.K., and Edwards, P.A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to
intervention models. Reading
Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–17.
Klingner,
J.K., Almanza, E., de Onis, C., and Barletta, L.M. (2008). Misconceptions
about
the second language acquisition process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kushner,
M.I., and Ortiz, A.A. (2000). The preparation of early childhood education
teachers for English language learners. In New Teachers for a New Century: the
Future
of Early Childhood Professional Development. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Institute on Early
Childhood Development and
Education.
Mark Guiberson (2009)
Hispanic representation in special education: patterns and
implications.
In Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children
Mikutis,
M [n.d.] The disproportionate
representation of limited english proficiency (LEP)
students
in special education programs.
Retrieved from
National Center for
Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (2004).
Disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in
special education:
measuring the problem. Retrieved from
New
York State Education Department. (n.d.). English
language learners/multilingual
learners
and the every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Retrieved from
Ortiz, A.A. (1997).
Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic
differences.
Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30(3), 321–32.
Ortiz, A.A., and Graves, A.
(2001). English language learners with literacy-related
learning
disabilities. In International Dyslexia
Association commemorative
booklet.
Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.
Piper, T. (2003). Language and learning: the home and school
years (3rd ed.).
Columbus,
OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Robertson, K.,
Sánchez-López, C., & Breiseth, L. (n.d.) Addressing ELLs' Language
Learning
and Special Education Needs: Questions and Considerations.
Retrieved from
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/addressing-ells’-language-learning-
and-special-education-needs-questions-and-considerations
Sánchez,
M.T., Parker, C., Akbayin, B., and McTigue, A. (2010). Processes and
challenges in identifying learning disabilities among
students who are English
language learners in three New York State districts (Issues
& Answers Report,
REL 2010–No. 085). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and
Islands. Retrieved
from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010085.pdf
Skiba,
R.J., Knesting, K., and Bush, L.D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment:
Zehler, A.M., Fleischman, H.L., Hopstock, P.J.,
Stephenson, T.G., Pendzick, M.L., and
Sapru, S.
(2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP
students
with disabilities (No. 4 Special topic report: findings on special education
LEP
students). Arlington, VA: Development Associates.
