Assessment

09CH_Piper_Language.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Assessment

231

Learning Outcomes By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the following objectives:

• Describe the importance and challenges of appropriately evaluating ELLs and why it takes a team to identify the problems.

• Dispel myths and discuss likely reasons why ELLs are often misidentified as having communication disor- ders or learning disabilities.

• Explain how to recognize gifted ELLs and adapt instruction to realize and develop their abilities.

• Describe the importance and process of pre-referral interventions.

9Learners with Special Needs

Robin Bartholick/Getty Images

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 231 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Introduction

Introduction English language learners tend to be overrepresented in special education programs for students with disabilities and underrepresented in programs for the gifted. Many factors contribute to the disproportionate representation, ranging from imprecise or conflicting fed- eral regulations to unconscious bias and inappropriate assessment. The most fundamental one, however, is that many professionals have an inadequate understanding of second lan- guage acquisition and confuse typical developmental “errors” with those caused by language impairment or learning disability. In this chapter we begin with the distinction between developmental language, or language-in-process, on the one hand, and specific language impairments (SLI) and learning disabilities on the other. Wrongly diagnosing ELLs can have a negative impact on academic achievement as well as negative social consequences (see Why Getting it Right Matters.) Thus, it is very important that when professionals refer ELLs for special education, they do so with a high degree of certainty. We turn, then, to the pre-referral process, which involves assessment, multiple levels of intervention, and regular progress monitoring designed to confirm that observed behavior affects both languages and is not caused or exacerbated by inadequate instruction. The goal is to ensure that by the time a dual language learner is referred to special education, every effort has made, every possible opportunity created, for her to succeed.

Why Getting it Right Matters Ms. Hayward put down the pencil she had been using to mark her sixth grade students’ social studies test. It was clear that Max hadn’t understood most of the questions. Here it was February, and his reading comprehension hadn’t improved much since she first met him in Sep- tember. She hadn’t been able to have his reading ability tested in his home language, Serbian, but his family insisted that he had been reading when they left the country two years earlier. Ms. Hayward had worked with him on the English alphabet, which he’d picked up quickly enough, and his word identification skills were excellent. He was also good in math. Although Max didn’t say much in class, she had heard him on the soccer field with his classmates, and he was communicating pretty well. But he struggled with reading, whatever the language. Should she send him for a special education assessment, she wondered. What harm could it do?

The answer to Ms. Hayward’s question is that it could potentially do a great deal of harm for many reasons:

• once students begin to receive special education services, they tend to remain in those classes;

• special education classes tend to be based on a less demanding and more limited curriculum;

• there is a danger of a double stigma because both ELLs and special needs students are more likely socially stigmatized. Lower expectations of special needs students often lead to diminished academic achievement. Segregation from academically able peers impedes language development, academic development, and social development; and

• inappropriate placement can be directly harmful; a study in 1986 showed that Spanish- speaking ELLs in special education classes showed no academic improvement and some scored lower on IQ tests after three years (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Ralabate, 2007; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Wilkinson & Oritz, 1986).

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 232 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

At the other end of the spectrum of learners with special needs are gifted students. Although the consequences of failing to identify gifted ELLs correctly may be less dramatic—they are less likely to drop out of school than ELLs wrongly assigned to special education, for example—they are significant. The purpose of schooling is to help students to realize their potential to the fullest possible extent, and if ELLs who should be in gifted programs are not, the school has not done its job. This chapter concludes with a discussion about and some pointers for accommodating diverse languages, diverse abilities, and diverse needs, within the mainstream classroom.

9.1 Difference or Disorder? As we have seen in previous chapters, although second language learning follows a fairly predictable path, there is a great deal of variability among individual learners—some learn faster than others, some exhibit a long silent period, while others begin to speak immediately. Generally speaking, there is also a great deal of commonality that characterizes the process. Sometimes dual language children have language impairment or learning disabilities, and it can be challenging to determine whether one of these is the cause of the difficulties a dual language learner is experiencing or whether they are simply manifestations of a developmen- tal stage. Disabilities are broadly classified as either low-incidence or high-incidence. In the low-incidence category are those rare conditions—severe mental retardation, blindness, cerebral palsy, and complex health issues, among others—which are normally diagnosed by teams of medical personnel and which are generally found in 1% or less of the school popu- lation at any given time. The high-incidence category includes specific learning disabilities, speech/language impairments, emotional or behavioral disorders, as well as mild to moder- ate mental retardation. Although all are important, we will focus our attention on specific learning disabilities, and especially language and reading impairment, because more confu- sion surrounds the cause of these disorders in dual language learners.

Specific Learning Disability The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) counts among specific learn- ing disabilities (SLD) conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia that do not result from hearing or motor disabilities, “mental retardation” (previously referred to as intellectual disability), emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (IDEA, 2004). The most recent additions to the law include an attempt to be more specific by stating that a student is considered to have a learning disability if:

The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state approved grade level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state approved grade level standards:

• oral expression, • listening comprehension, • written expression, • basic reading skills,

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 233 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

• reading fluency skills, • reading comprehension, • mathematics calculation, and • mathematics problem solving. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006)

Six of the eight behaviors involve language and reading, and so the two most common forms of specific learning disorder are language impairment and reading impairment. Because of their high frequency of occurrence in general and because ELLs are more likely to be identi- fied as having them, language and reading impairment will be discussed separately.

Language Impairment With children acquiring their first language or two languages simultaneously, there are devel- opmental milestones by which we can judge whether there is an atypical language delay that may be a symptom of a more significant disability. If a child, by the age of five, is not able to name some colors or is not asking or answering who, what, and where questions, for example, there might be some cause for concern because children normally acquire these abilities by age three or four. It is possible, however, that the child is merely experiencing language delay, meaning that development is following a normal course but at a slower pace. Most children with delayed language development will have caught up, or nearly so, by the time they reach kindergarten; in elementary school, children who have experienced language delay as very young children are indistinguishable from their unaffected peers (Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011, p. 200).

A delay in speech is not in itself cause for concern, although children with specific language impairment will typically be language delayed as well. Specific language impairment (SLI), also called developmental language disorder, is a communication disorder such as stut- tering, impaired articulation, a language or voice impairment that adversely affects a child’s learning, not caused by hearing loss or other developmental delays.

Children with SLI start out with language delays, but their difficulties and pro- tracted development of language extend into the school-age years and possi- bly never completely resolve over time, although they can come close to their unaffected peers for some language abilities by the end of elementary school. (Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011, p. 200)

Children with true SLI may not exhibit impairment with all domains of language, but they typically exhibit deficits in one or more aspects of language processing, and are unlikely to achieve the same ability levels as their unaffected peers. Some characteristics of SLI include:

• SLI affects between 7% and 8% of children in kindergarten; • SLI consists of persistent language problems in the absence of other cognitive or

physical problems, although some children with SLI may also have mild cognitive deficits;

• between the ages of four and seven, children with SLI will exhibit significant general language delays such as vocabulary size and sentence length, as well as more pro- found specific language delays such as difficulty with verbs, especially regular and irregular past tense forms and verb endings;

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 234 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

• the impact of SLI usually persists into adulthood; • the cause of SLI is unknown, but there is evidence of a strong genetic link; between

50% and 70% of children with SLI have parents or siblings with SLI or significant delays in speaking; and

• children with SLI are at greater risk for reading problems (Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011; Piper, 2007).

There are four types of specific language disorder:

1. voice disorders affect voice quality and are not temporary; 2. fluency disorders affect the rate, rhythm, and the continuity of speech. The most

common of these is stuttering. Less common is cluttering, characterized by exces- sively rapid speech which significantly disrupts the flow of speech;

3. articulation disorders comprise a wide range of disorders ranging from persistent difficulties with a particular sound that have little impact on intelligibility, to severely impaired phonological systems that render the speaker incomprehen- sible; and

4. language processing disorders are those afflictions that do not fit into any of the other three categories but which represent systematic deviations in speech, reading, writing, or signing that interfere with a speaker’s ability to communicate with their peers (Piper, 2007, p. 199).

Dual language learners are susceptible to any of these disorders, though no more so than the monolingual population, but particular care must be taken to ensure that any variations from the norm are attributable to communicative disorders and not simply communicative differ- ences associated with the learner’s home language or culture.

Language Impairment in Dual Language Learners With imperfect mastery of the language, some ELLs will exhibit communicative differences, some- times quite marked, but these are developmental; they will disappear as the learner becomes more proficient with the language. Recognizing the difference between a language impairment and a developmental delay or difference requires some understanding of the nor- mal course of second language develop- ment as well as some knowledge about how language impairments are manifest in dual language children. What, then, are the characteristics of dual language children with language impairment?

Simultaneous Bilinguals As we learned in Chapter 3, children may acquire their two languages simul- taneously or in succession. Although there will be some variability among individual children’s proficiency in either category, there will generally be

Catherine Yeulet/iStock/Thinkstock

Early detection of hearing loss can help to prevent language delay and learning problems that result in reduced academic achievement.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 235 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

little variability among normally developing simultaneously bilingual children by the time they reach school. Normally developing simultaneous bilinguals bear strong resemblance to monolinguals in many aspects of development, although there are minor differences.

Researchers have asked whether bilingual children with language impairments exhibit the same symptoms and follow the same course of development as monolingual children with SLI. Paradis and her colleagues addressed the question “What happens to the language devel- opment of simultaneous bilingual children who are later diagnosed with SLI?” (Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011, p. 203). Studying a group of French/English bilingual seven-year- olds who had been diagnosed with SLI after the age of four, these researchers found that the bilingual children had significant problems with verb forms in both languages, but they were essentially the same problems experienced by monolinguals with SLI. All of the children in the study were below age expectation in language development in both of their languages, had nonverbal IQ scores in the normal range, and had no history of neurological trauma. The MLU (mean length of utterance) in the bilingual SLI children was shorter in both languages than unaffected French or English monolinguals, but it was the same as monolinguals with SLI. They also found that the children used the appropriate language for the person or occa- sion and that evidence of code mixing was essentially the same as bilinguals without SLI. In other words, there was nothing to differentiate bilingual and monolingual children with SLI (Paradis, Genesssee & Crago, 2011, p. 203). These results have been confirmed by research- ers studying Spanish/English bilinguals in California (Guitiérrez-Clellen, et al., 2008). The evidence, then, is that dual language children who learned both languages from infancy will follow the same course of development as monolingual SLI children.

Successive Bilinguals (ELLs) Two questions are of concern with learners who are not bilingual from birth but who add a second language during the school years, that is, the majority of ELLs teachers encounter. The first is whether there are differences in language development between these learners with SLI and monolingual English speakers with SLI. The second is what impact SLI might have on the acquisition of English. Remembering that monolingual children with SLI are delayed in acquiring language and later develop more profound delays, the question arises whether dual language learners with SLI also experience developmental delays in the second language— English. Although there is no large body of research examining these precise questions, the available research is strongly supportive of the position that English language development proceeds in much the same way for children with SLI, whether English is the first or second language (Paradis, Genessee, & Crago, 2011; Rothweiler, Chilla & Clahsen, 2009). Neverthe- less, because research is limited, it is important to remember that many external factors and individual differences contribute to the speed and ease with which ELLs acquire English; the fact that many bilingual children with SLI have demonstrated patterns of development consistent with monolingual children with SLI does not mean that the same success will be achieved by all bilinguals in all settings. Each learner must be evaluated and monitored indi- vidually. In A Teacher’s Story: Miguel, second grade teacher Margo Leisey recounts the case of an at-risk child named Miguel who was struggling with English for reasons that were some- what unusual.

Children such as Miguel can be helped with specially designed instruction and regular moni- toring. The plan for Miguel was to spend half an hour each morning and another half hour in the afternoon with a special education teacher who would coordinate with Ms. Leisey;

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 236 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

both teachers would carefully monitor his language. A few weeks after the plan was put into action, Ms. Leisey had a visit from Miguel’s mother, described in A Teacher’s Story: A Tough Question.

Margot Leisey’s exchange with Miguel’s mother raises an important question about SLI in bilinguals. In asking whether she should switch to English with her son, she is asking the larger question: Do bilingual children with SLI benefit from maintaining the minority lan- guage the same as unaffected bilingual children do? Research indicates that they do, and that

A Teacher’s Story: Miguel

Miguel had been in our school since kindergarten, and he’d struggled with English from the beginning. He came from a bilingual home—his father spoke Spanish and his mother Portu- guese—and the family was one of only eight or nine non-English speaking families in the small city where we all lived. He was one of only three ELLs in his kindergarten class and he lagged significantly behind them, but his kindergarten teacher attributed it to the fact that English was his third language and thought that he was just experiencing a delay. He had made some progress in first grade; his teacher, Mr. Carlton, said that by the end of the year he could name the letters of the alphabet, although he could not recite them in order, and he could identify only a few very common words. He could write his name, but the “g” looked like a “q” and he occasionally made a “W” instead of an “M.” He also seemed inattentive and sometimes slow to react. The language barrier made it hard to get reliable information from the parents about Miguel’s language development at home since they were just learning English themselves. Mr. Carlton suspected dyslexia or a cognitive disorder, so he requested a formal evaluation. Shortly after the school year started, I was able to talk to the speech-language pathologist who had led the three-person team that conducted the assessment.

The pathologist spoke Spanish and had a Portuguese interpreter present. She interviewed the parents about Miguel’s language development and was assured that his Spanish and Portuguese were “just fine.” When pressed via the interpreter, his mother said that he still had some problems with some of the verbs in Portuguese and he confused expressions of time— yesterday, tomorrow, today—in English. She also said that she thought he had the same problems in Spanish; the father said he didn’t know. On behalf of the speech-language patholo- gist, the interpreter asked the mother when Miguel had begun to speak. The mother replied that he didn’t say much until he was “three or so.” She quickly added that she was sure that was because he heard two languages instead of one. When asked whether he ever confused the two languages, the mother said, “A little, but then so do I.” When asked what Miguel’s dominant language was, his mother said she really didn’t know. She thought he was “about the same” in both languages. The parents reported that they read to Miguel every night and that he liked to look at the pictures in his books but had not shown much interest in reading. After testing him in English and in Spanish, the pathologist reported that he had specific language impairment, and her prognosis was that he would make progress, with the right kind of help, but he would probably never catch up linguistically to his peer group. She also reported that he was good with number concepts when using manipulatives, and that she wasn’t certain but thought he had perfect pitch—she said I should have him sing for me because he had a beautiful voice. Mr. Carlton hadn’t mentioned Miguel’s singing, but he had shown me some of his drawings, which were very good and very colorful. I was nervous about how to proceed with Miguel, but I was also relieved to have a diagnosis and the assurance of the pathologist that her team would be available to help Miguel (and me!).

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 237 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

abandoning the home language(s) does not benefit, and could be harmful to the child. After doing an extensive review of the research literature, Paradis, Genessee & Crago found “there is no evidence for thinking that dual language learning is a risk factor for children with lan- guage delay or impairment and, in turn, there is no basis in evidence for counseling parents to switch to one language at home . . . .” (p. 208). The best advice to Miguel’s distraught mother would be to continue to use the languages they have always used at home and also to continue reading to him and encouraging his efforts. Miguel was already off to a slow start with read- ing, and research has shown that many children with SLI will also have reading problems, sometimes serious.

Internationally Adopted Children Children who are adopted from other countries may be very different from the successive and simultaneous bilinguals that make up the majority of our ELL classes. If children are adopted into an English-speaking family as infants, they will in all likelihood have acquired English and will resemble other ELLs who have learned English from a very young age—with one important distinction: Their first language will almost always have stopped with their adoption. Some American adoptive parents do make an attempt for their children to relearn the language of their birth, but this happens necessarily at a later age, and it is the exception rather than the rule.

Most international adoptees are older, if for no other reason than the government legalities and procedures in the United States and the other country involved, which can extend the process of adoption for several years. Children who are adopted at an older age are more likely to have lived in an institution, sometimes for an extended period of time, to have limited or no formal education, and, like the infants who were adopted, will lose the opportunity to function in their first language abruptly upon adoption. Unable to use their first language, not yet proficient in English, and with a great deal of academic catch-up to do, these learners are at high risk for failure. They are also more likely than the general ELL population to have learning disabilities because they are more likely to have been raised in orphanages. Research

A Teacher’s Story: A Tough Question

Miguel’s mother arrived in my classroom after school one day with an interpreter. I could see that she was upset and I tried to put her at ease by telling her that we were pleased by Miguel’s progress. The interpreter translated but she remained upset. The interpreter explained that Miguel’s mother was worried about her son because he wouldn’t speak to her in Portuguese any more. He would only speak English and she was worried because she didn’t know much English. She said she was “studying hard” to learn more English so she could help him. She was convinced, the interpreter said, that his problem was caused by having to speak too many languages, and since he had to go to school in English, she wanted to speak English, too, but she was frustrated because it was hard for her. She thought she might be faster at learning more Spanish and wanted to know if it would help Miguel if they spoke Spanish at home but no Portuguese. I felt her pain, and at that point I had to admit to myself that I really didn’t have a good answer. I did remember reading that children sometimes stopped speaking their home language for a time, and I told her this. What I really wanted to say was “I’ll have to get back to you on that.”

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 238 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

on 3,800 children in 19 countries indicated that children raised in orphanages have an IQ 20 points lower than peer age children raised in foster care (van Ljzendoorn, Luijk, & Juffer, 2008). Although the number of children adopted from other countries has decreased in the last decade (Swarns, 2013), thousands still arrive each year, and they will need special atten- tion (see A Snapshot of Internationally Adopted Children).

Reading Impairments and SRI There are many different types of reading impairments and many different causes. For our discussion, it is necessary to distinguish two broad categories of reading disorder:

1. Acquired reading impairment refers to reading problems that result from imper- fect mastery of the language, a different alphabet in the home language, low expo- sure to reading, and inadequate instruction, to name a few.

2. Specific reading impairment (SRI) affects children with normal intelligence and visual-auditory abilities, adequate learning opportunities, and the absence of neu- rological and psychological problems. Between 5% and 20% of U.S. school children are affected. For dual language learners with SRI, the condition will impact both languages, although not necessarily to the same extent (Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011, p. 21).

A Snapshot of Internationally Adopted Children Internationally adopted children are a unique subset of the ELL population in schools, and they are more likely to require special attention and even special education services.

• Most internationally adopted children in the United States are from China, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo (U.S. State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 2014)

• After several decades of steady growth, the rate of international adoption has been declining since 2004 (Voight & Brown, 2013).

• An important difference between these children and other ELLs is that, prior to adop- tion these children learn a first language, but in most cases their learning and use of that language is prematurely halted when they are adopted.

• The first language is lost very quickly. Russian children adopted between the ages of four and eight typically lose their expressive use of that language within three to six months of adoption, and all functional use of the language within a year (Glennen, 2012)

• Interrupted first language learning is known as arrested language development. • Loss of the first language before the second language is firmly established leaves them

without a functional language. Unlike the bilingual child who has a functioning first lan- guage to fall back on, the internationally adopted child may have very little language in which to communicate.

• Some school districts do not count these children as ELLs, claiming that they are not truly bilingual because of their first language deficiencies, and label them as learning disabled instead.

• Most students adopted at older ages will need many years to acquire full proficiency in English and will require more support than other ELLs to keep from falling behind academically.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 239 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

Table 9.1: Signs of possible learning, language, and reading impairments at different ages

Age Signs and symptoms Possibility of SLD (other than SLI or SRI)

Possibility of SLI or SRI

Risk of confusing with L2 develop- mental difference

Preschool Problems pronouncing words

Unknown Yes High

Difficulty rhyming Unknown Yes Low

Trouble learning alphabet Yes Yes Moderate (higher if L1 uses different alphabet)

Trouble finding appropri- ate word

Yes Yes High

Difficulty following direc- tions or learning routines

Yes Unknown Moderate to high

Difficulty controlling cray- ons, pencils, scissors

Yes Unknown None

Trouble with buttons, zip- pers, snaps, learning to tie shoes

Yes Unknown None

Ages 5–9 Problems with sound- symbol correspondence

Unknown Yes High

Unable to combine sounds to make words

Unknown Yes Low

Confuses basic words when reading

Unknown Yes Moderate

Heavy reliance on context (including pictures and prior knowledge)

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Trouble learning basic math skills

Yes Unknown Moderate, depending on previous formal education

Problems telling time Yes Unknown Low

Correctly identifying an SRI is a complex process that cannot be accomplished with a single test, but is largely a process of elimination. A reading specialist, or sometimes a team of spe- cialists, will need to rule out factors such as inadequate prior instruction, lack of opportunity to read in either language, visual problems, sociocultural factors, or insufficient familiarity with oral English—the developmental factors indicative of an acquired reading disorder, which would require a different set of interventions than a true SRI. There are certain com- mon behaviors, however, that are indicative of a possible reading problem and the need for further assessment. See Table 9.1.

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 240 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

Age Signs and symptoms Possibility of SLD (other than SLI or SRI)

Possibility of SLI or SRI

Risk of confusing with L2 develop- mental difference

Ages 5–9 (cont.)

Difficulty remembering sequences

Yes Yes Moderate in early stages of second language learning

Slow to learn new skills Yes Unknown Low

Poor coordination Yes Unknown None

Impetuous behavior Yes Unknown Low

Immature way of speaking Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Absence of strategies for identification and under- standing of new words

Unknown Yes Low to moderate depending on prior literacy exposure and instruction

Comprehension problems including poor understand- ing of what is read and inability to relate what is read to learner’s own experience

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Weak vocabulary skills Yes Yes High

Ages 10–13

Avoidance or dislike of reading and writing

Unknown Yes High

Avoids reading aloud Unknown Yes High

Spells words differently at different times

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Heavy reliance on context (including pictures and prior knowledge)

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Poor organization skills Yes Unknown Low

Poor handwriting Unknown, but probable in conjunction with other deficits

Unknown Low to moderate depending on prior learning

Poor coordination Yes Unknown None

Trouble following directions

Yes Yes Moderate to high

Impetuous behavior Yes Unknown Low

Immature way of speaking Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Table 9.1: Signs of possible learning, language, and reading impairments at different ages (continued)

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 241 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

What is the relationship between spe- cific language impairment and specific reading impairment? Specific language impairment is not a single disorder but a category of disorders, as noted earlier. Similarly, there may be a wide range of difficulties experienced by children with reading disorders, and so it is impos- sible to equate the two. Nevertheless, there is a strong correlation between SLI and reading disorder. Children diag- nosed with SLI often experience reading difficulties—between 40% and 75%, according to the Merrill Advanced Stud- ies Center (Simpson & Rice, 2009)— and, conversely, more than half of children who are identified as having specific reading disorders have also been identified as having some form of SLI

(McArthur, et al., 2000). The coincidence of SLI and reading disorder is not surprising—as we have noted repeatedly, reading is a language-based skill that is heavily dependent on oral language. What is also possible, however, is that there is a single underlying, and currently unidentified, condition that causes both. Interventions for Miguel will be aimed, in part, at preventing further reading difficulties, and the prognosis is hopeful:

It should be noted that, although children with SLI are at substantially increased risk of reading difficulties compared to other children, they are by no means destined for poor reading; some youngsters with a preschool his- tory of SLI go on to achieve normally in school, and those with ongoing dif- ficulties can certainly be helped. (Spear-Swerling, 2006)

Helping dual language learners with both SLI and SRI will depend on the correct identifica- tion of the disorders. This is the role of the pre-referral process, as we will see below.

Age Signs and symptoms Possibility of SLD (other than SLI or SRI)

Possibility of SLI or SRI

Risk of confusing with L2 develop- mental difference

Ages 10–13 (cont.)

Absence of strategies for identification and under- standing of new words

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Weak vocabulary skills Yes Yes High

Inconsistent school performance

Yes Yes High

Sources: Eunice Kennedy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2014 Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011

Table 9.1: Signs of possible learning, language, and reading impairments at different ages (continued)

Medioimages/Photodisc/Thinkstock

If this child experiences problems learning to read in Spanish, her grandmother will be able to advise her English teacher; this information is very important in the correct diagnosis of any kind of reading impairment.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 242 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

Assessing any student with a suspected learning disability is a complex process, but when that learner is a bilingual, it becomes more so. There is no single symptom or profile that is reliably indicative of a learning disability, but there are some behaviors that serve as warning signs of possible problems. These may manifest themselves differently at different ages, as shown in Table 9.1.

While these behaviors are warning signs, they do not constitute sufficient evidence for the diag- nosis of a learning disability; professional assessment will be necessary. These signs are help- ful, however, in the process of pre-referral to determine what further evaluation is necessary.

9.2 Disproportionality Addressing the issue of minorities in special education, Martin Gould wrote in a submission to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

Disproportionality in special education programs in the United States has been among the most critical and enduring problems in the field of special education for many years. Although the presence of overrepresentation has been consistently documented, it is fair to say that the full complexity of the problem has not yet been understood, nor has a clear picture emerged at the national level concerning the causes of disproportionality. (Gould, 2009, p. 26)

Disproportionality matters for obvious reasons: It is important that language or cultural issues not impede ELLs’ access to special assistance if they are in need of it; it is equally important that they not receive interventions that are inappropriate and don’t work.

In “2009–2010, (minority) students comprised the majority of the population with disabili- ties in the nation and represented about four million children and youth in U.S. schools, about 69% of the entire special education population” (Artiles, 2011, 341). A significant number of these are English-speaking African American children, but Latino and other minority stu- dents are also disproportionately identified as having learning disabilities and speech and language impairments (Waitoller et al., 2010; Lydon, 2013). Although there are data indi- cating that nationwide, 9.2% of the total population of special education students are ELLs, compared to 13.5% of the general population (Zehler et al., 2003), it is hard to interpret what it means because:

1. fewer than 7% of Asian ELLs are in special education programs; 2. Spanish-speaking ELLs account for 80.4% of the ELL/special education population

nationwide, but only 76.9% of the total ELL population; and 3. there is extreme variation across school districts in this country in the proportions

of ELLs in special education. Districts with fewer than 100 ELLs referred nearly 16%, while larger districts identified an average of 9.1% of their ELLs as requiring special education (Zehler et al, 2003). These differences may be explained by differences in the ways in which districts classify both ELLs and learning disabled or language- impaired students. For example, data from the U.S. Office for Civil Rights reveal that predominantly white school districts (75% or more) label more than twice as many Hispanic males as emotionally disturbed as do predominantly minority schools, more than 80% more as mentally retarded, and more than 42% more as SLI (Ladner, 2007).

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 243 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

There is no a priori reason to assume that bilinguals are more (or less) likely than monolin- guals to have learning disabilities. In fact, as we saw in earlier chapters, bilingualism appears to confer certain cognitive advantages. So why are ELLs in some jurisdictions more likely to be assigned to special education and less likely to be identified as gifted than their monolin- gual peers?

There are many factors that lead educators to refer ELLs. One is that federal legislation is use- ful for specifying what has to be done, but it is silent on how.

Identifying these high-incidence disorders does not entail using consistent standards, but depends on judgments, and is, thus, subject to interpretation. As a result, a learner with mild or moderate retardation in one jurisdiction can “recover” just by moving to another state. Where there is vagueness of definition, there is almost certainly vagueness, or worse, in inter- pretation and application.

For many school districts across the nation, assessment in an ELLs’ native language is not feasible; they simply do not have access to the resources needed to conduct a valid assess- ment—assuming that appropriate, reliable, and valid evaluation tools even exist in multiple languages. If they have to use English language assessment tools, however, they disadvan- tage ELLs, especially those in the first three stages of learning English. Moreover, there is no indication given of how long an ELL should be in the United States before being evaluated; nor is there a requirement that ELLs have any English language instruction before being evaluated.

We have learned that fair rules and regulations, important though they may be, are a point of departure and not a destination. When regulatory proce- dures require tests that are valid for the intended use, for example, the test instruments must be available and the capacity at the school level to use the instruments properly must be in place for the rules to matter. Similarly, both assessing and designing a program that is responsive to a student’s individ- ual needs requires a capacity at the school level to observe, understand, and design responses that are sensitive to student differences. (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. vi)

Another reason that ELLs are too frequently assigned to special education classes is that edu- cators accept certain myths about minority students.

Myths Myths have a powerful influence on practice; they can influence the way we interpret perfor- mance and behavior, they can affect our responses, and they can impact the decisions that we make about student placement. Five myths are especially pervasive.

Myth #1: Equating Special Education with Individualized Instruction Too often, classroom teachers refer ELLs to special education because they believe they don’t have another option (Ralabate, 2007), thinking that something is better than nothing. They assume that the special education teacher will provide the ELL some kind of indi- vidual attention. It is easy to see how this myth survives because certain outward behaviors

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 244 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

may be similar to those exhibited by children with SLI or SRI (see Table 9.1); it is also potentially harmful as we saw earlier in Why Getting it Right Matters. As Mavrogordato & Paul point out,

Providing an ELL with special education services when the student does not possess a special learning need is poor practice, period. Services that are meant to help children with learning, linguistic, or cognitive disabilities are unlikely to help ELLs acquire English proficiency. In fact, these services may even limit ELLs’ opportunity to learn since special education interventions often target discrete skills that are practiced out of context, and a meaningful context helps ELLs make sense of unfamiliar language. Research has shown that ELL students, particularly those with limited language proficiency both in English as well as their native language, are overrepresented for special education services. (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 5)

Myth #2: Using Only One Language Reduces Confusion for ELLs It is easy to understand why people with little understanding of bilingualism might conclude that using only one language will “simplify” matters for the bilingual, but there is no research evidence to support this too commonly held belief. Rather, research has shown that children with speech, language, or learning impairments can become fully functioning bilinguals ( Genessee et al., 2004; Hamayan et al., 2007; Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011). It thus follows that bilingual special needs children can receive specialized interventions without having to abandon either of their languages. Moreover, in most circumstances, teachers should not discourage students from communicating in their native language. “Doing so sends the message that ELLs’ native language and, by extension, their cultural heritage, is not valued at school, which may very well exacerbate poor academic performance” (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 6).

Myth #3: It Takes Up to Seven Years to Learn Enough English to Make Assessment and Placement Feasible Technically, this myth might be expected to result in the under-identification of ELLs for spe- cial education, but it is important to consider here because the point is appropriate identi- fication and placement. As we have seen in earlier chapters, it may well take five to seven years for an ELL to become fully proficient in academic English, but this estimate does not give teachers license to ignore any impairment that might exist. If a student has a learning or communication (speech/language) disorder, that impairment will affect all the student’s languages. The sooner it is detected, the better the student’s chances for success in school. It is important for teachers to remember, however, that learning a new language and adjusting to a new culture both take time. We learned in Chapter 3 that ELLs frequently experience a silent period during which they have little to say. This period may last from six weeks to six months, and attempting to assess an ELL for special education during this period will result in an inaccurate assessment.

Myth #4: For ELLs, the More Accommodations, the Better Accommodations refer to procedures and materials that are meant to increase the likelihood that ELLs will understand and be able to function. Many different kinds of accommodation

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 245 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

may be used, depending on a student’s need and the school’s resources. They include:

• providing additional time, • supplementing oral instructions with written instructions, or vice versa, • simplified text (see Chapter 8), • pictures and picture dictionaries, • bilingual dictionaries, and • using the native language to check for comprehension of content.

Accommodations do not reduce learning expectations, but are intended to meet specific needs of ELLs. Generally speaking, it is good practice to provide accommodations during the test- ing process to ensure that their limited language proficiency does not severely disadvantage ELLs. Similarly, making adaptations or accommodations to make classroom content acces- sible to them is also good practice if the accommodations are “aligned with and tailored to students’ specific individual needs” (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 9). On the other hand, not all accommodations are appropriate for all learners. Research has shown that “. . . making as many accommodations as possible available for students may not be the most appropriate or valid way of providing access to classroom content” (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 11). Kopriva, et al., showed that while ELLs who needed and received accommodation “. . . outper- formed those who needed but did not receive accommodation, ELLs who received inappro- priate accommodations performed no better on average than ELLs who did not receive any accommodations” (Kopriva et al., 2007, p. 18). Moreover, there could be a danger that using them inappropriately can slow down the language learning process. For example, teachers must take care not to over rely on simplified text; as we learned in our discussion on com- prehensible input, learners need exposure to language that is just slightly beyond their profi- ciency level in order to make progress.

Myth #5: Classroom Teachers Should Have Lower Expectations of ELLs Because ELLs sometimes struggle with academic content due to limited English proficiency, some teachers, consciously or not, lower their expectations of these students. But academic success for all children begins by creating an environment that fosters learning. Characteris- tics of positive learning environments for ELLs include:

• respect for linguistic and cultural diversity; • teachers knowledgeable about second language learning; • collaborative relationships between home, school, and community; • academically rich curriculum that teaches basic skills in the context of higher order

thinking and skills; • a challenging curriculum; • high expectations of all learners; • a safe and orderly school environment; • ongoing, systematic, and transparent evaluation of student progress; and • strong leadership and a shared commitment to excellence (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002, p. 78).

High expectations for student achievement play a crucial role in creating positive learning envi- ronments. Although it may be necessary to calibrate expectations in particular circumstances— it would not be reasonable, for example, to expect a newly arrived immigrant learner to pass

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 246 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

an eighth grade test on the U.S. Constitution—it would be a mistake to assume that the entire eighth grade curriculum is inaccessible. Not providing a challenging environment through low- ered expectations may well contribute to lowered outcomes.

Policies and Practice Other factors that contribute to the misidentification of ELLs as special needs learners are related to policies and practices that are generally well-intentioned but, for a variety of rea- sons, disadvantage bilingual students. There are two highly prevalent contributors—the influence of the medical model on education and problematic assessment practices.

The Influence of the Medical Model on Education In medical practice, diseases are typically identified by a list of common ailments—if a person has skin lesions lighter than normal skin color that have not healed after several months and are not sensitive to touch, heat, or pain, and if the person is also experiencing muscle weak- ness and numbness in the extremities, a doctor will test for leprosy, the disease that best “matches” those symptoms. In medicine, the model usually works. Conceptualizing special education within a similar framework assumes that disabilities can be “diagnosed” based on the fit with a list of symptoms.

The problem with applying the medical model to special education is that it gives educators a false certainty that they can easily identify language and learning disorders in a valid reli- able manner—false “because the complexity of the phenomenon and the individuality of the ELL are often overlooked” (Hamayan et al., 2007b). The reality is that exceptionality is not an entirely objective or easily verifiable empirical notion:

Rather, it is a social construct, and the diagnostic criteria employed for various exceptional traits have been constructed on the basis of a number of sociocul- tural factors that mirror whatever ideologies are in vogue at any given time. (Hamayan et al., 2007b)

These criteria are further confounded by the ambiguity and subjectivity in the evaluation process.

Problematic Assessment Practices The single most prevalent reason for misidentification of ELLs as SLI or SRI is the difficulty of assessing dual language learners. Among the many factors that must be considered are the ELL’s cultural and linguistic experiences, and it may be beyond the capacity of the school to evaluate either. As a result, a number of biases find their way into the assessment process. We will consider four:

1. Focus on superficial behaviors. Sometimes the responses that ELLs give are similar to those given by native speakers with learning or speech disorders. The similarity of “output,” however, does not mean that the underlying causes are the same. There is a significant difference in cause between a developmental error made by an ELL with an imperfect command of English and, for example, and an error made by a student with a language fluency disorder:

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 247 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

Children learning English as a second language, for instance, may speak with hesitations, false starts, and frequent repetitions that impede the easy flow of speech. These occur when the child has difficulty in think- ing of the appropriate word in English, or perhaps doesn’t know it, or when the child is in any way unsure of the language. It would be a mistake to classify these developmental differences as fluency disor- ders; they will in all likelihood disappear as the child learns more of the language. (Piper, 2007, p. 197)

The interventions would be very different for the ELL and the child with fluency disorder—in fact, the ELL would probably require no particular intervention; the symptoms are likely to disappear as language skills grow. Referral in this case would be inappropriate, waste the special education specialist’s time, possibly be outside her scope of knowledge, and likely have no positive effect on the learner.

2. Inadequate data. We saw in Chapter 4 that assessments intended for native English speakers are often inappropriate for ELLs. If the data used for referral purposes relies heavily on standardized or norm-referenced test scores, there could be a problem of information quality. In the first place, these tests are able to reveal only a narrow range of the student’s abilities, even if that student is an English speaker. If the student is an ELL or comes from a different culture, there will also be a question of how valid or authentic an indication it is of the student’s ability. Language and content are also confounded: ELLs may give a wrong response not because they do not know the answer but because they did not understand the question. Fortunately, there are some assessment tools developed in Spanish which might be useful, but even a good test reveals only a small part of the learner’s abilities or knowledge. If they are used at all, tests must be supplemented by other kinds of data, as we will see in the pre-referral process. As Blatchley and Lau point out,

The focus in academic assessment is generally on the skill areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, and to a lesser extent, the con- tent areas (such as science and social studies). The more unique an individual’s educational experience and background, the more edu- cators must individually tailor the assessment. Norm-referenced achievement tests are often not very useful in assessing ELLs because the norms do not adequately represent ELL populations. Further, test content does not adequately reflect ELL students’ instructional experience and test formats are often unfamiliar and confusing to the student. (Blatchley & Lau, 2010, p. 4)

3. Use of inappropriate assessment models. For many years, determining whether learners needed special assistance was based on a discrepancy model, meaning that there was a severe discrepancy between the student’s achievement and their intellectual ability. By 2004, a consensus emerged among experts from a variety of disciplines that this amounted to a “wait-to-fail” model, rather than one based on early preven- tive measures within the regular education system. In other words, learners should be referred only when they demonstrate serious educational deficits, and before referral the emphasis should be on interventions to help struggling students before they accumulate significant educational deficits. This rethinking of special education led to response to intervention (RTI). The educational community made itself heard, and in 2004, Congress recognized that many students classified with specific learning

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 248 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

disabilities might not have needed special education if they had had instructional sup- port and interventions earlier in their education, and built pre-referral requirements into the law. The RTI is a step in the right direction, but for some schools it has intro- duced another kind of problem in practice. Adopting the RTI has generated a predict- able tension between educators’ desire to identify and help struggling students through early intervention and the legal duty to comply with IDEA’s Child Find requirements.

Child Find is short hand for the legal duty for public schools to “find” children who may have a disability and need special education services, imposed by the 2004 itera- tion of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). This law means that schools must aggressively locate and identify learners whom they suspect may require special education services, and evaluate them for eligibility. They cannot wait for parents to ask for an evaluation, or even for a teacher to report that a student is struggling. School personnel have to establish procedures for locating potential candidates, and these procedures should include pre-referral protocols. Once a school has reason to suspect that the student has a disability and requires special services, they must evaluate the learner within a reasonable time to satisfy the law and to avoid legal challenges.

It takes time to establish and implement an RTI program, but while school person- nel are doing so, the Child Find mandate remains in place. Violation can have serious negative consequences for schools. Hence, the school, through no fault of its own, is back to the discrepancy model, because two portions of federal law are in con- flict. The discrepancy model is especially ill-suited for ELLs because of the miscon- ceptions and lack of knowledge about second language learning (Hamayan, et al., 2007b). We will discuss RTI in depth later in this chapter.

4. Misconceptions about language learning and bilinguals. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish developmental errors from disorders. Education professionals who do not have a good understanding of the nature of second language learning with all its indi- vidual variability might make the wrong assumptions about the language of ELLs. It is very likely that a widespread misunderstanding of bilingualism is responsible for the fact that ELLs are sent for oral proficiency testing in their native language far more often than native English speakers (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). Why? What are the assump- tions inherent in requiring Hispanic learners, for example, to “prove” their competence in Spanish, when evidence abounds that almost all children routinely learn language as part of normal development, without being taught? One is a belief that children grow- ing up on the U.S./Mexican border do not have fully developed skills in either language because they speak a “hybrid” Spanglish, with mixing of the two languages. Their lan- guage is not judged to be a “real” language and they are, thus, judged to be “non-nons,”— non speakers of English and Spanish (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). This is unfair because:

with regard to language acquisition, we expect children to acquire the language of the specific speech community in which they grow up . . . If a child successfully acquires the language of her speech community, we view the learner as functioning normally from a linguistic point of view. If not, there may be reason to suspect that the child has a language-related learning disability. However, whether the child’s lan- guage is in any way similar to that of another speech community— for instance, the community of speakers that constitute the educated classes— is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the child

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 249 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

speaks her language fluently or proficiently. (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006, p. 2,308)

4. Thirteen states require that ELL students undergo an oral native language assessment as part of the ELL identification process required by federal law.

Myths and misconceptions about bilingualism, bias in policies and practice, and federal leg- islation that can be contradictory when applied to ELLs—all these factors contribute to the inappropriate referral and placement of ELLs to special education. Because misidentification can profoundly impact the future of ELLs, it is critical to establish procedures to ensure that learners who need special education receive it, and those who do not receive the language support they need in the mainstream class or other language class. It begins with the pre- referral process to determine whether a student’s struggle is due to language development, or cultural differences, or to a specific learning disability or communication disorder. It is the law, as we have seen, but it is also common sense.

9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner Gifted learners are often overlooked in the public school system. Only 6.7% of Hispanic stu- dents, for example, are assigned to gifted programs, compared to 9% of white majority lan- guage students (Harris, 2009, p. 369). Some teachers, already under pressure to meet the needs of ELLs as well as students with disabilities, may adopt the attitude that “because gifted children appear ‘normal’ and do not fit some stereotypical image, teachers often assume erro- neously that these children do not have any special needs.” In fact, they require “more rigor, depth, and breadth in their curriculum along with trained educators who can deliver the cur- riculum in engaging and challenging ways” (Lovell, 2011, p. 255).

Many different definitions of giftedness exist, but there is no universally accepted one. In fact, every state has its own definition, and they range in scope from those very conserva- tive definitions related to high IQ scores, to more liberal interpretations that involve multiple criteria. The federal government’s Javits Act, which provides grants for bright children from low-income families, defines giftedness:

The term gifted and talented student means children and youth who give evidence of higher performance capability in such areas as intellectual, cre- ative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools in order to develop such capabilities fully.

A compatible but more detailed interpretation of the term is provided by the National Asso- ciation for Gifted Children:

Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (doc- umented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 250 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, sports). (NAGC, n.d.)

How a school defines giftedness will determine what programs and services they will provide, and to which students. Whatever definition a state adopts, there are certain factors that should be taken into account in making those decisions. First, giftedness embodies more than high intellectual ability; it also includes ability in specific content areas, the performing arts, and physical dexterity, as well as exceptional leadership skills and social adeptness. Second, pro- grams for the gifted should be based on the state definition of giftedness and on how the school operationally defines it. Third, definitions of giftedness are impacted by cultural, political, social, and economic factors. Giftedness is not restricted to, nor more common in, any one group of students; males, females, minorities, ELLs, wealthy children, poor children, and students with physical handicaps are all represented among the population of gifted children (Codd, 2012).

While ELLS are over-identified as having learning disorders, they are also under-identified as being gifted. “Despite increased awareness of the need to identify more ELLs into gifted programs, this population remains underrepresented in GT [gifted & talented] programs” (Harris, 2009, p. 370). It is somewhat surprising that this is the case given the cognitive advantages that bilingualism confers; it would be reasonable to expect to find many ELLs among those designated as gifted. That is not the case; ELLs are vastly underrepresented in gifted education programs (Lohman, Korb & Lakin, 2008). Why?

One of the main reasons is the difficulty in identifying ELLs as gifted. How students are iden- tified for gifted programs varies across school districts, but the process generally begins when a teacher or parent requests an evaluation. With ELLs, however, it is rare for parents to request an evaluation for giftedness (Lovell, 2011, p. 260). Teachers are also less likely to request an evaluation for ELLs than for native English speakers. They may view children who rapidly acquire a new language and are reading at or above grade level within a year or two of arriving in school as just doing what they should be doing. Conversely, they may not recognize a particular gift, such as for math or science, because the child has not yet mastered enough English for it to manifest.

The formal evaluation process itself can disadvantage ELLs. In the past, IQ tests were heavily weighted in the determination of giftedness. Most IQ tests rely heavily on verbal acuity and, if given in English, may under represent an ELL’s language facility. In recent years, teacher check- lists, quota systems, alternative assessments, and nonverbal intelligence tests have been added to the list of available tools, and these have improved matters somewhat. Still, it is largely the classroom teacher who is in the best position to observe and evaluate whether a learner might have exceptional ability in one or more areas. Researchers do not concur on all of the charac- teristics of gifted ELLs, but some of the more common ones observed by teachers are:

1. demonstrated high level of critical and in depth thinking, 2. ability to perform above the usual standard, 3. ability to learn English quickly, 4. willingness to take risks in using English, 5. quick mastery of subject matter, 6. strong vocabulary skills and general language proficiency, 7. questioning and curious in class,

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 251 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

8. artistic, 9. perfectionist—sets high standards for self,

10. exceptional math skills, 11. ease in switching between two languages and cultures, 12. exhibits curiosity about American culture, 13. likes to work independently, 14. persistence/long attention span, and 15. retains and easily recalls new information (Lovell, 2011; Castellano & Diaz, 2002).

The identification of ELLs as gifted is by no means a precise process with clearly delineated categories of behavior or ability or any prescribed ways of measuring them. Table 9.2 lists some of the characteristics of gifted ELLs and some of the questions that need to be asked, and the actions taken, to gather the information needed to determine them.

Table 9.2: Identifying the gifted ELL

What to do and what to ask →

Observe and document language use

Observe social behaviors in both cultures (if possible)

Seek parental input about behavior at home

Is L1 cultural behavior obscuring potential giftedness?

Are standardized test results consistent with other data?

Frequent and ongoing classroom assessment

Characteristic of gifted ELL ↓

Rapid L2 acquisition

√√√* √√ √√ √√√

Ease of learning idioms and Americanisms

√√√ √√ √√ √√ √√√

Exceptional math ability

√ √ √ √√√

Understands and appreciates cul- tural diversity

√ √√√ √√ √ √√ √√

Ease in switch- ing between languages

√ √√√ √√√ √ √√ √

Can translate easily and accurately

√ √√√ √√√ √ √√ √

Behaves/adapts appropriately for both cultures

√ √√√ √√√ √√√ √ √√

*Number of check marks indicates level of importance; √√√ is most important.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 252 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

Whether gifted or talented ELLs are formally identified or not, they deserve to have what all students have—high quality instruction that is challenging and engaging, allowing them to realize their full potential. Some school districts have special schools for the gifted; oth- ers have special enrichment classes. Often, however, gifted ELLs remain in the general classroom because they have not been identified as gifted, or the school does not have the resources, or parents or students themselves resist placement in a gifted program. Teacher Marc Yanovich met such a student in his seventh grade class (see A Teacher’s Story: Gifted? No Way!)

A Teacher’s Story: Gifted? No Way!

Alex joined the class at the end of September after his family relocated from Argentina. He came with his parents, who told me that Alex had taken ESL classes in Cordoba, but all his education had been in Spanish. His mother said that he had taken the TOEFL Junior test and that we should have the results shortly. I considered having him take the districtwide test, but decided to spend some time with him first. In class he confirmed my first impression that he was a quiet boy, but he was also very attentive in class. At first he didn’t ask any questions, and his responses were correct but short. Although it took him a little longer to read the texts, and I saw him looking up words in his bilingual dictionary fairly often, he was able to read the same materials that the class was reading. His written work had few errors, but was not yet at seventh grade level.

When his TOEFL Junior test scores arrived, I was pleasantly surprised. Out of a possible 300 in each category, he had tested at 200 in listening comprehension, 240 in language form and meaning, and 225 in reading comprehension, for a total of 665—an extraordinary score for someone who had studied English for only two years in Argentina (600 would have been excellent). Alex had no difficulty with math, telling me he had already done the same work in Cordoba. I gave him materials from the eighth grade curriculum, which he tackled easily. My only concern about Alex was social. He kept to himself except for the occasional exchange with other Spanish speakers, but he told me that none of them were from Argentina. His shrug told me that they didn’t have much in common. He buried himself in work, breezing through the eighth grade math curriculum and spending his free time reading science fic- tion, sometimes in Spanish but often in English. His writing improved rapidly, and although he made errors in spoken English, he was also adept at self-correction. By mid-March, I was pretty certain that I was dealing with a very gifted young man, and I started the process of getting him assessed.

Our district had a special program for gifted middle schoolers, located in a school not far from his home. I knew the school staff and knew he would flourish there. Because Alex was bilingual, at first I had a hard time persuading the team to test him. They had some tests in Spanish but were not confident of their ability to interpret them. The team was impressed with his math scores, but they were reluctant to assign them too much weight, reasoning that he had been taught at a more advanced level in Argentina. I didn’t understand this

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 253 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

Mr. Yanovich was an experienced ELL teacher who knew that effective teaching strategies helped Alex and others like him to thrive in the general classroom. It is especially important that gifted ELLs with lower language proficiency remain engaged and challenged until their language catches up with their intellectual abilities. Some of the strategies that have been proven effective are:

1. role playing, dramatization, and pantomime; 2. games, especially word and math games, that are difficult enough to be challenging;

more able students can be encouraged to devise games appropriate for different subject matter;

3. music, poetry, rhyme (for younger learners); 4. creating graphic or artistic representations for concepts and material being studied

in class; 5. use of content reading materials at higher-grade level; 6. demonstrations and hands-on activities; 7. supplemental assignments to augment what others in class are doing; 8. opportunities for interaction with others; “peer teaching”; and 9. cooperative learning activities.

If these strategies sound familiar, it is because they are essentially the same ones identified as useful for differentiated and individualized instruction in Chapter 8. Differentiating and

A Teacher’s Story: Gifted? No Way! (continued)

because it seemed to me that it was his ability that allowed him to do advanced work. They had him retake the TOEFL Junior, but while we awaited the results, I tested his reading com prehension and found he comprehended social studies texts with a Lexile measure of 670 (the lower range of sixth grade), but he comprehended science texts in the 1000 range, near the top of the scale for twelfth grade. I showed the team the results, but they still had a wait- and-see attitude.

In the meantime, he was starting to make friends. His classmates responded to his sense of humor, which became apparent as his spoken English improved. Finally, just before the school year ended, the coordinator of the gifted program told me that she had reviewed all the team’s documentation and had spent time with Alex. She agreed that he would be well suited for placement in the gifted program. I had kept his parents informed of the testing we were doing, and they seemed pleased but unsurprised. I was so excited on the day I was able to tell Alex that he was going into the enhanced program. I called his parents in for a conference and broke the news to all of them. The parents nodded and beamed with pride. Alex, well, that was a surprise—he jumped up and said in perfect, unaccented English, “NO WAY!” The parents started questioning him in Spanish and then explained to me that he didn’t want to go to another school because he didn’t want to leave his friends. They said he had been very lonely for months, and now that he had made friends, he wanted to go to eighth grade with them. I had taught ELLs and I had had some experience teaching gifted children, but this was my first experience with middle school. I guess I hadn’t realized the importance of peers and a friendship to adolescents.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 254 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

individualizing instruction are the underpinnings of effective teaching for all ELLs, gifted or otherwise, because of the linguistic, cultural, and intellectual diversity these students bring.

9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI Federal regulations require that schools provide evidence that all students referred to special education, including ELLs, have been given every opportunity to achieve academically in the regular classroom before they are referred. The mechanism for providing these opportuni- ties is the response to intervention (RTI), which also serves broader purposes. The RTI is intended as a framework for identifying at-risk students and monitoring student progress in order to provide data that informs both instructional practice and interventions. It often serves as the framework for school improvement projects and is touted as being useful for preventing and remediating behavioral and learning problems before they lead to failure. There are three different levels of intervention, and each level may consist of one or multiple interventions. School districts vary in how they design and implement their RTI plans, but they all have the same four components: assessment for screening purposes, a multilevel pre- vention system, data-driven decision making, and progress monitoring (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010, p.2).

Implementing the RTI The RTI is a procedure that educators use to identify students who are “at risk.” These stu- dents fall into three categories:

1. students whose learning style or experience of learning does not match the instruc- tional style or approach. Many ELLs would fall into this category because of language or cultural differences, or a combination of the two;

2. students who lag behind their peers and struggle academically but do not have cognitive deficits or linguistic impairment. Their problems might be a result of other factors such as hunger, excessive absence, or homelessness, for example; and

3. students with true cognitive or language problems that require specialized interventions.

In general terms, the purpose of the screening component of the RTI is to differentiate among these three categories. Faced with an ELL who is academically or linguistically struggling, a classroom teacher working within the structure of the RTI, should be able to determine that a special education referral is appropriate only for those in the third category. It may be tempt- ing to refer others because they are not faring well in the general classroom, but it is a mistake to do so without trying other solutions.

The first step is to identify students at academic risk or with problematic behavior. The RTI process requires a two-stage screening process, the first of which is schoolwide or districtwide screening of all learners at the beginning of the school year. For learners who score below the cut point, or the score that educators use to determine whether a stu- dent requires additional interventions, a second level of screening is done. This objectives

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 255 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

of this screening are to predict with greater accuracy which students are truly at risk for poor learning outcomes and to design and implement preven- tive measures.

Based on the data they gather through screening, school personnel will imple- ment the first level of prevention, pro- viding high-quality, research-based core instruction. Presumably, high-quality instruction is the goal of every teacher in every class, but student results may indicate that adjustments are needed to make it more effective. If, for example, a significant number of students score below grade level or the cut point on

basic concepts in math, the core curriculum, and possibly teaching approaches, would need to reflect a greater emphasis on math. The same initial screening may have identified learn- ers who appear to be at risk. They will receive the same quality instruction, but they will also receive an intervention targeted to address the presumed problem or deficit—this is level two prevention.

When a student is identified via screening as requiring additional interven- tion, evidence-based interventions of moderate intensity are provided. These interventions, which are in addition to the core primary instruction, typi- cally involve small group instruction to address specific identified problems. (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 6)

Progress is monitored with a formal assessment (progress is usually monitored three or four times per year for learners who receive first level interventions), and depending on how much improvement has been made, will either continue with a first level intervention or move on to a second level intervention and, eventually, a third, if needed. The third level consists of individualized interventions of increased intensity, and progress is regularly monitored. It is not a strictly linear process:

. . . students should move back and forth across the levels of the prevention system based on their success [response] or difficulty (minimal response) at the level where they are receiving intervention, i.e., according to their docu- mented progress based on the data. Also, students can receive intervention in one academic area at the secondary or tertiary level of the prevention system while receiving instruction in another academic area in primary prevention. (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 13)

Many models of the RTI exist and they evolve as school districts become more familiar with the purpose and use of the process, but the purpose, essential components, and basic schema are the same as represented in Figure 9.1.

Shironosov/iStock/Thinkstock

The first step in implementing an RTI is to screen all students at the beginning of the school year.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 256 6/30/15 11:10 AM

School-wide Screening

Scores above cut point

Scores below cut point

Secondary Screening to

Identify Areas of Difficulty

None identified

Potential learning problem identifiedLearning

disability?

Refer to Special Education RTI Ends for now

No High-quality research-based classroom instruction Target

Targeted intervention Level 1

Targeted intervention Level 2

Targeted intervention Level III

Progress Monitoring (2 to 4 times yearly)

Adjust interventions

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

Using the RTI for ELLs: Special Considerations for Special Learners The RTI was not developed specifically for ELLs, but because it focuses on early intervention, it has great potential for helping educators to distinguish between developmental language behav- iors and true impairment or disability. Once initial screening is carried out, each of the three levels of intervention provide opportunities for targeted interventions. The challenge is in the screening, and with schoolwide monitoring, is in the assessment tools used. Few are sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences (Chapter 4). The results are subject to misinterpretation—an impairment instead of a developmental language issue. Brown and Doolittle (2008), in a brief for the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt), responded to this

School-wide Screening

Scores above cut point

Scores below cut point

Secondary Screening to

Identify Areas of Difficulty

None identified

Potential learning problem identifiedLearning

disability?

Refer to Special Education RTI Ends for now

No High-quality research-based classroom instruction Target

Targeted intervention Level 1

Targeted intervention Level 2

Targeted intervention Level III

Progress Monitoring (2 to 4 times yearly)

Adjust interventions

Figure 9.1: Implementing the RTI

Schools can implement the RTI process to help identify at-risk students and monitor their progress.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 257 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Level 3 Smaller groups & individualized instruction

More frequent specialized interventions Enhanced progress monitoring

Level 2 Targeted small group instruction Regular specialized interventions

Progress monitoring

Level 1

Universal Screening

All students receive high-quality classroom instruction

Progress monitoring

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

concern by creating a framework to augment the RTI for ELLs. The “guiding questions” they pose are meant to ensure that assessments are supplemented with additional information and that interventions are culturally sensitive. Their questions are as follows:

• is research-based instruction being offered that takes into consideration the cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and experiential background of the ELL?

• is instruction targeted to the learner’s English language proficiency level? • is any identified concern examined within the context of language of instruction,

degree of acculturation, and educational background? • have the parents had an opportunity to provide information and their input

documented? • has accurate baseline data been collected on what the student can do as well as what

she has yet to learn? • has the “ecology” of the school and classroom been assessed? • what were the learner’s preschool literacy experiences? • have hearing and vision been tested? • what tasks can the student perform and in what settings? • have specific first level interventions that are culturally, linguistically, and experien-

tially appropriate been developed? (Brown & Doolittle, 2008)

The answers to these questions will assist educators in designing appropriate levels of inter- vention. The exact components of these interventions will differ from class to class, school to school, and year to year, but the basic configuration of the three levels of intervention is shown in Figure 9.2.

Level 3 Smaller groups & individualized instruction

More frequent specialized interventions Enhanced progress monitoring

Level 2 Targeted small group instruction Regular specialized interventions

Progress monitoring

Level 1

Universal Screening

All students receive high-quality classroom instruction

Progress monitoring

Figure 9.2: Levels of the RTI

These three levels of intervention are flexible and can also be applied in instruction specific for ELLs.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 258 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

These levels are flexible enough to allow language instruction for ELLs for specialized inter- ventions for any student lagging behind. They are also flexible enough to allow for enhanced instruction and activities for gifted students (Table 9.3).

Teacher Paula Gardner learned firsthand how important it is to gather as much information as possible about a learner’s past experience before requesting a special education evalua- tion. See Why I Teach: Paula Gardner.

Table 9.3: RTI for ELLs provides a framework for implementing the RTI for classrooms with ELLs

Who What How Special considerations for ELLs

All students Initial screening Schoolwide or dis- trictwide universal screening tools

Formal assessment augmented by additional background information

High-quality, research-based core instruction

Flexible grouping and individualized instruction

Identify areas of weakness in English (oral, reading, writing) and design learn- ing activities to provide opportunities for development; provide ample opportunity for language practice

Progress monitoring

Universal monitoring tools at regular inter- vals; classroom tests and assignments; teacher observation

Teacher logs, portfolios of student work to document progress, and other informal class- room evaluations; evaluate ELLs within peer group (other ELLs of similar ability level)

Students identified by progress monitoring as needing further information

Core instruction continues supple- mented by level two intervention via curriculum designed to address specific needs

Small groups (five or fewer) in 30 minute sessions three–five days per week

Consider changing group membership; con- sider a different curriculum from core; con- sult with reading, special education, or ESL teachers about unresolved learning problems

Progress monitoring

Universal assessment if within the school’s RTI protocol; class- room and small group evaluation

Determine whether student has demon- strated language growth and if there corre- sponding improvement in other areas

Students who have not responded to level two interventions

Core instruction continues, supple- mented by level two intervention

Groups of three or fewer; two daily 30 minute sessions to address targeted deficiencies

Identify language domain that is causing most difficulty and target interventions accordingly; consider alternative research- based instructional level two teaching approach/method; consult with reading, special education, or ESL teachers about unresolved learning problems

Progress monitoring

Determine whether student has demon- strated language growth and if there is cor- responding improvement in other areas

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 259 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

Why I Teach: Paula Gardner I cried a lot that first month. I was in my second year of teaching and after one day with my new third grade class, I felt that my teacher education program and first year of teaching hadn’t even come close to preparing me. When the school district closed two of their six elementary schools, many teachers were relocated, and as a newbie, I didn’t get to choose. So I went from teaching a small fourth grade class with one advanced English language learner, to a class of 21, only seven of whom spoke English. Their English language proficiency was varied, but most of them appeared to function fairly well in English—except for one. My first impression was that Javier was a beginner because he rarely spoke in class and didn’t appear to be able to read, except to identify a few words—his name and common vocabulary words such as see, go, is, and the. He could write his own name and seemed to understand most of what I said to him, and he followed classroom routines. He could also print his name and copy words and letters. It occurred to me that he might be in a silent period, if he really was a beginner.

On the second or third day of the school year, I went with the class out onto the playground because I knew that I would find the ESL teacher there, and I wanted to talk with her about having him tested. I was pleased to see that Javier joined in with the other boys in the class in a game of soccer, but I was totally amazed when I heard him speak, in clear perfect English, “It’s Raul’s turn to be goalie, so we’re gonna win!” I knew I had to rethink my initial assessment of his language proficiency, but then also started to fear that he might have some kind of learning disorder.

I called to schedule an appointment with the special education consultant but was told that it would be three weeks before she could even talk to me about Javier, much less do an eval- uation. For the time being, I was on my own. So I called the professor who had been my internship supervisor two years earlier. She listened and reminded me what I should have remembered, that there were many things I should do before calling in the special education teacher. The first was to schedule a meeting with Javier’s parents. I’m glad I did that. What I found out was that this was the first time that Javier had regularly attended school. He had been enrolled in school the previous year in another state, which I knew from his school record, but his mother said he hadn’t really attended for many reasons. I later learned that the family feared being deported and didn’t trust the school system not to report them. Now that their immigration status was certain, however, they made sure he went to school every day. Remembering what I had learned in college, I asked about his Spanish—when he had first spoken, whether his mother had noticed anything unusual about his language learning. She said that he might have been a little slower than his older sister, but she hadn’t noticed anything unusual about his pronunciation or vocabulary development. When I asked about reading, Javier’s mother said that he liked to be read to, but he didn’t know how to read in Spanish. I asked if she had tried to teach him to read, and she replied that she hadn’t because she wanted him to read in English, not Spanish. I could have hugged her. That small clue started me down the right path. I suspected that Javier had some sort of specific reading impairment, and that gave me hope.

Talking to the reading consultant for the district and remembering what his mother had told me about his interrupted schooling, I suspected that Javier might have an acquired reading impairment. The reading specialist and I decided to work under that assumption, and together we devised an instructional plan for Javier. If he did not progress significantly, we would re-evaluate after a few months. The plan called for Javier to work with a reading

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 260 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Summary In earlier chapters, we discussed problems in assessing and placing ELLs in the appropri- ate program and grade level. In this chapter, we have seen that the challenge intensifies when there is a possibility that the ELL has a learning disability, or language impairment, or intellectual gifts, all of which require special interventions. ELLs are at greater risk for being misidentified as special needs students or being sent to special education when teachers believe wrongly that ELLs will get individualized instruction that will help with their lan- guage learning. We have seen that there are many reasons for misidentification of ELLs, but the fundamental one is the misconceptions that educators hold about bilinguals and second language acquisition. The RTI process, if used with thoughtful attention to cultural and linguistic factors, can be a great help to educators in making the right decisions about ELLs, whether in special education or in the mainstream classroom.

Key Ideas

1. ELLs are overrepresented in special education classes because they are misidenti- fied as having special needs.

2. There are many reasons why ELLs are inappropriately placed in special education classes, but the two which should most concern teachers are a) misperceptions about second language learning, and b) inappropriate methods of assessment.

3. The most common misconceptions about second language learning that affect placement are the length of time it takes to learn a language and the belief that typical developmental errors are the result of an impairment.

4. ELLs are more likely to be identified as having both language and reading impairments than the native English-speaking population.

Why I Teach: Paula Gardner (continued) tutor for 30 to 45 minutes a day. Fortunately, there was one available, and the plan was to work with him one-on-one for 30 to 45 minutes per day. I also met with his mother again to explain the plan and to tell her that if she should encourage him to read in Spanish if he showed any interest.

Just three weeks into the plan, I could already see the difference in Javier. He was more atten- tive to classroom activities, his writing improved, and I saw him trying to follow along in his book when we were reading aloud in class. Then, one day just before Christmas, his reading tutor was sick and so Javier stayed in the classroom while the rest of the class engaged in silent reading. He had a book that he had been working on with his tutor. When Javier raised his hand to indicate he needed help, I went to his desk to see what he needed. He had opened the same book that the rest of the class was working on, and he asked me how to pronounce the word invisible. I did, and he didn’t recognize it, but when I told him the meaning, he nodded happily and returned to his book. Javier was clearly on his way to being a reader, and he is one of the big reasons why I teach.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 261 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Key Terms

acquired reading impairment Reading problems that result from, for example, imperfect mastery of the language, a different alphabet in the home language, low exposure to reading, and inadequate instruction.

articulation disorders A wide range of disorders ranging from persistent difficul- ties with a particular sound that have little impact on intelligibility, to severely impaired phonological systems that render the speaker incomprehensible.

cluttering A fluency disorder characterized by excessively rapid speech, significantly disrupting the flow of speech.

cut point The score that educators use to determine whether a student requires addi- tional interventions.

discrepancy model Assesses whether there is a significant difference between a student’s scores on a test of general intelligence and scores obtained on an achievement test. This model was traditionally used to identify stu- dents with learning disabilities.

fluency disorders A language disorder that affects the rate, rhythm, and the continuity of speech.

gifted students Students “. . . who dem- onstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (identified as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (docu- mented performance or achievement in the top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains” (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.).

high-incidence disability Specific learning disabilities and speech/language impairments, emotional or behavioral disorders and mild to moderate mental retardation.

language delay Language development that follows a normal course but at a slower pace.

language processing disorders Systematic deviations in speech, reading, writing, or signing that interfere with a speaker’s ability to communicate with their peers.

5. Research supports the belief that bilingual children with SLI benefit from maintaining the home language just as unaffected bilingual children do.

6. Gifted ELLs are often not identified as having extraordinary abilities or skills because of their limited language skills.

7. A mainstream classroom can accommodate a wide range of ELLs, including those with some special needs and the gifted, if the teacher has support and individualizes instruction following the principles introduced in Chapter 8.

8. Pre-referral interventions are designed to identify students who are “at risk” and, for ELLs, to confirm that observed language or learning problems affect both languages, and are not caused or exacerbated by inadequate instruction.

9. The most commonly used intervention is the RTI, a procedure that educators use to differentiate among:

• students whose learning style or experience of learning does not match the instructional style or approach,

• students who lag behind their peers and struggle academically but do not have cognitive deficits or linguistic impairment, and

• students with true cognitive or language problems that require specialized interventions.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 262 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is the main argument against placing an ELL in a special education class just to get extra attention for that learner?

2. Hispanic learners are typically overrepresented in special education classes and underrepresented in gifted programs. What factors in the educational system might be contributing to these facts?

3. What is the difference between language delay and language impairment? 4. How can a teacher tell the difference between a language delay and a silent period in

a dual language learner? 5. Why does it make sense that there is a strong correlation between SLI and reading

impairment in ELLs? 6. Why is it important to involve parents in the pre-referral process? 7. Look again at Figure 9.1. What adaptations or elaborations might be needed for

internationally adopted learners who had arrived at age eight or older? 8. How do mainstream English speakers benefit from language and ability diversity in

the classroom? 9. What role might educator bias play in the misidentification of ELLs as special needs

or gifted learners?

learning disabilities Disabilities that occur in people of average or above- average intelligence who struggle to acquire skills that impact their ability to function effec- tively in school, home, community, or workplace.

low-incidence disabilities Conditions— such as severe mental retardation, blindness, cerebral palsy, and complex health issues— that are normally diagnosed by teams of medical personnel and generally found in 1% or less of the school population.

norm-referenced tests Standardized tests designed to compare and rank test takers in relation to one another.

response to intervention (RTI) A multi- tier approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs.

specific language impairment (SLI) A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language or voice impairment that adversely affects a child’s learning, not caused by hearing loss or other developmental delays. Also called develop- mental language disorder.

specific learning disabilities (SLD) Condi- tions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia that do not result from hearing or motor disabilities, “mental retardation,” emotional disturbance or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (IDEA, 2004).

specific reading impairment (SRI) A disorder that affects children with “normal intelligence and visual-auditory abilities, adequate learning opportunities, and the absence of neurological and psychological problems.

standardized tests Tests in which the same tests are given under the same conditions to all test takers and are scored consistently across all learners.

stuttering A communication disorder char- acterized by disruptions in the production of speech sounds that, in most cases, have an impact on at least some of the speaker’s daily activities.

voice disorders Distortions of voice quality that are not temporary.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 263 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Additional Resources To see how the IDEA defines specific learning disabilities, see http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23,

For a concise summary of the educational issues surrounding gifted education, see the Rhode Island Advocates for Gifted Education site at http://www.riage.org/articles/why-do-we-need-to-define-giftedness/

For a good overview of the issues surrounding ELLs with learning disabilities, see Elsa Cardenas-Hagan on the topic at http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/disabilities/

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 264 6/30/15 11:10 AM

http://www.riage.org/articles/why-do-we-need-to-define-giftedness/

http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/disabilities/