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

 

1

 

•

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 Caucasian sstuden tudentt populati population on is decrea decreasing sing every every year year by by about about 1%. - By 2027 they they will no no longer longer be the majority majority in K-12 K-12 classroo classrooms, ms, eclipsed eclipsed by Hispanic Hispanic studen students ts whose numbers have been increasing by about 3% annually. -

•

As of 2009, 2009, 77% of new new teacher teacherss were Cauca Caucasian, sian, & only 10 10% % of teacher teacherss overall overall were were bilingual bilingual (Spanish & English). The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1967 Bilingual Education Act along with subsequent findings by state & local educators educators revealed the common practice of placing non-disabled minority LEP children into special education programs.

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

2

 

•

•

•

There is also a serious problem with the increasing i ncreasing percent percentage age of limited English proficient (LEP) students being classified in special education in the USA. This is a controversial controversial issue because some educators believe that iincluding ncluding LEP students into special education helps meet the needs of those LEP students perfor performing ming 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 i n many cases are misdiagnosed as having an intellectual disability.

(Cummins, 2002; Collier, 2004; Sullivan LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

2011)

3

 

•

While LEP students seem underrepr underrepresented esented on special education rosters, rosters, they tend to be overrepresented in select categories: Speech-Language Impairment, Intellectual Disability Disabilit y, & Emotional Disturbance and there are multiple reasons for this overrepresentation: overrepresentation: - Too few special educators educators have been trained trained in English as a second language (ESL) instruction. instruction. - The persisten persistentt mistaken belief that once non-disabled non-disabled culturally &linguistically &linguistically diverse exceptional exceptional (CLDE) students are in special education programs, programs, all of their needs can be met by special educators; educators; job complete. - This Gordian Knot is further tan tangled gled by the fact that there exists a greater greater percentage percentage of LEP students who receive special education services in urban localities than that of the entire US national special education percentages percentag es of students who speak English as a first language.

(Donovan & Cross, 2002) LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

4

 

•

Questions that should be asked when assessing the needs of an LEP special needs child: - Are LEP children more more effectively effectively taught taught in English English or their native language, language, or both? - Do bilingual special special needs, single language LEP & English-only students students perform perform similarly or differently differently from one another on quantified intellectual tasks? - How much professional professional peer-reviewed guidance can be/is be/is provided to educators educators regarding regarding special special education challenges and methods to overcome cultural barriers? - How valid is the use of IQ tests as a basis for for diagnosing the cognitive uniqueness uniqueness of LEP children? children?

(Prieto, 1982)

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

5

 

•

The System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA) tests LEP students‘ (age of 5 & 11) learning potential by evaluating their level of ethnic/cultural 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 assessmen assessments ts of adaptive adaptive behavio behaviorr positively positively or negativel negatively y biased with rregar egard d to LEP students? students?

-

Do informa informall diagnostics diagnostics adequa adequately tely define define categor categories ies for LEP LEP student student placemen placement? t?

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

6

 

•

Special education requires reforms 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 overrepresentation of bilingual students in special education is that the customary assessment processes cannot satisfactorily satisfactorily separate separate language/cultural language/cultural impediments from learning disabilities.

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

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

7 

 

•

Additionally,, creating valid assessments of bilingual Additionally bil ingual academic proficiency is fundamental fundamental to halting halti ng the overrepresentation overrepr esentation 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 multi-li ngual language acquisition.

(Klingner & Artiles, 2003)

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

8 

 

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

•

•

•

Culturally & linguistically li nguistically responsive teachers, providing germane instruction, A more accommodating educational environment, Help with English language skills

•

Quality assistance in standar standard d education curriculum at a pace commensurate with the students’ ability. Intensive research-based instruction designed to help LEP special needs students improve academically overall.

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

9

 

•

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 li nguistic teaching methods coupled with special needs instruction. On-going, frequent regular research aimed at benchmarking best teaching practices for CLDE students must be instituted.

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

10 

 

•

•

•

•

•

Sanchez, G.L. Bilingualism and mental measures: A word of caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, Psychology, 1934, 18, 756-772. 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 Amendments of 1997 P.L. 10 105-17 5-17 (June 4, 19 1997). 97). http://www.edlaw.n http://www.edlaw.net/service/ideacon et/service/ideacont.html. t.html. Bransford, L. Poverty and mental retardation—implications for Mexican Americans. 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 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.

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

11

 

•

•

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

LIDIYA MARTYNENKO & PAUL VAN SICKLE

12