Insights into Learning Disabilities: From the Ground Up wk. 3 readings

Emergent Bilinguals and Learning Disabilities

• Insights into Learning Disabilities is published by Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW).

• Website: www.ldworldwide.org

• Article: From the Ground Up: Providing Support to Emergent Bilinguals to Distinguish Language Difference From Disability

• Authors: Andrea N. Golloher, David A. Whitenack, Lisa A. Simpson, Donna Sacco

• Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that emergent bilinguals with disabilities have the lowest proficiency in reading and mathematics.

• The article suggests that Tier 1 instruction should be beneficial for emergent bilinguals with and without learning disabilities.

• Differentiating Tier 2 and 3 interventions may improve outcomes for those at risk of learning disabilities.

• A collaborative triad among general education, special education, and bilingual resource teachers is proposed.

• Keywords: Bilingual education, multi-tiered systems of support, response to intervention, Tier 1 instruction, culturally relevant pedagogy

Disproportionate Representation

• Special education has struggled with disproportionate representation of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds.

• Emergent bilinguals may be misidentified for services due to their learning needs.

• Debate exists over whether emergent bilinguals are more or less likely to be identified as having specific learning disabilities (SLD) compared to monolingual peers.

• Once identified, emergent bilinguals are more likely to be served in more restrictive placements than their monolingual peers with SLD.

• NAEP data shows that emergent bilinguals fall significantly behind their peers in reading and math.

  • For example, only $4\%$ of emergent bilingual students score at or above proficient in reading in the 12th grade, compared to $39\%$ of native English speakers.

  • In mathematics, only $6\%$ of emergent bilingual students are at or above proficient, compared to $25\%$ of native English speakers.

  • Emergent bilinguals with disabilities fare the worst, with proficiency in reading and mathematics rounding to zero by the 12th grade.

• The paper focuses on developing high-quality Tier 1 instruction to prevent misidentification of SLD.

• Emergent bilinguals are often referred to as English learners (ELs) or English Language Learners (ELLs).

• The term "emergent bilinguals" emphasizes the asset of their native language rather than implying a deficit.

Challenges in Identification

• Debate exists over whether emergent bilingual students are over- or under-identified for special education services.

• Both over- and under-identification are issues of concern.

• Over-identification may lead to misdiagnosing language learning needs as learning disabilities.

• Under-identification may result in students not receiving appropriate interventions.

• Representation of emergent bilingual students in special education varies across states.

• An analysis found that students ever classified as English learners were less likely to be referred for special education services.

• However, those currently identified as English learners were over-represented in special education at the secondary level.

• Variations exist across states, with emergent bilinguals overrepresented in the SLD category in one state but not in another.

• It's an ongoing challenge for educators to distinguish language difference from learning disability.

• Overlap exists in the characteristics of students with SLD and emergent bilinguals.

• Educators face the challenge of determining whether a student's struggles are due to language acquisition or SLD.

• The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA, 2004) defines SLD as:

  • a disability in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that might manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. (pp. 117-118)

• Learning challenges faced by a student with SLD should not be attributable to other learning needs or environmental causes.

• Emergent bilingual students develop abilities in the same processes of understanding as students with SLD.

• This can result in behaviors that are topographically similar to those of a student with SLD.

• For example, both a student with SLD and a student learning a second language might have difficulty following multi-step directions.

Models of Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities

• Reflecting the diagnostic criteria for SLDs described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the IQ-achievement discrepancy model described in IDEA (2004) attempts to rule out intelligence as the cause for poor academic achievement.

• The IQ-achievement discrepancy model emphasizes student performance on standardized assessments, often failing to consider environmental factors.

• To address concerns about environmental factors, IDEA (2004) allowed schools to use student progress within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS), specifically response to intervention (RTI), to rule out poor instruction as the cause for poor academic progress.

• Most states have implemented this policy, although the majority still allow the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model as an alternative to the RTI model for determining eligibility.

• Concerns have arisen with states solely relying on RTI models for identification of SLD due to the lack of research on Tier 2 or 3 interventions on emerging bilingual students.

• Most RTI/MTSS programs follow a similar three-tier model for providing support.

  • Tier 1: All students receive high-quality instruction from the general education teacher, and the progress of at-risk students is monitored closely.

  • Tier 2: Students who do not respond to Tier 1 instruction receive small group instruction in addition to general instruction.

  • Tier 3: Students who do not meet Tier 2 goals receive targeted, individualized supports.

• IDEA (2004) allows states to determine that a student qualifies for an individualized education program (IEP) for SLD due to lack of academic progress despite exposure to high-quality instruction.

• SLD continues to be the most common eligibility designation for students receiving special education services, with approximately $38\%$ of students with IEPs identified in this category (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).

Systems of Support for Emergent Bilinguals

• RTI/MTSS has the potential to address disproportionate representation of CLD groups receiving special education services.

• Critiques of RTI/MTSS question whether instruction and assessment measures adequately consider the needs of students from CLD backgrounds.

• As a first step in implementing RTI/MTSS to meet the needs of all students, the interventions that are used should be validated as evidence-based and have a track record of being effective for students who are emergent bilinguals.

• The Tier 1 framework incorporates and aligns strategies for universally designing lessons with strategies for integrating language and literacy development in subject-area instruction in the general education classroom.

• The Tier 1 framework builds on the authors’ recognition that both sets of strategies are essential for addressing the language-learning needs of emergent bilinguals.

• The Tier 1 framework aligns the practices developed by the TEEL group with the practices of UDL.

• There was substantial overlap between the recommendations of the TEEL group and the UDL framework, but there remained gaps in each framework that potentially overlooked the needs of some students.

• The TEEL group developed a framework of instructional practices, supported by a substantial body of research, to integrate subject matter teaching with language and literacy development to enhance learning in both domains for emergent bilingual students.

• These instructional practices are divided into four areas: contextualization, scaffolding, discourse, and content-specific literacy experiences.

• The Tier 1 framework coherently blends the four focus areas of contextualization, scaffolding, discourse, and literacy, and adds growth mindset from UDL as a fifth pedagogical focus.

• The Tier 1 framework identifies two levels of practices: those focusing directly on teacher behaviors (Engage in Dynamic Instruction) and other teacher practices intended to elicit particular student behaviors (Stimulate Active Student Learning).

• The Tier 1 framework across the curriculum in general education teacher preparation, and its use to support the development of Tier 2 and 3 instruction that meets the needs of students who are emergent bilinguals is proposed.

• The framework be used in K-12 professional development, particularly professional development focused on collaboration among general education teachers, special education teachers, and bilingual resource teachers is recommended.

Using the Tier 1 Framework in RTI/MTSS

• The Tier 1 framework was initially developed as a tool to guide instructional planning for all students in K-12 general education classrooms and to provide feedback to K-12 teachers on their pedagogical decisions related to meeting the needs of students with disabilities or students who were emergent bilinguals.

• Within an RTI/MTSS program, this tool can be used to ensure cohesiveness in program planning and facilitate collaboration across different educational roles.

• Considerations for emergent bilingual students with and without SLD in each component of an RTI/MTSS model.

Assessment

• Traditional RTI/MTSS models rely on ongoing data collection and analysis to determine student needs.

• Two forms of monitoring are used: universal screening and progress monitoring.

• For emergent bilingual students, the type of assessment and interpretation of data must consider the stages of second language acquisition.

• For example, emergent bilinguals may go through a period of relative silence when first exposed to English instruction.

• Measures relying on oral language skills may show little to no progress during this time.

• At least one member of the data analysis team should have knowledge of language acquisition to determine if additional supports are necessary.

Instruction in Tiers 2 and 3

• If students do not make adequate progress in Tier 1, they should receive Tier 2 interventions, which should consist of evidence-based practices.

• What constitutes evidence-based Tier 2 and 3 practices for emergent bilinguals has not been fully determined.

• Many available curricula claiming to be evidence-based have not included emergent bilinguals in the research sample.

• Practitioners must be careful about determining whether a Tier 2 or 3 intervention is evidence-based for emergent bilinguals.

• While the Tier 1 framework does not itself describe effective Tier 2 and 3 interventions, considering each of the five domains when developing these supports for students can increase the likelihood that teachers implement evidence-based practices in these tiers.

• Failing to address or differentiate Tiers 2 and 3 interventions can lead to a lack of progress and misidentification of a student who is an emergent bilingual as a student with a disability.

• Most Tier 2 reading supports focus on providing more intensive direct instruction in the five major areas of reading, but many fail to recognize the needs of emergent bilingual students.

• For example, phonetic structures vary widely from language to language, and emergent bilinguals often struggle with distinguishing phonemes that are not a part of their native language.

• Phonological awareness taught in context produces better outcomes for emergent bilinguals.

• The Tier 1 framework reminds teachers of the importance of contextualization and scaffolding in delivering instruction.

• For emergent bilingual students, both of these domains require teachers to consider the student’s first language and cultural experiences.

• Fluency is a frequent focus of Tier 2 interventions for struggling readers.

• Tier 2 and Tier 3 fluency interventions should provide more frequent opportunities for emergent bilinguals to hear text being read aloud in English.

• Sight-word instruction is often delivered out of context, which can be especially challenging for emergent bilinguals.

• These differentiations are important for emergent bilingual students as providing direct and intensive Tier 2 and 3 interventions with emergent bilinguals has been found to result in better outcomes than less intensive English as a Second Language (ESL) literacy instruction for these students.

• Reading instruction for language minority students should include oral language development and motivation, both of which are emphasized in the Tier 1 framework.

• Emergent bilinguals need increased opportunities to talk and interact with both peers and the teacher to fully develop oral language proficiency.

• Tiers 2 and 3 interventions should incorporate specific components to increase motivation of emerging bilingual students, such as using culturally relevant materials and increasing the relevancy of activities.

Implications and Additional Considerations

• Interventions often have not been validated for use with emergent bilinguals or in the particular school contexts in which they were implemented.

• It is important to analyze the school and classroom context in which emergent bilinguals are receiving their education.

• Contextual factors may play an important role in RTI/MTSS outcomes.

• The field is at a point of discovering and documenting what works for emergent bilingual students, to what degree, and in what situations rather than recommending with certainty what has worked for all.

Implications for Practice

• The Tier 1 framework as a tool for planning instruction for all students, including students with learning disabilities, emergent bilinguals, and other marginalized students is proposed.

• This proposal is based on a vision in which all students participate inclusively--together--in learning activities.

• Given the underdeveloped state of service provision to students with learning difficulties who are emergent bilinguals described above, there is a need for close collaboration among triads of classroom teachers, special educators, and bilingual resource teachers in all aspects of a RTI/MTSS program.

• Ensuring that general educators, special educators, and bilingual specialists have adequate time and space to engage in collaboration suggests a need for administrative support as well.

• Special educators and bilingual resource teachers could support instruction in the general education classroom.

• The Tier 1 framework was developed on the principles of UDL to support the learning of all students in the general education setting.

• The major tenet of UDL being that teachers develop lessons which provide all students with multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement.

• Special educators are typically familiar with tools designed to address these three areas, including the use of technologies in the classroom, in their work with students with disabilities.

• Both the special educator and bilingual resource teacher can help the classroom teacher monitor instructional quality, providing ideas and resources to improve general instruction for emergent bilingual students.

• Bilingual resource teachers can help the classroom teacher understand their instructional needs based on their proficiency levels while taking into consideration typical developmental trajectories in second language development.

• Special educators may share information about the overlap of characteristics in students who are emergent bilinguals and students who have learning disabilities, helping general educators understand what struggles may be indicative of language acquisition rather than a disability.

• Special educators also hold expertise in the collection and analysis of progress monitoring data.

• It is essential to apply knowledge of second language acquisition in the interpretation of the data, and a bilingual resource teacher may be needed to supplement the knowledge bases of the general and special educators.

• If an emergent bilingual student continues to struggle academically, the special educator and bilingual resource teacher would be better prepared to identify appropriate next steps.

• These support providers could then use the five domains of the Tier 1 framework to consider additional supports to be provided in Tiers 2 and 3 building upon the Tier 1 foundation.

Implications for Educator Preparation and Professional Development

• If general, special, and bilingual educators are going to collaborate in schools, it makes sense to create opportunities for them to collaborate during their professional preparation is recommended.

• It is necessary to dismantle both the programmatic silos in which general education, special education, and bilingual teacher preparation tend to operate in universities and the barriers between universities and K-12 schools.

• For schools to meet the academic needs of students with learning disabilities who are emergent bilinguals, educators must be prepared to work together toward that goal.

Conclusion

• Given the disproportionate representation of otherwise marginalized students in special education discussed above, it is critical that educators advocate against the possible resegregation of students due to presumed deficits.

• Special education teachers must be prepared to support inclusive educational practices.

• Special educators, in addition to other educational leaders, must strive to reduce potential harm to students from their being removed from the general education environment.

• A key component of such harm reduction is advocacy and support for the use of inclusive practices in the general education classroom.

• The Tier 1 framework can be used to help special education teacher candidates recognize the components of effective inclusive placements.

• They could also use the framework to provide a common grounding when collaborating with general education partners.

• Furthermore, special educators could consider how the framework informs their practice when supporting students who require additional services so that such practices are not counter to the social justice aims of our educational systems.

Appendix A

Tier 1 Framework: Integrating Language & Literacy Development in Subject-area Instruction

CONTEXTUALIZE LEARNING (CONTEXTUALIZATION)

Engage in Dynamic Instruction

• Activate or supply students’ prior knowledge and thinking about the lesson topic (UDL Checkpoint 3.1)

• Connect the lesson topic to local physical, geographic, economic, ecological, political, social, or other conditions (UDL Checkpoint 7.2)

• Link the lesson topic to issues and challenges faced personally, locally, statewide, and/or nationally (UDL Checkpoint 7.2)

• Plan for and maximize transfer and generalization of content by explicitly connecting topics across domains, subjects, etc. (UDL Checkpoint 3.4)

Stimulate Active Student Learning

• Anticipate and elicit students’ home, community, or other out-of-school experiences related to the topic being studied

• Engage students in problem- and project-based learning tasks and assignment

ENCOURAGE SELF-REFLECTION AND MONITORING (GROWTH MINDSET)

Engage in Dynamic Instruction

• Guide appropriate goal setting through modeling planning, embedding opportunities for strategy development, promoting the use of planning tools, discussing what constitutes excellence, etc. (UDL Checkpoints 6.1, 6.2, 8.1)

• Create an accepting and supportive classroom that minimizes threats and distractions (UDL Checkpoint 7.3)

• Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation, focus on self-regulatory goals, and encourage self-reflection (UDL Checkpoint 9.1)

• Employ differentiated, mastery-oriented feedback. Feedback should identify areas of strength and patterns of errors and provide strategies for success (UDL Checkpoint 5.3, 8.4)

Stimulate Active Student Learning

• Optimize individual choice and autonomy (UDL Checkpoint 7.1)

• Enhance capacity for self-monitoring and self-assessment (UDL Checkpoints 6.4, 9.3)

• Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies (UDL Checkpoint 9.2)

SCAFFOLD LANGUAGE AND CONTENT (SCAFFOLDING)

Engage in Dynamic Instruction

• Modify talk (repetition, wait time, enunciation, rate of speech, re-phrasing, L1 use, gesturing) that facilitates student understanding of instruction

• Pay explicit attention to language issues that might be confusing or difficult and promote understanding across languages (UDL Checkpoint 2.4)

• Illustrate concepts and organize information through multiple media, including by providing supports such as sentence frames, word walls, graphic organizers, outlines, and reading guides (UDL Checkpoints 2.5, 5.1, 6.3)

• Highlight patterns, critical features, and big ideas to guide information processing, visualization, and manipulation to maximize transfer and generalization of content (UDL Checkpoint 3.2, 3.3)

Stimulate Active Student Learning

• Embed multiple means for students to interact with a concept through the use of visual representations, physical manipulatives, models and realia, offering alternatives for visual or auditory information (e.g., textual descriptions of pictures, transcriptions of audio content) (UDL checkpoints 1.2, 1.3, 2.3)

• Allow students to differentiate how they interact with the lesson by allowing learners to customize the display of information, varying the allowed methods of response, varying demands and resources to optimize challenge, and optimizing access to tools and assistive technology (UDL Checkpoints 1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2)

PROMOTE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE (DISCOURSE)

Engage in Dynamic Instruction

• Model discourse patterns such as recounting, hypothesizing, and explaining

• Re-voice or restate student contributions using subject-area-specific discourse patterns

• Provide students with feedback on their use of academic language

Stimulate Active Student Learning

• Ask students to communicate their ideas and thinking about concepts, especially claims, evidence, and reasoning

• Ask students to restate, affirm, critique, and/or respond directly to each other’s assertions, claims, evidence, and/or reasoning

• Foster collaboration and communication through the creation of cooperative learning groups and opportunities for peer interactions (UDL Checkpoint 8.3)

• Allow multiple media for communication that allows students to demonstrate competence with the material (UDL Checkpoint 5.1)

SUPPORT LITERACY DEVELOPMENT (LITERACY)

Engage in Dynamic Instruction

• Explain expectations of literacy tasks and provide clear instruction about how to successfully accomplish the tasks

• Clarify vocabulary and symbols (UDL Checkpoint 2.1)

• Clarify syntax and structure, including highlighting structural relations, making connections to previously learned structures, and making relationships between elements explicit (UDL Checkpoint 2.2)

• Use key subject-area-specific terms throughout the lesson

Stimulate Active Student Learning

• Assign tasks that involve subject-area-specific literacy skills (e.g., expository writing, measuring, using instruments and tools, recording observations, making tables and charts, interpreting or drawing diagrams, reading primary-source documents, etc.)

• Give students opportunities to use key words in writing or talk

The main takeaways from the article are:

1. Emergent bilinguals with disabilities have the lowest proficiency in reading and mathematics.

2. High-quality Tier 1 instruction is essential to prevent misidentification of specific learning disabilities (SLD) in emergent bilinguals.

3. RTI/MTSS should be implemented with consideration of the unique needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds.

4. A collaborative approach involving general education, special education, and bilingual resource teachers is crucial for supporting emergent bilinguals.

5. The Tier 1 framework, integrating language and literacy development with subject-area instruction, can be a valuable tool for planning inclusive instruction.

6. Ongoing assessment and data interpretation must consider the stages of second language acquisition.