Although public school districts in Southern California are
experiencing declining enrollment overall, accompanying this decline is
a continuing increase in the percentage of students classified as
English language learners (EL). Of the 1,515,074 public school students
enrolled in K-12 schools in the state of California in 2008-2009, over
24% were identified as EL (California Department of Education). More
than 50% of EL in California begin their school experience in
Kindergarten (EdSource, 2008).
In one Southern California school district with an enrollment of
approximately 5,500, EL represented almost 31% of students. This
district employed one teacher on special assignment (TOSA) as the
District English Language Development (ELD) Coach. As is common for ELD
specialists, this person mentored teachers in utilizing instructional
strategies for EL and provided professional development; however, an
additional responsibility was added to the already full list: attending
all Student Study Team (SST) meetings held for EL throughout the entire
school district.
The impact this action had would prove dramatic. Calendars began to
look more like completed crossword puzzles. The meetings were numerous
and occurred at every school and every K-12 grade level plus preschool.
Over the course of four years, the number of SST meetings for EL
attended by the TOSA totaled more than one hundred and expanded to
include students from pre-school to high school.
Numerous experiences at SST meetings for EL led to a reexamination
of the teacher's role in the pre-referral process until it became a
central focus for professional development and new teacher training,
especially for cases involving EL. The need for teachers to understand
and be more prepared for their role in the pre-referral process became
evident, especially for beginning teachers without the advantage of
years of classroom experience.
This article is a brief compilation of some of the observations
made during this time, including the proposition that a study of the
classroom teacher's role in the pre-referral and referral process,
especially in relation to EL, should be included in teacher preparation
programs in collaboration with special education professionals. Finally,
recommendations for further research in this area that arose will be
discussed.
Over-Representation of Language Minority Students in Special
Education
The complex issue of overrepresentation of language minority
students in special education settings is nothing new and remains an
area of concern for both regular education and special education (Harry
& Klingner, 2007). One of the main factors is that the
characteristics of second language learning can easily be misinterpreted
as signs of a learning disability. Other factors leading to
overrepresentation include cultural and linguistic bias in testing and
discriminatory practices in the assessment of bilingual children
(Becker, 2001).
In fact, one recent study found that personnel responsible for
assessing a student's eligibility for special education services,
school psychologists, did not assess or investigate the possible
confounding effects of bilingualism on tests, testing, and diagnoses
(Figueroa & Newsome, 2006). Other factors plaguing the placement of
minority children in special education involve the lack of adequate
classroom instruction prior to the student's referral, the pressure
of high-stakes testing, inconsistencies in policy implementation, and
arbitrary referrals and assessment decisions.
Harry and Klingner (2006) found that each school creates a
"culture of referral" that reflects the attitudes and beliefs
of administrators and teachers regarding children's performance in
the regular education setting and beliefs about special education. Their
research indicated that these were "greater determinants of these
patterns [of referral] than were the characteristics of the children
themselves" (p. 95). The researchers recapitulate by stating that:
Language minority students often experience learning difficulties
related to learning in a second language. Each case requires a careful
examination of many factors to create a holistic picture of the learner.
Although academic difficulties may become evident in students even
in the early grades, some studies have found "significant
over-representation" at the secondary level (Artiles, Rueda,
Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). In addition, when the data regarding the
EL in the same study was disaggregated into subgroups based on various
factors such as proficiency level in English and the student's
primary language, it was found that the subgroup with limited
proficiency in both the native language and English were more than four
times as likely to be labeled learning disabled as their White
counterparts, as well as being consistently over-represented in special
programs in both elementary and secondary grades (Harry & Klingner,
2006).
As the curricular demands increase with each grade level, the
discrepancy between academic content standards and the learner's
performance becomes more clearly pronounced. The self-contained
structure of the elementary classroom naturally lends itself to in-depth
observation of students; however, at the secondary level, the context
for referrals requires collaboration between counselors, content-area
teachers from various departments, administrators, and other personnel,
making it a more complex process.
Clearly, teachers at all grade levels are responsible for
recognizing and documenting learning difficulties, implementing best
practices for all students, and collaborating with colleagues to prevent
inappropriate referrals. Whereas each local education agency develops
its own particulars of the pre-referral and referral process, there are
some general components of the process that can be incorporated into
teacher preparation programs to promote a healthy culture of referral by
providing the knowledge base and strategies necessary for addressing
learning difficulties of EL and others in the classroom.
When learning difficulties first arise, a teacher may be tempted to
suggest prematurely that an English learner be tested for eligibility
for special education services in an attempt to meet a student's
needs. At first, the small group and/or individual attention that
special education students often receive seems appealing and just what
an English learner may need to be more successful. The perceived first
step is for the classroom teacher to fill out the necessary paperwork
and request a SST or Child Study Team meeting. However, the purpose of
the SST process is for a team of professionals to explore options and
resources to assist students that are struggling, whether it be
academically, in the social/emotional arena, or behaviorally; it is not
a function of special education, but of the regular education program.
Guidelines established by the California Department of Education
state that:
It is easy for educators, especially those new to the profession or
with limited exposure to special education practices, to arrive at the
conclusion early on that they suspect a disability when a student has
continued learning difficulties. Historically, a deficit model has been
employed instead of examining external factors such as educational
history, cultural and linguistic factors, significant life events, and
opportunity to learn. Harry and Klingner (2007) write
A determination must be made about whether the difficulty is
related to environmental or other factors rather than attributing it to
internal sources. Before a student's difficulties are reviewed by
an IEP team and the student is tested, the local pre-referral process
should be fully utilized to promote accurate determination of whether or
not the difficulty can be attributed to cultural or linguistic diversity
or other factors. The SST or Child Student Team is the vehicle through
which this action takes place. Almost all referrals to the SST in the
district described above were initiated by a classroom teacher. This
makes the teacher the first stop at determining if there is sufficient
concern to pursue further measures; therefore, it is imperative that
teachers possess a base of knowledge regarding the purposes and
processes of the SST in order to make appropriate referrals and collect
relevant information and data to present to the team.
The team's ability to systemically address and rule out
environmental factors is an integral part of the pre-referral process.
The discussion of intervention design and delivery, best practices, and
RTI for struggling students necessitates collaboration between general
educators and special education specialists. This convergence of the
issues for EL and the area of special education merits considerable
thought in teacher preparation programs.
The Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs developed by the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) include a standard
devoted to each of these two areas. Standard 12 delineates teacher
candidates' preparation to teach EL. It states that:
The subsequent standard, Standard 13, Preparation to Teach Special
Populations (Students with Special Needs) in the General Education
Classroom, declares that the teacher preparation program ensures the
following:
Elements of Standard 12 and 13 are now embedded throughout the
candidate's program, whereas in the past they existed as separate
courses. In addition to these Standards, the Teaching Performance
Expectations (TPE), also developed by CCTC (2008), reiterate the same
language in the required elements for teaching EL (TPE 7). Although the
TPEs do not list a specific standard devoted solely to preparation for
meeting the needs of special education students, language regarding
meeting various types of needs that students may have is embedded
throughout the TPEs. For example, TPE 8, Learning About Students,
describes teacher candidates' actions related to teaching students
with disabilities:
Based on assessment data, classroom observation, reflection and
consultation, they identify students needing specialized instruction,
including students whose physical disabilities, learning disabilities,
or health status require instructional adaptations, and students who are
gifted. (CCTC, 2008, p. A-14)
Although there appears to be a significant amount of material
covered under these requirements, research by Smith, Herner,
McCambridge, and Sieger (2004) suggests that teachers may need more
extensive preparation for instructing these populations, especially when
the teacher candidates begin to work directly with students. In a
longitudinal study of teacher candidates in California, they found that
The case can be made for more extensive collaboration between
English learner specialists and educators in special education. Since
teachers working with each of these populations require a significant
knowledge base and special skills, the information gleaned from the
experiences of practitioners in both realms may indeed prove to be
helpful to better prepare teacher candidates for the challenges that
they will face when students fall into both categories. In any case, the
pre-referral process serves a central function in providing for the
needs of EL in the regular education classroom. The following details
some practical information that is suggested for inclusion in a
comprehensive teacher preparation program to address the intersection of
EL in the regular classroom and special education.
Vital information to Share with Pre-Service Teachers
The Pre-Referral Process
The pre-referral process using Student Study Team meetings is not a
gateway to special education, but a function of the regular education
program. The team should consist minimally of the classroom teacher and
an administrator. At the secondary level, all concerned teachers and a
counselor discuss difficulties seen across the curriculum and in
different settings.
When the student is an English learner, the team must include at
least one educator with expertise in second language acquisition and
experience working with EL. The role of this specialist is not to make
final decisions about whether a child should be referred for special
education testing, but to serve as a consultant to the team and as a
contributing team member. He or she provides information and presents
guiding questions that facilitate the ability of the team to determine
whether or not the learning difficulty is related to linguistic or
cultural diversity.
The purpose of the first SST meeting is fact-finding. It consists
of reviewing all available information and data, identifying specific
areas of academic and/or social difficulties, and developing an
intervention plan to address the concerns. It can almost be said that it
is inappropriate to require a special education teacher to be present at
the very first meeting. At times, it may be appropriate to have a parent
present, but it is not usually necessary unless the teacher as been
unable to gather information from the parent or the concerns involve
issues at home.
The classroom teacher should gather as much information as possible
before attending the meeting. The information should reveal the external
or environmental factors affecting the learner and describe how they
have been addressed. Data may include student work samples, test
results, anecdotal records, grades, a list of strategies employed by the
teacher, and other accommodations made to appropriately provide access
to the curriculum at the English proficiency level of the student. This
data needs to outline strengths the student presents, such as academic
aptitudes, social/ emotional characteristics, and cultural and
linguistic resources available to the student.
Other responsibilities of the teacher initiating the meeting
include reviewing the cumulative file to search for any past record of
difficulties, interventions, skipped grades, retentions attendance
patterns, or previous evaluation for eligibility for special education
services. Some of the most valuable information is shared when parents
are consulted as resources and funds of information. Parents can
contribute information regarding how language is used in the home
(primary language and English), the child's educational and health
history, sleeping and eating habits, and other characteristics or
details that may be relevant to the difficulties being examined by the
SST.
As the team reviews the data presented, it must be synthesized to
create a holistic picture of the student. Rather than focus only on what
the student can't do, a balanced approach inclusive of positive
factors offers hope for building future success as well as ideas for how
to guide the student in drawing on his or her own strengths. This
approach can contribute to the school's culture of referral by
emphasizing a shared responsibility for student success and a process
for decision-making that is informed by data from multiple sources.
Modified Response To Intervention (RTI) as a Useful Tool in Serving
ELLs
Early intervention and use of SST or Teacher Assistance Teams (TAT)
allows learning difficulties to be addressed in the regular classroom
before inappropriate referrals to special education are made (Ortiz,
2001). As the team develops a plan to address the concerns for the ELL,
elements of the three-tired Response to Intervention model (RTI) can be
applied to enhance the effectiveness of the plan, providing they are
applied in a culturally responsive manner.
RTI can be used to address both academic and social learning
issues. The first tier involves quality instruction and ongoing
monitoring within the general education classroom. In the second tier,
schools provide intensive intervention support for students who have not
met expected benchmarks. In the third tier, students who do not respond
to previous interventions may be evaluated for possible placement in
special education.
Benchmark or classroom level modifications and accommodations must
be documented and proved insufficient in the regular classroom.
Subsequently, the SST can use this information to design strategic
and/or intensive interventions geared toward the English learner's
specific difficulties. For example, at one initial SST meeting for a
Vietnamese-speaking first grader at the early intermediate level of
English proficiency, the classroom teacher requested a full evaluation
for speech and language from the speech and language pathologist because
the child was difficult to understand in oral communication.
The teacher reported that she did not have time to teach him
English pronunciation. Knowing that the sound inventory and phonological
rules of Vietnamese differ greatly from those of English, the ELD TOSA
offered the team a strategic RTI-type of alternative: an intensive,
short-term intervention with a trained speech and language pathologist
to target the sounds that the student was not producing and report back
in a few weeks.
The team agreed and the student was assigned to one of the speech
and language assistants. She identified 12 sounds that the student found
difficult and worked two or three times a week with him, individually or
in a small group to target the missing sounds. After only a few weeks,
the assistant reported back that the student had mastered all 12
targeted sounds. The classroom teacher also noted improvement in
comprehensibility and withdrew her request for a speech and language
evaluation. The prescribed intervention plan was designed to directly
address a very specific skill and proved to be successful in allowing
the student to focus on pronouncing the target sounds.
Ideally, this type of intervention can be implemented in Tier 1 of
RTI and delivered by the classroom teacher; however, in this instance,
the teacher was not able to address this particular need without the
assistance of a specialist, illuminating the need for more comprehensive
teacher preparation and additional professional development in
collaboration with specialists in order to address specific learning
needs of EL.
Once the team has identified the specific difficulties to be
addressed by the plan, available interventions should be evaluated for
quality and appropriateness to the child's need. A decision based
on data from inappropriately placed students can result in misdiagnosis
and/or further misplacement. In order for an activity to be considered a
valid intervention, it must directly address the child's area of
need and provide high quality opportunities to learn.
Validity must take precedence over availability. For example, at
one SST meeting, the English learner's area of difficulty described
by the teacher was related to phonemic awareness. The teacher reported
that the student had been attending an after-school reading intervention
program with no real improvement. In the ensuing discussion, it was
discovered that the program the student was attending focused on reading
comprehension, not phonemic awareness; however, the student attended
because it was the only reading intervention available at the school at
the time. The pretest and post-test data showed little to no
improvement.
The ELD TOSA recommended to the team that the English learner be
removed from this program immediately and then collaborated with the
team to design an individual intervention program to target specific
skills. In another instance, a secondary teacher reported at an SST
meeting that the failing English learner had been assigned to an after
school homework help class for weeks with little to no improvement. When
questioned by SST members, the student indicated that she visited the
ice cream truck after school on most days and by the time she arrived
back on campus for homework intervention class, she was not allowed into
the class because there were only a few minutes remaining in the
session. The classroom teacher was not aware of this, but made the
assumption that the student had been attending diligently. This
intervention was deemed invalid due to the student's lack of
participation.
In a similar meeting for another English learner who was failing
more than one class, but attending the homework intervention sessions,
the
student revealed that the structure of the intervention was not
helpful; the intervention consisted of a large group of students who
were receiving low grades in various classes. They were working
independently after school while the teacher graded papers. The students
did not receive help from the teacher unless they raised their hands and
asked. The student reported that usually the teacher was busy helping
others and did not have time to help him, so he eventually stopped
raising his hand for help. Again, the validity of this intervention must
be evaluated for its effectiveness in addressing the learning
difficulties presented by the students in the program.
Once an appropriate, effective intervention plan has been
established, the plan should begin as soon as possible. A follow-up
meeting should be scheduled for no later than six to eight weeks after
the interventions begin. This is usually a sufficient amount of time for
improvement to begin to manifest. At the follow-up meeting, the team
reviews the progress made by the student and makes any adjustments or
modifications to the intervention plan and implements any changes for
the next few weeks. At a subsequent meeting, the student's progress
is again reviewed.
If the student shows little or no progress after intense,
sufficient, appropriate interventions have been faithfully implemented
and monitored over time, then the student may indeed be considered for
further investigation which may include an evaluation for eligibility to
special education services (Ortiz, 2001). In cases where an English
learner has been evaluated for special education services and found to
be eligible due to a learning disability, an Individual Educational Plan
or IEP is developed by special education teachers and specialists to
address the learning difficulties faced by the student. The most
appropriate instructional setting for the student is determined through
the IEP process.
English Language Development for ELLs with an IEP
With the current emphasis on inclusionary practices for special
education students, more regular education teachers are finding students
with a variety of special needs in their classes. It is imperative,
then, that teacher candidates begin developing a knowledge base of
information and skills to help them address these needs. Classroom
teachers should be aware of EL in the class that have special needs,
including being familiar with any modifications and/or accommodations
that need to be made to instruction and assessment for the student.
In California, the IEP team is responsible for including English
language development (ELD) goals as part of the IEP. All EL, including
those with identified special needs, must receive daily instruction in
ELD at their current level of proficiency, which is assessed using the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
Since the IEP takes precedence in the areas of placement and
educational goal setting, the determination for the setting in which the
ELL will receive daily ELD instruction should be made by the IEP team,
including at least one member with expertise in second language
acquisition. In some cases, the ELL's disability may impact the
development of the student's first language, second language, or
both. The team must also consider which of the four domains, if any, of
language development (listening, speaking, reading, writing) are
affected by the student's diagnosed disability.
For example, the development of listening and speaking skills in EL
can be affected by auditory processing disorders, just as visual
processing disorders can affect literacy development. In the course of
providing professional development to special education teachers in the
area of integrating ELD goals into IEPs in the aforementioned district,
the ELD TOSA developed the following flow chart to help IEP teams
outline the impact of learning disabilities on EL's language
acquisition and determine the most effective setting for delivery of
daily ELD instruction (See Figure 1). EL receiving daily ELD instruction
in the special education setting must still receive instruction
appropriate for their English proficiency level and other needs while in
the regular education classroom.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Directions for Further Research
It is interesting to note in TPE 3 (CCTC, 2008) that teacher
candidates are to be able to explain a student's academic and
behavioral strengths as well as areas of need. This is a topic worthy of
further study. Student strengths are internal factors that can be
leveraged and developed to facilitate student achievement and allow
teachers differentiate instruction and assessment more effectively.
Moving from a deficit model to a strengths-based approach makes
sense in light of the recent emphasis on differentiated instruction and
attention to individual differences. Exploring this component as it
relates to intervention plans for EL adds a new dimension to planning
for the student's success, both academically and socially. For
example, first language resources are counted as assets to be built
upon, contributing to the supply of academic strengths EL possess.
The need for further research regarding the intersection of EL and
special education is extensive. The following questions represent only
some of the areas that warrant study:
1. What are the main risk factors to investigate regarding EL that
are not making appropriate progress in English language acquisition,
academics, or both?
2. How should data be disaggregated to account for the
distinguishing characteristics of EL subgroups related to student
achievement?
3. What is the relationship between time in program, instructional
setting, opportunity to learn and placement in Special Education for
long-term EL? How is it related to the overrepresentation of EL in
special education at the secondary level?
4. In what ways will more collaboration among English learner
specialists, special education educators, and classroom teachers benefit
students?
5. How does a strengths-based approach affect student achievement
through the design and delivery of instruction, assessment, and
interventions for students?
6. What is the best way or place to integrate information on the
pre-referral process into teacher preparation programs?
7. How can the effectiveness of the embedded program for EL and
special education be measured in terms of adequately preparing teacher
candidates in both of these areas?
8. How can educators better distinguish between the academic
difficulties due to learning disabilities and similar characteristics of
second language learning?
9. What personnel and resources in English and students'
primary language are needed in order to adequately assess EL for
eligibility for special education services?
10. What resources or assessments are needed to help determine
whether there are indicators in the child's primary language that a
disability may exist?
11. Can guidelines be developed to direct educators regarding
whether bilingual students should be tested for eligibility for special
education in their primary language, in English, or both?
12. Is there a need for a tool to be developed for classroom
teachers to use that outlines information vital to a comprehensive
picture of the student involved in the pre-referral process, i.e.
contributing environmental factors?
13. How can teacher preparation and on-going professional
development for classroom teachers, special education teachers,
administrators, counselors, speech and language pathologists, and others
be improved in relation to the local culture of referral?
With the large numbers of EL in U.S. schools, the importance of the
pre-referral process and its purposes and procedures will remain a
critical topic for study. It will require collaboration and
communication on the part of regular education and special education
teachers, specialists, teacher educators, and researchers to develop
methods and strategies for addressing the needs of diverse students.
Classroom teachers form the front line in identifying students with
learning difficulties that need to be addressed through intervention.
More information can be incorporated into the teacher preparation
program to provide a foundation for in-service teachers to understand
the pre-referral process, gather relevant data, make accurate referrals
to the SST, and craft intervention strategies and plans to successfully
address students' needs.
References
Artiles, A., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005).
Within-group diversity inminority disproportionate representation:
English language learners in urban school districts. Council for
Exceptional Children, 17(3), 283-300.
Becker, H. (2001). Teaching ESL K-12: Views from the classroom.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
California Department of Education. (2006). English learner
frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/
el/er/
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008). CalTPA
candidate handbook, Appendix A: California's Teaching Performance
Expectations. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educatorprep/TPA-files/
CandidateHandbook-AppendixA-TPEs.pdf
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009). SB 2042
Multiple Subject and Single Subject Preliminary Credential Program
Standards. Retrieved on March 5, 2010 from
http://wwww.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/
AdoptedPreparation-Standards.pdf
California Department of Education. (n.d.) DataQuest. Data
retrieved on March 1, 2010 from www.cde.ca.gov and www.eddata.k12.ca.us
EdSource. (2008). English learners in California: What the numbers
say. Retrieved March 9, 2010 from http://www.edsource.
org/pub_ELvitalstats3-08.html
Figueroa, R., & Newsome, P. (2006). The Diagnosis of LD in
English learners: Is it nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39(3), 206-214. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority
students in special education? Understanding race and disability in
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2007). Discarding the deficit
model. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 16-21.
Ortiz, A. (2001). English language learners with special needs:
Effective instructional strategies. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics, Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved on March 5, 2010
from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ digest_pdfs/0108-ortiz.pdf
Smith, B., Herner, L., McCambridge, M., & Sieger, J. (2004).
From Ryan to 2042: Phase I of the longitudinal study comparing teacher
preparation program models through teacher candidate perceptions
regarding the instruction of students, including typically performing
students, students with special needs, and English learners. Online
Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database.
Zehr, M. (2010). Tailoring lessons for English-learners. Education
Week, 29(19), 1. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Jennifer Canillas Stein is an English learner specialist with the
School of Education at Biola University, La Mirada, California.
The real problem is the arbitrariness
and stigmatizing effects of the entire
process. Students shouldn't need a false
disability label to receive appropriate
support. They also shouldn't acquire
that label because they had inappropriate
or inadequate opportunities to learn.
And they shouldn't end up in programs
that don't offer the truly specialized
instruction they need. (2007, p. 19)
All instructional personnel are responsible
for referring an EL student through
the locally adopted referral process if a
disability is suspected ... IEP teams must
determine whether an EL student meets
the eligibility criteria for special education
and requires special education and related
services in order to benefit from this educational
program. A determination that
the learning difficulty is not the result
of cultural or linguistic diversity is also
made. Students should not be referred for
special education solely on the basis that
they do not understand or are limited in
their ability to understand English. To
do so would violate both state and federal
laws which protect the educational rights
of these children. (2006, p. 13)
The deficit model is based on the normative
development of students whose homes
and communities have prepared them for
schooling long before they enter school.
Children who come to school without that
preparation, and without the continuing
home support of family members who
can reinforce the goals of schooling, face
expectations that they have not had the
opportunity to fulfill. All too quickly the
students become candidates for suspected
"disability." (p. 20)
Candidates are provided with multiple,
systematic opportunities to demonstrate
knowledge and application of pedagogical
theories, principles, and practices
for English Language Development
and academic language, comprehension
and knowledge in the subjects of the
curriculum. (2009, p. 28)
Candidates demonstrate a basic level of
knowledge and skills in assessing the
learning and language abilities of students
in order to identify those needing
referral for assessment, identification of
disabilities, and eligibility for special
education ... Candidates learn about the
role of the general education teacher in
identifying and teaching students with
special needs ... and the general education
teacher's role and responsibilities
in developing and implementing tiered
interventions. (2009, pp. 29-30)
Teacher candidates perceive the least
sufficient knowledge for instructing students
with special needs in all phases
of their preparation program. Once
teacher candidates engage in practice,
they continue to perceive that their
knowledge is sufficient in instructing
typically performing students; however,
they feel much less sufficient in
instructing English Learners and students
with special needs. (p. 10)