Addressing the Learning Disability Needs of Limited-English Proficient Students: Beyond Language and Race Issues

Abstract

Students with exceptional learning needs should not be denied access to special education programs because of their language or race. However, such factors should not be ignored either. This paper examines the issue of disproportionate representation of limited-English proficient Hispanic students in classes for the learning disabled. On-site reviews of school districts suggest inadequate assessment, evaluation, placement, and re-evaluation of limited-English proficient Hispanic students. Sixteen policy considerations are provided in an effort to help school districts to ensure that limited-English proficient learning disabled students receive equal access to appropriate learning opportunities.

Equity or Marginalization?

“…Racial and ethnic variation also merits careful consideration in the possible processes of marginalization for students identified with an LD. Racial minorities (Blanchett, 2006), students from economically disadvantaged families (Shifrer et al, 2011), and language minority youth (Ochoa et al, 1988), especially when placed in English as a second language (ESL) programs (Shifrer et al, 2011), are all disproportionately more likely to be labeled with an LD. African American students placed in special education have been described as experiencing more restrictive placement than their White counterparts (Blanchett, 2006; Blanchett, Klingner, & Harry, 2009; Reid & Knight, 2006), which could compound the extent to which their exposure to rigorous curriculum is limited.…”

“…By definition, students labeled with an LD are more likely to have poorer academic histories on average than unlabeled students (Jenkins et al, 2006), and it may be that their poorer high school course-taking outcomes can be attributed to cumulative disadvantages measurable through early educational experiences. Although the LD label was more prevalent among White and middle- or upper-class youth in the past (Sleeter, 1987/2010), contemporary research suggests that students are more likely to be labeled with an LD if they are from low socioeconomic status (SES) households or are racial minorities, boys, or language minorities (Ochoa, Pacheco, & Omark, 1988; Ong-Dean, 2006; Shifrer, Muller, & Callahan, 2011; Skiba et al, 2008). Specifically, Coutinho, Oswald, and Best (2002) used district-level data to show that the proportion of Black and Latino students in a district is associated with both indicators of higher rates of student poverty and also higher rates of LD classification, despite the federal exclusionary provision preventing LD identification due to environmental causes (e.g., poverty, poor instruction).…”

Implications of Social and Cultural Differences for Special Education With Specific Recommendations

“…Linguistically different children are even more disproportionately represented (Aguirre, 1979;Argulewicz, 1983;Bernal, 1983;Ochoa, Pacheco, & Omark, 1983;Wright & Santa Cruz, 1983). Bernal (1983) maintains that many "normal" LEP (Limited-English proficient) children are placed in special classes in systems that have resisted bilingual programming.…”

From Early Childhood Special Education to Special Education Resource Rooms

“…The issue of disproportionate representation has persisted despite protections in IDEIA (2004) to minimize linguistic, racial, or cultural bias in special education processes, including requiring multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) to assure that presenting problems are not the result of limited English proficiency or lack of access to quality instruction. Among the barriers to appropriate representation are inappropriate referrals and the lack of valid and reliable assessment instruments for ELLs (Collier & Hoover, 1987;Johnson, Lessem, Berquist, Carmichael, & Whitten, n.d.;Ochoa, Pacheco, & Omark, 1983;Ortiz, 2001;Palmer, Olivarez, Wilson, & Fordyce, 1989;Rodriguez & Carrasquillo, 1997;Wagner et al, 2005;Zavala & Mims, 1983). There is little to guide educators as they determine whether poor academic performance reflects instruction that was not matched to the student's language and cultural characteristics, whether low test scores are artifacts of assessments, or whether limited English proficiency is masking disabilities (Wagner et al, 2005).…”