Multicultural Challenges Special Education - Final - Lidiya Martynenko and Paul Van Sickle

2

• According to the Department of Education (DoED) & the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (2014), changing U.S. K-12 public school demographics show:

- Caucasian student population is decreasing every year by about 1%. - By 2027 they will no longer be the majority in K-12 classrooms, eclipsed by Hispanic students

whose numbers have been increasing by about 3% annually.- As of 2009, 77% of new teachers were Caucasian, & only 10% of teachers overall were bilingual

(Spanish & English).• The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1967 Bilingual Education Act along with subsequent findings by state &

local educators revealed the common practice of placing non-disabled minority LEP children into special education programs.

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

3

• There is also a serious problem with the increasing percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students being classified in special education in the USA.

• This is a controversial issue because some educators believe that including LEP students into special education helps meet the needs of those LEP students performing below their grade level.

• This is further complicated in that generally it takes most ESL students 7 to 10 years to become proficient in English; students, who in many cases are misdiagnosed as having an intellectual disability.


(Cummins, 2002; Collier, 2004; Sullivan 2011)

4

• While LEP students seem underrepresented on special education rosters, they tend to be overrepresented in select categories: Speech-Language Impairment, Intellectual Disability, & Emotional Disturbance and there are multiple reasons for this overrepresentation:

- Too few special educators have been trained in English as a second language (ESL) instruction.

- The persistent mistaken belief that once non-disabled culturally &linguistically diverse exceptional (CLDE) students are in special education programs, all of their needs can be met by special educators; job complete.

- This Gordian Knot is further tangled by the fact that there exists a greater percentage of LEP students who receive special education services in urban localities than that of the entire US national special education percentages of students who speak English as a first language.


(Donovan & Cross, 2002)

5

• Questions that should be asked when assessing the needs of an LEP special needs child:

- Are LEP children more effectively taught in English or their native language, or both?

- Do bilingual special needs, single language LEP & English-only students perform similarly or differently from one another on quantified intellectual tasks?

- How much professional peer-reviewed guidance can be/is provided to educators regarding special education challenges and methods to overcome cultural barriers?

- How valid is the use of IQ tests as a basis for diagnosing the cognitive uniqueness of LEP children?


(Prieto, 1982)

6

• The System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA) tests LEP students‘ (age of 5 & 11) learning

potential by evaluating their level of ethnic/cultural knowledge.

• Which begs the question; how well do SOMPA scores forecast educational effects for special needs LEP

students individually or as a group?

- Are assessments of adaptive behavior positively or negatively biased with regard to LEP students?

- Do informal diagnostics adequately define categories for LEP student placement?


7

• Special education requires reforms to better meet the needs of CLDE & LEP pupils.

• Reforms’ goals must be aimed at establishing a more evenhanded system for all students in education.

• A reason for the overrepresentation of bilingual students in special education is that the customary assessment

processes cannot satisfactorily separate language/cultural impediments from learning disabilities.


(Figueroa & Newsome, 2006; Klingner & Harry, 2006)

8

• Additionally, creating valid assessments of bilingual academic proficiency is fundamental to halting the

overrepresentation of bilingual students in special education.

• The fact must be acknowledged that a bilingual students, with or without special needs, are incompletely

measured in terms of proficiency because he or she is not an bicameral mix of two languages, but is instead an

individual with a distinctive method of multi-lingual language acquisition.


(Klingner & Artiles, 2003)

9

• Culturally & linguistically responsive teachers, providing germane instruction,

• A more accommodating educational environment,

• Help with English language skills

• Quality assistance in standard education curriculum at a pace commensurate with the students’ ability.

• Intensive research-based instruction designed to help LEP special needs students improve academically overall.

LEP students identified as having disabilities need equitable instruction in English language development as well as attention to their special educational needs. When their needs are met, the students gain from:


10

• Revised assessment practices are needed to make sure that bilingual students are not being

misdiagnosed with disabilities & placed into special education.

• When an LEP student also has a special educational need, ‘Pre-canned’ solutions must be shelved.

• Teachers need training in language issues so they can support CLDE students in the acquisition of

English though cultural & linguistic teaching methods coupled with special needs instruction.

• On-going, frequent regular research aimed at benchmarking best teaching practices for CLDE

students must be instituted.


11

• Sanchez, G.L. Bilingualism and mental measures: A word of caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1934, 18, 756-772.

• IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997). 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33, last amended: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 P.L. 105-17 (June 4, 1997). http://www.edlaw.net/service/ideacont.html.

• Bransford, L. Poverty and mental retardation—implications for Mexican Americans. I n O.I. Caskey (Ed.), Community responsibilities and school guidance programs for Mexican American youth. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1969.

• Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4(1).


• Velasco, J. R., & Valenzuela, A. (2005). Performance-based school reforms and the federal role in helping schools that serve language-minority students. State University New York Press, Albany, NY.

12

• Wright, W. E. (2005). Evolution of Federal Policy and Implications of No Child Left Behind for Language Minority Students. Policy Brief. Education Policy Research Unit.

• MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. The Teachers College Record, 108(11)

• de Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Qi, C.H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children 72.

• Rinaldi, C., & Samson, J. (2008). English Language Learners and Response to Intervention: Referral Considerations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(5).

• Shifrer, D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of learning disabilities, 44(3).


• Bal, A., Kozleski, E. B., Schrader, E. M., Rodriguez, E. M., & Pelton, S. (2014). Systemic Transformation from the Ground–Up Using Learning Lab to Design Culturally Responsive Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Supports. Remedial and Special Education, 35(6).

Multicultural Challenges Special Education - Final - Lidiya Martynenko and Paul Van Sickle

Documents

Transcript of Multicultural Challenges Special Education - Final - Lidiya Martynenko and Paul Van Sickle