Challenges of Identifying Students Who Are Both English Language Learners/Emerging Bilingual and Special Education Students

Lynn DeBolt Schroeder

Challenges of Identifying Students Who Are Both English Language Learners/Emerging Bilingual and Special Education Students

The face of education has changed drastically over the years. We currently live in a highstakes testing environment that has educators concerned for their future as well as the future of their students. Any student who is considered to be at risk for unsatisfactory performance on the state-mandated testing often becomes the focus of their teacher’s concern. Students’ unsatisfactory performance can reflect poorly on their teacher’s performance reviews which could ultimately jeopardize their employment. One such group of students is the population referred to in federal legislation as Limited English Proficient. So as not to portray these students from a deficit viewpoint, in this paper they will be referred to as Emerging Bilinguals (EB). The term Emerging Bilingual focuses on the positive aspect of second language acquisition. Our global economy depends on employees who are fluent in more than one language. The students who come to us fluent in a language other than English, have the potential to graduate from our public school system with communication skills surpassing those of our monolingual students. While EB students have varying degrees of proficiency in their use and understanding of the English language, there is great concern that their inability to use academic vocabulary and academic language will hinder their performance on standardized tests. In addition to the concern regarding high-stakes testing, Artiles and Ortiz (2002) state that a student who has been identified as a limited English proficient student is 15-20% more likely to drop out of school prior to receiving a high school diploma than their peers. Kena et al. (2016) report that 9.3% of students in the United States are served as EB students.

Another group of students who are of great concern are those who the teacher suspects might qualify for special education services. Although federal legislation identifies students receiving special education students as disabled, this article will use the term special needs so as not to focus on deficits. The term disabled or disabilities will be used if it is part of a federally defined category or is the term used in an article or website. According to Kena et al. (2016), approximately 13% of all students enrolled nationwide during the 2013-14 school year were identified as having special needs. Of this group, 35% were served under the category of specific learning disability. Stetser and Stillwell (2014) report that in 2011-2012 only 61% of students with special needs completed their high school education within four years.

Students who are English language learners/emerging bilinguals and qualify for special education services are at high risk for dropping out of school, often due to academic failure (Ormrod, 2008). The purpose of this inquiry is to examine the over- and under-identification of EB students who qualify for special education services. This inquiry will then look at the

educational guidance programs in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado and New Mexico when considering evaluating EB students for possible placement in special education programs. In addition to these regional states, California and Florida will be examined due to their high percentage of EB students.

According to the United States Department of Education, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (2015), between 2004-05 and 2011-12, seven states showed a 100% increase in EB students. The states experiencing this rapid growth were not the states most people would expect to find on this list. As the numbers climb, schools scramble to identify appropriate strategies and procedures for dealing with students who need a tremendous amount of additional academic support. Compounding the growing numbers is the knowledge that it often takes a student seven to ten years to become proficient in academic English. Sadly, during this time period, many were misdiagnosed as having a learning disability (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Sullivan, 2011). Collier (2004) recommends waiting at least three years before evaluating students for possible placement in special education programs in order to determine whether the struggle is due to a learning disability or cultural adjustment. Taking the time to gather background information of the students who are EB is crucial for academic progress. When evaluating students for possible special education placement, it is regarded as best practice to administer the evaluation in their home language, but Fernandez and Inserra (2013) suggest that if a student was not proficient or literate in his native language, he might perform poorly on the bilingual assessments.

Disproportionality of Special Education Placement for EB Students

Sullivan (2011) published the results of an eight year data analysis comparing the rate of special education placement of EB students compared to their peers from the state department of education in a southwestern state. The state Sullivan examined used the term English language learner to identify “a child who does not speak English or whose native language is not English, and who is not currently able to perform ordinary classroom work in English” (Arizona Revised Statutes 15-751, 2007). This state reported 16% of their students were EB. Of this 16%, 91% of the students spoke Spanish. Sullivan looked at the high incident categories within special education to determine which, if any, indicated over or underrepresentation of EB students. In addition to indications of overrepresentation in the categories of mild mental retardation and specific learning disability, there was a high degree of underrepresentation in the category of emotional disability. This study reported the relative risk ratio for all special education as well as the individual categories. A relative risk ratio of 1.0 indicates there is little or no difference in risk between the two groups, a ratio of >1 suggests an increased risk in EB students being identified as students with special needs and a ratio of <1 suggests a reduced risk.

Table 1

Relative Risk Ratios of EB Students Being Identified as Students With Special Needs

Category

1999

2002

2006

All Special Education

0.77

0.90

1.19

Specific Learning Disability

1.3

1.21

1.82

Mild Mental Retardation

1.24

1.19

1.63

Speech-Language Impairment

0.69

0.95

1.30

Emotional Disability

0.15

0.21

0.12

As the table illustrates, the relative risk grew steadily for all special education categories. The study indicated that from 1999 to 2006 the relative risk ratio for all special education rose from 0.77 to 1.19. The high-incidence category of specific learning disability rose from 1.3 to 1.82 and speech language impairment rose from 0.69 to 1.30.

Teacher Impressions on Special Education Referral Process

Fernandez and Inserra (2013) conducted a qualitative research study of twelve teachers from four different schools in Long Island, New York. These schools reported an enrollment between 50 and 100 EB students. The teachers participated in face-to-face interviews addressing the methods used to refer EB students for special education. The teachers were very empathetic to the challenges faced by EB students, but believed that special education services were in their best interest. When analyzing the interview data, the researchers found four themes prevalent in each interview: acculturation, professional development, protocols for referring English language learners to special education, and research-based teacher best practices

Review of this quantitative study indicated that the teachers felt they needed more guidance and direction than was being provided to them. Often, they would leave meetings and return to their classroom after being told to provide interventions; however, they had no idea what interventions to try. The lack of guidance and assistance frustrated the teachers and pushed them toward referring students who might otherwise make sufficient progress through use of research-based interventions. The teachers felt as if they were alone and had to prove their case in order to get the student evaluated. The lack of assistance and guidance appeared to impact the number of students referred for special education evaluations.

State Guidance for Referring EB Students for Special Education Evaluation

After a review of the literature, it was apparent that guidance and specific procedures are necessary to appropriately support teachers of EB students who are not performing as expected in the general education curriculum. This study describes the analysis of nine state websites to answer the research question, “What guidance/support do state websites give teachers in terms of appropriateness and process of referring EB students for possible special education placement?”

Method

The research method of content analysis and comparison was used to answer the research question of, “What guidance/support do state websites give teachers in terms of appropriateness and process of referring EB students for possible special education placement?” This study focuses on the third theme, protocols for referring emerging bilingual students to special education. Each state department of education website was searched for “English language learner special education” to give a preliminary view of how easily accessible this information would be for teachers. In addition to the regional review of websites, the states of California and Florida were also examined as a comparison since they each have a high population of EB students. Although this paper was written using the more positive EB descriptor, the following reviews of state websites used the individual state preferred terms. The results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Summary of State Department of Education Website Review

State

Term used to describe ELL/EB students

Information Regarding Special Education Referrals of EB Students

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Florida

Kansas

Missouri

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

English Learners (EL) English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

English Language Learners (ELL)

English Learners (EL) Learners who are Culturally and/or Linguistically Diverse (CLD)

English Language Learners (ELL)

English Language Learners (ELLs) English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

English Language Learners (ELLs)

English Language Learners (ELL)

English Language Learners (ELL)

English Language Learners (ELL) Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC)

None

None except for policy and legal descriptions

Learners who are Culturally and/or Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Suspected of Having Educational Disabilities

None

Best Practices in General Education Interventions and Comprehensive Evaluations of English Language Learners

What Every Administrator & Educator Should Know: Separating Difference from Disability

Special Education and English Language Learners: Guidance for LEA Staff (included in the guidance document is a list of webinars that can be searched for separately)

No guidance except legal descriptions

Comprehensive Academic Resource and Training Toolkit for English Learners (CARTT) – this is not guidance for special education referral, but contains a large amount of information for administrators, teacher and families

No guidance on the referral process

As illustrated in the above table, states differ in their terminology related to EB students. In addition, not all states even have resources that address the process of identifying EB students who have additional special learning needs. Navigating the various state websites is difficult and the end result does not give much in regards to the referral process that would be helpful to teachers or administrators.

The initial search for “English language learner special education” on the Oklahoma State Department of Education website yielded no results regarding the referral of EB students for special education services. The secondary search of English language learner brought up the link to the Title III-A, Limited English Proficient and Immigrant page. After looking through several documents, it was discovered that under the Resources tab, there is a link to a document published by WIDA (2013), a consortium of 39 states that provides guidance and assessments for multi-lingual learners. This publication is entitled, Developing a Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Approach to Response to Instruction & Intervention (RtI²) for English Language Learners: Connecting to WIDA Standards, Assessments, and Other Resources. This document was a general overview of the Tier 2 services for EB students. The information was not directed toward teachers in Oklahoma and gave no real guidance toward the referral process. A search of the special education webpage yielded no reference of EB students. It appears that local districts are responsible for developing their own procedures and policies for referral of EB students for placement in special education programs. The State of Oklahoma recently launched a website specific to English Learners entitled CARTT (Comprehensive Academic Resource and Training Toolkit for English Learners). This website has a section for administrators, family and teachers. Although this website has a fairly large amount of useful information for all parties, there is no guidance toward possible special education referral. There is also no easy way to find this website. CARTT is listed under “Training” on the Oklahoma State Department of Education Title III webpage, but there is no explanation of what CARTT stands for or what information/training it provides.

Conclusion

When looking for information, most people turn to some type of internet search to answer their questions. Teachers are no different. When struggling with policy, procedures and student performance, we often look to the guidance of our state’s department of education. Only two of the state reviewed websites had easy-to-find information for teachers. Colorado and Missouri provided information that would be useful and informative to teachers of students who are EB. None of the other visited state websites provided easy access to guidance or policy for referring EB students for a special education placement evaluation. The purpose of the decision to search each state’s website using consistent terminology was to illustrate the difficulty teachers would have when looking at states outside the state with which they are familiar. It would be very difficult for a teacher in one of these states to turn to a neighboring state’s website for guidance due to the various acronyms used.

While there appears to be a lack of guidance from state departments of education, there are resources available that classroom teachers can use to help these students move forward in the education process.

1. Can Do Descriptors can be found on the site https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/cando/descriptors WIDA Access test is used in Oklahoma to determine proficiency levels of EB students. The levels are reported as: entering, beginning, developing,

expanding, bridging and reaching. These proficiency levels are reported in the Can Do Descriptors to assist teachers in determining where their students can be expected to perform based on their proficiency level. For example, a student who scores at Level 3 in Listening is considered at the Developing level and should be able to follow two-step oral directions one step at a time, draw pictures in response to oral instructions, give a physical response (thumbs up or thumbs down) to answer questions and use gestures to act out stories.

2. Pre-teaching vocabulary is a strategy that benefits EB students. These students appear to speak good conversational English, but often do not have the academic vocabulary to be successful in the classroom setting. Teaching students the meaning of words before they encounter them in their reading can be very helpful. You might consider having the students write their own dictionary. For each word they can break the word into syllables, indicate root words or word of origin, define, use it in a sentence and possibly draw visual representation of the word.

3. Word study activities like Words Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 2016) can be a great resource for classroom teachers. This book includes an assessment that identifies the stage of spelling that best describes the student. After identifying the stage, this book provides many stage-appropriate activities and lessons to help the students improve their spelling and reading skills.

4. Conversations with families can help teachers understand whether the student is having similar difficulties in their native language. Areas of discussion should center around the child’s acquisition of their first language. Were they slow to talk? Did they have a smaller vocabulary than children their own age? Are they able to follow directions when given in their first language? Has the child been exposed to printed material in their first language? If so, do they read in that language? This line of conversation can help you understand whether the child is exhibiting learning difficulties or difficulties with the language acquisition.

5. If the child appears to be struggling with reading comprehension, you might consider administering two different versions of reading comprehension passages. The first passage is administered as a typical reading comprehension passage, the student reads the passage and then answers questions about the reading. Read the second passage to the student, then ask them questions about the reading. If the student struggles answering questions when they read and when you read, it is most likely the student does not have the vocabulary necessary to understand the readings. If children can answer questions when the passage is read to them, but struggles with the passage they read, this indicates that the area of difficulty is in reading comprehension.

As the population of EB students continues to grow, states and local districts will need to address the disproportionality of EB students referred and identified as students with special needs. At this time, there is no federal reporting requirement for EB students who have also been identified as qualifying for special education. As these student numbers increase, it is likely that disproportionality results will also be monitored. As the numbers increase, there will be more teachers having to teach themselves how to work with EB students or states and districts will need to increase the professional development offerings. Teachers should be given training

to assist them in determining when it would be considered appropriate to refer their student. In order to equip them for more linguistically diverse classrooms, professional development must be provided and policies/procedures must be developed to assist these teachers. Higher education must begin requiring university students to complete coursework in second language acquisition, just as they require education majors to complete a special education overview course.

.

Lynn DeBolt Schroeder is Director of Federal Programs and Special Education at Sequoyah Public Schools in Claremore, Oklahoma. She is currently a doctoral student at Oklahoma State University. Lynn may be reached at lynn.debolt@okstate.edu.

References

Arizona Revised Statute, 15-751 (2007). http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/15/00751.htm&Title=15& DocType=ARS Arkansas State Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.arkansased.gov Artiles, A.J., & Ortiz, A.A. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special education: Identification, assessment, and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2016). Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction, 6th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson. California Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Comprehensive Academic Resource and Training Toolkit for English Learners. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cartt.sde.ok.gov/ Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20. Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.cde.state.co.us Fernandez, N., & Inserra, A. (2013). Disproportionate classification of ESL students in U.S. special education. TESL-EJ, 17(2) Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1017754&site=eho st-live

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/ Kansas State Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ksde.org/ Kena, G., Hussar W., McFarland J., de Brey C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Wilkinson- Flicker, S., Diliberti M., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Dunlop Velez, E. (2016). The Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://dese.mo.gov/

New Mexico Public Education Department. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ped.state.nm.us/ped/index.html Oklahoma State Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://sde.ok.gov/sde/ Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Stetser, M., & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public High School Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. First Look (NCES 2014- 391). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ918896&site=ehost -live; Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/ United States Department of Education, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, Profiles of English Learners (ELs) (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/OELA_FastFacts_ProfilesOfELs.pdf WIDA Consortium. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/can-do/descriptors WIDA Consortium. 2013. Developing a Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Approach to Response to Instruction & Intervention (RtI²) for English Language Learners. Available: https://www.uab.edu/education/esl/images/WIDA_RtI2_forELLs.pdf .