Disproportionality in SE Assignment

Disproportionality in SE Assignment

Read Jonak, J. (2009). Recognizing unmet needs of CLD students and developing recommendations for avoiding disproportionality in SPED programs. Using a bullet-point, list 20 key points from this reading. Make sure the key points are complete sentences and whole concepts.

Jonak, J. (2009). Recognizing unmet needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse students and developing recommendations for avoiding disproportionality in SPED programs (excerpt). National Louis University, Skokie, IL.

Historical Perspective
Overview of Language Diversities in the U.S.There are over 450 different languages spoken in the United States, with nearly 46 million people using these different languages, according to the 2000 Census Bureau report. This trend is reflected in schools, where there was over a 45% increase between 1990 and 2000 in students who spoke English as a second language (ESL) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). According to Passel and Fix (1994), more than half of the minority-language speakers and more than a third of those reporting difficulties with English were born in the United States (as cited in Crawford, 1997). At the elementary school level about 41% of CLD students were native-born (Fleischman &Hopstock, 1994, as cited in Crawford, 1997); and between 69% and 90% of CLD students in middle and high schools were born in the United States (Calderon, 2008).
This population of CLD students is the second or third generation of immigrants who have been in this country since kindergarten (Calderon, 2008). About 80% of students learning English are U.S. citizens, often the children of immigrants who speak other languages at home (Johnson, 2008). According to the U.S. Department of Education, the number of ELL students rose 46% between 1990 and 2000 (Johnson, 2008). This fact illustrates that new immigrants are not the only major contributors to the pool of English language learners in the schools.

As mentioned above, about 450 languages identified are spoken by CLD students (Payán& Nettles, 2008). Although, the majority of students use the Spanish language (approaching 80%), Asian, Southeast Asian and European languages are also used very frequently by CLD students (Payán& Nettles, 2008). Other languages, such as Arabic, Armenian, Chuukese, French, Haitian Creole, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Lao, Mandarin, Marshallese, Navajo, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Tagalog, and Urdu are each represented by less than 1% of the ELL student population (Payán& Nettles, 2008).
The linguistic diversity array illustrates the growing cultural and linguistic diversity of the current population of this country. Diverse populations continue to grow in the United States; however, the majority of CLD populations are concentrated in several states. California leads all the states, followed by Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Arizona, but is ultimately responsible for educating over 60% of CLD students with English language needs in the United States (Payán& Nettles, 2008). The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) reports that 100 of the United States’ largest school districts enroll over 20% of the total public school population, and 12% of English language learners (Payán& Nettles, 2008). The states of California, Florida, and Texas encompass over 40% of the 100 largest public school districts serving almost 75% of the English language learners for the 2003-2004 school year (Payán& Nettles, 2008).
Despite the majority of CLD students being educated in the six aforementioned states, other states are experiencing unusually high increases of culturally and linguistically diverse students as well. For instance, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee have experienced a 300% or more increase of English language learning students from 1995 to 2005 (Payán& Nettles, 2008). These statistics illustrate that despite several heavily concentrated geographical areas of CLD populations, migration to other less culturally and linguistically diverse geographical areas of the United States is still common and growing. Developing from this migration is the issue of appropriate education for CLD students. Each year it becomes more relevant for the entire country, and not just the border states. In addition, various population prediction sources continue to foresee that CLD populations will further increase, and at higher rates than the mainstream population.
Popular Perceptions on Immigration.When discussing this topic it is essential to address immigration, along with the various issues associated with it, as immigrant populations partially make up the CLD group. Immigration to the United States has been continuously growing despite its changing form. Over the past centuries, immigration has evolved from something that was encouraged to something that is discouraged. Recently, immigration has begun to play a very important role in the sociopolitical context of our country, and despite much controversy, it needs to be appropriately addressed in this study.
In spite of the United States being a country built by immigrants, they are not equally valued as other members of society (Calderon, 2008). There are many existing myths and misconceptions about immigration in general and about specific immigrant groups. In an attempt to increase knowledge and awareness and decrease misconceptions, in 2003, the National Immigration Forum prepared a list of top ten myths and facts about immigration, including the following:
Myth 1—Immigrants do not pay taxes—Fact: According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Cato Institute, the Urban Institute, and the Social Security Administration, all immigrants pay taxes, whether income, property, sales, or other; immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes (National Immigration Forum [NIF], 2003).
Myth 2—Immigrants come here to take welfare—Fact: According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Urban Institute, immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%) (NIF, 2003).
Myth 3—Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries—Fact: According to the Cato Institute and the Inter-American Development Bank, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. Additionally, reports that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries demonstrate a targeted and effective form of direct foreign investment (NIF, 2003).
Myth 4—Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans—Fact: According to the Brookings Institution, the largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth (NIF, 2003).
Myth 5—Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy—Fact: According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, and the Federal Reserve, as Alan Greenspan indicates, 70% of immigrants arrive at the prime working age. That means we have not spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our Social Security system over the next 20 years (NIF, 2003).
Myth 6—Immigrants do not want to learn English or become Americans—Fact: According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services), within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply. Greater than 33% of immigrants are naturalized citizens; given increased immigration in the 1990s, this figure will rise as more legal permanent residents become eligible for naturalization in the coming years. The number of immigrants naturalizing spiked sharply after these events: enactment of immigration, welfare reform laws in 1996, and the terrorist attacks in 2001 (NIF, 2003).
Myth 7—Today’s immigrants are different from those of 100 years ago—Fact: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th Century, it was approximately 15%.
Myth 8—Most immigrants cross the border illegally—Fact: According to the INS Statistical Yearbook, around 75% of immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas (NIF, 2003).
Myth 9—Weak U.S. border enforcement has lead to high undocumented immigration—Fact: According to the Cato Institute, from 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrol’s budget increased six-fold, and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hope of deterring crossings. Instead, the undocumented immigrant population doubled in that period, to 8 million, despite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S. compared with the number of jobs available to them, have created this current conundrum (NIF, 2003).
Myth 10—The war on terrorism can be won through immigration restrictions—Fact: According to newspaper articles, various security experts, and think tanks, no security expert since September 11, 2001 has said that restrictive immigration measures would have prevented the terrorist attacks—instead, the key is good use of good intelligence. Most of the 9/11 hijackers used legal visas to access the United States. Since 9/11, the myriad of measures targeting immigrants in the name of national security, have not netted terrorism prosecutions. In fact, several of these measures could have the opposite effect and actually make us less safe, as targeted communities of immigrants are afraid to come forward with information (NIF, 2003).
Widespread misconceptions about immigrant out-groups demonstrate our society’s deficiency of knowledge about other cultures, even those on neighboring borders. This fact is not to be avoided if we want to decrease bias, prejudice, and adequately prepare our children to live in a diverse society by offering appropriate education; these issues should be developed and addressed within the school systems.
Linguistic diversity has not been favored in our society either. Nieto and Bode (2008) illustrate a common view on linguistic diversity with the quote “forgetting their native language is seen as a regrettable but necessary price to pay for the benefits of citizenship” (p. 233). Linguistic diversity has been treated as a temporary barrier to learning (Nieto & Bode, 2008). It is our country’s cliché that we foster foreign language acquisition, making it even a graduation requirement at both the high school and college levels, but at the same time we have developed and adopted a strong negative view towards bilingual populations.
Schools should implement best practices in education, even when these may not be aligned with political views pressuring school policy. Policymakers and educators should never forget that in the United States, schools are responsible for educating and providing the best experience for all students, regardless of their social or immigrant status. These best practices should involve classroom practices, assessment practices, and system and policy practices.
History of Assessments and Policies Affecting CLD Populations.In order to understand current educational practice it is helpful to examine some of this country’s history. Many events, practices, and policies that took place over the past decades were specifically directed towards culturally and linguistically diverse populations and some were not. These are responsible to some degree for some of the past and current educational practices and disproportionate representation of CLD populations in special education programs. Assessments have played a significant part in American education; therefore, it is necessary to understand the historical background of assessment, and its influence on past and current educational practices. Some past assessment practices had direct influence on later policies. Some policies had direct influence on CLD students. The historical view on assessment and significant polices is provided in this literature review to understand the full impact on CLD students.
Standardized assessments have a long history in the Unites States and in Europe dating back over 100 years. In the early 1920s, Yerkes and a group of psychologists developed two intelligence tests, Scale Alpha designed for literate men, and Scale Beta designed for illiterate men, to assist the military in sorting their candidates according to their intelligence (McLean, 1995). The Alpha and Beta Intelligence Tests were group tests, making them faster, simpler, and far less expensive to use than existing individual intelligence test like Stanford Binet (Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2001).
To provide a better description of the test and type of questions included in it, here is an example of a few testing items: (1) Crisco is a: patent medicine, disinfectant, toothpaste, food product; (2) The number of a Kaffir’s legs is 2, 4, 6, 8; and (3) Christy Mathewson is famous as a: writer, artist, baseball player, and comedian (Kim, 2008).
In addition to testing items that were biased against those not familiar with American culture and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds that might not have adequate exposure to certain knowledge, the testing conditions and practices implemented to test the military recruits were less than adequate, unprofessional, and not guided by good practice. Over 1.75 million of men were tested in large, overcrowded rooms with poor lighting and poor audibility (McLean, 1995). Immigrant men were administered the same test despite language difficulties, and some illiterate men were administered a reading test designed for literate test-takers. As anyone can easily predict, the test results were inaccurate and invalid. However, from these results it was concluded that recent immigrants (especially those from Southern and Eastern Europe) scored considerably lower than older waves of immigration (from Northern Europe), confirming white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant beliefs that immigrants were inferior. This information was used as a basis for the eugenic motivations for harsh immigration restrictions, laws, and practices (McLean, 1995).
In the 1920s, a result of Yerkes’s inappropriate military intelligent testing, and other cultural attitude biases and quotas, white Anglo-Saxon beliefs of superiority were confirmed (McLean, 1995), and inaccurate beliefs about immigrant groups were shaped. Results from the military testing were used to “prove that Jews, Hungarians, Italians, and Russians, were ‘feeble-minded’ and therefore, justified the lower immigration quotas …” (Kamin, 1974, as cited in McLean, 1995, p. 2). The 2% of allowance of people from Southern and Eastern Europe in the U.S. during the 1920s, as compared with high percentages of people allowed from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe (McLean, 1995), was a direct outcome of inappropriate and inaccurate use of biased intelligence testing that added to prejudice against certain immigrant groups. Historically the majority of white Americans were prejudiced against out-groups, therefore such misconceptions added to misunderstanding of other groups, creations of myths, and impediment of social relationships between in-groups and other out-groups.
Despite the above-mentioned problems with the use of the military intelligence testing, the intelligence-testing domain continued to grow and gain popularity. Again, Yerkes with some colleagues developed one of the several pencil-and-paper tests that were marketed to school administrators throughout the country, and by 1930, it had been administered to seven million schoolchildren (Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2001). The National Research Council itself, as the test’s sponsor, described the new intelligence tests as deriving from “the application of the army testing methods to school needs” (Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2001). From these times, standardized testing began to assist with educational placements and entitlements (Tyack, 1974, as cited in McLean, 1995). Intelligence assessments were used extensively to sort students “so they could be efficiently educated according to their future roles in society” (Cremlin, 1961, as cited in McLean, 1995, p. 1). Furthermore, “testing proved a convenient instrument of social control for superintendents in the late 19th Century who sought to use tests as a mean for creating the ‘one best system’ of education (Tyack, 1974, as cited in McLean, 1995, p. 1).
As the standardized testing field was developing, educational needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds were of no consequence to the mainstream. The consistently lower scores of minority students just supported white Americans’ opinions, that minority populations were inferior. For instance, in 1922 in Arizona’s copper mining city, due to high numbers of students unable to learn, students in second through eighth grade were tested with group-administered intelligence tests (McLean, 1995). Since half of the students were from a Mexican background, conclusions stated that underachievement was due to genetics; and to rectify the problem a segregated program with a vocation curriculum for these Mexican students was created (McLean, 1995).
In the 1940s, evaluators began to warn that their tests would not be fair to children from foreign language backgrounds (Havighurst, 1948, as cited in McLean, 1995). It became apparent to test developers that American children had certain common experiences due to the same American culture (McLean, 1995). Children who did not live long enough in this culture may not have been familiar with many aspects of American everyday living like current movie stars, product names, and other symbols, not mentioning the frequent inability to understand testing questions due to a language barrier.
With this awareness, test developers recognized that common symbols for all socio-economic and cultural groups would have to be utilized, but the method to achieve a culture-free test had not been developed (McLean, 1995). Despite the growing recognition of intelligence tests’ invalidity for culturally and linguistically diverse students in the 1940s and 1950s and still a widespread use of it through the 1970s, shows the extremely slow movement in assessment and educational practices for these students. The existing and revised intelligence tests continued to be widely used, placing more and more students incorrectly into inappropriate and segregated education programs.
Finally, interventions from the federal and state court systems had to be solicited to protect “the rights of CLD students, requiring these students to receive culturally bias-free tests” (McLean, 1995, p. 3). Today aptitude and achievement tests are still widely used in school systems, especially for special education eligibility decisions. Despite item improvements and standardization sampling improvements with every new edition of aptitude test instruments, these instruments are still considered inappropriate for CLD populations. Some critics say that intelligence tests are incorrectly called IQ or intelligence tests as they were never intended to measure intelligence; instead, they should be called CB or cultural background tests because they measure mental alertness as one’s culture teaches (Ali Ateel, n.d.).
Legislation Affecting CLD Populations.Aptitude assessment had a significant role in U.S. schools for special education eligibility and other program placements. Testing results undoubtedly had influence on ideologies about human intelligence, and they shaped popular public beliefs about CLD groups. Since popular notions towards CLD populations were rather unfavorable, the type of education CLD students received did not always see to the best interests of these students. How to educate students who do not speak English has been an issue all along. Until today CLD students’ experiences varied on the spectrum from no help at all in their native language (“sink or swim” programs) to all instruction in their native language (complete bilingual education).
In the 1960s in the light of the civil rights movement, a perfect time to do something beneficial for the struggling culturally and linguistically diverse members of this country became apparent. In 1967, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was drafted, and passed in 1968 as the first federal legislation to protect linguistically diverse speakers (Osorio-O’Dea, 2001) in order to diminish mistreatment and inadequate education of CLD students.
The Bilingual Education Act, also known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) originally was created as a supplemental grant program to aid local school districts in teaching students learning English as a second language (Osorio-O’Dea, 2001). The Bilingual Education Act allowed school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education programs affording better education and reducing dropout rates (McCarty, 1994). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires all services, programs, and agencies that receive state funding (as well as programs and agencies that receive federal funding) to provide interpreters for LEP clients at no cost to them (B-Line Express, 2007). In addition, they must provide translations of vital forms and documents ordinarily given to the public into any language spoken by 3% or more of the population within that geographic jurisdiction, and use any additional methods required to ascertain equal access to services (B-Line Express, 2007). This statement was fundamental in interpreting rights of CLD populations. Title IV was equally important. In 1964, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act mandated a language assessment of any child who may have limited English proficiency. This assessment was to be conducted in English and in the child’s native language.
Since school districts had a great freedom as to how to educate students who were learning English as their second language, many students did not receive an adequate education and many of them were educated in segregated programs or moved into special education programs. While a majority of the population showed a negative stance towards CLD populations, activists for social justice tried to address many inequality issues, among which was overrepresentation of minority students in segregated special education programs. There is evidence in the professional literature of 1968, that the matter of disproportionate representation of minority children in special education was already an issue (Mitylene&Lassmann, 2003). Since school districts did not adhere to these guidelines, further court assistance was considered necessary.
Two landmark court cases, Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970) and Lau v. Nicholes (1974), carved improved educational practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students. The court decision from the first case required districts “to test children in their primary language and to use non-verbal tests as well as extensive supportive data” (McLean, 1995, p. 3). This case decision was mainly based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance (Our Documents.gov, 2008). Although this title does not specifically mention linguistically diverse students, this law has been extended in interpretations to include this population.
The Supreme Court in Lau v. Nicholes’ case ruled that the San Francisco school system had violated Title VI by denying their bilingual children a meaningful opportunity to receive a public education by failing to provide supplemental English language instruction to its LEP students (Crawford, 2002). The court decision for this case required schools to educate all students “whether or not they spoke English” (McLean, 1995, p. 3). The “sink or swim” instruction method was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lau v. Nicholes decision of 1974 (Crawford, 1997), giving states freedom to determine how to help students achieve good educational outcomes.
The Bilingual Education Act was seen as a victory by many, and definitely improved education for CLD students. However, this law was controversial from its inception and had its supporters as well as its opponents. With the support of liberals from the Democratic Party as well as ethnic politicians, this act continued to be reauthorized six times (Crawford, 2006). The reauthorization in 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988 and then in 1994 increasingly offered more guidelines and financial assistance to support projects benefiting English language learners (for example, the 2001 budget of $296 million, supported nearly 1000 projects [Osorio-O’Dea, 2001]). The first five versions of this act had a main purpose to foster English language acquisition and academic achievement. Not until the 1994 final reauthorization was the legislation allowed to develop and extend student native language skills (Crawford, 2006). The 1994 reauthorization also removed the 1988 provision of maximum allowed enrollment in BEA program for three years, with two 1-year extensions possible if needed (Osorio-O’Dea, 2001).
CLD student needs have also been addressed through other legal channels: the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), ESEA Title VII, Part C Emergency Immigrant Education Program; the ESEA Title VII, Part B Foreign Language Assistance Program; the ESEA Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program; vocational education (Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act); and Special Education (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (Osorio-O’Dea, 2001). The Clinton Administration was supportive of bilingual education, and helped promote approaches designed to cultivate bilingualism not only for bilingual but also monolingual students through two-way bilingual instruction (Crawford, 2006). Clinton’s administration and the U.S. Secretary of Education at the time said, “It is high time we begin to treat language skills as the asset they are, particularly in this global economy” (Rieley, 2000, as cited in Crawford, 2006, p. 1). Unfortunately this support was not long lasting. Despite the perceived notion that bilingual education was beginning to be accepted by Anglo-American parents and policymakers (Crawford, 2006), the fate of bilingual education took a much unexpected turn when the State of California became the leader in dismantling its bilingual education programs by passing Proposition 227 in 1998. Article 2, section 305 of this act states:
All children in California public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English. In particular, this shall require that all children be placed in English language classrooms. Children who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Local schools shall be permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of different ages but whose degree of English proficiency is similar. Local schools shall be encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from different native-language groups but with the same degree of English fluency. Once English learners have acquired a good working knowledge of English, they shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms. As much as possible, current supplemental funding for English learners shall be maintained, subject to possible modification…. (Unz, 1998, p. 414)
The States of Arizona and Massachusetts followed with similar laws in the next couple of years, representing 43% of bilingual students nationally (Crawford, 2006). Even though these propositions had large support, the tactics to achieve such support were questionable. Most Americans were not familiar with research supporting benefits of bilingual education nor types and practices of bilingual programs. Even today, many, including CLD parents have the misconception that learning English through English-only instruction helps children achieve quicker proficiency in that language. Along the same lines, they believe that support in native language instruction slows down the process. Even Rod Page serving as U.S. Secretary of Education from 2001 to 2005, showed a lack of awareness of bilingual education research by saying “the idea of bilingual education is not necessarily a good thing. The goal must be towards English fluency (Hargrove 2001, as cited in Crawford, 2006). In this statement, he contributes to further misconceptions of many U.S. citizens that bilingualism is a roadblock in achieving English fluency, further inducing animosity towards such practice.
The Bilingual Education Act, also known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which promoted equal access to the curriculum, training a generation of educators, and fostering achievement among students, expired quietly on January 8, 2002 after 34 years (Crawford, 2002). Crawford (2002), who closely studied this act, upon expiration of the law wrote, “Its death was not unexpected, following years of attacks by enemies and recent desertions by allies in Congress” (p. 1). This act was eradicated as part of a larger “school reform” measure known as “No Child Left Behind,” proposed by the Bush administration in 2001 (Crawford, 2002). The Bilingual Education Act with no opposition was transformed into the English Language Acquisition Act under No Child Left Behind.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires statewide systems of accountability based upon challenging academic standards and assessment systems with content aligned to those standards. All schools have to assess their students’ academic competence in core subject areas, with a level of achievement progressively increasing and the achievement gap between various groups progressively reducing with academic mastery achieved by 2014 across the board. Another very important provision of this law is requiring schools to separate test-score data by student subgroups that include major racial groups, low-income students, English language learners, and students with disabilities. This is intended to prevent schools, school districts, or states from letting high overall student achievement hide low achievement among certain groups of students (Dillon, 2007).
NCLB anticipates federal funds to support the education of English language learners, but programs that are quite different from those funded under Title VII (Crawford, 2002). Even in the states that are allowing bilingual education it is predictable that such instruction will be discouraged, emphasizing English instruction as schools will be judged by the percentage of students reclassified as fluent in English each year (Crawford, 2002).
The replacement law is completely different from the expired BEA. A minor, but notable, difference is in the disuse of the word “bilingual” including changing the name of the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) into the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited-English-Proficient Students (OELALEAALEPS) (Crawford, 2002). Changes are evident in the ideology of these two acts. The 1994 version of the Bilingual Education Act among other things, promoted “developing the English skills … and to the extent possible, the native-language skills” of LEP students, where the English Language Acquisition Act stresses skills in English only (Crawford, 2002, p. 1).
NCLB was intended to improve student achievement and change the culture of America’s schools. New federal laws proposed extensive changes in schools and districts for elementary and secondary education if they receive federal funding. In January 2001, his first week in office, President Bush said, “these reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America” (Office of the Under Secretary, 2002, p. 9). When President Bush signed the act into law, on January 8, 2002, the U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige stated that “For too long, many of our schools did a good job educating some of our children … With this new law, we’ll make sure we’re providing all of our children with access to a high-quality education (Office of the Under Secretary, 2002, p. 9). NCLB, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, represents four key principles in its ideology: stronger accountability; greater flexibility for states, school districts and schools in the use of federal funds; more choices for parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds; and emphasis on teaching methods that have been demonstrated to be effective (Office of the Under Secretary, 2002).
Culturally and linguistically diverse students classified as English language learners are required to take the same state assessments as all other students according to NCLB. Students are to be tested each year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school in Reading/English language arts, Math, and Science (starting in school year 2007-08) (AFT, n.d.). English language learners are entitled to some accommodations including small group administration, extra time or flexible scheduling, simplified instructions, dictionaries, recorded native language instructions, and recording responses in their native language (AFT, n.d.). For the initial three to five years, English language learners are allowed to take the reading/English language arts state assessment in their native language; however states are only required to develop and administer native language assessments “to the extent practicable” (AFT, n.d., Point 5,para. 1).
NCLB might have had noble intentions to reduce the achievement gap between high-achieving and historically underachieving groups, and to improve education for everyone, nevertheless it seems that this act was not thought all the way through. This act contains many provisions that are questionable in particular for culturally and linguistically diverse students and students with disabilities, such as dyslexia, developmental disabilities, dyscalculia, or even ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). Many educational advocates lobby for changes under the upcoming reauthorization to make this act friendlier for these educational minority groups.
Various national, state, district, school, or classroom level policies, procedures, and practices exist that may add to over-representation or under-representation of CLD students in special education programs and under-representation in gifted and talented programs (National Education Association [NEA], 2007). Up to this point in this study, historical perspective of school practices with CLD students as well as policies that influenced education of CLD students has been presented. The next section discusses general education to provide a better understanding of practices and policies governing student education.
General Education PracticesAffecting CLD Populations
As portrayed in the previous section of this study, not all children have access to language learning programs and services, and even if they do, the intensity and length varies greatly across the country. Whether or not culturally and linguistically diverse students have access to auxiliary language services, the ultimate outcome is successful integration in general education programs. Unfortunately, for many students this integration is not very successful as is evident in low academic achievement, higher dropout rates, and higher than expected representation in special education programs. Waggoner (1995) found that the group of people reporting difficulty with English language on the 1990 census were only half as likely to have graduated from high school, and twelve times more likely to have completed less than five years of schooling, as compared with native English speakers (as cited in Crawford, 1997).
Imbalances in diversity of CLD students in special education programs is not special education’s sole predicament but it is shared with that of general education since students’ lack of success there usually leads to special education referrals. Therefore general education practices are extremely important in assuring the successful education of CLD students. The discussion in this section involves examining current curriculum used, pedagogical practices, and teacher preparation in order to determine the environment’s conduciveness for culturally and linguistically diverse student learning. School funding, implemented curriculum, modalities to deliver it, and teacher’ preparation cannot be ignored in determining general educational environments conduciveness for CLD students’ educational success.
School Funding Affecting CLD Populations.Mainly local governments, with control and funding coming from three levels—federal, state, and local—provide public school education in the United States. School funding can vary greatly from school district to school district and from state to state, since there is no universal formula. Various states have various costs of living, but even when the costs are adjusted to reflect regional wages and prices, there is still a large gap among state spending levels (PBS.org, 1996).
Private and parochial schools are funded through student tuition and other fees charged, giving them greater freedom to cover needed costs. In recent years there has been a debate about finding new ways of funding public education, since the current system relies too much on local property taxes, creating extremely varied funding across the country. For example, in North Carolina counties and cities pay for school buildings, while the state buys books and pays teachers and other staffers; where many localities still supplement salaries, some by as much as 15% (Eisley, 2007).
In Illinois, according to their State Board of Education (ISBE), per pupil funding in this state ranges from less than $5,000 to over $18,000 across its 892 school districts. The average per pupil spending in Illinois for the 2004 fiscal year was $8,786. On average in this state, funds are 62% local, 30% state, and 8% federal (Eckrich, 2006). As reported by Eckrich (2006) in 1997 the Illinois General Assembly created the Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) to investigate and make recommendations for the needed funding and supplemental aid for poor districts. Five years later, in 2002 EFAB reported that connecting to real performance standards 67% or more pass ISAT, and $5,665, or $6,405 in real 2006 dollars, was needed. Despite EFAB recommendations, the foundation level in Illinois is currently $5,334 per pupil. The base level set arbitrarily in the past, was increasing only to cover inflation (by ’95 it was $2,863) until fiscal year 1999 when it jumped 38% to $4,225.
From 1999, funding in Illinois increased only to cover inflation until the summer of 2004 when it increased $154, to $4964, which was only accomplished by implementing a 4% across the board cut everywhere else. In 2006, the foundation level went up $200 to $5164, and in 2007, it increased again $170, which is still over $1,200 less than what EFAB recommends (Eckrich, 2006). This reality is further disturbing by acknowledging that these increases were only achieved by borrowing from pension funds and Medicaid. The 1997’s “continuing appropriation” law that guaranteed these funds was canceled in 2002 (Eckrich, 2006). Just looking at the state of Illinois it is apparent how one state struggles with funding its schools, and Illinois is not isolated in the struggle; some states may be in better shape than other states.
Since funding of public schools is closely tied to money from property taxes, the well-being of schools is usually tied to the socioeconomic status of the community. Nieto and Bode (2008) quote studies that attest to this issue. According to the Education Trust, low-income students and students of color are mistreated by most states. In their 2005 report, the Education Trust found that the students in public school districts with large numbers of poor students receive on average $900 less per year (Nieto & Bode, 2008). The Christian Science Monitor (2008, as cited in Nieto & Bode, 2008) in their study found that a difference in annual per pupil spending could vary as much as $19,361 between the wealthiest and poorest school districts. National Research Council in 2002 found that minority students are more likely to be educated in poorly funded schools that have difficulty recruiting and maintaining teachers in general and teachers of color, resulting in students being educated by less experienced teachers (Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson, & Wu, 2003). Is this a covert message that students from poorer neighborhoods are not as important as students from wealthier neighborhoods?
To dissect further this issue, the poorer neighborhoods are often composed of culturally and/or linguistically diverse families. The combination of these factors undoubtedly has an influence on education of CLD students. Students, whose educational opportunities are limited, are more likely to be referred for special education services (Artiles& Trent, 1994; Harry, 1994, as cited in Skiba et al., 2003). Due to disparity in school funding there is also disparity in school quality. It is very easy to connect the power of funding to successful and high quality public education. No one can deny that appropriate funding offers better educational opportunities by allowing for more skilled and experienced teachers, enough textbooks for all students that are current and employ the best instructional pedagogy, technology, and other educational opportunities.
This is only one example of system level policy affecting negatively and disproportionately, disadvantaged students, as well as culturally and linguistically diverse students. With scarce funding in many cases and high attention to accountability, especially in the current era of NCLB legislature, many schools are faced with a new dilemma. This strong focus on accountability, which is tied to harsh sanctions, may be a good thing as it has a potential to strengthen teacher training and classroom instruction (Skiba et al., 2003), but it may also bring negative outcomes. Skiba et al. (2003) reference that:
[U]nless accountability testing is paired with high quality instruction, it may be linked to a number of negative outcomes for disadvantaged learners, including disparate failure rates (Natriello& Pallas, 2001), increased dropout (Madaus& Clarke, 2001), and the shift in local resources away from teaching and toward testing, especially in districts with a high poor and minority enrollment (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001). Allington and McGill-Franzen (1992) found evidence that some schools reporting higher scores on high-stakes tests achieve that outcome by removing lower-achieving students from the “accountability stream” through increased rates of grade retention and referral to special education. (Skiba et al., 2003, p. 52)
With under-funding of the NCLB legislation and mandatory annual yearly progress requirements, many school districts find themselves in a predicament as to how to educate students, avoid consequences due to failure, and deal with many everyday issues. An alliance of more than 50 national education, civil rights, religious, children’s rights and civic groups produced a “Joint Organizational Statement” on NCLB stating:
Overall, the law’s emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement. Implementing multiple measures and using formative assessment are toolsfor improving achievement as well as ensuring greater accuracy in assessment and thus in anysubsequent actions. (Neill, 2005, p. 7)
School Attendance and CLD Populations. It is imperative to recognize any possible foundation of student failure in order to provide the correct mediation. Sometimes the failure is due to insufficient instruction due to student absences. These absences may be due to a variety of reasons, including having to stay home as a baby-sitter or caregiver in family emergencies, fatigue due to insufficient sleep because of helping at a parent’s work, or avoidance of school (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988). Often school policies deal harshly with absences and truancy. Some go as far as dropping students from the school, while failing to find the cause of these truancies and offering needed interventions. Blame is usually placed on students and families, without the school sharing any of the responsibility. Clearly this is far from the best educational practice, although it is certainly easier for schools, school districts, and states to fail to recognize core issues which they would then be forced to deal with appropriately.
School Curriculum Affecting CLD Populations.Implemented curricula in the United States’ classrooms have a greater impact on student educational experiences than one may initially expect. Examining education more globally, overall U.S. schools have apparent Protestant and Anglo-American orientation in curriculum and policy. In today’s society and ever-increasing globalization movement, this is inadequate practice. Furthermore, such practices send a message that members from diverse groups are “having little significance in creating history, art, culture” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 9) in our society. In such environments, it is more difficult for students from different cultural backgrounds to find the curriculum relevant, interesting, meaningful, engaging, and motivating. For CLD students with limited English proficiency, this may pose an even greater predicament as the students are studying completely unfamiliar concepts in a foreign language. The Carnegie Panel on ELL Literacy found that CLD students must perform double the work of a native speaker to keep up, and at the same time be accountable for NCLB’s Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) (Calderón, 2008). To relate to this statement we could imagine how it would be to go abroad to any country of our choice, but being unfamiliar with its culture and language, live there and study. To make this experience even more relevant we would need to be of a mandatory school age, which would take away from our current experiences, expertise, and a lot of the knowledge we have as adults. In this hypothetical experience, we also are expected to be high achievers in school. It is questionable how invigorating, and constructive this experience would be. Still many educators and policymakers do not want to consider such hypothetical scenarios to have a greater understanding and sympathy for CLD students.
It is a widely known fact that prior knowledge and prior experiences are an integral part of learning. This is not different when it comes to learning a new language, but it seems apparent that educators do not view a native language as an asset. Often teachers and educators ask parents of ELL students to use English at home to help their children learn the new language. The mainstream society sees English language proficiency linked to “prospective economic and social mobility, they may view language learners as ‘handicapped’ and thus urge students, through both subtle and direct means, to abandon their native language” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 235). This subtle message may evoke negative feelings in students of being less adequate, and ultimately affecting their self-esteem. In contrast, extensive research shows that “native language maintenance may act as a buffer against academic failure by simply supporting literacy in children’s most developed language” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 236). There is sufficient research that supports the importance of native language maintenance. Therefore, instead of encouraging suspension of native language, schools should encourage simultaneous development of both languages. Furthermore, students who have limited bilingualism may experience more academic failure since their language proficiency is very synthetic.
Role of Bilingual Education in CLD Populations.There are two types of bilingualism: sequential and simultaneous (Rhodes et al., 2005). Sequential bilingualism occurs when an individual was initially monolingual, and then subsequently was exposed to an additional language at a later time (Rhodes et al., 2005). Simultaneous bilingualism occurs when an individual grows up in an environment (home) where two languages are used concurrently (Rhodes et al., 2005). American schools deal with both types of bilingualism. Bilingualism can be further divided into elective and circumstantial. Elective bilingualism occurs when individuals have willingly selected to learn an additional language (Rhodes et al., 2005). Circumstantial bilingualism is much more prevalent in schools, and it occurs when an individual needs to learn another language in order to survive (Rhodes et al., 2005). Regardless of the origin of students’ bilingualism, schools still need to find a way to educate all such students.
The controversy over bilingual education is just one more example of the mainstream society sentiment toward bilingualism and diversity. Bilingual education is a way of providing education to students who do not understand English (or understand it limitedly). Bilingual education has a long history, dating back to 1839, in Ohio, which was the first state to adopt a bilingual education law, approving German-English instruction at parents’ request (Rethinking schools online, 1998). Louisiana followed in Ohio’s footsteps by passing the same provision for French and English in 1847, and the New Mexico Territory passed such a law for Spanish and English in 1850 (Rethinking schools online, 1998). By 1900, about a dozen states had passed similar laws allowing bilingual instruction without state sanctions, offering such education in Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Czech, and Cherokee languages (Rethinking schools online, 1998). Due to World War I events, some worried about loyalty to the Unites States of a CLD community, resulting in a majority of states passing English-only instruction laws intended to “Americanize” such out-groups. This in turn led to the end of most bilingual schooling by the mid-1920s (Rethinking schools online, 1998).
English-only instruction was the standard educational approach to teach non-English speaking students for the next few decades, until alarming academic failure and dropout rates of bilingual students could not be ignored any longer (Rethinking schools online, 1998). Bilingual education is an outcome of language discrimination faced by many students in U.S. schools (Nieto & Bode, 2008). As discussed before, bilingual education began to be recognized again in the late 1960s after the passing of the Bilingual Education Act.
Currently in schools we find offered bilingual/bicultural education, transitional bilingual education, developmental or maintenance bilingual education, two-way bilingual education or two-way immersion in states that allow for it. Each program varies in its objectives and length of offered services. A more detailed discussion of these programs is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that it takes approximately one to three years to develop basic conversational language skills, also referred to as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BISC). Additionally, it takes five to seven years to develop Cognitive and Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) for students literate in their first language. Finally, students not literate in their first language may need seven to ten years to develop this proficiency (Rhodes et al., 2005).
Most bilingual programs are restricted by funding, and they exit students from their bilingual programs after three to four years, which is before academic proficiency is developed. In the State of California, as discussed in the previous section, students are allowed to receive language help only for one year before entering general education classrooms. If students do not master their new language adequately, they may be viewed as having learning difficulties due to cognitive or neurological problems. This increases the potential of linguistically diverse students being misdiagnosed as having special education needs. Mistakenly, if English learning students have been enrolled in any form of bilingual education or ESL support previously, educators assume that these students had enough time to master the new language assuring academic success. If such students experience difficulties in academics, it is seen therefore as evidence of disability, and special education is called upon to deal with this problem. Many such beliefs can have various roots in their existence—common beliefs, conscious and subconscious prejudices, current educational practices designed for additional help, and professional training.
Teacher Preparation for CLD Populations.Teacher preparation for delivery of curriculum in the most effective way for all students is extremely important. Many teachers admit that they do not have adequate preparation to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Forty percent of teachers in this country reported to have students with limited English skills in their classes according to the National Education Goals Panel in 1995, and only 29% of them had formal preparation to work with such students (Crawford, 1997). Due to such a shortage of qualified bilingual teachers, many schools rely on the services of uncertified bilingual paraprofessionals (Crawford, 1997). Based on data gathered by Hernandez (2002) through the National Center for Education Statistics in 1997 and presented by Nancy Zelasko, Deputy Director of the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition Language Instruction Educational Programs, teachers’ preparation to work with CLD students is meager (Zelasko, n.d.). Accordingly, 42% of all public school teachers have at least one student with limited English proficiency (LEP) in the classroom; only 27% of teachers feel qualified or properly trained to work with LEP students; only 30% have received training preparing them to teach CLD students; only 12% have received any training related to LEP students; and less than 3% have received a degree in ESL or bilingual education (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], n.d.). In the state of Illinois 136, 938 teachers, or 37.1%, felt prepared to work with students demonstrating limited English proficiency during 1999-2000 school year (Rhodes et al., 2005).
Furthermore, there are a relatively small number of teachers from diverse backgrounds themselves. As of 2003, 90% of public schools teachers were Caucasian, 6% were African American, and less than 5% of teachers were from other racial and ethnic backgrounds (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 21). In the state of Illinois, about 15% of teachers come from diverse ethnic backgrounds, while diverse students account for 45% of all the students enrolled (Illinois State Board of Education [ISBE], 2007). There is also a noted decline in the percentage of male classroom teachers in Illinois (ISBE, 2007).
Teachers can influence the classroom environment and atmosphere that can be conducive or non-conducive for learning. It is crucial that teachers recognize that one teaching style is not suitable for all students. It is a well-known fact that most teachers use a teaching style that is also their own learning style. This can be problematic, hindering learning for students whose styles vary from the teacher’s if no other style is explored. For students from different linguistic backgrounds it is even more important to use different teaching approaches that will help learning to be both abstract and concrete. Conahan, Burggraf, Nelson, Bailey, and Ford (2003) go even further to state that “we can be sure that in most of our classrooms, teachers are employing teaching strategies will suited to keeping Euro-American girls in the classroom” (para. 29). Such a bold statement certainly does not support an advantageous environment for CLD students.
It is well documented in the professional literature that “teachers sometimes judge students’ competence on the basis of race, sex, social-economic, linguistic, and cultural differences, rather than on actual abilities” (Bergen & Smith, 1966; Jackson &Cosca, 1974; Rist, 1970; Ysseldyk, Algozzine, Richey, &Graden, 1982, as cited in Garcia & Ortiz, 1988, p. 7). This can be extremely damaging to students from CLD backgrounds. Such practices may be due to a lack of familiarity with other cultures, personal prejudice towards out-groups, and a lack of system support for teachers. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) use Gay’s work from 1981 to illustrate potential conflicts in education that may arise from inadequate teacher preparation, which can be divided into three categories: substantive, procedural and interpersonal. Substantive conflict may involve disagreement over educational goals; procedural conflict may involve mismatch of teaching and learning styles; and interpersonal conflict may involve culturally relevant behaviors that are interpreted as behavioral problems (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988).
Even when teachers are sensitive to CLD students’ needs, and are fully committed to provide the best practices that professional literature calls for, often such teachers may be trapped in inflexible school systems that do not recognize the same philosophy. In this sociopolitical context with current views on diversity, if we combine educational structures, policies, and practices not to exclude “pedagogy, ability grouping, testing, parent outreach, disciplinary polices, and the hiring of teacher and other school personnel” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 9) we further add to current inequalities and inadequacies. It may seem that our nation endorses inequality in this sociopolitical context.
Harry, Klingner, Sturges, and Moore (2002) found that the lack of uniform defining of special education categories across the states (especially for specific learning disabilities and emotional disturbance), as well as states’ various special education eligibility criteria can influence the procedures used for identification of disabled students (NEA, 2008). Such variability may mean one student may be eligible for special education services in one state, and not qualify for the same services in another state. In addition, “funding policies that create large general education class sizes or constrict the availability of early intervention programs and support services impede the ability of teachers to give students the personalized attention they need” (NEA, 2008, para. 7).
Furthermore, “rigid discipline policies, such as zero tolerance rules, may inadvertently promote lower tolerance for cultural differences. This, in turn, can increase discipline-related referrals of CLD students” (NEA, 2008, para. 7). Garcia and Ortiz (1988) state that educating students who are underachieving but not handicapped, in regular education is much more cost effective than educating them in special education. In addition, “the long-term benefits for students themselves who will have a greater chance of achieving their social, political, and economic potential because they are provided an appropriate education” (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988, p. 18). A combination of all above-mentioned and discussed factors affecting general education practices has direct impact on CLD students’ education.
Special Education Eligibility Process
Disproportionate Representation of CLD Students in Special Education.Several contributing factors to diversity imbalances in special education have been discussed so far: historical perspectives on U. S. education policies; popular attitude towards out-groups; and general education practices with its affecting policies. Now special education practices involving pre-referral and special education eligibility assessment practices will be discussed, as well as meaning and trends related to overrepresentation of CLD students. The educational system is set up such that “teachers are trained to see failure chiefly in terms of student’s disability, assessors are trained to find that disability, and special educators are trained to help the student compensate for their disability” (Conahan, Burggraf, Nelson, Bailey, and Ford, 2003, para.23). In this practice, there may be little room for flexibility or recognition of diversity and its impact. Due to rigid structures, enormous variability among state requirements, and a broad range of district practices, potential for professional mistakes are high. “Culturally and linguistically diverse students face quadruple jeopardy due to a combination of factors, such as poverty, language, culture, and /or disabling conditions; this has had a devastating effects on their educational opportunities and makes them vulnerable to placement in special education” (Utley, 1995, p. 303, as cited in Obringer, 1998, p. 4).
Discussion under Historical Perspectives and General Education Practices sections of this literature review, attest further to this statement. If students are not successful in general education, either they are allowed to fail, are recommended to special education, or drop out of school if in older grades. Special education was created in the 1970s to afford free and appropriate public education to those who previously were ineligible for it due to their serious disabling conditions. As special education continued to grow and recognize more and less severe disabilities, the special education field began facing many challenges, including disproportionate representation of various groups.
Since disproportional representation of CLD students in special education is the core of this study, it is imperative to understand what is meant by “disproportional.” Although disproportional representation is often understood as overrepresentation of students in a given category, this may occur due to differing circumstances of identification, such as over-identified, under-identified, or misidentified (Brusca-Vega, 2002). Students are over-identified when they are classified as meeting the criteria for a disability category when they do not have a legitimate disability (Brusca-Vega, 2002). Students are under-identified when they do have a disability, but this disability is overlooked (Brusca-Vega, 2002). Students who are misidentified are misdiagnosed and assigned to inappropriate disability categories (Brusca-Vega, 2002).
Currently there are three methods to calculate representation in special education: risk index, odds ratio, and composition index (Losen&Orfield, 2002; National Research Council, 2002, as cited in Rhodes et al., 2005). Risk index is attained when the number of students from a given ethnic background, who are identified as disabled, is divided by the total number of students in that population (Rhodes et al., 2005). Odds ratio is attained by using the risk index of an ethnic minority group in a given category as the nominator and the risk index of whites in the same category as a denominator (Rhodes et al., 2005).
To determine proportionality of representation the composition index is calculated by contrasting the proportion of a particular group in general education with the percentage of the same group of students enrolled in special education programs (Artiles& Rueda, 2002). This existing freedom in selecting calculation methodology adds to variations of data on both a national scale as well as on individual states level, and it is further complicated by states’ freedom in selecting criteria for calculating disproportionally. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education examined 29 states that had clearly defined criteria for calculating disproportionally, and found that these criteria included percentage point discrepancy, chi-square tests, z scores, confidence interval bonds, odds ratio, quality index, and other state-developed formulae (Rhodes et al., 2005).
Some researchers hold by the definition that when the percentage exceeds ten percent, it is considered as an overrepresentation (Artiles& Rueda, 2002; Chinn & Hughes, 1987; Harry, 1992, as cited in Artiles, 2000). However, in Arkansas disproportionality exists when the differences between a percentage of students from a racial or ethnic group in the general population and the same racial or ethnic group in special education exceeds 8.3% (Rhodes et al., 2005). In Indiana, on the other hand, a 3% difference already constitutes overrepresentation (Rhodes et al., 2005). It is very important to be cautious when comparing overrepresentation percentages across different states as these percentages may be significantly affected by the states’ criteria selected to calculate their proportionalities (Rhodes et al., 2005).
State education agencies often require school districts, with evidenced disproportionality, to submit a corrective action plan to remediate this problem, which might make a clear declaration of an issue to be addressed; but again the number of these plans will be dependent on the state’s criteria (Rhodes et al., 2005). In 1993 and 1994, the Project Forum at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education Convention focused on disproportionate representation of minority students by examining state efforts, reviewing research, and soliciting stakeholders’ input (Rhodes et al., 2005). Among many other things, this project concluded that the special education field should determine what constitutes disproportionality (Project Forum, 1995, as cited in Rhodes et al., 2005).
In the 1980s and 1990s, federal policies viewed disproportional representation in special education as evidence of potential discrimination (Coutinho& Oswald, 2004). Existing research shows that students’ race and ethnicity significantly increases their chances to be misidentified as needing special education services (NEA, 2008). The Office of Civil Rights has required many schools to implement corrective plans to reduce that disproportionality (Coutinho& Oswald, 2004). In October 2001, Secretary of Education Dr. Page expressed his concern before Congress about the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education programs (Mitylene&Lassmann, 2003). In addition, the Individuals with Disability Education Act of 2004 recognizes this problem and requires all states to identify how they attempt to measure disproportionality. Currently, states use various methods to measure disproportionality, and each state has the freedom to determine both how to measure it, and what level of disproportionality is significant (NEA, 2007).
The public’s recognition of this problem in addition to an abundance of articles addressing imbalances in diversity of represented cultures in special education confirms the urgency, seriousness, and magnitude of this problem. Coutinho and Oswald (2004) articulate that overrepresentation is one example of “inherent inequalities within our educational system that prejudice outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students” (p. 9).
Trends in Disproportionate Representation. Special education currently is comprised of thirteen disability categories as defined by IDEA 2004, which can be divided into two major groups: low-incidence (including hearing or visual impairments, traumatic brain injury, and orthopedic or other health impairment) and high-incidence disabilities (learning disability, speech, or language impairment, and emotional disturbance). Probably the most prevalent disproportionate representation in special education involves overrepresentation of a given group of students in the program. Overrepresentation of minority students is not present in the low-incidence disability categories (Overton, 2002, as cited in Mitylene&Lassmann, 2003), but the problem exists in high incidence categories which necessitate a high degree of professional judgment in determining disability (MacMillan &Reschley, 1998, as cited in Mitylene&Lassmann, 2003). The fact that there is no standard definition of high incidence disabilities (Mitylene&Lassmann, 2003) themselves can contribute to overrepresentation of certain students in certain schools as well as it can contribute to under-representation in other schools.
Over-representation in special education is prevalent in students from other ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds than the mainstream. It is documented in various research studies that African American students tend to be over-diagnosed as mentally retarded and emotionally and behaviorally disordered (Artiles& Rueda, 2002). According to the NEA, nationally, English language learning students are under-represented in special education programs; however, the imbalance in cultural diversity varies greatly across the United States (NEA, 2008). Some experts suggest that whether CLD students, usually referred to in statistics as ELL’s or English Language Learners, are overrepresented or under-represented may be dependent upon the size of their population within the school district. For instance, according to Keller-Allen (2006) English language learning students in school districts with small ELL populations are overrepresented in special education programs at a rate of almost 16%; where they are under-represented in school districts with ELL populations of 100 students or more with average representation of about 9 % (NEA, 2007). Native American/Alaska Native students are more likely to receive special education services (NEA, 2007); Asian Pacific Islander students are less likely to be identified in special education, but they are overrepresented in gifted programs (NABE, 2002; Cartledge et al., 2002, as cited in NEA, 2007).
Overrepresentation in special education not only differs among various groups but also differs from state to state. In addition, total representation in special education varies across states (NEA, 2007). Artiles and Rueda (2002) assert that it is possible for a district to have an overrepresentation history, which may not be evident in the national and state data. Due to variability in eligibility criteria across states and combination of other factors, the percentage of students receiving special education significantly varies between states. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s report in 2006, Colorado served approximately 4% of students in special education, while Louisiana served over 12% of their school population in special education (as cited in NEA, 2007).
Another quandary with achieving accurate statistics in regard to CLD students is a lack of universal criteria for accurate identification and recognition of CLD students. Most statistics report their data in terms of representation of English language learners (ELL), or English as a second language students (ESL), or English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) students, each of which are a more specific category than culturally and linguistically diverse students. Schools fear of litigation can also add to under-identification of minority students in special education, and as Vasquez-Chairez (1988) said, in California in late 1980 the trend changed from over- to under-identification of minority students (as cited in Olson, 1991).
Pre-Referral Process. The purpose of a pre-referral intervention is to address learning and behavior problems that could potentially be inaccurately identified as disabilities (Pugach& Johnson, 1988, as cited in Ortiz, 1992). The pre-referral and referral process for special education programs are not uniform across districts with varying pre-referral procedures, assessment practices, and identification criteria. Skiba and colleagues (2003) state that even in the pre-referral process “students may be treated differently depending upon their race” (p. 7). For this reason, there should be more uniform procedures in place in all schools to ensure appropriate services for every student. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) strongly urge that pre-referral interventions should be formal and universal within the entire district and should be under the jurisdiction of regular education. Skiba and colleagues (2003) quoted Tomlinson and colleagues’ research that “minority students were referred more often than majority students, their parent were contacted significantly less often to participate in the special education process, the recommendation to minority parents were more restrictive, and less diverse then recommendation for non-minority parents” (p. 8).
As early as 1986, Gartner acknowledged that often there were school requirements for the referral initiators to document implemented interventions prior to special education referrals. In practice, this was rarely done (as cited in Ortiz, 1992). In the post-2004 IDEA, it was mandated that all school districts document implemented interventions and their results prior to formal special education referrals suspecting specific learning disabilities. Since this is a new requirement, the integrity of this practice is still to be evaluated. Gardner also reported that U.S. schools have the worst of alternatives in place by having “a process that makes it easy to refer a student, with no checks and balances as to whether the referral may be a matter of prejudice. Prejudice could include feelings against the child or failure on the school’s part to meet the child’s need, a system, which… provides little incentive for ‘prevention’“(as cited in Ortiz, 1992, p. 3). Experts warn that inappropriate special education labels may actually have long-lasting harmful effects instead of providing needed solutions (Harry &Klingner, 2006; Losen&Orfield, 2002). Therefore, it is extremely imperative to avoid mistaken special education eligibility.
Special Education Eligibility Process.Despite pre-referral interventions implemented to mediate the problems of concern, the problems are not always mediated: the integrity of the interventions might not have been in accordance with recommendations; the length and/or intensity might not have been sufficient; other influencing factors may not have been resolved by the implemented interventions; or there is a legitimate problem that may need special education intervention.
In addition to current classroom practices and pre-referral efforts, it is important to note the role of testing in the assessment process of minority students. It has been widely acknowledged and debated that assessment tools used to test academic achievement and intellectual ability are culturally biased, and therefore they contribute to inappropriate special education identification. A detailed discussion of aptitude assessments’ history of use and its appropriateness was discussed in the Historical Perspective section.
Although special education eligibility is not conducted solely based on the results of educational and psychological assessments, they are the heaviest contributors in the decision-making process in the current system. For this reason, further discussion about assessment tools used in current school practice for special education eligibility determination purposes is necessary. Both standardized achievement and aptitude tests can offer valuable insight on student abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. Aptitude tests are used to predict student academic achievement. However, since many aptitude test items are culture-specific, these instruments have limited applicability for populations from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Since standardized achievement tests do not usually include representative samples of ethnic or language minority groups and do not measure native language skills or achievement (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988), these instruments are limited in their appropriate use.
Despite growing recognition that aptitude instruments are not suitable for CLD students, wide use of them is still common practice. The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) /achievement discrepancy formula may be the most common placement procedure in the United States (Obringer, 1998), contributing to the extensive use of various assessment instruments. There are very few tools that are appropriate for use with a CLD population. As aforementioned, over 450 different languages are spoken by CLD students and there are a handful of bilingual tests available currently. If bilingual tests are available, such tests are usually administered solely or in combination with English assessments, and nonverbal assessments are also frequently used. Due to such great linguistic diversity represented in schools and not enough bilingual assessors, more or less adequately trained in assessment domain, paraprofessionals are used as translators. These facts make the assessment outcomes less reliable and more troublesome for families and schools.
This is further complicated by the heterogeneity of CLD students. Some students just arrived in this country, and others were born here. Some students do not have English language skills, and others are fluent speakers. Some students still may experience culture shock and others are quite familiar with the American culture. Some students had appropriate educational opportunities in other countries, and others did not. Some students come from cultures more similar to American culture than others do. All of these factors affect the assessment approaches and their outcomes.
Due to the lack of adequate assessment tools for CLD students and inadequate preparation of most assessors, CLD students that appear to be fluent in English are at great risk for being assessed as their “non-CLD” students. Students who appear to be fluent in English, but who come from bilingual homes, are likely to receive test scores that describe their aptitude or achievement somewhat inaccurately (Ascher, 1990). In fact, students who come from homes where both English and Spanish are spoken may be most vulnerable to testing anomalies (Figueroa, 1989, as cited in Ascher, 1990).
Another problem surfaces when there is a mismatch between a student’s native language, language of instruction, and language of assessment. For example, if there is an assessment available in the student’s native language, it may be tempting to use it, as the student’s English language skills may not be proficient yet. However, the implications of this decision are complicated and such assessments in native language may not be helpful if the student is not literate in their native language, or if the student has learned content in English and cannot access the knowledge in their native language (Neill, 2005). This problem is amplified further by the level of student’s acculturation. If the acculturation level is minimal or not commensurate to the level of the normed group, this adds to decreased validity of achieved scores. In turn, invalid test scores may lead to immediate and long term negative effects for the student. Research suggests that “test scores of bilingual students too often underestimate their learning capacity, and that decisions based on these scores frequently result in placements that limit opportunities for learning (Ascher, 1990, p. 1).”
Assessment Personnel.Due to such tremendous variability among CLD students, it is imperative to have appropriately qualified and experienced staff working with these students during the referral and assessment process. According to Flores, Lopez, and DeLeon (2000) there is a shortage of personnel qualified to assess culturally and linguistically diverse students (Burnette, 2000). Furthermore, they are not adequately prepared in their training (Burnette, 2000; Rhodes et al., 2005). In many school districts, evaluators did not receive training to understand cultural, linguistic, and experiential differences and their impact on a child’s development and test performances (Burnette, 2000).
A study conducted by Ochoa, Rivera and Ford (1997) surveying school psychologists from eight states with high Hispanic populations, found that 83% of school psychologists evaluating CLD students self-reported not being adequately prepared for bilingual assessments and 56% were not adequately prepared to interpret the assessment results for such students (Rhodes et al., 2005). In a 1997 study, Ochoa et al. found that the fourth most common concern of school psychologists was misdiagnosis and over identification of CLD students (Rhodes et al., 2005).
Due to a linguistic barrier between many school psychologists and their students, there is a reliance on the services of interpreters. One study found that 77% of school psychologists reported the use of interpreters who had received little or no training; 33% reported the use of trained interpreters; and 7% reported they had training and used trained interpreters in assessment practices (Ochoa, Gonzalez, Galarza &Guillemand, 1996, as cited in Rhodes et al., 2005). Such data does not demonstrate the use of best practices in the assessment domain. Furthermore, the use of untrained interpreters may affect the validity of obtained results (Figueroa, 1990).
As presented here, many factors can contribute to inadequate education, especially for minority students from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds. Inadequate classroom and assessment practices combined with inequitable school polices along with prejudiced sentiment towards diversity may potentially lead to inappropriate special education referrals and special education identification. Thus far, this Literature Review examined the possible contributing factors to disproportionate representation in special education. The following section will examine and propose possible ways to reduce and avoid disproportionate representation of CLD students by suggesting best educational practices.
Avoiding the Disproportionate Representation of CLD Students in Special Education.
Special education is a necessary program for students whose disabilities impede their success in general education; however, it is not the program for students who experience difficulties due only to new language acquisition. School personnel often confuse the consequence of limited English proficiency (like academic underachievement and inattentiveness) with learning disabilities or speech and language disorders (Crawford, 1997) leading to inappropriate placements into special education programs.
Given that special education programs are not designed to educate students without disabilities, these programs are not benefiting students who are misplaced into such programs. Furthermore, education in such programs may actually be damaging. Ortiz’s study from 1992 found that Hispanic students who were educated in special education programs as learning disabled, actually decreased their scores on IQ tests and did not improve academically after three years of receiving services (Crawford, 1997).
Preventing inappropriate assignment into special education programs, education needs to be seen holistically as it is affected by many factors: best educational and assessment practices, parental and community involvement, current policies and other sociopolitical frameworks, and attitudes towards diversity. It is very important to reduce “minority student referrals to special education without reducing the access to needed educational resources” (Skiba et al., 2003, p. 50). Garcia and Ortiz (1988) state that, “unless dropout rates among LEP students are decreased and academic achievement of these students is improved, the loss of earning power and the concomitant drain on society’s resources, will continue to be astronomical” (p. 13).
Obringer (1998) recognized a significant over-representation of minorities in special education classes in a Mississippi school district. Particularly, Obringer (1998) found that African American populations contributed to only “14% of the school population” and made up “24% of the special education population” (p. 4). Additionally, Obringer (1998) found that more than “50% of the special education population” was categorized with learning disabilities (p. 5). As reported by Obringer (1998), the U.S. Department of Education, in 1994, found that “the number of students identified as having a learning disability” had increased by 198% as the national mean (p. 6). These results are not unlike the results for Indiana public schools during the 2001-2002 school year, as presented by Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, and Feggins-Azziz (2006).
Indiana, for the school year of 2001–2002, had a statewide risk index for European-Americans 14%, African-Americans 15.92%, Hispanic-Americans 8.62%, Multiracial 9.49%, Asian-American 4.10%, and no index at all for American Indian (Skiba et al., 2006, p. 415). In addition, disability categories were represented as 41.68% learning disability, 24.29% speech and language, 11.86% mild mental retardation, 4.79% emotional disturbance, and 2.41% moderate mental retardation (Skiba et al., 2006, p. 415). The study conducted for the Indiana public schools demonstrated that African-American populations were overrepresented in special education programs that were restrictive, but not in the programs that were less restrictive (Skiba et al., 2006).
The Illinois Board of Education released the 2006–2007 Annual State Report on Special Education Performance and included data showing 14.91% of students ages 6-21 as participants in special education programs; this is a decrease from the previous two school years, and only a 5% increase since the 2004 report (p. 8). Similar to the previous studies, Illinois recognized the largest percentage of special education participants as having learning disabilities at 48.86%. The demographic profile showed 58.1% Caucasian, 24.2% African-American, and 16% Hispanic (2006-2007 Annual State Report, 2007, p. 10). While significantly different than expected values, these numbers are still overrepresentative of African-American students as against other groups, in that 55.2% of all students are Caucasian and 58.1% of the students in special education are Caucasian, and 19.9% of all students are African-American while 24.2% are represented in special education programs (2006-2007 Annual State Report, 2007, p. 10).