Running Head: ELLS IN SPED
Preventing Inappropriate Placement of Students with Limited English Proficiency
Danielle Long
Hunter College
SPED 780
Abstract
Special Education educators are silently screaming for help as their classrooms are continuously in-flux; they work rigorously to differentiate each lesson to cater to a completely unique problem set just as a new one arises. These scaffolding techniques bolster student understanding of informational texts, provide experiential learning, and visually reinforce abstract content to produce concrete coherent lessons. The approach is so idealistic that it could be just as easily implemented in a classroom of students focusing on English language acquisition. Or not?? The following research exposes the effects of multidisciplinary teams lumping students learning the English language in the same room as those with mild to severe academic and emotional needs. In summary, statistical research concludes an overrepresentation of bilingual students placed in special education programs as a remedy for academic shortfalls in classrooms. The results indicate a distinct need for administrators to offer ELL-center professional development and mandatory classroom observations by a biliterate professional on the IEP team.
Results
Picture this: You are a content teacher that has a student who has lived in the United States for four years. This student is well behaved, has basic interpersonal skills (BIC) in English, is able to summarize and answer questions within some texts, but completely fails state assessments, mathematical word problems and misses context clues within content heavy literature. If this student has been promoted out of an ESL program, but fails to develop cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), should he or she be put in a remedial program that is less demanding? Is this child ESL, SPED, both, or neither?
This case study recognizes the need for educators to modify curricula so that it addresses language acquisition, clarifies textual knowledge, and relates lessons to real-world situations. Effective special education and ESL educators are using these so-called differentiation strategies as a means to capitalize on individual strengths; however, this should just be considered effective teaching strategies. The population of people in the United States whose first language is not English continues to grow to an extent that all educators are going to have to prioritize specific strategies or they will be without a job. Freeman and Freeman understand why educational tactics need to adapt to the changing makeup of American classrooms. “Theory and research on second-language acquisition can inform educators as they try to determine why students who speak a language other than English are not prepared to do the academic work of school and why so many drop out. One reason many researchers cite is the failure to support the development of students’ first languages.” (2008, 156)
“Some would argue that the is no harm in placing students who are already failing in the regular classroom into special education where they will get individualized instruction from teachers who are specially trained to remediate learning problems.” (Garcia, Ortiz, 1988) This opposing mentality is precisely the reason that so many of our Hispanic students across the United States are dropping out of school at alarming rates. Bilingual students from diverse backgrounds are giving up on their academic potential because they feel the stigma associated with being handicapped. They see themselves as disabled when really it is just a cultural, language, and/or social adjustment to being successful in an English dominant mainstream.
Documented research describes multidisciplinary teams that have admitted to not considering a child’s native language when determining placement and special education eligibility while completing the evaluation and referral process. In 1997 researchers Ochoa, Rivera, and Powell surveyed 859 psychologists who assessed bilingual students. “Only 6 percent reported asking about the student’s home language, and only 1 percent attempted to determine whether a learning problem occurred in both English and the student’s home language.” (Klingner, Artiles, 2003, 68) This denotes that the failures in special education placement are starting at the top—with the leader. The school psychologists are the only professionals on the team that are legally able to make recommendations based on testing results. These certifiable professionals are holding the paper that determines the destiny of an overwhelming number of bilingual students. If they do not fulfill their job to the extent at which they should, a trickle-down effect easily unfolds from the rest of the team. Let me make this clear-- psychologists are claiming they are too busy or simply have no need to complete classroom observations and student interviews. Such complacency sends a message—there is no incentive for the rest of the team to follow through with their part in the referral and placement process. Therefore, teachers are completing biased observational reports on students in their own classrooms in terms of behavior and academic expectations with no system of checks or balances by another member of the IEP team. Administrators are leading haphazard programs, often unconsciously. This “I’m too busy” philosophy allows multidisciplinary teams to run poorly quantifiable processes, lumping special education students and English language learners into the same room even when it is not a valid placement.
This lack of quality is not necessarily any one person’s fault. However, administrators should be meeting with the IEP team to ensure this regularity doesn’t even occur. Members of the multidisciplinary team are pointing their fingers in various directions when asked about ELLs in special education. Some teachers say the criterion appears meshed together when one reads the symptoms of ELLs with limited proficiency and special needs students. This means that school professionals are not sure in their observations and experience to decipher the differences between the struggles of an English Language Learner from that of a LD student. Key personnel from two districts in New York City noted “Our insufficient knowledge of the cultural background of students who are English language learners, make it difficult to differentiate cultural behaviors from those that could signal insufficient language development or learning disabilities.” (Sanchez, 2010, p17)
These findings indicate that ALL teachers need more professional development revolving around language acquisition and learning disabilities so that the IEP team is not dependent on any one person involved in evaluation and placement. Klingner and Artiles recommend a school-wide referral and placement approach that they call three-pronged: 1) Professional development that enhances understanding. 2) An in-house professional in English language acquisition on the IEP team. 3) Classroom ecology and context must be considered when discussing student behavior. (2003)
If those on the Academic Intervention Services (AIS) team stress this dire need in the school for such professional development to administrators, then educators, social workers, psychologists, and parents, will thread ideas and procedures together to provide appropriate placement for all students, not just those specifically targeted. Teachers will realize that ESL and special education are not dumping grounds; they are the right fit for a small minority whose severe needs are not meant in the general education curriculum. This positive philosophy breeds a school based support team that sews an evaluation and placement together instead of one or two members threading a needle alone, not leaving room for disjointed and biased concerns.
The first step is getting administrators to make room for professional development (PD) that strictly address the differentiated needs of ESL and special ed students, stressing the characteristic and explicit teaching do vary. The seminar can address that while there may be a case where a student who is an ELL is alos SPED, it should be an anomaly. This would benefit school professionals because while PD often addresses reading comprehension, state assessments, and even response to intervention (RTI), schools are lacking a focus specific to the differentiated needs of ELLs and special education students. Such a PD will encourage ESL and special educators to collaborate and come up with similarities in their model practices as well as distinct differences in the types of students in their classrooms. In return, internal as well as outsourced resources will work to help all those with at-risk students to be aware of symptoms, differentiation strategies, observations, RTI techniques, and evaluations that should occur before placing a bilingual in a special education classroom.
In addition to PD, every school needs to have biliterate member on the IEP team so that evaluations and referrals are handled in an impartial manner. While many schools are great about finding a bilingual translator, that person is often not biliterate. It is extremely necessary for the IEP bilingual professional to be equally able to write and read in both languages for it to be considered an effective evaluation process. There are many bilingual social workers and educators who cannot read and write at the same cognitive academic language proficiency as they are in English. This leads to insufficient reading and writing analysis in the student’s native language, thus the lumping of special education and ESL students together. This professional interview and observation should work in addition to an evaluation and observation by the school psychologist who tests the student in their native language.
Krashan and Terrell (1983) wrote an ESL book that describes the need for educators to learn how bilingual students have attitudinal factors that influence their English acquisition. If the student is not encouraged and exposed to English in the most comfortable setting, they can and will see as themselves as less apt. Thus, it is extremely important for the bilingual student to have a good self-image and zero anxiety. This may not occur if the student is placed in a special education classroom without having the opportunity to learn academic language in his or her own native language. If fact it can ruin the student’s self-esteem. “Specific techniques for lowering affective barriers will by necessity vary from group to group because of different personalities, interests, and aims of students and instructors. The goal is that a bilingual student will become genuinely interested in others’ opinions, feelings, and interests, feeling comfortable expressing themselves on topics of discussion.” (Krashan & Terrell, 1983, 273) This evidence concludes that even if a bilingual student is unusually quiet or does not fair well on assessments or in-class activities, it does not mean they are a special education student.
This transitions right into the next need in the evaluation and referral process-ecology of the classroom. Too often general education teachers and psychologists submit reports without even considering the classroom environment the students are currently in. Classroom observations are a must when referring a bilingual student into special education. One cannot claim they are “too busy” because the classroom setting and instruction as well as an interview with the student and family, are the most effective means to finding out the metacognitive aptitude of the student. Conducting assessments is not going to paint a clear picture, especially if the student has interrupted formal schooling (SIFE). These teachers and classroom observers also need to account for the classroom management of the current teacher and the instructional materials that are being used. The June 1988 edition of the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education highlights such points. “Unless these skills are measured, teachers may attribute low achievement to learning disabilities when they may, in fact, be related to lack of academic language proficiency. Frequently, students at greatest risk of being misdiagnosed as handicapped are those who have received ESL instruction long enough to require BIC (1-2 years), but who need more time to develop CALP (5-7 years).” This statement culminates the distinct need for IEP team members to take into account the needs and experiences of their bilingual students seriously, not making recommendations until the evaluation process is completed as accurately and as professionally as possible; it cannot just be a utopian ideal, but a collaborative quantifiable process.
Discussion
In conclusion, the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education programs across the country, especially in states with a large population of residents whose native language is a language other than English, is arguably unjust. Statewide initiatives need to create a system of checks and balances for administrators and school personnel that recognize and provide the opportunity for bilingual students to acquire academic content and language in their first language. In addition, educational staff should be informed and trained in the differences between the emotional and academic demands of ELLs from those who are learning disabled. The articles mentioned highlight inquiry work completed on this controversial topic, but a targeted educational philosophy needs to take place in order for bilingual students to realize their academic potential. A top-down approach that incorporates professional development, a biliterate IEP professional, and multiple mandatory classroom observations unleash a limitless apogee for student populations who are currently unsure of their true self-image and academic aspirations; these students need to have the right support now in order feel confident to work in a future where a global economy is a reality.
References
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D. (2009). Academic Language for English Language Learners and Struggling Readers, New Hampshire: Heinemann, 156.
Garcia, S., Ortiz, A. (1988). Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of Language Minority Students to Special Education. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, June issue, Number 5, 9.
Klinger, J., Artiles, A. (2003). When Should Bilingual Students Be in Special Education?. Educational Leadership, October issue, 68.
Krashan, S., Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach, New York: Penguin Press, 273.
Sanchez, M.T., (2010). Processes and Challenges in Identifying Learning Disabilities among Students who are English Language Learners. Regional Education Laboratory, Number 85, 17.
