Maryam - Information Technology Services



Running head: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE English Language Learners in Special Education: A Controversial IssueMaryam SalahshoorEDSE 844 Current Issues in Special EducationDr. Peggy King-SearsGeorge Mason UniversitySpring 2010English Language Learners in Special Education: A Controversial IssueAlthough English as a second language is a controversial topic in the United States for many years, it is getting less attention than other topics of controversy especially in the field of special education where many of the students with languages other than English are placed.In recent decades, special education has made considerable amount of progress in its research, policy, and practices. Students with disabilities prior to 1975 were severely underserved. In contrast, services are now provided to many infant, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Meanwhile, the number of students identified as English language learners (ELL) is rapidly increasing throughout the nation. Half of the nation’s largest cities are home to more minority groups such as African American, Hispanic, Asian America, and other minority groups than White populations. Close to 20% of people older than 5 speak a language other than English at home, and it is estimated that by the year 2030, approximately 40% of the U.S. k-12 population will consist of students whose first language is not English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Many ELL students face various academic difficulties in public schools. The dropout rates for English language learners are 15-20% higher than the overall rate for non-English language learners (Orosco & Klinger, 2010). The lack of academic success is also the cause for referral of ELL students to special education. The challenge of identifying and serving ELLs with special needs has been a concern for teachers, policy makers, and researchers for many decades (Samson & Lesaux, 2009). The presence of ELL students in special education settings has raised a number of questions about the special needs of these students and about effective ways to meet these needs. Some argue that special education embodies many desirable features (e.g., low teacher-student ratio, individualized education, higher expenditures per pupil, etc.) that can improve the educational outcomes of these students. Others believe the specific needs of ELLs with disabilities seem to go unnoticed under the umbrella of special education. They note problems with overrepresentation of ELLs in special education, inappropriate placement, and lack of ESL instructional methodology in special education are among some of the concern these groups express. A critical question then arises to whether special education is able to deliver the promised outcomes for these students. This paper aims to review multiple viewpoints regarding the positive and negative outcomes of placing ELLs in special education.For the Argument English language learners continue to fall behind their peers in regular education classes. Research indicates that ELLs achieve at lower levels (predominantly in literacy) than their non- ELLs peers; are retained more often; and drop out of school at a higher rate (Orosco & Klinger, 2010). ELLs also generally perform lower than non-Ells on content-based assessments such as math, science, and social studies (Abedi, 2006). In response to these problems, many classroom teachers especially in cities and states with large number of immigrants turn to special education in search of solutions. Some argue that if ELLs are failing in general education, then there is no harm placing them in special education where they will receive individualized instruction. They point to the desirable futures that special education has to offer ELL students. In an article, Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, and Ortiz (2010) point to six major principles required by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that ensure that all children with disabilities, regardless of their language background, would have access to specialized educational services. These principals include (a) a zero reject model, (b) nondiscriminatory evaluation (e.g., testing in both the primary language and English), (c) a free and appropriate education based on the development and maintenance of an individualized education program (IEP) that would be monitored and updated at regular intervals, (d) education in the least restrictive environment, (e) procedural due process for parents and schools, and (f) parental as well and student participation in all phases of the special education process. Many believe that all children, no matter their race, language, or social class, would benefit academically with the enactment of these principles. Artiles et al. (2010) argue that when these principles are employed systematically, ELLs in special education would progress through a fair and equitable educational process with higher per pupil expenditures, lower teachers-student ratios, and effective instructional interventions designed to meet their needs. Others seem to suggest that the same interventions used with special education population could be used to remediate academic problem of ELLs. An important theme running through the findings and conclusions of their research is whether methods shown to be effective in teaching monolingual English students to read are also effective with ELL students. For example, Lovett, Palma, Frijters, Steinbach, Temple, Benson, and Lacerenza (2008) compared three groups of children with reading difficulties who fell into either ELL or English first language (EFL) category. The reading intervention programs in regular education classes were compared to a special education language art program typically taught in the school’s special education classes or resource room. The results of their study found no significant differences in the outcomes for the ELLs and EFLs in the special education and regular education reading conditions. Lovett et al. concluded that the same principles of special education intervention are effective for struggling readers regardless of their primary language status as long as a basic level of English-language competence is achieved. McIntosh, Graves, and Gersten (2007), also examined the effects of response to intervention type practices in reading fluency of four first-grade classrooms consisted of English only students and English learners from 11 native languages in three schools. The result of their study indicated that a version of RTI in which teachers incorporate intensive small-group instruction seems to be effective in the instruction of ELLs as well as non-ELLs. In their conclusion, McIntosh et al. suggests that many of the strategies and approaches that research found to be effective for native English speakers with reading problems are effective for ELLs as well.Other researchers have pointed to the special education teachers’ self- efficiency in teaching ELL students as a strong indicator of students’ educational outcome. Teacher efficiency beliefs can influence a teacher’s behavior regarding choices made that can impact student learning. Paneque and Barbetta, (2006) compared the regular and special education teacher’s efficiency in teaching students from multiple cultural and language backgrounds. Regular and special education elementary teachers were surveyed regarding their self-efficiency in dealing with students with disabilities who are also English learners. The result of this study indicated that special education teachers rated much higher in self efficiency than regular education teachers in dealing with ELL students with disabilities. According to Paneque and Barbetta, teachers’ self- efficient views or believe that they are capable of successfully teaching ELL students is positively correlated with student motivation, teachers ability to successfully implement classroom management strategies, and the teachers’ ability to work longer with students who are struggling. In another similar study by Conderman and Rodriguez (2009), the perceptions of regular and special education beginning elementary and secondary teachers regarding their preparation for collaborative teaching of students with disabilities were examined. The predominant finding of their study was that beginning special education teachers valued and felt better prepared working with children and families from diverse backgrounds. Against the Argument On the other hand, many argue that the practices surrounding the definition and identification of disability and effective practices have not reflected demographic, cultural and linguistic diversity in the school-aged population. Disproportionate representation of ELL students in special education has been a persistent concern among educators, researchers, and policy makers. For example, according to Artiles et al. (2010) in California from 1994 to 1999, special education placement for K-12 Latino ELL students increased by 345% despite only a 12% increase of these students in the overall population. Also the Descriptive Study of Services to ELL Students and ELL Students with Disabilities (OELA, 2003) reported approximately 9.0% of ELL students received special education services in 2001-2002. Although schools across the country are required to report and address any evidence of disproportionate representation in special education, the debates regarding whether ELL students are disproportionately represented in special education continues. A flaw in previous reporting practices by federal-level databases (i.e., the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Special Education Programs) could be one of the reasons for this continuing debate. In the past these databases only used information on student’s race and ethnicity, not on the status of their languages. As a result, the inferences about the proportional representation of ELL in special education have been based on Hispanic and Latino individuals (Samson & Lesaux ,2009). These problems with identification and overrepresentation of ELL students in special education categories may led to segregated placements that are usually accompanied by social stigma which could negatively affect the educational outcomes for these students. As noted before, a large proportion of ELL students are struggling readers. Many of these students experience difficulties with reading as early as kindergarten. Timely and accurate identification is needed in order for these students to receive necessary interventions and learn to read effectively and catch up with their English first language classmates. ELL students at risk for reading difficulties who are not identified in the primary grades are at a major disadvantage in overcoming their reading difficulties through remedial programs after the primary grades (Samson & Lesaux, 2009). However, a study conducted by Limbos and Geva (2001), found that teachers are less likely to identify first and second grade ELL students at risk of reading problems compared to English first language students. Teachers are not sure about the cause of the problem and assume that students’ difficulties are as a result of their lack of proficiency in English. Thus, ELL students in the first and second grade are overlooked for remedial services for reading difficulties. Moreover, ELL students appeared to be identified at a higher rate by third grade compared to their English only peers. This issue consequently leads to over representation of ELLs in special education by third grade which continued in later years. There could be a number of possible reasons why ELL students at risk of learning difficulties are identified later. Federal laws require that placement in special education cannot be due to language or environmental factors. Therefore teachers lack confidence in identifying disabilities and are reluctant to refer ELL students who exhibit learning difficulties for special education services until English proficiency status is established. Ethnic, economical, and linguistic disparities are even found within the umbrella of special education. For instance, Henderson (2001) found that students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds placed in special education are less likely to receive related services (i.e., vocational and occupational services) than their English only peers with the same disability label. These disparities even exist in the identification process of the ELL students with disabilities. While there is no reason to expect that disabilities should occur in some subgroups more than others, language minority students are also disproportionally represented in some special disability categories more than other categories. According to Samson and Lesaux (2009) language minorities have been disproportionally over represented in high-incidence disability categories such as learning disabilities or speech and language impairments. At the same time these groups were found under-represented in the low-incidence medically diagnosed disability categories such as visual or hearing impairments. Another finding of Samson and Lesaux study indicated that first and third grade ELL children from families with higher incomes were less likely to be in special education. Whether or not ELL students with learning difficulties receive special support services, there are serious questions about the ability of special education services to offer effective instructional interventions. Among these are the questions from the field of bilingual education on how soon to introduce English-language content and whether to use the native language or English language in teaching complex areas such as social studies or science. What makes this question even more complex is the ability of the teachers to teach students in their native language. While research by (Paneque & Barbetta, 2006) indicates that it is beneficial for the special education teachers to be proficient in the language of the ELL students with disabilities, most teachers in special education only speak English. Another major problem for special education in providing services for these students according to Gersten and Woodward (1994) is the inconsistency in various service delivery models throughout the United States. These variations may exist within neighboring school districts or even within the same district. This inconsistency in service delivery models, combined with the high mobility rate of families from language minority groups, makes the task of identifying and preventing school failure of ELL students a challenging one. This also can create confusion for an ELL student who has been taught with very different approaches at different times in his or her school life. An additional major flaw in current special education services to ELL students, is the lack of collaboration between the remedial programs provided by special educators and the students’ regular classroom teacher. This problem is not unique for this population. Collaboration may fail between special education and general education teacher for all special education students for many reasons. Lack of training in collaborative efforts, insufficient administrative support, and not having enough time for collaboration are among some reasons why special education and regular education teachers might not collaborate successfully. As a result teachers may not individualize instruction and may not provide instructional adaptations and accommodations to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities (Carter, Prater, Jackson, & Marchant, 2009). Conclusion As the population of ELLs has increased across the united states, developing effective instructional approaches for students from language minority groups including those with disabilities has become a complex and controversial matter. Although special education has many desirable features (e.g., low teacher-student ratio, individualized education, higher expenditures per pupil, etc.) to offer ELL students who are identified with disabilities, providing such services to ELL students who do not have disabilities or misclassifying them can have long-term negative effects on their academic achievement. However, given the high cost of special education in times of budget crises and the limited knowledge base associated with the education of ELL students with disabilities, improving services is difficult. Some researchers have made some recommendations for preparing teachers in providing educational support for ELL students with disabilities. Paneque and Barbetta (2006) mention the importance of having specific courses in teacher training programs that focus specially on strategies and techniques for ELL with disabilities. One of their recommendations emphasizes the importance of the ability of teachers to communicate with ELL students in their native language in order to distinguish between language differences and language disability. Special education teacher preparation programs might consider expanding their programs to include bilingual special education. They also recommend professional development for current and in-service teachers on topics such as instructional strategies, language development and acquisition, and cultural sensitivity. Field-based experiences are also recommended to be included as part of teacher education programs for preservice teachers. Limitation and difficulties in identifying ELL students as English limited proficiency or having a disability may continue, but following these recommendations allow professionals to be better informed and make decisions that address scientific based instructional approaches. Future studies need to find research based interventions tailored for specific academic, linguistic and cultural needs of ELL students in order to develop new and more effective strategies and policies for these students. ReferencesAbedi, J., (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teacher’s College Record, 108, 2282-2303. Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279-299. Carter, N., Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educator’s perceptions of collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 54, 60-70.Conderman, G., & Rodriguez, S. J. (2009). Beginning teacher’s views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53, 235-244.Gersten, R., Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310-322.Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities, 2001: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Limbos, M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 137-151.Lovett, M. W., Palma, M. D., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lacerenza, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333-352. McIntosh, A. S., Graves, A., & Gersten, R. (2007). The effects of response to intervention on literacy development in multiple-language settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 197-212.Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: Referring into RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269-288.Paneque, O. M., & Barbetta, P. M. (2006). A study of teacher efficiency of special education teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 171-192.Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: Rate and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 148- 162. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Census Bureau announces most populous cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved on May 2nd, 2010, from ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download