By Enrique Ordóñez and Natalia Restrepo
Since the 1974 Lau vs. Nichols supreme court case decision where it was determined that the lack of supplemental language instruction by the public school system violated the civil rights of limited English proficiency students, public education for these students has improved. ELLs have nowadays more equal access to a free public education where their language needs are taken into consideration. However, there is still a lot of room for improvement in education for ELLs, including education for ELLS students with special needs.
In spite of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, and its amendment in 2004. The consolidation of this law was very important since it guarantees the right to have access to a free and public education for students with special needs according to their “unique” needs. IDEA stipulates that all children must be given education which has to be equal to the education offered to others, in the least restrictive environment possible. No child can be rejected because the school or district lacks resources or skilled professionals to provide the needed services (Biklen & Burke, 2006). As a consequence of the law, and all the efforts made by parents, and disability rights advocates, now schools have been experiencing a major enrollment of students with special needs in regular classrooms with their peers. Between 2002 and 2005, the number of students with autism placed in a regular classroom for 80% or more of the school day increased by 5% (NCES, 2007). Sometimes, conflict arises between what is appropriate for the unique needs of a child, and the needs of school district. It´s possible that the child’s needs could be considered as secondary. The people who recommend and assign special needs interventions are normally the same people that control the school district budget, or they work with the people who control the budget” (Graves, J. & Graves, 2014).
However, the topic of English Language Learners with special needs was not specifically typified by the law. One common problem that ELL students face in the public education system is that many of them are erroneously placed in special education programs. This is due to the lack of understanding from some administrators and teachers regarding second language acquisition processes. The difficulty of understanding concepts in English due to a language barrier is not a disability. Students who only experience a language barrier have unique needs compared to students who, besides of having a language barrier, also have a disability (Wilkinson, Ortiz, Roberston, and Kushner, 2006). There are examples in the school system where ELLs are over represented in special education classes where they were placed with other students with learning disabilities, who have intellectual and developmental disabilities, and have other cognitive and emotional disabilities compared to number of ELLs placed in classes for the talented and gifted (Losen & Orfield, 2002).
In order to make the distinction and properly evaluate a student to determine between solely a language barrier, or if it also comprises a disability, ideally, there should be a screening process and evaluated using non-discriminatory procedures. For students exposed to both languages (L1 & L2), these procedures should include assessments instruments in both languages. For ELLs with disabilities with a predominant native language, the primary language should be used in the evaluation and assessment of students’ linguistics strengths and weaknesses (D. Rodriguez, 2009). Schools have been experiencing an increased number of children with disabilities, whose cultural background represents ethnic and racial minorities. But at the same time, schools are lacking of teachers and specialized staff who come from those backgrounds. Schools are also lacking of adequate training, professional staff, materials, and teachers who are concerned for teaching trough diversity (Bowe, 2000).
Strategies to Educate ELL Students with Disabilities
Once it has been properly determined that an ELL student has special needs, and he/she qualifies to receive special needs services under IDEA, as mentioned before, teachers need to understand the theories of first and second language acquisition, and they also need to have multicultural competencies to better teach their diverse student populations. “The linguistic and cultural diversity of ELLs with disabilities poses the need for educators to build on the cultural knowledge possessed by language minority students. Drawing on this knowledge can help these students ease their way into a new language and culture, while still retaining their own cultural identity” (Rodriguez, 2009, p.457). Teachers with ELL students with special needs should be culturally responsive (Quiocho, & Ulanoff, 2009) aligning lesson plans and objectives to the students’ unique needs (Fraser, 2016 &, Brozo, 2017). “For ELLs with disabilities to make academic achievements, teachers have to understand, comprehend, and learn the stages of cultural identity, which Banks (2006) defines as (a) Stage 1: cultural psychological captivity; (b) Stage 2: cultural encapsulation; (c) Stage 3: cultural identity clarification; (d) Stage 4: biculturalism; (e) Stage 5: multiculturalism and reflective nationalism; and (f) Stage 6: globalism and global competency” (Rodriguez, 2009, p.458).
The use of language has been recognized as a form to represent ideas and thoughts in order to produce complex thinking and making meaning; therefore, there is a relevant necessity to embrace the use of the native language by ELLs students with disabilities (Rodriguez, 2009). If we as teachers allow our ELLs students, including those with impairments, to incorporate their native language in the instruction, it would be possible to reach a comprehensible input. Comprehensible input means increasing the possibilities of making the second language meaningful, contextualized, and understandable to ELLs, including those with disabilities (Herrera & Murry, 2005; Krashen, 1991).
An effective methodology to promote comprehension of content area learning by students with severe disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is the use of shared story readings by either reading the text out loud, or providing the support the student needs (Alison, C., Root, J., Browder, D., & Wood, L., 2017). Technology such as the recording of text materials where the student can read (listen) at his/her own pace, promotes independence as well. Vocabulary acquisition is a very important component of literacy development. Pre-teaching vocabulary helps ELLs with a better understanding of word meaning and content area comprehension; therefore, minimizing the difficulties of the academic tasks (National Reading Panel, 2000). “There is an emerging research indicating shared story reading can be effective in teaching–listening comprehension to students with developmental disabilities who are ELLs (Browder et al., 2015; Spooner et al., 2015). “Recent research has shown that teaching rules for answering comprehension questions and providing multiple opportunities to respond within shared story reading are effective in teaching comprehension of narrative text to students with ASD who are ELL” (Alison, C., Root, J., Browder, D., & Wood, L., 2017, pg. 93). It is relevant that teachers incorporate strategies, which can serve as an early warning system around pedagogical problems for all students, including those with autism (Chandler-Olcott & Kluth, 2009). Also, the teacher can use more modifications during the class. Students with disabilities as autism can contribute to the classroom, and are able to participate through role-playing, storytelling, and art.
Case Study- Differences between pedagogical theories in how to teach ELLs with disabilities and Reality in the School System
As teachers, there is the mission of building bridges of communication between ELL families and school staff. At the same time, the ELL teacher is required to participate in the IEPs meeting. The following is an example to review and compare what has been written in this article, and what is happening in schools across the United States. In an experience with an ELL male student from Mexico with Autism, the principal called the ENL teacher to be an interpreter during the IEP meeting. Since the student´s mother did not speak English, the ENL teacher acted as an interpreter for the student and his family, as well as an advocate to guarantee that student’s and family’s legal rights were met during the discussions with the school Therapist, Social Worker, Special Needs Teacher, and Administrators.
The student´s mother was very worried because her son started refusing to go to school. He was having nightmares, and he was requesting to stay at home. His mother came to the ENL office, and explained her desire to move her son to another school which specializes in Autism. During the IEP meeting, some irregularities were very apparent. For instance, the student had been tested for disabilities in English only; even though, his primary language was Spanish. At the same time, the report which included the results of the assessments had been done and provided to his parents in English only. What is interesting to point out is the fact that the person responsible for conducting and reporting the results of the assessment was bilingual in English and Spanish. The results of the report could have easily been provided in Spanish for the parents, so they could have a better understanding of them. This would fulfill the requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) where the parents of a student with special needs have the right to be included in the process. Also, they have the right to receive in their native language the testing results and the information contained in the Individual Educational Plan (IEP).
During the IEP meeting, it was also noticeable some level of tension when discrepancies arose between the school staff, the representatives of the district, and the student’s family. On the one hand, the student´s mother has been working with a local Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that advocates for children with autism, and they expressed that he should be enrolled in a school that specializes in autism; on the other hand, the state representatives argued that he should stay in a general education classroom because it represented the least restrictive environment, and he could learn more by interacting with other children in his class who did not have autism. In the classroom, the student was not receiving proper education that took into consideration his cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The classroom teacher based her instruction in Anglo education with materials that were lacking diversity, and with no significant accommodations. Also, the actual teaching of the content area was delivered with a lack of empathy and knowledge of how to teach students with special needs. In synthesis, there were not enough modifications or accommodations, and neither were there the use of ESL strategies in the classroom.
The ESL teacher was delegating the role of teaching to the Special Ed teacher who was not knowledgeable in how to teach ELLs. As a consequence, the student was neither learning enough English, nor the content area information was made comprehensible to him.
To Consider
In spite of what has been exposed, sometimes in our eagerness to promote inclusion and less restrictive environments in the school system for some students with a certain degree of disability, we may be creating unfavorable learning conditions not only for those students, but also for non-disabled students who share the same classroom environment. We share the opinion of Beverly H. Johns who mentions in her book Special Education Law the following:
“The general education environment may be appropriate for some students (with disabilities), but not for others. Some students with significant emotional or behavioral challenges need a more protected environment and do better in a smaller group in which they can get specialized support”, (p. 84). Each student with a disability is different, and so are their specific needs. Students who require special services need to be thoroughly evaluated in order to place them in the best educational environment according to their unique needs.
References
Alison, C., Root, J., Browder, D., & Wood, L. (2017). Technology-based shared story reading for students with autism who are english-language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(2), 91-101.
Biklen, D., & Burke, J. (2006). Presuming competence. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(2), 166–175.
Bowe, F (1978). Handicapping America: barriers to disabled people
Brozo, W.G. (2017), Disciplinary and Content Literacy for Today’s Adolescents, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Browder, D. M., Root, J. R., Wood, L., & Allison, C. (2015). Effects of a story-mapping procedure using the iPad on the comprehension of narrative texts by students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, in Alison, C., Root, J.,
Browder, D., & Wood, L. (2017). Technology-based shared story reading for students with autism who are english-language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(2), 91-101.
Chandler-Olcott, K., & Kluth, P. (2009). Why everyone benefits from including students with autism in literacy classrooms.The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 548-557.
Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How Prepared are the US Preservice Teachers to Teach English Language Learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 32-41
Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. G. (2005). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods. Boston: Pearson Education.
Johns, Beverly H., (2016), Special Education Law, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore, MD.
Krashen, S. D. (1991). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 51-79). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, SCULA.
Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (2002). Introduction: Racial inequity in special education. In D. J. Losen, & G. Orfield (Eds.). Racial inequity in special education (pp.xv-xxxvii). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press
Quiocho, A. L. & Ulanoff, S. H. (2009). Differentiated Literacy Instruction for English Language Learners. Boston, MA
Rodriguez, D. (2009). Meeting the needs of English language learners with disabilities in urban settings. Urban Education, 44(4), 452-464.
Spooner, F., Kemp-Inman, A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Wood, L., & Davis, L. L. (2015). Generalization of literacy skills through portable technology for students with severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40, 52–70, in Alison, C., Root, J., Browder, D., & Wood, L. (2017). Technology-based shared story reading for students with autism who are English-language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(2), 91-101.
Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. A., Roberston, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language learners with reading-related LD: Liking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 129-141.