Appropriate Special Education Referrals for ELLs: Guidelines for

Incorporating Each Student’s Culture and Language

Leslie Santer, CRP School Psychologist (Cincinnati Public Schools) Milena Varbanova, CRP School Psychologist (Cincinnati Public Schools Laura Berry, School Psychologist (Lebanon City Schools)

Disproportionality

  1968 – disproportionate numbers of CLD students as “mentally retarded”

  1970s – litigation (Diana v. California; Larry P. v. Riles)

  Categories – cognitive disability, learning disability, and emotionally disturbed

  Cultural, linguistic and instructional factors (different presentation)

Disproportionality

  The National Research Council (2002) found that in comparison to white pupils on a national level, Hispanics had a 13% lower probability of being identified as MR and a 7% greater probability of being identified as LD.

  A different analysis on the same report found that Hispanics had a

23% lesser probability of being identified as MR and a 17% greater probability of being labeled LD (Parrish, 2002).

  However, there is variability across states

  Greater probability of being identified for special education in the 10 states in which Hispanics constituted the highest proportions.

  Lesser probability of being identified compared to whites in the 10 states with the lowest proportion of Hispanics.

Disproportionality

  The NRC (2002) found that Asian/Pacific Islanders have a 34% greater probability of being placed in gifted programs, while Native Americans/Alaskan Natives and Hispanics have a 35% and 52% lesser probability, respectively, of being identified gifted compared to white students.

Special Education and ELL

Special education IS NOT :   based on “saving” the child   an acceptable alternative for the at-risk student or culturally and linguistically diverse learners   a no-risk placement

Special education IS :

  a service for students with genuine, inherent disabilities The basis for special education evaluation should not be the

unavailability of necessary general education resources/services

What Do We Do?

  We cannot wait for a student to fail and then refer to special education.

  We do focus on prevention of academic and behavioral difficulties by conducting fair and timely assessments of student performance to identify instructional needs and make appropriate referrals.

  We need to take language and culture into account

Most Frequent Reasons for ELLs Referrals

Reading Problems

Written Language

Low Attention Span

Behavioral Problems

Poor Achievement

Socio-emotional difficulties

Learning Difficulties

Oral Language

Diagnosis of particular disability condition

Unable to understand and or follow directions

Most of these reasons have a plausible linkage with language and/or culture

Problem Solving Team

  Consultative services that yields appropriate interventions rather than a formality needed to go through for testing

  At least one member, if not more, should have knowledge base

about how cultural and linguistic factors could significantly impact the student’s academic performance and behavior   ensures that a student’s English proficiency and culture is

addressed from the beginning of the process

  Unless cultural and linguistic factors are explicitly considered, inappropriate interventions could be put and place and lead to inappropriate special education referrals

Problem-Solving Team

Cultural/ Linguistic

Broker

School Psychologist

Speech/language Pathologist

Content Teacher

Intervention Provider

ESL Teacher

Administrator

Parent

Team Members

How Do We Differentiate?

  Are there consistent pieces of data that suggest that: –  LEP/SLA might be a significant contributing factor in

the student’s academic performance –  The student has or has not received effective

instruction –  Cultural differences or family factors might be

significantly impacting student’s performance –  That student’s language and acculturation growth and

academic performance in both L1 and L2 are significantly different from his/her ELL peers

Critical Factors to Examine

  Educational background and history   Preschool experiences   Variables associated with previous and

current schooling (language of instruction, exit criteria, no-ESL or bilingual education

  Student performance   Considerations pertaining to family’s

language and culture

Language Proficiency

Why is Language Proficiency Important?

  Students are receiving appropriate ESL instruction focusing on BICS and CALP

  Students’ achievement using curriculum-based assessment is in

appropriate language   Problem-solving teams understand language proficiency to

determine if interventions are appropriate (e.g., most small-group interventions appropriate for intermediate level ELP and above)

  Students with ELP level of 1 or 2 and referred to building

problem-solving team for academic interventions need modifications made to intervention (comprehensible input, provide background knowledge, pre-teach vocabulary, use visuals, etc.)

Oral Language

  Studies suggest that oral language related difficulties is one of four most common reasons students were referred

  Student’s educational placement impacts

CALP in first language → CALP in first language impacts reading and written language in English

Common Language Patterns

Is the student displaying common language patterns observed in students with limited English

proficiency?   Interference   Interlanguage   Code Switching   Silent period   Language Loss   Language Differences

Critical Factors when Interpreting Language Proficiency

  Consider the context of previous educational services and home literacy

  Compare the student’s language ability with other second-language learners

  Consistency of data across formal and informal measures

  Determine where the student is along the second-language acquisition continuum

  Is difficulty noted in both languages?

Acculturation

Acculturation Domains

  Language use or language preference   Social affiliation   Daily living habits   Cultural traditions   Communication style   Cultural identity or cultural pride   Perceived prejudice or discrimination   Generational status   Family socialization   Cultural values

19 19

Important Individual Differences Estimating Level of Acculturation

 Number of years in U.S.  Number of years in district  Years in ESL/bilingual Program  Bilingual proficiency  Native language proficiency  English language proficiency  Ethnicity/National origin  Percent of student’s group in school Catherine Collier, 1995

Dimensions of Bilingualism

First generation (foreign born)   Understands little English – understands enough to make self understood – functions

in work domain where English is spoken but uses native language in contexts where English is not needed

Second generation (U.S. born)   Acquires immigrant language first – acquires English – as adult, uses language to suit

proficiency of others – uses English for most everyday activities Third generation (U.S. born)   English is predominant, although hears both languages in home – uses English

almost exclusively Fourth generation (U.S. born)   May hear immigrant language spoken by grandparents – may have limited receptive

competence – is almost totally English monolingual First generation (low acculturation) --------------------- Fourth generation (Fully acculturated)

Critical Factors to Examine

  Educational background and history   Preschool experiences   Variables associated with previous and

current schooling (language of instruction, exit criteria, no-ESL or bilingual education)

  Student performance   Considerations pertaining to family’s

language and culture

How Do We Differentiate?

  Are there consistent pieces of data that suggest that: –  LEP/SLA might be a significant contributing factor in

the student’s academic performance –  The student has or has not received effective

instruction –  Cultural differences or family factors might be

significantly impacting student’s performance –  That student’s language and acculturation growth and

academic performance in both L1 and L2 are significantly different from his/her ELL peers

Evaluating Language Proficiency and Acculturation Using a Comprehensive Approach

  Utilize multiple methods   Record review   Interviews

o  Teacher o  Parent o  Student

  Observations   Checklists

Record Review

•  Quality and quantity of education in home country •  Proficiency in home language(s) •  Method of flight •  Preschool experience •  Number of years in the U.S. •  Health record •  Attendance •  Bilingual or ESL support over time •  Previous classroom performance •  Types of instructional modifications and adaptations •  History of implemented intervention and the student’s response

•  Validity of concerns across teachers and settings

Teacher Interview

•  Educational History   What type of progress/decline have you seen?

•  Intervention History   What classroom-based interventions have been attempted and what

were the results?

•  Language Use   What languages does he/she speak in classroom, with friends, etc.?

•  Social-emotional Functioning   What seems to motivate him/her?

  Sample interview available in the book: Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students, p.123

Parent and Student Interview

  Include other caregivers with relevant information (extended family)   Birth history   Family history   Developmental history   Language history   Health history   Behavioral history   Educational history   Acculturation status   Social emotional functioning   Concerns, aspirations

  Sample interviews available in the book: Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students, pp.113-122

Additional Considerations

  Do not use child as interpreter   Be respectful of personal and confidential

information (explain purpose of interview)

Classroom Observations

Environmental variables   Print-rich environment   Gestures   Visuals   Modeling   Realia   Routines, Routine, Routines   Respite   SIOP Strategies…   Group strategies   Lots of opportunities to hear/see/speak/practice

Student variables   Observe student’s response to various instructional variables

and for changes in behavior across settings and teachers

Behavioral Observations

Important Considerations Before Referral

  Are there consistent pieces of data that suggest that limited English proficiency might be a significant contributing factor in the child’s academic performance?

  Are there consistent pieces of data that indicate that the student has, or has

not, received effective instruction?   Are there consistent pieces of data that indicate that the student’s language

and English are significantly different from his or her second-language peers?

“If student failure can be attributed to the teacher’s lack of understanding of diversity, the use of inappropriate curriculum or materials, or ineffective

instructional practices, then referrals to special education are unwarranted. Efforts, instead, should focus on modifying the school context and instructional

programs” (Ortiz, 1997).

31

“Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud.”

31

References

National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education (M. S. Donovan & C. T. Cross, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with

linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 324. Parrish, T. (2002). Disparities in the identification, funding, and provision

of special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 15-38). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rhodes, R. L, Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally

and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York: The Guilford Press.