LA HOJA DE COCA (Erythroxylum coca)

The issue of disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education is one that is multi-faceted. Given the complexity of meeting the needs of English language learners, needs that are made more complex by the presence of a disability, there is no one-approach-fits-all that can be considered appropriate. From the review of research, several recommendations can be drawn.

Response-to-Intervention before the commencement of the referral process is a recommended practice for all educators, but can be particularly useful in addressing the unique needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students that need special services. Response-to-Intervention, often referred to as RTI, is defined by Linan-Thompson (2010) as a “cyclical process that incorporates assessment and instruction” (p. 970). RTI can be used to create the foundations necessary for students whose educational background is limited, as well as be an “approach to prevent learning difficulties and to establish student eligibility for special education” (p. 970).

RTI is characterized by a three-tier approach to instruction. The first tier of RTI takes place in the general education setting and is a process called Universal Screening (Linan-Thompson, 2010, p. 971). This can be viewed as the instructional approach “synonymous with the core reading or math curriculum that is aligned with the state standards and outcomes” (Utley & Obiakor, 2012, p. 44). For students whose achievement measures below the benchmarks for state standards, evidence-based interventions are enacted and the student’s progress is monitored. Finally, tier three of

36

RTI involves children who are at a “high risk of academic failure” because they are not responding to the systematic inclusion and monitoring of evidence-based interventions and their eligibility for special education services begin to be evaluated.

Klingner and Edwards (2006) discuss the cultural implications to response to intervention. In order to meet the unique needs of ELLs that have disabilities, response to intervention should also be culturally relevant. According to Klingner and Edwards, culturally responsive instruction requires three considerations: accommodation,

incorporation, and adaptation (199). These actions are performed on the parts of the school personnel, the school as an institution, and the students and their families, respectively. In accommodating CLD students, educators and other school personnel must incorporate the learning and communication styles into their instructional practices. Incorporation occurs at the institutional level and involves the inclusion of “community practices that have not been valued” into the school’s curriculum (p. 199). Finally, the students and their families must attempt to adapt, in a manner that is “additive rather than subtractive, to the expectations of the dominant cultural group” (p. 199).

Utley and Obiakor (2012) recommend Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) in addition to RTI. They describe PBIS as a series of approaches with the purpose of aiding in children’s development of behaviors that are both socially desirable and that will reduce behaviors that will socially stigmatize the students with their peers. Important skill building is designed to encourage children to positively interact in social situations.

37

It is recommended that educators provide students with opportunities to enhance their language proficiency before initiating referrals for special education testing. Cummins’ theories of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills and Cognitive

Academic Language Proficiency encourage development of students’ language capacities for them to function well in social and academic contexts, respectively. Collier (1995) suggests the design of activities to be “highly interactive, emphasizing student problem- solving and discovery learning through thematic experiences” (p. 318). This will foster an increase in academic language, encourage development of positive social skills, and enhance the fusion of academic language in a variety of contexts.

Ortiz (1997) highlighted the importance of the pre-referral stage. The

recommendation is a revamping of the pre-referral process, and one that is set up in two parts. The first part of this pre-referral phase would be focused on prevention, in which the educational setting would be organized to best appeal to the academic needs of CLD students. Secondly, it is recommended that the mode of instruction is adapted, the educational environment is modified, and other professionals are consulted before

moving forward to special education referrals. According to Ortiz, without changes in the eligibility process it will perpetuate the existing problems in educational equity and “the cycle will continue to engender student failure” (p. 324).

A key aspect of evaluation that Ortiz advocates for is assessing students in their dominant language. Assessing skills in a language that students are not proficient in cannot indicate a reliable view of their abilities (Linan-Thompson, 2010, 971). If learning

38

disabilities become apparent through assessment in a child’s dominant language, then services through special education may be appropriate.

Ortiz states that “if the student lacks English academic language proficiency, emphasis should first be given to improving language skills before a referral is considered” (p. 328). This may be especially true if an assessment in the student’s dominant language is not available or if they have had less than three years of experience using English, as they may not have the four to seven years of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency development.

Correspondingly, the way in which students are examined for the presence of a disability can be examined for effectiveness. When assessing CLD students for the presence of a learning disability there is danger to equity in education if students who are not identified correctly. Gunderson and Siegel (2001) astutely comment that intelligence tests “assess only what a person has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing” (p. 49). Assessments may indicate the present knowledge acquired in English, but limited English language proficiency will not reveal potential.

As an alternative to traditional intelligence tests, it is recommended that a variety of measures should be carefully reviewed, including observations, interviews, student’s records (such as school history), and their overall educational experiences. Spinelli (2007) argues that informal assessments are more appropriate when evaluating the possibility that ELLs are also eligible for special education services and describes

39

adaptable to language and cultural diversity, individual learning styles, and personal challenge” (p. 101). Contrary to a standardized, norm-referenced test in order to evaluate the possibility of a disability, Spinelli asserts that assessing students informally and with context-embedded content is a more reliable way of determining a student’s needs. The use of dynamic assessment may be a more appropriate, alternative method of evaluating CLD students. Similar to the process of response-to-intervention and in a Vygotskian fashion, dynamic assessments involve the educator monitoring the student’s progress and learning style and adding or removing supports as necessary “to facilitate the learning process” (Spinelli, 2007, p.110).

Linan-Thompson (2010) suggests dynamic assessments as a supplement to universal screening (972). Through dynamic assessments educators are able to delve into student’s cognitive process and gauge their mastery of the material and concepts.

Understanding students’ cognitive processes can aid educators in designing interventions and inform decisions on what works and what does not work for a particular student.

In addition to dynamic assessments, it is recommended that a multilevel approach is used when evaluating CLD students for the presence of a disability. Rueda and

Windmueller (2006) suggest that the most effective way to diagnose potential learning disabilities is to use more than one measure of evaluation. In this multilevel approach, “various levels of the learning and development ecology are considered”, but “local context” is the most important factor in determining whether or not students have a learning disability (103).

40

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) is recommended as a multicultural

practice to include students’ language and culture in the classroom and curriculum and is defined by Chu as a pedagogical approach “in response to a sociocultural and linguistic mismatch between students’ home and school cultures” (p. 388). Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to demonstrate resiliency in the face of setbacks, the setting of high expectations for all students, and a more personalized in a “humanistic way” (p. 390). Although the main focus of Chu’s article is self-efficacy among special education teachers working with CLD students, Chu makes a connection between teacher efficacy and their ability to successfully enact Culturally Responsive Teaching. Citing Garcia and Malkin (1993), Chu outlines major objectives to the implementation of Culturally Responsive Teaching.

First, educators need to have an understanding of the characteristics of students’ native language in order to help them develop their linguistic capabilities in English. Second, knowledge and understanding of students’ native culture and its implications in the U.S. public education system.

Correspondingly, a multicultural approach is recommended and described by Garcia and Malkin (2010). The recommendation that the educator develop of

intercultural competence, with the purpose of gaining a greater understanding of students’ backgrounds is particularly helpful for inclusive practices. Through intercultural

competence educators can capitalize on the patterns of cognitive reasoning and preferential modes of learning that have been imprinted and reinforced on the cultural context in which students grew (53).

41

Rodriguez (2009) identifies educators as the catalyst for change. While

respecting the intricacies and boundaries of the special education and bilingual education fields, Rodriguez states that for the benefit of ELLs with disabilities it is the

responsibility of the teacher to “engage, affirm, and accept diversity within the educational context of the classroom and the school environment” (p. 457). The

recommendation can be drawn that educators need to approach their role as advocate for their CLD students as being especially important. Shifrer, Muller & Callahan (2011) echo this belief in stating that “parents with less English proficiency may have more difficulty acting as an advocate for their child within the school system” (p. 250).

Recommendations can be taken with respect to pedagogically addressing the unique needs of CLD students with disabilities. Rodriguez identifies Krashen’s principle of comprehensible input as the vehicle through which to use the current proficiency level of students as a foundation and build their language skills. Recommendations for specific strategies to use comprehensible input include scaffolding instruction, using students’ existing schemata, communicative and collaborative activities, and content that is meaningful and relevant to the students.

It is recommended that educators consider the cognitive and linguistic implications when connecting academic objectives. Zwiers (2006) offers three

suggestions for accomplishing this. First, he recommends modeling and scaffolding. In structuring scaffolded activities, Zwiers values “the role of authentic communication, with language as a tool, in learning” (p. 330). Finally, Zwiers uses assessment as a way to

42

evaluate gaps in student learning and as a way to monitor academic language growth (330).

Paneque and Barbetta (2006) focused on the potential of high teacher efficacy among special education teachers in an urban school district. In the surveys completed at the conclusion of the study, the participants had several suggestions for pre-service and in-service educators based on their own teaching experiences in special education

classrooms with ELLs. These suggestions from the experiences of the participants can be developed into two recommendations. Proper teacher preparation programs and teacher development workshops should include information in how to identify language diversity and the presence of a disability. The second recommendation that can be drawn is the value in the type of field experience pre-service teachers receive as part of teacher education programs. First-hand experience in intervention strategies for CLD students and students with disabilities would be beneficial for pre-service teachers, in the hopes that they will know how to implement RTI in a culturally responsive way.

Garcia and Tyler (2010) offer recommendations for the educators to enact at the classroom level for ELLs that have been identified as having a disability. To meet the unique needs of these students, educators should closely examine the content and material of their lessons, specifically focusing on the cognitive and linguistic demands required of students. How instruction and design of activities meets the linguistic needs of English language learners must be reviewed critically as well, to avoid “doubling cognitive demands” (p. 117) when introduction new information and concepts.

43

Finally, it is recommended that with respect to instructional strategies and choice of classroom materials, there is “evidence that children learn best when they are taught in a culturally familiar way” (Samway et al., 2007, p. 65). Reflecting on the characteristics of successful classroom practices, Garcia et al. (1995) describe that the ideal “curricula and instructional materials go beyond attempts to incorporate traditional aspects of language minority students’ cultures into the curriculum” (p. 456).

Recommendations for Further Studies

The growing number of culturally and linguistically diverse students in U.S. public education institutions is projected to increase. This prediction should be a major concern to educators, administrators, and policy members, as it is their responsibility to ensure a fair education for all students under their care. Addressing the unique needs of CLD students, and particularly those suspected of having a disability, is challenging. Differentiating linguistic struggles from disability-related struggles is even more challenging.

There is relatively little study into the flaws with regards to the use of interpreters to translate assessments or the cultural gap that will inevitably still exist in a translation of the assessment itself. Abedi (2006) suggests that “assessments designed mainly for native English speakers may not be as reliable and valid for ELL students” (p. 2283). Validity and reliability are of the utmost importance in the accurate diagnosis of the presence of a disability, and these standards should not stop with the challenge of evaluating a CLD student.

44

In order to ensure an equitable education for all CLD students, research needs to be done in the area of assessment. As ELLs are not fairly in the data set, there is no baseline for their achievement. When using these assessments, ones that have previously not determined a baseline for CLD students, there is a lack of reliability and validity for their scores. Therefore, it is not prudent to use these assessments to determine a student’s potential need for special education services.

45

Conclusion

When examining a culturally and linguistically diverse student for the presence of a disability, a major concern becomes if there are external factors or systemic issue. Incorrect identification of CLD students with learning disabilities is both a historical and ongoing issue, as well as an obstacle to educational equity with long-term consequences for the students that are misplaced.

Before the eligibility process begins, many student factors may drive the decision of the educator to refer the student for testing for services. Differences in students’ cultural backgrounds and indicators of second language acquisition may be confused for disabilities to educators without a linguistic background.

There are many proposed causes that lead to the disproportionate representation of English language learners in special education. Underrepresentation, occurring in the early elementary grades for English language learners, can be caused by educators not referring students for testing due to the belief that their struggle is linguistically-based and they will grow out of it with an increase in English proficiency. Overrepresentation usually occurs later in the elementary grades. When students continue to struggle academically or socially, their linguistic needs may not receive the focus and instead the student will be unnecessarily referred for testing.

Regardless of the cause, however, the persistent underachievement and high drop-out rate of CLD students should be a significant concern to educators, policy makers, and other school professionals (Chu, 2011, 201). There are systemic, socio-

46

cultural, and pedagogical factors that can be examined and reformed, in order to get at the root of disproportionate representation.

Klingner, Artiles, and Barletta (2006) examined empirical research on English language learners who are also struggling readers and found that, “students are placed in special education as the result of a series of social processes” (p. 123). When placement of CLD students with disabilities is being decided, the Least Restrictive Environment is the most appropriate. Although research has shown that minority students are often placed in more segregated settings than their native English speaking peers, this lack of adherence to one of the main principles of IDEA deny ELLs to valuable content

knowledge, language input, and put them at the risk of being socially stigmatized.

There are many recommendations before the referral stage. Response-to- intervention is an approach that has been determined to be successful in implementing intervention strategies and alleviating concerns when a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Culturally Responsive Teaching is another recommendation before referral, in order to activate schema and foster students’ confidence.

When evaluating students for the possible need of special education services, a multilevel approach may better serve the student than simply administering an

achievement test. There are many concerns with determining a CLD student’s eligibility using this type of assessment, and dynamic assessments, observations, student’s

background, and interviews are the preferred method of evaluating for the existence of a disability.

47

Of the utmost importance is the educator’s sense of advocacy for their students. Parents, especially those from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, depend on their child’s teacher to serve the student’s best interests when under their care. The role of educators is important in setting high expectations for all students, while ensuring that students that are struggling receive the support that they need to succeed academically, socially, emotionally, and physically. Using evidence-based practices to ensure that CLD students with disabilities receive the supports they need and access to an equitable

education is crucial to reducing the achievement gap and language-minority students gaining access to a more promising future.

48

Works Cited

Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282-2303.

Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal of

Negro Education, 64(4), 390-400.

Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minority youth in U.S. schools: effects of ESL placement.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 84-117.

Chu, S. (2011). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 38(3), 201-209.

Chu, S. (2011). Teacher efficacy beliefs toward serving culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: implications of a pilot study. Education and Urban

Society, 45(3), 385-410.

Chu, S. & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English language learners with learning disabilities. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(6), 244-248.

Collier, V. (1995). Second-language acquisition for school: Academic, cognitive, sociocultural, and linguistic processes. Georgetown University Round Table on