This blog post is a review of the journal article "English-Learners Often Misidentified for Special Ed." as published by Editorial Projects in Education in, Education Week, Aug 2012, Vol. 32, Issue 2, pg. 12.
Summary:
I think it is important to first mention how this article starts off and realize that this is something that special education teachers experience constantly. The article begins with a teacher, in a San Diego public school, that received six students who were referred to special education. What makes those six students stand out… all of them were English Language Learners! What interests me further, is not one of those students were placed in special education upon assessment. The article continues to address how these students probably would have been placed in special education if this same situation occurred a few years prior. The schools in San Diego district have gone through an era of receiving a disproportionate amount of referrals of ELL students for special education. What did San Diego do? According to the article, they created a step by step process to ensure every possibility, including language, has been evaluated before their eligibility is determined.
"Special education had become the default intervention," said Sonia Picos, a program manager in the district's special education department. "Special education was seen as the place with the answers, without taking into consideration what the long-term implications were going to be for the students." (p. 1) The article continues with a discussion on the problem of identifying ELL students as a double sided problem. ELLs have been overrepresented in special education, when there is no process on deciphering their abilities. On the other hand, when that problem is considered of being overrepresented, there is a challenge of not providing services for ELL students who need them.
One important take away from the article discusses that national research for misidentified ELLs happened within the last decade. One common factor that was seen across the board is if a district had a small population of ELLs, there was a theme of over-identification present, and districts with a high population of ELLs were under-identified. This is important because "by 2030, English-learners will comprise an estimated 40 percent of the American student population" (p. 12).
The article discusses the root of the problem: do students have a disability or language that is impeding progress? One of the many challenges professionals face are the assessments and evaluation tools available for determining eligibility. The biggest factor, interestingly enough, is NOT that it is in English, because giving them the assessment in Spanish is just as challenging. According to Lesli A Maxwell and Nin Shah, these assessments are catered to students who speak a single language.
How did San Diego’s school district work on the correct identification of ELL students?
1. Have a process catered to English Language Learners. The article discusses the importance of how many factors are added for being a second language learners and evaluators need to slow down the process.
2. Give their district staff members a “pre-referral” process before the jump to special education. This process includes supporting general education teachers with a list of interventions that support ELL students in their Tier 1 instruction.
3. Examine “extrinsic factors” in the student's life. These factors include a look into parental involvement, attendance issues, nutrition, and frequently moving.
Reflection:
It is so frustrating to get referrals for so many students who are ELLs. However, I can’t change the referrals I get, I can only be educated enough to understand where the referral may be stemming from and what questions I need to ask in order to determine if a student is being identified appropriately. My passion for identifying students appropriately, especially ELLs, was inspired by an ESL teacher. This teacher cared so much about her students not receiving the support her students needed to be successful in their general education classroom. This article helped me understand what questions I need to ask in order to help support correctly identifying students.
From this article I gained a lot of insight on thinking about assessments being catered to students who speak one language. If students are learning one language in a social environment and learning academic language at school in another language, there is going to be a struggle in assessing students in only one language. Does there need to be specific assessments for bilingual students? Are they available? Will they bring together the social and academic language together?
Lastly, I want to dive deeper into districts and locations that have dealt with the low population of ELL students and how did they combat their over-representation in special education.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Identifying English Language Learners with Disabilities
Summary
This blog post is a review of the journal article "Identification problems: US special education eligibility for English language learners" as published in International Journal of Education Research, 2014, Vol. 68, pg. 27-34, by David E. DeMatthews, D. Brent Edwards, and Timothy E. Nelson.
This article addressed various topics. The first discussed what the special education eligibility policies are for English Language Learners (ELLs). The article examines the state and district guidelines for testing ELLs. The article focuses on the lack of policies and trained professionals in assessing students. The authors discuss the challenges for identifying special education eligibility when you factor in issues related to language and culture. ELLs are at risk of being both under- and over-identified for special education. Unfortunately, the article makes it clear that there is a limited amount of research, and this is a problem that has been affecting the United States for some time. We are not alone in our struggles, as this topic is relevant even outside of the United States.
Throughout the article, there are multiple cited instances that federal, state, and local policies commonly have limited guidance on supporting ELLs with disabilities. The article does point out policies which are relevant to ELLs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has three main points that directly relate to ELL students. The first point states that any child who is suspected to have a disability should be tested. This policy also states that students with only a language proficiency deficit are not eligible for special education. IDEA mandates that “assessments must be conducted in the student's accustomed manner of communication or language and in a way that clearly identifies what a student knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally. Thus, assessment materials, protocols, and procedures should be in the language that best measures the student's potential disability rather than his or her English language skills” (p. 28).
According to the article, there is little to no clear guidance on a federal, state, or district level. This article states several times how challenging it is for teachers to identify students for disabilities in early grade levels because of the variation in the rate of progress between students. In the survey conducted by the authors, they determined that the challenge during eligibility meetings is not having the tools, procedures, or qualified staff to identify the difference between English language acquisition and disability. The article continues to discuss the importance of having a solid body of evidence to determine where a student falls out. Another factor of disproportionality, the authors determined, were schools not following a response to intervention (RTI) or multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) pre-referral process.
The authors conclude that there are many factors of disproportionality. Their analysis revealed the lack of policy and guidance for English Language Learners with a disability. They also concluded that most staff are not focused on the issue of misidentifying ELLs with disabilities. The article numerously mentions how challenging it was for the states to have a clear and concise response during their data collection process. They also mentioned that the guidance for ELL and special education were separate topics, and were not addressed together.
Incorrect knowledge that was gathered in the survey from participants included:
“They (ELLs) can’t be found eligible for special education in their first year at a school.”
“If they have a disability, you usually know right away.”
The article also shared the awareness for the need for collaboration, but sharing the challenges of the English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers working with the special education team.
“We usually try to have an ESL teacher participate in the IEP meeting to help make sure it's not an issue related to language.”
“This is a real issue, I mean a real struggle for us here. It's very hard to tell the difference between SLD [Specific Learning Disability] if there is a language barrier. We have our ESL team work with the special education team, we do evaluations, observations, and really try to talk through the issues.”
The article concludes with their surveys results of having a strong consensus within the school system of wanting to be able to “assess students in their native language, when appropriate” (p. 32).
Reflection:
As a special education teacher, I would like to think that my colleagues and I are trained to appropriately determine whether a student does or does not having a learning disability. However, this article truly reveals a lack of knowledge on appropriately assessing eligibility for English Language Learners. If there is a disproportionate amount of ELLs in special education, the true issue is why aren’t they being assessed accurately? Something that stood out to me in this article is teachers who are under the assumption that you cannot test an English Language Learner for a disability until two years after their enrollment.
It appears that due to a lack of guidance, there are many assumptions on how to handle the assessment of English Language Learners. It appears that our special education team needs guidance on how to assess ELLs appropriately, as well as them receiving appropriate trainings for assessing students. Are there other states or districts who have dealt with this same issue, and how did they fix it? Is it just a matter of training our teachers, who test for eligibility, for assessing English Language Learners? It is evident that those who test students for eligibility need to be trained appropriately to asses ELL students.
If ELL students are being misidentified as having a learning disability, it is so much easier for their general education teacher to not focus on their needs. General education teachers become reliant on special education teachers to provide for them their level of education. Students who receive services for being an ELL student should be receiving their extra support for understanding the language in Tier 1 instruction.
In reaction to students not being assessed and categorized appropriately, ELLs with disabilities are less likely to be included in the general education classroom. If this specific category of students are further at-risk than being labeled with only special education or ELL, how are we going to protect students who are being misidentified?
How can we reflect on the English language acquisition process and determine if a student is just frustrated with learning a new language or truly having challenges due to a learning disability? We hear that best practice is to determine the full body of evidence for a student, and that one assessment isn’t enough to show a student has a learning disability. However, the challenge still is, what is a valid and reliable assessment tool that considers a student’s language proficiency?
The article showed that a huge factor in not receiving responses during for the survey, was not finding a source to go to that dealt with both special education and English Language Learners. They mention that these two groups are separate and have no policies that combine their resources. Having these departments be so divided and not seeing them collaborate is a huge factor for not seeing that collaboration in schools as well. Of course, when there is a lack of understanding and collaboration, it wasn’t surprising to hear how misconceptions of policies form. This is a huge factor as to why they found so many misconceptions about assessing an ELL student for a disability.
This blog post is a review of the journal article "Identification problems: US special education eligibility for English language learners" as published in International Journal of Education Research, 2014, Vol. 68, pg. 27-34, by David E. DeMatthews, D. Brent Edwards, and Timothy E. Nelson.
This article addressed various topics. The first discussed what the special education eligibility policies are for English Language Learners (ELLs). The article examines the state and district guidelines for testing ELLs. The article focuses on the lack of policies and trained professionals in assessing students. The authors discuss the challenges for identifying special education eligibility when you factor in issues related to language and culture. ELLs are at risk of being both under- and over-identified for special education. Unfortunately, the article makes it clear that there is a limited amount of research, and this is a problem that has been affecting the United States for some time. We are not alone in our struggles, as this topic is relevant even outside of the United States.
Throughout the article, there are multiple cited instances that federal, state, and local policies commonly have limited guidance on supporting ELLs with disabilities. The article does point out policies which are relevant to ELLs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has three main points that directly relate to ELL students. The first point states that any child who is suspected to have a disability should be tested. This policy also states that students with only a language proficiency deficit are not eligible for special education. IDEA mandates that “assessments must be conducted in the student's accustomed manner of communication or language and in a way that clearly identifies what a student knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally. Thus, assessment materials, protocols, and procedures should be in the language that best measures the student's potential disability rather than his or her English language skills” (p. 28).
According to the article, there is little to no clear guidance on a federal, state, or district level. This article states several times how challenging it is for teachers to identify students for disabilities in early grade levels because of the variation in the rate of progress between students. In the survey conducted by the authors, they determined that the challenge during eligibility meetings is not having the tools, procedures, or qualified staff to identify the difference between English language acquisition and disability. The article continues to discuss the importance of having a solid body of evidence to determine where a student falls out. Another factor of disproportionality, the authors determined, were schools not following a response to intervention (RTI) or multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) pre-referral process.
The authors conclude that there are many factors of disproportionality. Their analysis revealed the lack of policy and guidance for English Language Learners with a disability. They also concluded that most staff are not focused on the issue of misidentifying ELLs with disabilities. The article numerously mentions how challenging it was for the states to have a clear and concise response during their data collection process. They also mentioned that the guidance for ELL and special education were separate topics, and were not addressed together.
Incorrect knowledge that was gathered in the survey from participants included:
“They (ELLs) can’t be found eligible for special education in their first year at a school.”
“If they have a disability, you usually know right away.”
The article also shared the awareness for the need for collaboration, but sharing the challenges of the English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers working with the special education team.
“We usually try to have an ESL teacher participate in the IEP meeting to help make sure it's not an issue related to language.”
“This is a real issue, I mean a real struggle for us here. It's very hard to tell the difference between SLD [Specific Learning Disability] if there is a language barrier. We have our ESL team work with the special education team, we do evaluations, observations, and really try to talk through the issues.”
The article concludes with their surveys results of having a strong consensus within the school system of wanting to be able to “assess students in their native language, when appropriate” (p. 32).
Reflection:
As a special education teacher, I would like to think that my colleagues and I are trained to appropriately determine whether a student does or does not having a learning disability. However, this article truly reveals a lack of knowledge on appropriately assessing eligibility for English Language Learners. If there is a disproportionate amount of ELLs in special education, the true issue is why aren’t they being assessed accurately? Something that stood out to me in this article is teachers who are under the assumption that you cannot test an English Language Learner for a disability until two years after their enrollment.
It appears that due to a lack of guidance, there are many assumptions on how to handle the assessment of English Language Learners. It appears that our special education team needs guidance on how to assess ELLs appropriately, as well as them receiving appropriate trainings for assessing students. Are there other states or districts who have dealt with this same issue, and how did they fix it? Is it just a matter of training our teachers, who test for eligibility, for assessing English Language Learners? It is evident that those who test students for eligibility need to be trained appropriately to asses ELL students.
If ELL students are being misidentified as having a learning disability, it is so much easier for their general education teacher to not focus on their needs. General education teachers become reliant on special education teachers to provide for them their level of education. Students who receive services for being an ELL student should be receiving their extra support for understanding the language in Tier 1 instruction.
In reaction to students not being assessed and categorized appropriately, ELLs with disabilities are less likely to be included in the general education classroom. If this specific category of students are further at-risk than being labeled with only special education or ELL, how are we going to protect students who are being misidentified?
How can we reflect on the English language acquisition process and determine if a student is just frustrated with learning a new language or truly having challenges due to a learning disability? We hear that best practice is to determine the full body of evidence for a student, and that one assessment isn’t enough to show a student has a learning disability. However, the challenge still is, what is a valid and reliable assessment tool that considers a student’s language proficiency?
The article showed that a huge factor in not receiving responses during for the survey, was not finding a source to go to that dealt with both special education and English Language Learners. They mention that these two groups are separate and have no policies that combine their resources. Having these departments be so divided and not seeing them collaborate is a huge factor for not seeing that collaboration in schools as well. Of course, when there is a lack of understanding and collaboration, it wasn’t surprising to hear how misconceptions of policies form. This is a huge factor as to why they found so many misconceptions about assessing an ELL student for a disability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)