Identifying Disabilities in Children with Limited English Proficiency

Transcription

1 Page 38 Identifying Disabilities in Children with Limited English Prficiency Alisn Beier Elementary General Educatin, Senir, Indiana University ABSTRACT Research shws there is a disprprtinal number f limited English prficient (LEP) students in special educatin. This misrepresentatin is due t the inability f general educatrs t cnfidently identify students with LEP. Special educatin legislatin has attempted t clarify the identificatin prcedures fr special educatin placement with limited success. The cnsensus in the field is that the prcess f making a decisin abut special educatin is mre cmplex when the student at hand is limited in English prficiency. This article discusses the issues surrunding the prcess and prvides guidelines fr teachers as they make the difficult decisin f referral fr special educatin evaluatin. Histrically, English language learners (ELL) have been bth ver represented and underrepresented in special educatin (CAST, 2001). This varied representatin f LEP students in special educatin is a result f several factrs, but the majr factr is believed t stem frm the difficulties general educatrs face when identifying the learning prblem. Students that cme t American schls withut an English backgrund r English as a secnd language have a higher risk f being misidentified due t the general educatr s lack f knwledge in the specified language (Klingner & Artiles, 2003). Accrding t estimates prvided by the Cuncil fr Exceptinal Children (2004), 5.5 millin children with LEP (2004) are enrlled in schls acrss the natin. This means that accrding t the mandate under the Individuals with Disabilities Educatin Act (IDEA) f 2004, schls have the respnsibility t prvide each f thse 5.5 millin students, a free apprpriate public educatin (FAPE). But hw is it pssible when the prcess f identifying the children with LEP is s unclear? Teachers can utilize the pre-referral prcess t reduce premature and incrrect referrals, but in mst cases with LEP students, the questin remains whether teachers are

2 Page 39 Law & Disrder willing t implement this prcess.. This leaves general educatrs with a difficult dilemma: t refer t the pssibility that the child s prblem is strictly a language barrier r nt t refer t the risk that the LEP student des have a learning disability despite his language barrier. The N Child Left Behind (NCLB) law requires that schls demnstrate adequate yearly prgress f all students, including LEP students (CEC, 2004). This means that due t the pressure NCLB has placed n educatrs, teachers have mre respnsibility and are held accuntable fr the achievement f the students with LEP. Therefre, there is even mre strain n the general educatr t crrectly identify the LEP student in rder t assure prgress with the student s educatin. With the help f the pre-referral prcess and ther tls, are general educatrs able t better identify the LEP students? If nt what shuld be dne? Sme bilingual special educatin schlars (e.g., Ortiz, 2001) argue that general educatrs lack training in identifying cgnitive disabilities in LEP students. Therefre, general educatrs cmmnly mistake the child s language deficiency fr a cgnitive disability resulting in an inapprpriate ver-referral f LEP students identified and placed in special educatin (Ortiz, 2001). In the past, this prblem f abve average representatin partly stemmed frm the inability f the students t cmprehend the clearly biased tests (Ocha, 2003). This language-biased test was nt nly unfair t the language-challenged student, but als t the teacher wh had n ther way f identifying special needs students besides the tests written in English. Due t the Educatinal Amendments Act f 1974, the public agency (lcal schl) has t give tests in the student s native language. This has allwed students t be fairly graded n their curriculum intelligence and nt by their lack f English prficiency. This and many ther legislative acts and mandates which stem frm IDEA have been changed t better meet the needs f LEP students. IDEA, the mst influential and functinal legislatin fr LEP students, has established many requirements that have been intended t reduce the amunt f wrngly placed LEP students in special educatin (Ocha, in press). IDEA has nt nly demanded testing t be unbiased (against peple with disabilities, ELLs), but als mandates that students with disabilities are prvided an individualized educatin prgram (IEP) in the least restrictive envirnment (LRE) (Ocha, 2003). This requires general educatrs t g thrugh the pre-referral prcess with any student in questin f special educatin. Therefre, a team suggests strategies that the teacher is required t apply befre the student is referred. Ocha utlines a checklist that she recmmends t educatrs t put int practice befre referring. She suggests that the teacher des the fllwing: Obtain and review all the schl s recrds f the child in questin. Lk fr infrmatin that culd help the educatr understand the student s academic and behaviral prblems. In particular review the recrds t determine if the student: Has had a psychlgical evaluatin Qualified fr special services in the past Ever been included in ther prgrams (e.g., prgrams fr disadvantaged children r speech and language therapy) Has scred far belw average n standardized tests Been retained in a grade level Indicates gd prgress in sme areas and pr prgress in thers Has any physical r medical prblems Is taking medicatin

3 Page 40 Talk t ther educatrs wh have wrked with the students t determine if they share similar cncerns and have fund successful ways f respnding t the student Talk with the student s family and make a hme visit if pssible t assess and understand the student s hme envirnment As yu are implementing pre-referral interventins: Dcument the strategies used in the general educatin classrm Nte thse that have been succes ful and unsuccessful (in press, p. 8) These steps are intended t help the general educatr becme mre familiar with the student in rder make the referral prcess mre effective. IDEA als includes an exclusinary clause requiring the child t have ample time t learn (in this case the language) befre being declared as having a disability (Klingner & Artiles, 2003). Thugh this shuld prevent general educatrs frm labeling LEP students t quickly, Klingner and Artiles argue that the pre-referral team tends t verlk the clause and the students are handicapped fr being English deficient (2003). Therefre, LEP students are nt prvided sufficient time in mst cases t display their abilities. Like mst cases, there are mandates that are meant t imprve the educatin system, but if these mandates are nt fllwed cnsistently they can d nthing. In this example, general educatrs are expected t give the LEP student sufficient time in the classrm befre questining the abilities. Baca (in Zehr, 2004) a bilingual special educatin schlar, argues that the U.S. has a need fr general educatrs that are educated in language as well as special educatin (in Zehr, 2004). T have mre teachers trained in language and special educatin wuld be ideal fr LEP students, and it culd quite pssibly slve the majrity f misrepresentatin prblems. General educatrs wh wuld be able t cnfidently refer LEP students t special educatin wuld save a lt f time and truble. Wrthy as this gal may be, it is quite unrealistic fr the time being due t the lack f experience and understanding peple have f this recent issue. If plicymakers and educatrs sincerely want t crrect the misrepresentatin f LEP students in special educatin and all the ther strategies and tls have been attempted, then there are numerus ther recmmendatins that are applicable. Accrding t Klingner and Artiles (2003), their three-prnged apprach was t first ffer prfessinal training t the general educatrs in regards t cmprehending the requirements f the exclusinary clause. Secndly, the schl must prvide a prfessinal in the area f the child s native language wh wuld be a part f the IEP and the prereferral interventin meetings. Thirdly, there shuld be mre bservatins dne by educatrs ther than the actual teacher. These bservatins shuld be dne in rder t give a substantial idea f hw the child was learning in the classrm. As recmmended in the NCCREST (2003), steps fr pre-referral may include: Fcus n language, scial and intellectual develpment Build habits f the mind - Cre ideas, big questins, tls fr inquiry Bridge hme and schl cultures in the curriculum Be culturally respnsive get t knw yur students backgrunds and scicultural histries Prvide rich literacy, numeric and technlgic envirnments Universally design classrms and curriculum These recmmendatins have the ptential t help imprve the prfessinal

4 Page 41 Law & Disrder decisin the teacher will be faced with. In cnclusin, it is clear that general educatrs have the difficult task f referring their students wh d nt speak English t special educatin evaluatins. It is impssible t be 100% sure when identifying a LEP student as a ptential student in need f special services. Despite the pre-referral prcess and the IEP, which are meant t help the teacher identify their students, teachers are still left unsure f whether the LEP student is simply having truble with language r suffers frm an actual disability. In the wrds f Walter H. MacGinitie (1983), The state f uncertainty is nt ne f indifference; it leads by a stnier path t tlerance; t be genuinely uncertain, ne must care. That is the burden f uncertainty (p. 679). Fr educatrs t identify LEP students, we must questin, questin and questin again. Teachers must always be faced with a sense f dubt in rder t knw that they care. T truly identify LEP students crrectly we must care, we must have dubts, we must nt make rash decisins, but keep an pen mind in what we bserve. Therefre, we will cntinue t lk fr signals, we will secnd-guess; we are allwed t change ur minds. In the meantime, if we must make a decisin, if we must cme t a cnclusin abut a child, I believe it is safer t refer a child t special educatin and give him clser examinatin, than t deny him special attentin and allw him t fall behind. references CAST (2001, August 14). Limited English prficient students and special educatin. Retrieved September 27, 2004, frm LimitedEnglishPrficientStudents 2082.cfm#fn11 CEC (2004, February 27). ED assists states, English language learners under NCLB. Retrieved September 27, 2004, frm pp/legislative_update/mdules/news/ article.php?stryid=52 Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2003). When shuld bilingual students be in special educatin? Educatinal Leadership, 61( 2). Retrieved September 14, 2004, frm asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+3f5a9fa8%2d3 125%2D4DEB%2D883F%2D28058C 3DB2DD%40sessinmgr6+dbs+aph% 2Ceric%2Cprh+cp+1+B5C1&_us=hs +False+r+Date+ss+SO+sm+KS+sl+ %2D1+dstb+KS+ri+KAAACBVA D3&_us=hd+False+tg%5 B0+%2D+st%5B0+%2DKlingner%2 C++Janette+db%5B2+%2Dprh+db%5 B1+%2Deric+db%5B0+%2Daph+p %5B0+%2D+0A49&fn=1&rn=2 Kzleski, E. B. (2003). Slutins t disprprtinality. Retrieved September 27, 2004, frm MacGinitie, W. H. (1983). The pwer f uncertainty. Jurnal f Reading, 26, Ocha, T. (in press). Bilingual special educatin. In Carls Ovand, Virginia Cllier, & Mary Carl Cmbs, Bilingual and ESL classrms: Teaching in multicultural cntexts. Bstn: McGraw Hills. Ocha, T. (2003). Bilingual special educatin. In Carls Ovand, Virginia Cllier, & Mary Carl Cmbs, Bilingual and ESL classrms: Teaching in multicultural cntexts (pp ). Bstn: McGraw Hills.

5 Page 42 Ortiz, A. (2001). English language learners with special needs: Effective instructinal strategies. ERIC Clearinghuse n Languages and Linguistics Washingtn D.C., ERIC Dcument Reprductin Service N. ED Retrieved September 14, 2004, frm net/ericdigests/ed html Zehr, M. A. (2004, January 14). Reprt updates prtrait f LEP students. Educatin Week, 23(18), Retrieved September 8, 2004, frm asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+a373d416%2db F6B%2D456C%2D9B0B%2DAC03F F94E1DB%40sessinmgr5+dbs+aph+ cp+1+2e3e&_us=hs+true+cst+0%3 B1%3B2+r+Date+ss+SO+sm+KS+s l+0+dstb+ks+ri+kaaacbgc D39B&_us=tg%5B0+%2D+db %5B0+%2Daph+hd+False+clv%5B0 +%2D %2D p% 5B0+%2D+cli%5B0+%2DDT1+st%5 B0+%2DBilingual++AND++special+ +educatin+f4b0&fn=1&rn=1