Make some general remarks concerning the content of the paper using words and expressions from Useful Vocabulary Section.

Discuss the structure of the paper.

Give some positive comments.

Express your criticism or objections.

Analyze the data, results and their presentations.

Make a conclusion.

Article 2. Second Language Learners in Special Education

Ernest l. Pancsofar
Department of Physiology,
University of Connecticut

Abstract

Special education is a field addressing many challenges, one of them being working with second language learners. Today, many children across the United States come from countries and homes where English is not spoken orused as a language in which concepts are discussed. If, as projections suggest, 10 percent to 20 percent of any given population has some or several disabilities, then special education serves a number of these children.

Keywords articulation, vocabulary, learners.

For many such students, English is their second language. This condition currently presents challenges to educators and service providers, impacting the outcomes of evaluations and interventions (Ortiz, 1997). Unlike a child brought up in an English- only environment, the learner of English as a second language shows developmental lags in articulation, vocabulary, insights on syntax, and comprehension of complex oral and printed texts. These conditions, coupled with limited understanding of the stages of second language acquisition, tends to promote over referral to and placement in special education (National Coalition of Advocates for Schools, 1991). For example, Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, and Breunig’s (1999) study across eight states with large populations of second language learners revealed that oral language- related factors (acquisition and / or delays) were the third most common reason for referral of second language learners. Further, Ochoa et al. (1999) state that 8 of the top 13 most commonly cited reasons for referral of these learners could be linked to language; in their study, language reasons accounted for 54 percent of all responses provided. Equally, limited awareness of conditions that suggest a disability promote patterns of under referral of this population among general educators who consider the students’ problems as typical patterns of second language learners (De León & Cole, 1994). Until recently, special education in general invested modest efforts attending to the specific communication needs of second language learners and their families, and most support focused on attending to their conditions or disabilities. However, literature within the last twenty years reveals a change in this trend, the effects of which will be reviewed perhaps five years from now.

Consequently, increasing research, training, and publication efforts raise awareness and educate professionals. For example, guidelines and recommendations based on best practices for children without disabilities are advocated for second language learners with disabilities (California Department of Education, 1997; Fernández, 1992; Gersten, Brengelman, & Jimenez, 1994). The literature reflects continuous appeals to special educators and speech clinicians to incorporate modified approaches like English as a second language (ESL) and / or Sheltered English into their practice (De León & Cole, 1994; Garcia & Malkin, 1993; Gersten, Brengelman, & Jimenez, 1994). However, the appropriateness and effectiveness of such practices are yet to be validated. The following sections address critical issues and challenges related to the education of second language learners with disabilities served in special education programs.

Heterogeneity

Diversity effectively describes the linguistic abilities of second language learners (SLLs) served in special education programs. Different disabilities, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, communicative abilities, and degrees of exposure to English are interacting variables that easily confound design and outcomes of many studies involving SLLs. Surveys and studies involving teachers and other categories of service providers working in programs serving SLLs reveal limited knowledge of the stages of second language acquisition through which learners advance naturally (De León & Cole, 1994; Ochoa, Rivera & Ford, 1997; Ortiz & Yates, 1988). Common practice approaches this challenge by educating second language learners as if they were native speakers of English, promoting very few, if any, modifications to interventions (Fernández, 1992). For example, use of ESL or equally meaningful approaches for the instruction of SLLs is recommended in literature but seldom is practiced (De León & Cole, 1994). Quite often, focusing on the child’s disability excludes other needs the learner might have related to his or her condition of being a second language learner (such a child is usually expected to perform like a native speaker of English). Furthermore, generic prescriptions studied and validated for children without disabilities continue to be proposed (Fueyo, 1997; Gersten et al., 1994) for a population whose specifi c linguistic characteristics remain undefined.

Assessment

English language learners (ELLs), as they are currently named, pose a challenge to those participating in the identification process. Unless their disability is obvious–orthopedic or visual impairment, or moderate to severe mental retardation–the question most evaluators encounter upon referral to assessment and possible placement is whether the learner has acquired English in all its linguistic and functional dimensions, or if the learner is advancing within the earlier stages of the long- term process of second language acquisition (Cummins & Sayers, 1995). Has the learner received appropriate instruction using methodology appropriate to the condition of learning English as a second language? Such information is critical to establish a distinction between poor performance due to ongoing development of linguistic competence, due to a disability, or a combination of both. Actually, Ochoa, Galarza, and Gonzalez (1996) found that only 6 percent of school psychologists conducting bilingual assessments of second language learners referred for special education actually implemented best practices that would enable them to obtain this critical information. Without establishing this distinction clearly, interpretation of current performance, prereferral strategies, assessment results, categorization, progress, and redesignation can be impacted negatively. Reports continue to emerge that question classification and disqualification for services and offer criticism on the interpretation of assessment data (Cheng, Ima, & Labovitz, 1994; Garcia & Malkin, 1993; Ochoa et al., 1996; Ochoa, Rivera, & Powell, 1997). These matters demand attention at policy, research, and practice levels given the increasing expectations that all children be educated to reach their potential, and barely anything is being done to monitor an appropriate, meaningful, and effective learning opportunity.

Access to the Curriculum

Reviews of policies and practices affecting second language learners in the United States reveals very limited focus on the specific instructional needs of ELLs with disabilities. Instead, most frequently, discussions on ELLs are embedded within references addressing diversity issues. Searches that include articles referring to culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners with disabilities enables access to some of the scant literature on the pedagogy to educate second language learners in special education. Extracting information from reports is complex since, frequently, linguistic diversity is used to refer to second language learners, particularly Spanish speakers, when in reality linguistic diversity is larger than this subcategory. A plethora of articles focus on cross- cultural variations and culturally relevant interventions rather than on the study of the best, or most effective, instructional practices for children with disabilities requiring the support of instruction in English as their second language. Comprehensible input facilitates access and consequently impacts learning (Fueyo, 1997). Methodologies designed to teach second language learners without disabilities offer a promising potential in facilitating access to the English curriculum for second language learners affected by one or several disabilities.

Attending to the provision of comprehensible input is crucial. Instructional approaches such as English as a Second Language (ESL), the purpose of which is to promote effective early English language acquisition, and Sheltered English, which facilitates the development of higher levels of competence in English as a second language focusing on the development of reading and content- area skills (or academic courses) while strengthening emerging English skills, beg validation of their effectiveness for individuals with disabilities. Such approaches constitute common options recommended for linguistically appropriate individualized education programs (IEPs) for second language learners with limited English proficiency (California Department of Education, 1997; Gersten et al., 1994; Ortiz, 1997; Ortiz & Garcia, 1990; Ortiz & Yates, 1988). Opportunities to learn through the first language promise a greater degree of comprehension of the instructional content, but the literature reflects a paucity of studies documenting best practices where this approach is implemented (Cloud, 1993; Willig & Swedo, 1987). Ortiz and Wilkinson (1989) found that in only 2 percent of the 203 IEPs of second language learners they reviewed was the child’s first language specified as the language of instruction. Furthermore, research needs to document for which students this is an effective and valid option.

Professional Development

Most of the research efforts involving second language learners in special education throughout the last 20 years have been dedicated to documenting disparity in identification, access to the curriculum, and appropriate services. Documentation reveals that programs are not responding to the individual needs of second language learners and that the number of teachers familiar with pedagogy that supports second language acquisition is extremely reduced, and in most cases, bilingual paraprofessionals are the ones with direct responsibility for the instruction of these students. As appropriate and effective research- based interventions are validated and cross- referenced with each learner’s linguistic profiles, a priority needs to be established to support extended and comprehensive professional development related to the education of students with disabilities for whom English is the second, and often weakest language.

Research and Policy Agenda

A research agenda for the future demands attention to the identification of linguistic abilities, matching instruction to developmental stage, and documentation of effective interventions, with particular emphasis on methodology and support mechanisms to enhance the learning opportunity. A research agenda including attention both to the needs of individuals with moderate to severe disabilities, and to the effects of introduction of the second language for non- speakers or non- comprehenders of English with disabilities is equally crucial. As more is learned about the effects of modulating instructional practices for SLLs in special education, policies and practices need to respond to these research- based interventions. Ultimately, the role of the researcher, teacher, and service provider is to advocate for the study of a pedagogy that encompasses the range of abilities and competence within any classroom where second language learners are present, particularly those with a disability.

Conclusion

Much needs to be learned about effective interventions for children with disabilities who are learning or who have learned English as their second language. A research agenda must evolve from this critical need so that a solid understanding of appropriateness and effectiveness of recommendations can be developed.

References

California Department of Education. (1997). Guidelines for language, academic, and special education services required for limited- English- profi cient students in California public schools,K–12. Sacramento: Special Education Division.

Cheng, L., Ima, K., & Lobovitz, G. (1994). Assessment of Asian and Pacifi c Islander students for gifted programs // S. B. Garcia (Ed.), Addressing cultural and linguistic diversity in special education (pp. 30–45). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Cloud, N. (1993). Language, culture and disability: Implications for instruction and teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 60–72.

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

De León, J., & Cole, J. (1994). Service delivery to culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners in rural school districts. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13, 37–45.

Fernández, A.T. (1992). Legal support for bilingual education and language appropriate related services for limited English proficient students with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal,16, 117–140.

Fueyo, V. (1997). Below the tip of the iceberg: Teaching languageminority students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 61–65.

Garcia, S.B., & Malkin, D.H. (1993). Toward defi ning programsand services for culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26, 52–58.

Gersten, R., Brengelman, S., & Jiménez, R. (1994). Effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A reconceptualization. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1–16.

Ochoa, S.H., Galarza, A., & Gonzalez, D. (1996). An investigation of school psychologists’ assessment practices of language proficiency with bilingual and limited English profi cient students. Diagnostique, 21 (4), 17–36.

Ochoa, S.H., Rivera, B.D., & Ford, L. (1997). An investigation of school psychology training pertaining to bilingual psychoeducational assessment of primarily Hispanic students: Twenty- fiveyears after Diana v. California. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 329–349.

Ochoa, S.H., Rivera, B.D., & Powell, M.P. (1997). Factors used to comply with the exclusionary clauses with bilingual and L.E.P. pupils: Initial guidelines. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 161–167.

Ochoa, S.H., Robles- Pina, R., Garcia, S.B., & Breunig, N. (1999). School psychologists’ perspectives on referrals of language minority students. Journal of Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 3 (1), 1–14.

Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321–332.

Ortiz, A.A., & Garcia, S.B. (1990). Using language assessment data for language and instructional planning for exceptional bilingual students. In Teaching the bilingual special education student (pp. 25–47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ortiz, A.A., & Wilkinson, C.Y. (1989). Adapting IEP’s for limited- English- profi cient students. Academic Therapy, 24 (5), 555–568.

Source: Encyclopedia of Special Education, THIRD EDITION
Cecil R. Reynolds and Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Editors, 2007.

Read the article.