Learning Disabilities or Difference: A Critical Look at Issues Associated with the Misidentification and Placement of Hispanic Students in Special Education Programs

Fletcher, Todd V

Abstract

A new generation of Hispanic students are at risk due to inadequacies in our educational system. The inadequacies which include lack of prepared teachers and misuse of testing and assessment procedures impact special education programs, in particular, when one examines practices relative to Latino students in the area of learning disabilities. The article addresses problems in the definition of learning disabilities, learner variability, and the effects of race, poverty, culture, and language on educational outcomes. The authors call for a new assessment paradigm that would require the restructuring of professional development programs and institutional practices in public schools that are not in line with current research on topics related to this population including second language acquisition and cognitive development.

The Hispanic experience is inextricably woven into the fabric of the history and traditions of the United States for more than 500 years, just as it will continue to be in the nation's future. Yet, in this new century, the American educational enterprise continues to deny equitable educational opportunities to Hispanic Americans. The members of the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans (1996) issued a warning stating "A generation of Hispanic American students in U.S. public education are at risk due to serious inadequacies in the educational system" (p. 1). In recognizing the inadequacies of the system continuing disparity were detailed in school funding, ineffective bilingual and English as a second Language programs, lack of prepared teachers and a misuse of testing and assessment procedures. This troubling trend continues and inequities persist as corroborated by Losen & Orfield, 2002. U.S. Representative Chaka Fattah (2002) in her assessment of recent findings refers to the chilling implications for the educational system stating, "The overidentification of minority students in special education and the subsequent isolation, stigmatization, and inferior treatment they receive confirms the notion that education in America falls short of offering a level playing field for all" (p.). The needs of English language learners arc addressed in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law [P.L.] 107-110) under Title III, the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Local school districts are given flexibility and control in determining how to best meet the needs of English Language learners and immigrant student populations in their schools. In addition, the legislation places increased emphases on utilizing scientifically based research strategies as well as standardized tests to measure annual English language proficiency. Interpretation, effective practices, and time will tell if these approaches will work.

These statements, reports, and findings will increasingly challenge all educational professionals to address these inadequacies in the system and reverse and rethink practices to insure more equitable educational opportunities for Hispanic students in the American educational enterprise (McLaughlin, Pullin, & Artiles, 2001).

Changing Demographics and Changing Realities

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Immigration during the early part of the twentieth century was from Europe primarily, but now nearly 85% of documented immigrants arrive from Asia and Latin America (Cortes, 1999). Recent immigrants tend to be younger than the population at large and have younger children and larger families (U.S. Department of Commerce & Bureau of the Census, 2000). The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 59% of the 35.3 million Latinos in the U.S. are of Mexican origin (Valencia, 2002). Hispanic people became the majority minority for the first time in 2000, followed by African Americans (U.S. Department of Commerce & Bureau of the Census, 2000). More than 50% of English language learners are in grades K-4, with 77% coming from poor backgrounds (Baca, 2000). This demographic transition has been paralleled by an academic underachievemcnt of minority students (Cushner, McClleland, & Safford, 2003).

Rural schools are uniquely affected by demographic changes early in the 21st century. The steady increases of legal and illegal immigrants have transformed some rural communities and their schools. Residents in predominantly white rural communities are learning to adapt to the influx of diverse workers, families, and students. Rural school personnel face challenges including underfinancing, isolation, decreasing pool of experienced teachers, and a high turn over rate of personnel. As the proportion of Hispanic and Asian population in rural communities increases, more students who have limited English proficiency and are often poor are being enrolled in public schools (Arnold, 2000). Therefore, rural school professionals will require different and varied support structures to address the challenges to address the educational needs of English language learners.

The experiences students from diverse backgrounds and Latino students, in particular, bring to the school environment are varied. In interviews of school administrators, teachers, and other school officials conducted by staff of the U.S. General Accounting Office (1993), several challenges of educating English language learners were highlighted: 1) many immigrant students arrive with limited schooling and are often illiterate in their native language; 2) the high transience rate among immigrant and limited English proficient (LEP) students present a barrier to instruction; 3) a growing number of immigrant and LEP students enter secondary schools with limited education; 4) the cultural differences and emotional needs of LEP students also present a barrier to instruction; 5) the increase in the number of immigrant and English language learners contributes to overcrowding in many schools; 6) speakers of as many as 88 languages (or more) are represented in some school districts. More recent data from the U.S. Department of Education (2002) corroborates these findings and identifies challenges posed by this rapidly growing and diverse student population.

The challenges presented by the changing demographics of the student population in urban and rural settings require that educational professionals become well versed in the specific cultural, linguistic, and cognitive characteristics of students from diverse backgrounds. And, they need to apply this knowledge to ensure the provision of equitable educational opportunities for these students (Ortiz & Yates, 2001).

Special Education and Students from Diverse Backgrounds

One needs to look no further than in special education for the inadequacies confronting the students being described in this article. Overall, the data indicate that there is a persistent concern regarding the misdiagnosis and inappropriate placement of students from diverse backgrounds in special education classes since the 1975 passage P.L. 94-142, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act. Compared to non-Hispanic students, Latino students are: 1) less likely than white or black students to be enrolled in programs for the gifted and talented, 2) more likely to be placed in remedial-general education tracks, and 3) more often incorrectly assessed as being mentally retarded or learning disabled (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993).

Thirty years after Dunn's (1968) classic criticism of special education, issues of equity, equal opportunity, and due process for minority students in special education still prevail when considering the educational needs of Hispanic students. The National Academy of Science in recognition of this persistent concern commissioned two studies, twenty years apart (National Research Council, 2002; Heller, Holtzman & Mcssick, 1982). In these studies, factors contributing to the misidentification, placement, and overrepresentation of minority students into special education were examined. This concern has been examined in other studies as well (See, for example, Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002; Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002; Harry, Klingner, Sturges, & Moore, 2002 Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002).

Coutinho, Oswald, & Best (2002) in their discussion proposed two responses to the over-representation of minority students in special education. The first, if the incidence of over-representation is a function of a higher disability rates among students from diverse backgrounds local and national responses need to address the social conditions causing risk factors for disability. The second, if "the problem arises from systemic bias and discrimination within the public education system, aggressive efforts are required to correct attitudes and behavior associated with the special education identification of minority students." (p. 2).

Educational Issues Associated with the Overidentification of Learning Disabilities Among Latino Students

Problems in the Definition and Diagnosis of LD

There has been increasing scrutiny of issues associated with learning disabilities in recent years. This category of disabilities now includes the largest number of students in special education. Between 1976 and 2000, there was a 65% overall increase in students eligible for special education services, there has been a startling 233% increase in children diagnosed with specific learning disabilities (Horn & Tynan, 2001). This is in contrast to a 13% increase in all other disability categories combined during approximately the same period (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).

Historically, learning disabilities have been rooted in biological and neurological traditions, focusing primarily on "with-in" student deficits. The traditional norm-referenced method of assessing for LD has come under scrutiny and criticism. The norm-referenced approach to assessment embraces a medical model orientation in which the view is about "deviant" behaviors being symptomatic of some underlying cause. This "linear" or one-dimensional approach to assessment is based on locating the "problem" or "pathology." Using this approach, a variety of standardized tests may be chosen and administered by psychologists or educational diagnosticians attempting to determine the cause of the student's underachievement in a particular academic content area. This approach to assessment assumes the dysfunctional behavior exhibited by the student is biologically driven, an "inherent deficiency," placing the problem squarely within the child. This is a misguided assumption when one considers the multitude of factors including language development and acculturation that have an impact on the learning of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Numerous studies have been conducted in which problems inherent in the assessment process resulting in the misdiagnosis and placement of students from diverse backgrounds in special education programs have been highlighted (Ortiz & Yates, 1983; Powers, Crew, & Hess, 1998; Wright & Cruz, 1983).

Some researchers have explained the increase in the number of children identified with learning disabilities as a sociological phenomenon of an invented category, not a distinct disability, but a socially constructed disability (Lyon, 1996). The inability to convincingly define LD leads to the conclusion that it can neither be identified nor remediated. This gives credence to concerns about the validity of identification procedures in the field (Lyon et al., 2001). Senfs analyzed the exponential growth in categorizing students with learning disabilities. The work of Senf was discussed by Lyon etal. (2001) who noted,

. . . from its inception as a category, LD has served as a sociological sponge that attempts to wipe up general education's spills and cleanse its ills. Today's classrooms are heterogeneous and teachers are expected to address a wide range of individual differences in cognitive, academic, and behavioral development. Unfortunately, many regular classroom teachers have not been trained to accommodate different students' learning needs, and they understandably seek assistance that typically takes the responsibility of educating the child away from the classroom teacher (p. 268).

Others in the field have offered other explanations for the disproportionately large number of LD students. Recognized leaders in the field of LD, including Bateman and Haring (1977), have reported that most students labeled as learning disabled would be better conceptualized as having "instructional disabilities," and many of these children have no neurological disorder, but rather have had academic learning experiences detrimental to their development. Bond, Tinker & Wasson (1979) in their text discussed a similar issue in the diagnosis and remediation of reading problems, "In general, the writers believe that most disability cases are created and are not inherent. Reading disabilities are sometimes the result of unrecognized, predisposing conditions within the child, but for the most part, they are caused by elements of the child's environment at home, at play and in school."

The issues could be compounded by another factor in assessment and diagnosis. There is lack of demonstrated validity on standardized tests currently used to identify learning disabilities in monolingual students. Thus, one should be cautious when using these tests with individuals who speak two languages.

The exclusionary clause in the definition of LD is another area of concern in regard to culturally and/or linguistically diverse students: A student is not regarded as having a specific learning disability if the discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of any of the following: visual, hearing or motor disability; mental retardation; emotional disturbance; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. Given the disproportionate representation of students from diverse backgrounds in special education, compliance with this clause can be critical in reducing the number of students referred to special education. For example, during the comprehensive assessment of students referred for special education, if the primary cause of the learning problem can be attributed to any of the following conditions the team may not identify the student as having a learning disability: 1) educational (attendance, number of schools attended, retentions, preschool services, student-teacher relationships); 2) environmental (community experience, family size), cultural (language, parental involvement); and, 3) economic disadvantage (socioeconomic status, involvement with other social service agencies, family size, illness, and lack of community resources).

Issues regarding the definition of learning disabilities and the diagnosis of these disabilities raises the following question: Do existing conditions hold a primary or secondary role in contributing to the students' response to their subsequent educational programming? The question is central to the field of learning disabilities primarily because the exclusionary clause that requires documentation by professionals that variables external to the child were considered and ruled out in the context of the assessment before an educational program is implemented. Examining students in their particular sociocultural context to determine which of these variables may have an impact on their current academic performance in school is critical to the process of assessment and programming planning (Bos & Fletcher, 1997).

Two studies to date have been conducted in which compliance with the exclusionary clause was examined. In one study, school psychologists were surveyed about the use of the exclusionary clause when considering placement for students diagnosed as being learning disabled. It was indicated that less than 50% of those surveyed regularly tried to comply with the clause, and about 37% percent reported they routinely ignored or attempted to circumvent this procedural safeguard. From data gathered in this same study, it was reported that fewer than one-third of those surveyed considered factors such as language, social history, and the cultural values of the student and their family in their deliberations leading to a diagnosis (Harris, Gray, Davis, & Zaremba, 1997).

In another study, Ochoa, Rivera & Powell (1997) examined factors used by school psychologists to comply with the exclusionary clause when assessing bilingual and limited English proficient (LEP) students. Of the school psychologists surveyed in eight states with large Hispanic populations about 10% returned the Bilingual Psychoeducational Assessment Survey. In these self-report surveys, 37 categories were generated based on the list of factors used by school psychologists to comply with the exclusionary clause when assessing bilingual/LEP students. The factors most commonly reported were 1) family and home characteristics, 2) sociological information and family history, 3) parent interview and information, 4) length of time lived in the US, 5) sibling comparisons, 6) school attendance, and 7) medical data. Of great concern is that many school psychologists did not highly prioritize the significance of language in determining the educational status of these students. This is critical because of its importance in determining a discrepancy between scholastic aptitude and academic achievement according to federal regulations. Six of the seven areas used to compare aptitude with achievement are language based. They include: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, spelling, basic reading skills, and reading comprehension. The importance of considering language related factors is necessary since there is concern regarding how quickly English language learners develop literacy skills and the nature and depth of proficiency required to be successful in English-only classrooms.

Inability to Accommodate Learner Variability in the Classroom

The change in demographics has brought about new challenges for teachers who now must meet the challenges of greater variability in their students in the learning styles of these students, including accommodating for cultural differences. Many teachers are not prepared to make accommodations for this greater variability of learners (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2003). Of interest, the staff of the California Tomorrow Project (CTP) documented the diversity of students immigrating to the United States and the difficult transition experienced by these students, their schools, and educational personnel in these schools in California (Olsen, 1988). Fifteen years later, the demographic trends and corresponding challenges identified by the CTP staff hold true in California as well as in several other states.

These challenges confront faculty and mentors in university and college teacher preparation programs as teacher candidates are spending a significant amount of their time in increasingly more diverse settings. One additional challenge is related to the difficulty in recruiting preservice teachers from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) reported that in 1994 only about 14% of teachers in public and private schools were from a non-Caucasian ethnic group (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1994). According to the U.S. Department of Education (1998, 2002), teachers today are primarily Caucasian (90%) and female (66%) with approximately just 6% representing a non-Caucasian ethnic group (Melnick & Pullin, 2000). These data are particularly compelling given that the proportion of teachers from diverse ethnic backgrounds is decreasing as the number of English language learners and students from diverse backgrounds are increasing (Hill, Carjuzaa, Aramburo, & Baca. 1993). Villegas states, ". . . as the student population becomes more culturally heterogeneous, the teaching force is expected to become increasingly homogeneous" (Villegas et al., 1993). It has been suggested that schools which serve low income minority students are staffed with less experienced and qualified teaching personnel (Darling-Hammond & Post, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). This can result in inferior quality of instruction and, consequently, lower academic performance. In addition, the likelihood of inappropriate referrals of diverse learners for special education assessments increases when teachers are less experienced and have little training relative to culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Hosp & Reschly, 2003).

The characteristics these students bring to the learning environment pose very different challenges to personnel ill-prepared for the linguistic, cultural, cognitive, and learning styles of students from very diverse backgrounds (Kea & Utley, 1998). This applies to classroom teachers, school administrators, and other educational personnel who often refer these students disproportionately to special education (Lambert, Puig, Rowan, Lyubansky, & Winfrey, 1998; McIntyre, 1992). For example, overreferral often occurs as limited English proficient students possess native language skills within normal limits, but they commit errors reflecting normal developmental milestones when acquiring a second language (Gersten & Baker, 2000).

Inability to Distinguish Between Learning Disabilities and Underachievement and the Impact of Race, SES., and Poverty on Learning

Another issue revolves about the achievement of diverse learners. Adelman (1970) suggested is the failure to differentiate underachievemcnt caused by apparent neurological etiologies from underachievement caused by other factors. And, this contributes to widespread misdiagnosis threatening the integrity of the field of learning disabilities. Specifically, children with a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement do not always have a learning disability. Rather, they may be underachievers. Shepard & Smith (1983) found that of 1,000 students in LD classes, 28% met the strict criteria for LD, 15% showed weak signs, and about 57% were better described by other factors (slow learning, minor behavior problems, other handicapping conditions, and non-English language dominance).

Directly related to the misdiagnosis of LD is being able to differentiate between a students who learns slowly, an achieving student, and a student with LD. Mather & Healey (1990) defined a slow learning student as having innate "horsepower" that is low, cannot be improved, and as a result will have a slow rate of performance. An underachieving student is presumed to have the necessary horsepower for average or above average performance, but something in the student's environment needs to be adjusted for the student to be successful. This is a transient problem amenable to educational intervention. Then, a student with a LD is presumed to be of average horsepower with the necessary ability to perform at a successful level. These students experience more pervasive and enduring academic problems that are often resistant to traditional educational techniques. In this case, the student shows symptoms of specific dysfunctions in the internal system affecting the quality and rate of performance. This may be made to be a more complex situation as the student may, then, possesses poor self-esteem, decreased motivation, frustration and little interest in school with resulting problems of academic underachievement and poor social relationships.

Ortiz & Yates (1983) identified glaring misdiagnoses in the assessment process of Hispanic children with a 300% overrepresentation in learning disabilities for students in Texas. They revealed that students were not assessed in their native language and were administered traditional intelligence and academic achievement tests in English.

Race, socioeconomic status (SES), poverty and the relationship of these factors to low academic achievement can have a cumulative effects on all aspects of learning. In 1999, for example, 22.8% of the Hispanic population was estimated to be living in poverty (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000). Also, about 21% of all English language learners come from homes missing one parent and those Spanish-speaking students were more likely than other students to have a male guardian absent from the home. This has implications on the income levels and disposable income available to families. Baumeister, Kupstas & Klindworth (1990) asserted the difficulty of attributing cause, effect, and correlation when examining the effects of poverty and its impact on disability. They note, "While the connection between poverty and disabling conditions is not necessarily direct, it is nonetheless a major influence . . ." (p. 21). A question raised by Harry (1994), critical to this discussion, is "Do the disabilities we identify actually exist as disabilities, or are they simply a cluster of outcomes resulting from an overwhelming dose of social, economic, and educational disadvantage, and processed through the biased eyes and instruments of the dominant culture? " (p. 40)

Reschly (1997) reported the incidence of poverty is related to the level of special education placement of students from different ethnic groups. However, SES status information (parent's education, occupation, and income level) often is not recorded. When it is reported, students both black and white with disabilities typically come from homes with significantly lower SES levels than the general student population. In an unpublished study (cited in Reschly, 1997), it was reported that when poverty status was equated, the incidence of special education was equalized.

There is an interaction of personal and health factors including SES, ethnicity, and motivation in creating what appears to be a learning disability. In one study, students with and without learning disabilities were compared, and it was found that those with learning disabilities were more at risk for school failure based upon SES, family instability, and family tragedy. The conclusion is that family related problems were more likely to occur with students who had learning disabilities (Reschly, 1997). In another study, Ladner & Hammon (2001) found that poverty (as determined by eligibility to free or reduced lunch) was a significant factor with higher percentages of children from low-income families being placed in special education.

The most powerful predictor of special education enrollment, according was the racial composition of the district (Ladson & Hammon, 2001). It was reported that white districts enroll a larger percentage of students from minority backgrounds in special education than districts with a greater percentage of minority students. It was also suggested that districts with a higher percentage of minority faculty had fewer minority students placed in special education suggesting that "minority students are treated differently in predominantly white districts than in predominantly minority districts" (p. 104).

The effects of race, poverty, culture and language differences must be cumulatively examined to determine their effect on learning and educational outcomes. Ultimately, these factors must be sorted through to determine their influence on and interaction with students suspected of having a disability. It may be as suggested earlier and by these authors teaching faculty are trained to teach white, middle class children and students outside of this grouping are at greater risk for referral to special education.

Cummins (1985) explains that frequently the poor academic performance of these students is no longer explained as linguistic, cultural or SES differences, but, rather, as cognitive, learning or cultural deficiencies placing these students at high risk for referral to special education. Thus, again as seen earlier, the development of a "cultured learning disability" emerges placing the deficit or burden of proof for failure within the child while ignoring pedagogical and programmatic practices that have contributed to the student's underachievement and failure.

English Language Instruction

Existing policy, law, and judicial decisions arc developed or decided to ensure that English language learners receive an equitable and appropriate education. However, the misidentification of English Eanguagc learners and over-placement in special education suggests that these safeguards arc being ignored. The Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits federally funded programs from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Bilingual Education Act (P.L. 90-247, 1968) allows for the appropriation of funding to schools for innovative programs for English Language learners. A 1994 provision of the Act calls for the support of professional development and increased attention to language maintenance and foreign language instruction. In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that students not proficient in English have a right to instruction that is comprehensible and meaningful to ensure equal access to public education. This decision ensures that English language learners enrolled in public schools will be provided access to the standard core curriculum. However, the Court did not clearly specify the means by which school districts should provide for the educational needs of these students.

Bilingual education is a widely used option that serves as a transitional bridge providing native language instruction to limited English proficient students enabling them to continue to learn critical content knowledge in their native language (L1) while at the same time acquiring English. Since the inception of bilingual education, there has been contentious debate whether English language learners should receive native language instruction, if so, in what form and for how long (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2003).

There have been numerous attempts to limit programs and resources to these students by eliminating bilingual education making English the official language of the government, education, and the workplace. In California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, the recent passage of propositions has severely curtailed the use of bilingual education and replaced it with Structured English Immersion (SEI) programs, except in cases where students meet certain criteria and conditions thereby qualifying for a waiver. In most cases, students are expected to become proficient in English after a year of structured English immersion classes.

Cummins (2001) and Collier (1995) provided documentation that English language learners may require between five and ten years of instruction to acquire sufficient English language proficiency to be academically successful in a monolingual English speaking classroom. Students prematurely moved into English-speaking classrooms, typically lack a sound conceptual and academic proficiency in English and may experience failure, frustration, or drop out of school as a result of their limited English language skills which do not permit them to perform academically with their classmates. In effect, these students become "progressively linguistically and academically retarded" becoming disengaged from access to core curriculum knowledge in English. The result of the system's unresponsivcness may be reflected in a report by the President's initiative on race in which it was reported that the percentage of Hispanics at age 25 who have completed high school is only 62% compared to whites at 93% and blacks at 87% (Council of Economic Advisors, 1998). More recent data was published in the "Digest of Educational Statistics" (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) indicating the incidence of high school dropouts by race/ethnicity in the U.S. The total number of dropouts of Hispanic origin was nearly 30%, followed by Black/Non-Hispanic at 11%, and White Non-Hispanic at 7%.

Data are not available to ascertain the precise number of Hispanic students with limited English proficiency. Yet, students with this particular profile and their corresponding educational experiences are "at-risk" for referral to special education based on apparent discrepancies between their learning aptitude and academic achievement and learning patterns that are very similar in nature to children with learning disabilities.

Limitations of Traditional Methods of Assessment

There are federal mandates requiring nondiscriminatory assessment in a student's native language and ensuring that assessment tests be free of racial and cultural bias. Provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA, P. L. 105-17), formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (RL. 94-142, 1975), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, include procedural safeguards that were established to ensure nondiscriminatory evaluation of children referred for special education. The emphasis is on assessment or testing procedures focusing primarily on "with-in" child deficits. There is little examination of contextual contributions influencing learning.

Many students from these varied backgrounds are unsuccessful in school and fail because they have not been provided with the opportunity to learn in their particular instructional environment, nor have they been evaluated in terms of these external variables. The variables that are external to the child, such as curriculum, instructional materials, and teaching strategies, though, can be altered to assist the child in being more successful in school. Maheady (1985) stated, "The routine attribution of causation to children fails to acknowledge the role that potentially alterable environmental factors play in producing school failure" (p. 46). The importance of extrinsic factors in underachievement and apparent learning problems cannot be overlooked. In the case of students in the process of acquiring a second language and/or becoming acculturated into a new culture, these normal and developmental processes are masked by apparent underachievement of these students in school.

What about eligibility criteria for students suspected of being disabled and are from other cultures? The criteria may be arbitrary at best and individual states frequently require additional specific criteria in addition to that found in federal policy. Current federal regulations require assessment methods be valid and reliable for the purpose for which they are used. The concern is that many of the measures and procedures used have not been found to be reliable and valid for that purpose, particularly with students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Regardless of the legislation and legal decisions there has been very little change in the practices of professionals who continue to use traditional assessment procedures when assessing English language learners. The most recent version of IDEA, however, does begin to address some of these concerns in requirements that all assessment instruments and strategies must provide relevant information to assist in matching the individual educational needs of the child to the general education curriculum (IDEA, 1997).

What about testing practices for these students? Once a student is referred to special education, school psychologists and educational diagnosticians use different psychological and educational measures to obtain standardized test scores to determine whether students are eligible for special educational services in their particular school district. Nonverbal or performance based tests requiring limited language skills, can be administered with resulting scores indicating average to above average cognitive ability, followed by the administration of language based achievement tests. A very typical profile of a student acquiring a second language reveals a high nonverbal score with poor performance in the language-based areas of reading, writing, speaking or listening. The profile of this student and other similar students whose test results indicate an average to above average nonverbal aptitude score and a low verbal ability score on achievement tests, is indicative of a discrepancy between scholastic aptitude and achievement, thereby, ensuring placement and instruction in an educational program for learning disabilities based on existing federal eligibility criteria. For English language learners, their real learning potential may be masked by their inability to learn due to language differences. This could result in poor educational attainment. There are many questions surrounding the criterion for determining a learning disability. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, the identification and labeling of a student as learning disabled takes precedence over the provision of useful information about the student's competence and skills as well as how this information can be used in the design of an educationally relevant learning program in an educationally relevant learning environment.

The Need for a New Assessment Paradigm

Throughout this society there may be a move away from reductionist principles and examination of events in isolation to that of a much broader interdependent context (Poplin, 1988). Moll & Ruiz (2000) offer their confirmation by suggesting that discussion related to the education of Latino students must be viewed in a social and historical context. They go on to recommend that control, coercion, exclusion, and condemnation are features of subtractive schooling in which students lose their language, culture, and, frequently, their self worth. On one hand, society tends to "pathologize" students' language and culture linking it to genetic and cultural inferiority as the root of the problem (Cummins, 2000). On the other hand, learning and evaluation are enhanced when examined from a broader meaningful context.

This shift in orientation allows for a movement to a systems or ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) in which interactions between an individual and diverse learning environments are examined in a holistic manner within which an individual lives and grows. This would include the home, school, social group and community, as well as the cultural practices that influences a student's desire and ability to learn. The emphasis is placed on the dynamics and interdependence of these variables. McLaughlin, Pullin, & Artiles (2001) provide a framework reflecting the holistic approach to teaching in a diverse society that is grounded in "the role of culture and cultural variables" as central to this transformation. This would allow for reaching a consensus by a school about education in a diverse society. In turn, the nature of teaching would change to include collaboration, envisioning the teacher as a learner, rethinking the notion of leadership, and "creating a community of educators with a strong collective sense of accountability for ensuring the success of each student" are strategies to attaining equal access and equitable practices for all learners.

References

Adelman, H. (1970). An interactive view of causality. Academic Therapy, 6, 43-52.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1994). Teacher education pipeline III: Schools, colleges, and departments of education enrollments by race, ethnicity ana gender. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Arnold, M. L. (2000, May). Rural schools: Diverse needs call for flexible policies [policy brief]. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J.J, & Higareda, I. (2002, November). Factors associated with English learner representation in special education in California Urban School Districts, 117-136. In Daniel. J Losen & Gary Orfield (Eds). Racial Inequity in Special Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baca, L. (2000, November). The status and future of bilingual education. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Multicultural Education, Orlando, FL.

Baca, L., & Valenzuela, L. (1998). Background and rationale for bilingual special education. In L. Cervantes (Ed.), The Bilingual Special Education Interface (pp. 2-25). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Bateman, B., & Haring, N. (1977). Teaching the learning-disabled child. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baumeister, A. A., Kupstas, F., & Klindworth, J. M. (1990). The new morbidity: A national plan of action. In T. Thompson & S. C. Hupp (Eds.), Saving children at risk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bond, G., Tinker, M. A., & Wasson, B. B. (1979). Reading difficulties: Their diagnosis and correction (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bos, C. S., & Fletcher, T. V. (1997). Sociocultural considerations in learning disabilities research: Knowledge gaps and future directions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(2), 92-99.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collier, V. P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. Elizabeth, NJ: NJTESOL-BE, Inc.

Council of Economic Advisors. (1998, September). The President's initiative on race. Beacon Journal, p. A5.

Cortes, C. (1999, May). The accelerating change of American diversity. The School Administrator, 12-14.

Coutinho, Oswald, & Best. (2002). The influence of sociodemographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 23(1), 49-60.

Cummins, J. (2001). BIOS and CALP. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London: Rutledge.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language power andpedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1985). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill.

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2003). Human diversity in education: An integrative approach (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Darling Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Post, L. (2000). Inequality in teaching and schooling: Supporting high quality teaching and leadership in low income school. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A nation at risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine for Social Mobility (pp. 127-168). New York: Century Foundation Press.

Dunn, L. (1968). Special Education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.

Fattah, Chaka. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. [Review of the book Racial inequity in special education.] Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Figueroa, R. A., & Ruiz, N. (1993). Bilingual pupils and special education: A reconceptualization. In R. C. Reaves & P. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), Recent Advances in Special Education and Rehabilitation (pp. 73-87). Boston: Andover Medical Publishers.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470.

Harris, J. D., Gray, B. A., Davis, J. K., Zaremba, K. T., & Argulewicz, E. N. (1997). The exclusionary clause and the disadvantaged: Do we try to comply with the law? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 581-583.

Harry, B., Klingner, J.K., Sturges, K.M., & Moore, R.F. (2002). Of rocks and soft places: Using qualitative methods to investigate disproportionality. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield, (Eds.), Racial Inequity in Special Education (pp. 71-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation of minority student in special education: Theories and recommendations. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W.H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hill, R., Carjuzaa, J., Aramburo, D., & Baca, L. (1993). Culturally and linguistically diverse teachers in special education: Repairing or Redesigning the leaky pipeline? Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 258-269.

Horn, W. F., & Tynn, D. (2001). Time to make special education special again. In C. Finn & A. J. Rothman & J. Charles R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (pp. 23-51). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Hosp, J. & Reschly, D. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: A meta-analysis of racial differences. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 67-80.

IDEA. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17 (1997)

IDEA. (1990). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-476 (1990)

Kea, C.D., & Utley, C.A. (1998). To teach me is to know me. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 44-47.b

Ladner, M. & Hamons, C. (2001), Special but unequal: Race and special education. In Rethinking special education for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Lambert, M.C., Puig, M., Rowan, G.T., Lyubansky, M., & Winfrey, T. (1998). Adult perspectives on behavior and emotional problems in African American children. Manuscripted submitted for publication.

Lau V. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Losen, D. & G. Orfield (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lyon, R. (1996, Spring). Special education for students with disabilities. The Future of Children, 6(1), 1-6.

Lyon, R., Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Torgeson, J., Wood, F., Schulte, A., & Oison, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn & A. J. Rothman & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Maheady, L. (1985). The assessment of the bilingual exceptional child: Trends and models. In L. Baca & J. Starks & E. Hartley (Eds.), Third annual symposium: Exceptional Hispanic children and youth (Vol. 1, pp. 41-63). Boulder, CO: Bueno Center for Multicultural Education.

Mather, N., & Healey, W. C. (1990). Deposing aptitude-achievement discrepancy as the imperial criterion for learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A MultidisciplinaryJournal, 1(2), 41-48.

McIntyre, T. (1992). A primer on cultural diversity for educators. MulticulturalEorum, 1(1), 6 & 13.

McLaughlin, MJ., Pullin, D. & Artiles, AJ. (2001). Challenges for special education in the 21st century: Rethinking culture in school reform. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 51-62.

Melnick, S., & Pullin, D. (2000, Sept/Oct). Can you take dictation? Prescribing teacher quality through testing. Journal of Teacher Edttcation, 51,262-275.

Moll, L. C., & Ruiz, R. (2002). The schooling of Latino children. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco & M. M. Pacz (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 362-374): Berkeley: University of California Press.

National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, retrieved October 8, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ ESEA02/

Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B. D., & Powell, M. P. (1997). Factors used to comply with the exclusionary clause with bilingual and limited English-proficient pupils: Initial guidelines. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 161-167.

Olsen, L. (1988). Crossing the schoolhouse border: Immigrant students and the California Public Schools. Boston: A California Tomorrow Policy Research Project. National Coalition of Advocates for Students.

Ortiz, A., & Yates, J. (1983). Incidence of exceptionality among Hispanics: Implications for manpower planning. NAEE Journal, 7, 41-54.

Ortiz, A., & & Yates, J. R. (2001). A framework for serving English language learners with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 72-80.

Poplin, M. (1988). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(21), 401-416.

President's Advisory Committee on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. (September, 1996). Our Nation on the fault line: Hispanic American Education. A report to the President of the United States, the Nation, and the Secretary of Education, Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (1985). U.S.C., 20, 104 (Sec 794.34).

Reschly, D. J. (October 1997). Disproportionate minority representation in general ana special education: Patterns, issues, and alternatives. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education.

Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2002). An analysis of special education as a response to the diminished academic achievement of Chicano/Latino students: An update. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicana school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 310-332). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115-127.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title I schools: Final report. Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Services.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1998). The schools and staffing survey (SASS) and teacher follow up survey (TFS) CD-ROM: Electronic codebook and public use data for three cycles of SASS and TFS (CD-ROM data file). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. (NCES98-312)

U.S. Department of Commerce & Bureau of the Census. (2000). Current population survey, March 1968-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). School-age demographics: Recent trends pose new educational challenges. Washington, DC: Author.

Valencia, R. (2002). Chicana school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Fanner.

Villegas, A., Chu Clewcll, B., Taylor Anderson, B., Goertz, M., Ficklcn Joy, M., Bruschi, B., & Irvine, J. (1993). Teaching for diversity: Models for expanding the supply of minority teachers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wright, P., & Cruz, R. S. (1983). Ethnic composition of special education programs in California. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 387-394.

Todd V. Fletcher

University of Arizona, Tucson

Lori A. Navarrete

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Copyright American Council on Rural Special Education Fall 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved