Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practices in Psychoeducational Reports for English Language Learners

Abstract

Past researchers suggested there are a number of shortcomings in the psychoeducational evaluation process and practices used with English language learners (ELLs). In the present exploratory study, the authors descriptively examined the assessment practices used in the special education eligibility determination process for ELLs as documented in 34 psychoeducational evaluation reports in one southwestern state. The authors reviewed psychoeducational evaluation reports prepared by school psychologists to determine (a) the extent to which school psychologists adhered to legal and ethical guidelines in the evaluation of ELLs for special education eligibility and needs and (b) how school psychologists account for cultural and linguistic differences in the evaluation process. Results indicated that school psychologists rarely used culturally and linguistically responsive practices such as the use of interpretation and translation services and language proficiency data, as well as limited adherence to legal and ethical recommendations. We address implications for training and practice.

Beyond Traditional Response to Intervention: Helping Rural Educators Understand English Learners’ Needs

“…Educational policies have emphasized the need for schools to address English learners’ (ELs) academic needs (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; No Child Left Behind, 2002) and conduct unbiased assessments to guarantee that disability diagnoses are not the product of English language or acculturation deficits (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). Relatedly, researchers have warned about the need to conduct culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments to avoid giving erroneous diagnoses, which might contribute to disproportionality of diverse students—including ELs—in special education (Counts et al, 2018; Harris et al, 2015; Ortiz et al, 2006). More specific to rural school districts, Barrio (2017) provided recommendations for developing, implementing, and evaluating local educational policy to address the disproportionality of ELs in special education programs within rural schools.…”

Wading Through Quicksand: Making Sense of Minority Disproportionality in Identification of Emotional Disturbance

“…As Eaves (1982) noted, identification of ED “borders on mindless” because of the “muddled” definition in federal law and variability in how ED is conceptualized by professionals and localities (p. 464). Special education identification is generally considered to be unreliable (Donovan & Cross, 2002) given early and continued studies indicating inappropriate referral and evaluation practices, arbitrariness of decisions, and limited adherence to legal criteria for eligibility (e.g., Harris et al, 2015; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Knotek, 2003; MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998; Singer, Palfrey, Butler, & Walker, 1989; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey, & Graden, 1982). Identification of ED is particularly capricious.…”

“…Having studied patterns and predictors of ED disproportionality (Sullivan, 2011; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011; Sullivan & Bal, 2013), outcomes of students with ED and other disabilities (Kohli, Sullivan, Sadeh, & Zopluoglu, 2015; Sullivan & Sadeh, 2015; Sullivan, Van Norman, & Klingbeil, 2014; Useche, Sullivan, Merk, & Orobio de Castro, 2014), various special education and psychoeducational practices (Harris, Sullivan, Oades-Sese, & Sotelo-Dynega, 2015; Sullivan, Long, & Kucera, 2011; Sullivan & Sadeh, 2014b; Sullivan, Sadeh, & Nortey, 2016), and the legal context of ED identification (Sullivan & Sadeh, 2014a), the scholarship and commentary surrounding disproportionality in special education and ED seems increasingly convoluted. As a disproportionality scholar, psychologist, and graduate educator of school psychologists who will inevitably engage students in psychoeducational evaluations for potential ED eligibility, the perplexity of the processes and assumptions related to ED identification and disproportionality in research and practice is particularly salient and troubling in many areas of my professional work.…”

Special Education Policy Change

“…Examples of evidence-based practices for appropriate instruction for ELL students, such as the ones presented by various researchers (e.g., Gersten et al, 2007; Harris, Sullivan, Oades-Sese, & Sotelo-Dynega, 2015), provide teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders the information necessary to conduct these interventions. According to Hosp (2014), there are few guides to address the issue of disproportionality through RTI.…”