SED 500: Introduction to Special Education
Janet Medina, Psy.D.
Associate Professor of Education
McDaniel College
jmedina@mcdaniel.edu
410-857-2417
No material may be used without permission of author
Myths of Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism – Take
this quiz and see what you already know [the answers will be provided
at the end of this presentation]
1. Adults learn second languages more quickly and easily than young children.
T F
2. According to research, students in ESL-only programs, with no schooling in their native
language, take 7-10 years to reach grade level norms. T F
3. A lot of immigrant children have learning disabilities, not language problems. They speak
English just fine but they are still failing academically. T F
4. Older generations of immigrants learned without all the special language programs that
immigrant children receive now. It was "sink or swim" and they did just fine!
T F
5. Second language learners will acquire academic English faster if their parents speak
English at home. T F
6. The more time students spend soaking up English in the mainstream classroom, the more
they quickly they will learn the language.
T F
7. Once students can speak English, they are ready to undertake the academic tasks of the
mainstream classroom. T F
8. Cognitive and academic development in native language has an important and positive
effect on second language acquisition. T F
9. The culture of students doesn’t affect how long it takes them to acquire English. All
students learn language the same way. T F
No material may be used without permission of author
Berta Hernandez is a newly-arrived student who came to the United States just 3
months ago. She has been placed in Megan’s fourth-grade classroom because, although
she is 11 years old, she is physically very small compared to her same-age peers. Her
mother is living in Lima, Peru (her home country), with her youngest sibling, a sister and, so
far, has not been able to get a visa to travel to the United States. Berta arrived in the United
States with her father, aunt (her father’s unmarried sister), and a younger brother (he is 7).
She is the oldest child. They all now live with her grandmother and grandfather in your
school district. The grandparents speak Quechua, a little Spanish, and no English. The
father and aunt speak Quechua, Spanish, and very little English. Mercedes and her brother
speak Spanish as their primary language, a little Quechua, and very little conversational
English, though they are catching on quickly.
Berta has demonstrated a great deal of reluctance to read in class, especially
aloud. In Peru, she made it only to the second grade, missed a year of class due to some
local unrest, and was retained for a year. Her father has suggested that perhaps Berta was
in some kind of special class in Lima, but cannot explain it well. Megan is also noticing that
she tends to want to sit alone, not participate in activities with the other students, and cries
whenever she is called on to answer a question in class. Berta has not made any new
friends in the fourth grade, and she is responsible for walking her younger brother, who is in
kindergarten, home from school every day. What conclusions can you make about this
student? What is still not not clear?
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Familiar?
A
added
brain
changed
from
method
must
occurrences
surgery
when
accomplished
at
cannibals
doing
in
minor
needed
replace
the
3
No material may be used without permission of
author
and
belief
certain
English
logical
missionaries
numbers
sentences
this
4
Elaboration Tolerance
[John McCarthy, Stanford University]
Changing a parameter
This is needed when the number of missionaries and
cannibals are changed from 3 to 4. In English, this is
accomplished by an added sentence. Doing it that way
in logic requires a suitable belief revision method as
part of the basic logical formalism. At present we must
use minor brain surgery to replace certain occurrences
of the number 3.
No material may be used without permission of
author
Did you understand that paragraph?
If you struggled understanding the preceding paragraph,
maybe you are not familiar with the context.
Could you tell that this was about Computer Science?
Even if you understood each word individually, lack of
prior knowledge and experience has an effect on your
comprehension.
No material may be used without permission of author
English is a crazy language
 Can you read the following sentences?
 Can you see why a student with a learning disability
and/or an ELL might have difficulty figuring out these
heteronyms, homographs, homonyms , and
homophones?
 Multiple meanings for words can throw someone off as
well.
 How important is it to understand the context of a
sentence?
 If you want to test your skills, try this homograph online
game here (for a Flash version) or here (for an html
version).
No material may be used without permission of author
How’s that again?
The buzz was in the air that Freida was to become the heir
to a fortune.
Liza conceded that Hillary was very conceited.
Your friends are not happy when you’re sad.
Kyla was trying to plot a murder set in a garden plot.
It was an airy perch from the aerie.
Jessey was afraid of having a date with a lemon.
Canela had a great idea to stand on the grate to grate the
cheese.
It is very difficult to wind the yarn in the wind.
No material may be used without permission of author
Visual-spatial tasks
The next series of slides are visual-spatial tasks. In the
assessment process, particularly in psychoeducational
evaluations, diagnosticians often try to evaluate a student’s
skills in viewing and reproducing what they see through a
variety of tasks – in other words, how does the student
“see” the world, how do they “fit” in space, how do they
manipulate the world, etc.? Examples of these skills are as
follows: looking for details, seeing part-to-whole or wholeto-part relationships, determining how much “cueing” a
student might need to see something they might not see
right away, and so on.
No material may be used without permission of
author
Can you trust this person? Hint: If you don’t see it right
away, tilt your head slightly to the right. See it now? Side
note: I have discovered that exposure to English is crucial in this exercise.
No material may be used without permission of
author
Contrast

This grid, known as Hermann's Grid, is an example of how contrast
affects color perception. The area at the corners of the black boxes
appear gray. This happens because of something called lateral
inhibition. In the retina when some light-receiving cells are activated
others around them shut down.
You will notice that where the white lines intersect, there is black on
four sides, whereas the lines themselves are surrounded by black on
only two sides. When you look at the intersections, the cells in the
retina are surrounded on four sides by other cells that are also receiving
light. They are therefore more inhibited than the cells focused on the
lines. It is their inhibition that causes the dark spots to appear.
No material may be used without permission of
author
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of
author
No material may be used without permission of author
What are we really seeing?
These sidewalk chalk paintings give us the impression
that they are three-dimensional objects, yet when we
view them from another angle, we can see that they are
actually flat.
No material may be used without permission of
author
The picture on the next slide looks a little
strange, some jumbled monkeys there. It
will be worth your time to fixate it for at least
10 seconds. Let your gaze “hang” on the
tiny red target at the centre, making ready
to move your mouse over the image
thereafter. On the white background you
may recognize a face, a topic of 2009.
Alternatively: after fixation, close your eyes.
After a few seconds a face will appear.
No material may be used without permission of
author
No material may be used without permission of author
You should see Charles Darwin’s face.
Faces are difficult to recognize when rendered as a negative.
Prolonged fixation creates a retinal afterimage, which over several
seconds is a negative afterimage, making it recognizable.
The longer and the more steady you fixate, the longer lasts the
afterimage. When it fades, blink and it will be prolonged.
On of the tricks is to introduce the tiny white lines (here chosen to
delineate monkeys, appropriately). These impede face recognition in
the initial negative (related to the blocking illusion). In the afterimage,
however, they are gone because an afterimage is always a little
blurry.
Rob Jenkins & Richard Wiseman give some delightful background
and also the original image on their website – Happy Darwin Day! –
referenced below.
http://www.richardwiseman.com/Darwin.html
No material may be used without permission of author
What’s different?
The next two photos are borrowed from the Washington
Post magazine (May 20, 2012). The first photograph is
the original, and the second photograph has 12
alterations made to the original picture. Can you find
the 12 differences in the 2nd altered photo?
The third photo has the answers.
When individuals are assessed cognitively, attention to
detail is a crucial skill that is evaluated.
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
PRINT EDITOR: RANDY MAYS, ORIGINAL PHOTO: WASHINGTON POST READER JOHN C. CONSOLI
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Color Vision
Pilots and others are often tested for color vision.
Children in schools are sometimes assessed for color
vision if they show some inconsistencies in
recognizing colors. The most common color
“blindness” is red-green color blindness.
The following three slides are samples from the
PseudoIsochromatic Plate Ishihara Compatible (PIP)
Color Vision Test 24 Plate Edition. What numbers do
you see?
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Answers
You should have seen the numbers 16, 2, and 5.
For more information about assessing color vision, you
might be interested in this website:
Color Blindness or Color Vision Deficiency
http://www.archimedeslab.org/colorblindnesstest.html
No material may be used without permission of author
Bev Doolittle – Prayer for the Wild Things (contains more than 40 animal
images)
No material may be used without permission of author
Sketch of Prayer for the Wild Things
No material may be used without permission of author
Visual Figure Ground
Look at the following woodcut by M.C. Escher. Escher
frequently played around with figure ground in his
work.
What do you see?
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Gestalt Principles
Gestalt theorists followed the basic principle that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts. In other words, the whole (a picture, a
car) carried a different and altogether greater meaning than its
individual components (paint, canvas, brush; or tire, paint, metal,
respectively). In viewing the "whole," a cognitive process takes
place – the mind makes a leap from comprehending the parts to
realizing the whole. We visually and psychologically attempt to
make order out of chaos, to create harmony or structure from
seemingly disconnected bits of information.
The major principles are:
Similarity; Continuation; Closure; Proximity; Figure and Ground.
[http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm]
No material may be used without permission of author
An example of Closure
Closure occurs when an object is
incomplete or a space is not
completely enclosed. If enough of the
shape is indicated, people perceive the
whole by filling in the missing
information.
Although neither the panda nor the IBM
logo are complete, enough is present
for the eye to complete the shape.
When the viewer's perception
completes a shape, closure occurs.
You can view more example of the
Gestalt Principles here at:
http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/t
utorials/process/gestaltprinciples/gestal
tprinc.htm
And if you want to test your
understanding of these principles, try
this worksheet.
No material may be used without permission of author
Definition of Diversity according to the
McDaniel College Department of Education
“Diversity is defined as differences, or variety, among
groups of people based on a range and combination of
backgrounds and histories related to: ethnicity, race,
gender, language, socioeconomic status, sexual
orientation, disability, geographical region, religious
background, and exceptionalities in learning.”
If you click on the hyperlink on the word race, you
should be transported to the PBS website on Race. I
recommend that you check it out. – it’s very
interesting.
No material may be used without permission of author
Alphabet Soup – Do you know what all of
the terms mean?
 ESL
 ESOL
 *ELL
 CLD
 CLDE
 LEP
 PHLOTE
No material may be used without permission of
author
Alphabet Soup – Do you know what all of
these terms mean?
 ESL – English Second Language
 ESOL – English Speakers of Other Languages
 *ELL – English Language Learner [the




preferred term among many professionals in
the field of bilingual studies]
CLD – Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
CLDE – Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
with Exceptionality
LEP – Limited English Proficient [this is the
term still used by the federal government to
some degree, and some states as well]
PHLOTE – Primary Home Language Other
Than English
No material may be used without permission of
author
Reflective of California’s diversity, the majority of K–12 girls
(74%) are from an ethnic minority background.
[http://www.msmc.la.edu/PDFFiles/status-of-women/3-RSWG-education.pdf]
No material may be used without permission of author
Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services by
Race/Ethnicity and Disability Category – Ages 6-21 (http://www.IDEAdata.org,
2004)
Category
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black (Not
Hispanic)
Hispanic
White (Not
Hispanic)
Learning
Disability
1.74
1.67
20.13
19.74
56.72
Speech or
Language
Impairments
1.31
2.95
15.89
16.12
63.74
Mental
Retardation
1.21
1.98
33.46
12.35
51
Emotional
Disturbances
1.52
1.17
28.42
10.46
58.44
Estimated
Resident
Population
.98
4.1
15
17.6
62.2
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services by
Race/Ethnicity and Disability Category – Ages 6-21 (http://www.IDEAdata.org,
2007)
Category
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black (Not
Hispanic)
Hispanic
White (Not
Hispanic)
Learning
Disability
1.75
1.74
20.67
22.17
53.67
Speech or
Language
Impairments
1.37
3.27
15.21
19.44
60.71
Mental
Retardation
1.32
2.21
31.92
15.05
49.50
Emotional
Disturbances
1.60
1.17
28.84
11.80
56.59
Estimated
Resident
Population
.95
4.25
14.98
19.39
60.43
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Number and percentage of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part
B, by educational environment, race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2010
[https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc12.asp#partbLRE]
Hispanic
or Latino
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian
Black or
African
American
21.77
1.51
2.11
19.12
0.35
53.11
2.02
> 80%
21.43
1.54
1.98
16.87
0.24
55.86
2.09
40-79%
21.28
1.86
1.80
20.27
0.53
52.29
1.98
<40%
26.12
1.16
3.09
25.43
0.46
41.76
1.98
Total
Native
White Two or
Hawaiian
More
or Other
Races
Pacific
Islander
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Number and percentage of children and students ages 6 through 21 served
under IDEA, Part B, and as a percentage of the population, in the U.S. and
outlying areas, by gender and state: Fall 2010 [https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc12.asp#partbLRE]
Gender
Male
Female
Total
66.90
33.10
Total
3,895,455
1,927,353
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Number and percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part
B, and as a percentage of the population, in the U.S. and outlying areas, by LEP
status and state: Fall 2010 [https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc12.asp#partbCC]
Number of
students with disabilities
served under IDEA, Part B
Percent of students
served under IDEA, Part B
Limited
English
Proficient
Limited
English
Proficient
484,088
English
Proficient
5,337,880
English
Proficient
8.31
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
91.69
PreK-12 Legislation – Indirect Impact on
Postsecondary Education
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – 2001
 Four Pillars of NCLB:
 Stronger Accountability for Results
 More Freedom for States and
Communities
 Proven Education Methods
 More Choices for Parents
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Four Pillars of NCLB
No Child Left Behind is based on stronger accountability for results,
more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods,
and more choices for parents.
 Stronger Accountability for Results
Under No Child Left Behind, states are working to close the
achievement gap and make sure all students, including
those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic
proficiency. Annual state and school district report cards
inform parents and communities about state and school
progress. Schools that do not make progress must provide
supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school
assistance; take corrective actions; and, if still not making
adequate yearly progress after five years, make dramatic
changes to the way the school is run.
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
More Freedom for States and Communities
Under No Child Left Behind, states and school districts have
unprecedented flexibility in how they use federal
education funds. For example, it is possible for most school
districts to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal formula
grant funds they receive under the Improving Teacher
Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative
Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs to any
one of these programs, or to their Title I program, without
separate approval. This allows districts to use funds for
their particular needs, such as hiring new teachers,
increasing teacher pay, and improving teacher training and
professional development.
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Proven Education Methods
No Child Left Behind puts emphasis on determining which
educational programs and practices have been proven
effective through rigorous scientific research. Federal
funding is targeted to support these programs and teaching
methods that work to improve student learning and
achievement. In reading, for example, No Child Left Behind
supports scientifically based instruction programs in the
early grades under the Reading First program and in
preschool under the Early Reading First program.
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
More Choices for Parents
 Parents of children in low-performing schools have new
options under No Child Left Behind. In schools that do not
meet state standards for at least two consecutive years,
parents may transfer their children to a better-performing
public school, including a public charter school, within
their district. The district must provide transportation,
using Title I funds if necessary. Students from low-income
families in schools that fail to meet state standards for at
least three years are eligible to receive supplemental
educational services, including tutoring, after-school
services, and summer school. Also, students who attend a
persistently dangerous school or are the victim of a violent
crime while in their school have the option to attend a safe
school within their district.
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Legal Issues
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) [from AFT]

February 2004 – U.S. Department of Education made two important
policy changes with respect to the ELL subgroup and adequate yearly
progress (AYP) calculations.
(1) DOE will now allow states to exempt students who are new to this
country and to the English language from taking the
reading/language arts content assessment for one year.
 still be required to also take a mathematics content assessment,
with appropriate accommodations. States may, but would not be
required to, include results from the math, and, if given, the
reading/language arts content assessment in AYP calculations.
 will continue to count for NCLB's required 95 percent
participation rate.
As required under Title III, ELLs will continue to be tested for English
language proficiency.
(2) The second recent change announced by the Department will
allow states, for up to two years, to include in the ELL subgroup
students who have attained English proficiency.
No material may be used without permission of author
NCLB and ELLs with Disabilities
[National Center for Education Outcomes, 2005]
 Approximately 9% of total population of students with disabilities are




ELLs
Many states have policies and guidelines in place for the inclusion of
ELLs or for students with disabilities; few have specific information in
print or on the Web for those students who fall into both subgroups
Results of study of 14 states reflected that most states in the early stages
of determining how to most effectively accommodate English language
learners with disabilities in large scale assessments.
A common theme across states was utilization of both special
education policy and ELL policy for determining assessment needs of
ELLs with disabilities.
Members of the IEP team were the primary participants in the decision
making process
No material may be used without permission of
author
Data regarding students with disabilities
 The percentage of students with disabilities graduating
from high school with a diploma has risen steadily in recent
years from 51.7% in 1994 to 55.4% in 1998 (NCSPES, 2002).
 Data indicates that many students with disabilities are not
being appropriately identified and served during childhood
and adolescent years (National Council on Disabilities,
2003).
 The number of English Language Learners (ELLs) with
disabilities is estimated at about 357,325 nationwide
(Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, & Stephenson,
2003) or 9% of the total population of students with
disabilities (Thurlow, M. L., Anderson, M.E., Minnema,
J.E., & Hall-Lande, J. , 2005) .
No material may be used without permission of
author
More Legal Issues
 IDE(I)A 2004
 Mandates the participation of all students, including students with disabilities,
ELLs, and ELLs with disabilities in standard based instruction and assessment
initiatives
 Schools “shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a
severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral
expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill,
reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.”
(Section 1414(b))
 Summary of Performance (SOP): For a child whose eligibility under special
education terminates due to graduation with a regular diploma, or due to
exceeding the age of eligibility, the local education agency “shall provide the
child with a summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional
performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child
in meeting the child’s postsecondary goals” §Sec. 300.305(e)(3)
 Universal Design: “the state educational agency shall, to the extent feasible, use
universal design principles in developing and administering any assessments
under this paragraph” (IDEA- PL 108-446, Section 612,16E, 2004)
 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
 No otherwise qualified individuals shall, solely by reason of their disabilities, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination in these programs
 Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973
 Landmark Civil Rights Act for individuals with disabilities
No material may be used without permission of author
Summary of Performance and Transition
http://www.nsttac.org/indicator13/sop.aspx
http://www.ldanatl.org/aboutld/adults/docs/SOP_Template.doc
 The Summary of Performance (SOP) is required under the
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education (Improvement) Act of 2004. The language as
stated in IDEA 2004 regarding the SOP is as follows:
 For a child whose eligibility under special education
terminates due to graduation with a regular diploma, or
due to exceeding the age of eligibility, the local
education agency “shall provide the child with a
summary of the child’s academic achievement and
functional performance, which shall include
recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting
the child’s postsecondary goals” §Sec. 300.305(e)(3).
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
 Diagnosis of LD - A State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR 300.309, criteria
for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in
34 CFR 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State:



Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability
and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10);
Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific,
research-based intervention; and
May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for
determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34
CFR 300.8(c)(10).
A public agency must use the State criteria adopted pursuant to 34 CFR
300.307(a) in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.
[34 CFR 300.307] [20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 1401(30); 1414(b)(6)]
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Summary of Performance -For a child whose eligibility under Part B terminates
under circumstances described above, the LEA shall provide the child with a
summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance,
which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the
child’s postsecondary goals.
[34 CFR 300.305(e)(3)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(5)(B)(ii)]
Mandates the participation of all students, including students with disabilities,
ELLs, and ELLs with disabilities in standard based instruction and assessment
initiatives





Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Additional Legislation
 Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act—P.L.105-394)
 The Tech Act focuses on consumer access
 Funds made available to include information and referral services, funding
assistance and cash loans for devices, assessment for appropriate AT,
equipment demonstration and try-out, equipment loan, and refurbished
AT equipment
 English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement Act [PL 107-110]
 To assist State educational agencies and local educational agencies, and
schools to build their capacity to provide high-quality instructional
programs designed to prepare limited English proficient children,
including immigrant children and youth, to enter all-English instruction
settings.
 State Legislation
 MD Senate Bill 467 (House Bill 59) – Explore the Incorporation of the
Principles of Universal Design for Learning into the Education
Systems in Maryland
[http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb0059t.pdf]
No material may be used without permission of author
IDEIA (2008) and Disability Categories - Percentage of Students
in Special Education Disability Categories Nationally in Fall 2008
(IDEA §300.7 (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A) and (B); 1401(26 – National Center on Educational Outcomes -
http://movingyournumbers.org/purpose/students.cfm
Key Legislative Events Related to Language
 Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibited discrimination in Federally funded
programs. Subsequently cited in many court cases. Basically stated that a
student has a right to meaningful and effective instruction.
 Bilingual Education Acts of 1968 and 1974: Also known as Title VII. Provided
supplemental funding for school districts interested in establishing programs
to meet the "special educational needs" of large numbers of children of limited
English speaking ability in the United States.
 May 25, 1970 Memorandum: The Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (HEW) issued an interpretation of the Title VII regulations that
prohibited the denial of access to educational programs because of a student’s
limited English proficiency.
 Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974: Provided definitions of what
constituted denial of equal educational opportunity. Among them is "...the
failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome
language barriers that impede equal participation by students in an
instructional program."
 Lau vs. Nichols 1974: The US Supreme Court reaffirmed the 1970
Memorandum regarding denial of access and participation in an educational
program due to inability to speak or understand English in a class action suit
brought by Chinese speaking students in San Francisco against the school
district.
No material may be used without permission of author
Additional Language-related Legislation








Lau Remedies 1975: HEW established some basic guidelines for schools with Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students. Discontinued by the Reagan Administration.
Civil Rights Language Minority Regulations 1980: Regulations including four basic components:
Identification, assessment, services and exit. Requirement that bilingual instruction be given by
qualified teachers.
Castañeda vs. Pickard 1981 : Set the standard for the courts in examining programs for LEP students.
Basically districts must have:
 1. A pedagogically sound plan for LEP students.
 2. Sufficient qualified staff to implement the plan (includes hiring of new staff and training of
current staff).
 3. A system established to evaluate the program.
Castañeda did not require bilingual education programs to meet these standards. It required only
that "appropriate action to overcome language barriers" be taken through well implemented
programs.
Idaho vs. Migrant Council 1981: Established the legal responsibility of the State Department of
Education to monitor implementation of programs for LEP students.
Denver vs. School District No. 1 (Denver) 1983: Used Castañeda vs. Pickard decision to evaluate the
district program for LEP students.
Illinois vs. Gómez 1987: State responsibility includes establishing and enforcing minimums for
implementation of language remediation programs; requirements for the redesignation of students
from LEP to FEP (Fluent English Proficient) status.
Teresa P. vs. Berkeley Unified 1987: Used Castañeda vs. Pickard decision to evaluate the district
program for LEP students.
California Legislation:
 1967 Governor Ronald Reagan signs SB 53, the legislation allowing the use of other languages of
instruction in California public schools. This bill overturned the 1872 law requiring English-only
instruction
 June 3, 1998 Passage of Proposition 227 virtually banning bilingual education except under
certain special conditions and establishing a one-year "sheltered immersion" program for all LEP
students.
No material may be used without permission of author
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
 Teachers – Special Education
 Excellent job prospects are expected due to
rising enrollments of special education
students and reported shortages of qualified
teachers. Bilingual special education teachers
and those with multicultural experience also
are needed to work with an increasingly
diverse student population.
(http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos070.htm)
No material may be used without permission of author
Challenges for Bilingual Special Education
 Few states either recognize or certify for bilingual special






education
Special Education teachers rarely receive training in
Bilingual and/or ESOL education
And ESOL teachers rarely receive training in Special
Education
Appropriate assessment materials limited
Limited and inconsistent training of diagnosticians
Inconsistent programming
Under- and Overrepresentation
Take a moment to click on the hyperlink above
[diagnosticians] and take the Self-Assessment Checklist
at this url:
http://www11.georgetown.edu/research/gucchd/nccc/documents/Che
cklist.CSHN.doc.pdf
No material may be used without permission of author
Challenges Specific to ELLs with Disabilities
 Paucity of materials appropriate for ELLs (most are in Spanish only)
 Not all diagnosticians adequately prepared to assess ELLs with




disabilities
The goal would be to conduct assessments in the individual’s native
language in order to get the most accurate picture
As immigrant population increases, more ELLs may arrive on college
campuses with previously diagnosed, or more often undiagnosed, LD;
ELLs with disabilities and/or their families may not understand how to
access services.
Few states recognize unique needs of bilingual special education
students even in the PreK-12th grade settings enough to certify teachers
as Bilingual Special Education specialists; many states follow ESOL vs.
Bilingual model
Communication/instruction exclusively in English more problematic;
potential language and cultural barriers
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Alignment of Instruction with State Content/Performance
Standards (OELA, 2003) [http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021195/policy_report.pdf]
 Instructional programs for ELLs with disabilities are not
aligned with state content/performance standards to the
same extent as are instructional programs for other
students with disabilities
 In 89.8% of districts teachers of ELLs with disabilities
received materials related to the general education
curriculum, whereas materials specific to the curriculum for
ELLs were only available in 47.9% of districts
 In 4% of districts, no curriculum materials were provided to
teachers of ELLs with disabilities
No material may be used without permission of author
Alignment of Instruction with State
Content/Performance Standards
 Training for applying content standards to ELLs is not
offered to the same extent as training for applying content
standards to other students. Teachers of ELLs with
disabilities received:
 General training for applying standards in 82.7% of districts;
 Training specific to the application of standards to ELLs in
41.7% of districts
 Training specific to the application of standards to ELLs with
disabilities in 32.2% of districts
No material may be used without permission of
author
English Learners With Disabilities
“Five states and all 12 case study districts raised challenges associated with accurate identification of
ELs with disabilities.
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, ELs represent a diverse group of students. Title III officials in
four states specifically mentioned challenges associated with accurately identifying EL students who also
had disabilities,and interviewees in all 12 case study districts mentioned the same challenges. Their
common theme was the difficulty of “disentangling” learning difficulties from language barriers when
determining whether ELs should receive special education services. As a result, ELs may be placed in
special education programs even when they would not need these services, or conversely, ELs may not be
placed in special education programs even when they could benefit from these services.
Across the case study districts, students who had disabilities and were not proficient in English were typically
identified as ELs first and subsequently received further consideration for special education. However, the
actual identification process for special education varied. Four districts screened ELs for special education
by following the same general procedures designed for non-ELs.
Another seven districts included additional steps in the special education screening process to address the
language issue when they screened ELs with disabilities. For example, six of the seven districts included
teachers who specialize in EL instruction or a team of EL specialists in the special education team who
screened ELs. The team considered students’ native language assessment results, nonverbal assessment
results, and records of language support services received.
The case study data indicate that districts were cautious about referring ELs to special education because of
the difficulty in distinguishing learning difficulties from language barriers. Interviewees in at least three
case study districts [B, A, and J] expressed concern over the delays this could cause in getting students the
services they needed. For example, at least four case study districts [H, K, G, and A] discouraged
immediate placement of ELs into special education in order to prevent overrepresentation of ELs in special
education. Three of these districts required additional language interventions or strategies to be tried out
before ELs were screened for special education .”
You might find additional information from this report of interest, as follows:
National Evaluation of Title III Implementation – Report on State and Local Implementation, US Department of Education
(2012, p. 33-34): http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/state-local-implementation-report.pdf
No material may be used without permission of author
Learning is a Complex Neurological Process
[http://fame.oln.org/udl/f2_18_173.html]
Students with Learning Disabilities, for example, activate larger and more diverse
areas of the brain when they read. For children with dyslexia, disruption in the
rear reading systems in the left hemisphere that are critical for skilled, fluent
reading (Area B in Figure 2) leads the children to try and compensate by using
other, less efficient systems (Area A in Figure 2 and systems in the right
hemisphere).
Hudson, R.F., High, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us? Retrieved from
http://www.ldonline.org/article/14907/
No material may be used without permission of author
According to a recent study, students with blindness or visual impairments utilize
the visual cortex when they kinesthetically "read" Braille. In fact, the visual
cortices clearly responded to language, not to space. Moreover, they were most
active in response to high-level language demands, just as the brain’s “traditional”
language centers are.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/language-and-blind-brains/
Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) may be using
different pathways to process information, especially in working memory tasks.
Individuals with AD/HD showed a very different pattern of blood flow in the brain
while taking the test. Instead of having activity in the frontal regions, they had
increased blood flow in the basal ganglia, especially when their answers were
correct. The basal ganglia area is typically associated with response readiness
and motor control.
Read more: http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/adhd.htm#ixzz1vkV77atU
No material may be used without permission of
author
“ At the neuronal level, a person who learns
to read in Chinese uses a very particular set
of neuronal connections that differ in
significant ways from the pathways used in
reading English. When Chinese readers first
try to read in English, their brains attempt to
use Chinese-based neuronal pathways. The
act of learning to read Chinese characters
has literally shaped the Chinese reading
brain (Wolf, 2007, p. 5).”
Taken from Proust and The Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain
No material may be used without permission of author
American Multicultural Transitions
 19th century Americanization model (merging all
students into one “American” ideal)
 Melting Pot (1900s) – cultural assimilation or
amalgamation
 Salad Bowl
 Ethnic Stew
No material may be used without permission of author
Worldview (based on Ibrahim, 1991)
In its application, two things are necessary:
 The worldviews of both the teacher and the student
must be recognized and understood (including an
awareness of the cultural identities of both parties),
and
 the worldviews “must be placed within a sociopolitical
context, history of migration, acculturation level,
languages spoken, and comfort with mainstream
assumptions and values”
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Scale to Assess World View (SAWV)
(Ibrahim & Kahn, 1994)
 Nature
 “people vs. nature” orientation, including whether we believe people subjugate
and control nature, live in harmony with nature, or accept the power and
control of nature over people
 Time Orientation
 temporal focus, including whether we value and function according to the past,
present, or future
 Activity Orientation
 preferred modality of human activity, including being, being-in-becoming, and
doing
 Human Relationships
 “relational orientation” or how we function in social relationships, including
linear-hierarchical, collateral-mutual, and individualistic
 Human Nature
 view of “humankind,” including good, bad, or immutable (a combination of
good and bad). A person who believes that all human beings have the potential
for good is at the opposite end of the continuum compared to someone who
believes that most people are born with the propensity to do bad things
No material may be used without permission of author
Worldview Model*
 Sue (1981) offers the concept of a Worldview model in order to understand how
one thinks and behaves in making decisions and interpreting events. This is a
useful model to consider when working with families.
 Two psychological orientations:
locus of control (C) and
 focus of responsibility (R); and
 Two directions of force:
 internal (I) and
 external (E).

 IC-IR: These individuals believe that success is the result of one's own
efforts, and they have a strong sense of control over what happens.
 EC-ER: These individuals feel they have no control over what is happening
and feel that such obstacles are not their responsibility either.
 IC-ER: These individuals realize they are able to affect their children's lives
if given a chance, though they realize that outside barriers like prejudice
might hinder their ability to succeed.
 EC-IR: These individuals accept the dominant culture's definition of self
responsibility, yet do not have any control over what is happening around
them.
Expressing ourselves non-verbally in writing –
Cross-cultural differences
Western emoticons
: D [laughing]
QQ [crying]
: X [embarrassed]
ಠ_ಠ [look of disapproval]
Eastern emoticons
(^_^) [laughing]
(‘_’) [sad/crying]
(^_^;) [embarrassed]
m(__)m [kowtow, as a
sign of respect]
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Non-verbal body language - Handshakes
Handshakes can vary from culture to culture, and can even be different
among individuals within the same culture. In parts of Northern
Europe a quick firm “one-pump” handshake is expected. In parts of
Southern Europe, Central and South America, a handshake is longer
and warmer –the left hand usually touches the clasped hands, the
elbow, or even the lapel of the shakee. In Turkey, a firm handshake may
be considered rude and aggressive. In certain African countries, a limp
handshake is the standard. Men in Islamic countries usually do not
shake the hands of women outside the family. In the highlands of New
Guinea, the traditional greeting is for one person to extend a bent
forefinger , which the other person pinches between his fore and
middle fingers. Both hands are then rapidly pulled apart, causing the
fore and middle fingers to make a "snapping" sound. The process is
then repeated with the roles reversed.
No material may be used without permission of author
Disability in Cross-Cultural Perspective
(Groce,
1999)
 Cultures view disability in three ways:
 By its cause
 By its effect on valued attributes
 By the status of the individual with a disability as an
adult
No material may be used without permission of author
Cultural Perspectives
 Collectivism (Asian, African American, Native American, Latino/a) vs.
Individualism (European American)
 In Northern Mexico & Botswana disability is evidence of God's trust in a
parent's ability to care for a child
 African American parents may hold broader perceptions of normalcy and have
a broader range of expectations for children's behavioral developmental
milestones than do many educational professionals; may also depend heavily
on spiritual support
 Among Hispanics/Latinos, families often serve as a powerful support system
and some conditions are viewed as reflection of individual differences rather
than disability; therefore, they adapt family and work roles to accommodate
those differences. However, severe disability, especially developmental
disability, is considered a stigma for many traditional Hispanic families; some
groups may use folk healing with professional interventions
 Asian families sometimes struggle with “loss of face,” feelings of guilt, privacy,
desire to use traditional practitioners along with or in lieu of professionals
 Native American families may use belief in the interrelatedness of spirit and
body and seek spiritual help in conjunction with mainstream practices
No material may be used without permission of author
Medical Model vs. Cultural Model
(Kalynapur & Harry, 1999)
 Medical Model:
 Disability is a physical phenomenon.
 Disability is an individual phenomenon.
 Disability is a chronic illness.
 Disability requires remediation or fixing.
 Cultural Model:
 Disability is a spiritual phenomenon.
 Disability is a group phenomenon (e.g., the
family and society are causal agents).
 Disability is a time-limited phenomenon.
 Disability must be accepted, which affects
whether the family seeks intervention.
No material may be used without permission of author
Cultural Reciprocity
(Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999)
 Step 1: Identify the cultural values in your interpretation of a student's
difficulties or in the recommendation for service.
 Step 2: Find out whether the family members being served recognize
and value your assumptions, and if not, how their views differ from
yours.
 Step 3: Acknowledge and give explicit respect to any cultural
differences identified, and fully explain the cultural basis of your
assumptions.
 Step 4: Through discussion and collaboration, set about determining
the most effective way of adapting your professional interpretations or
recommendations to the value system of this family.
No material may be used without permission of author
Understanding Your Cultural Identity
Teachers can also use Vaughn, Bos & Schumm’s (2009) twelve cultural characteristics as a basis for selfassessment by examining their own values and morays as follows:
 Time: Perceptions of both time and timeliness.
 Space: Measure of personal space when interacting with others.
 Dress and Food: Examining whether there are different dress codes for different ages, genders, and
socioeconomic background; acceptable clothing; and characteristic foods.
 Rituals and Ceremonies: General rituals and ceremonies observed by the individual and his or her
family; measures of demonstrating respect.
 Work: Values of employment, including age at which an individual should begin to work and type of work
expected in the home and in the community, and comfort with collaboration.
 Leisure: Opportunities for and ways of playing, relaxing, and enjoyment in the home and the community.
 Gender Roles: An examination of specific tasks performed by males and females and expectations of each
gender’s achievements, with attention given to specific subject areas.
 Status: Examining family influences on one’s place in society, and evaluating the role that schools and
educators play in an individual’s life as opposed to the influence of family on educational choices.
 Goals: Identifying influential and attractive employment goals, the role of education in achieving those
goals, and the educational expectations for the individual.
 Education: Examining how the individual was taught at home, including exploring styles such as stories,
analogies, direct instruction, nonverbal cues, imitation and modeling, corporal punishment, etc.
 Communication: Exploring the significance of verbal and nonverbal communication for learning and
teaching; examining the function of silence, specific questions, rhetorical questions, and mode of
discussion; identifying the language(s) of communication; and exploring the value of and intensity of
reading and writing.
 Interaction: Exploring how and whether the individual interacts individually, cooperatively, and
competitively.
No material may be used without permission of author
Cultural Characteristics and Collaboration with
Families (Orza, J. & Medina,. J. 2011)
 Dealing with feelings of alienation
 Value extended family
 Facilitate positive parent-school relationships
 Maintain high expectations
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Collaborating With Teachers, Administrators, Support
Personnel, and Family
 Emphasis on confidentiality
 Stress student’s self-advocacy and self-
awareness/self-determination (teach if necessary)
 Develop a collaborative partnership with all parties –
including the student, if appropriate
 Provide adequate and equal services – ESOL and
Special Education
No material may be used without permission of author
Myths of Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism
Answer each of the following statements with true or false.
1. Adults learn second
languages more quickly and easily than young children.
T F
2. According to research, students in ESL-only programs, with no schooling in their
native language, take 7-10 years to reach grade level norms. T F
3. A lot of immigrant children have learning disabilities, not language problems.
They speak English just fine but they are still failing academically. T F
4. Older generations of immigrants learned without all the special language
programs that immigrant children receive now. It was "sink or swim" and they did
just fine!
T F
5. Second language learners will acquire academic English faster if their parents
speak English at home. T F
6. The more time students spend soaking up English in the mainstream classroom,
the more they quickly they will learn the language.
T F
7. Once students can speak English, they are ready to undertake the academic tasks
of the mainstream classroom. T F
8. Cognitive and academic development in native language has an important and
positive effect on second language acquisition. T F
9. The culture of students doesn’t affect how long it takes them to acquire English.
All students learn language the same way. T F
Judie Haynes, everythingESL.net , 2002 [ http://www.everythingesl.net/downloads/myths_SLA02.pdf ]
l No materia may be used without permission of author
The IEP Process for CLDE
(Collier,C. 2004)
 Set up and conduct IEP meeting
 Review Intervention and Evaluation information
 Identify all of the student’s needs
 Acculturation
 Cognitive learning styles
 Culture
 Experience
 Language
 Identify appropriate interventions and approaches,
including Assistive Technology
 Don’t forget about transition
No material may be used without permission of author
To ensure adequate instruction for
students with LD [Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn]:
• Identification must focus on assessments that are
directly related to instruction.
• Services for struggling students must focus on
intervention, not eligibility.
• Special education must focus on results and
outcomes, not eligibility and process.
• Identification models that include RTI will lead to
better achievement and behavior outcomes for
students with LD and those at risk for LD.
No material may be used without permission of author
Factors Related to Identification and Prevention of
Language-related Disabilities [Lyon & Fletcher]
 Remediation rarely effective beyond 2nd
grade
 Current measurement practices run counter
to identifying LD prior to 2nd grade
 Federal policy and the sociology of public
education allow ineffective policies to
continue unchecked.
 Early intervention is key!
No material may be used without permission of author
Response to Intervention Model [NRCD & Baca/Fletcher]
 Students receive high quality instruction in general
education classroom
 Native language literacy should be priority
 General education instruction is research-based
 General education personnel play an integral role in
curriculum assessment
 Use CBA and dynamic assessment
 Assessment focus on bilingual strengths
 Universal screening of academics & behavior
 Continuous monitoring of performance & identify
difficulties
 Use of research-based interventions
 Systematic assessment of intervention
 Collect data on intervention efficacy and modify as
needed
No material may be used without permission of author
Essential Components of RTI
National Center on RTI - http://www.rti4success.org/
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Response to Intervention
http://www.backbonecommunications.com/news/arizona-rti-example-response-to-intervention-tier-1-2-3/
No material may be used without permission of author
Response to Intervention – Three-tiered Model
 Tier 1: General Education – Research-based core
curriculum
 Tier 2: Early Intervening Services - Increasing the
time and intensity of the child's exposure to the
core curriculum for children who do not appear to
be responding appropriately to Tier 1 instruction.
 Tier 3: Intensive Intervention - Includes many
children who have been found eligible for special
education and related services, and some who
have not.
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
Alphabet Soup
 AYP – adequate yearly progress
 Auditory Discrimination – The ability to identify the differences





between sounds.
Automaticity – The ability to complete a task without thinking of the
step-by-step process. Reading requires automaticity, as does driving a
car with standard transmission.
BICS – Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
CALP – Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
CHC Model – Catell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities
Executive Functions – The process of cognitive activity, including
thought processes revolving around the ability to participate in and
control directed, strategic, self-regulated, and goal-oriented behavior.
No material may be used without permission of
author
More Alphabet Soup
 Corroboration – In looking at test results from different instruments, there
should be confirmation between tests for similar skills. For example, you would
expect to find similar results in tests and subtests that evaluated reading
comprehension skills.
 Crystallized Intelligence – Raymond Cattell’s theory that intelligence falls into
two types: crystallized (Gc) and fluid (Gf). Crystallized intelligence is made up of
abilities that are influenced by acculturation. On the WJ-III, Gc may be measured
by Verbal Comprehension and General Information.
 FAPE – Free and Appropriate Education
 Fluid Intelligence – Raymond Cattell’s theory that intelligence falls into two
types: crystallized (Gc) and fluid (Gf). Fluid Intelligence is affected by
neurological and biological causes, as well as supplementary learning via
interfacing with one’s environs. On the WJ-III, Gf can be measured by Concept
Formation and Analysis-Synthesis.
 LRE – least restrictive environment
No material may be used without permission of
author
Principles of Assessment
 An assessment is only as good as the individual who





interprets the data
An assessment is a continuous, dynamic process
A test is only a small sample of behavior – a snapshot
Any single test or observation in isolation is insufficient
grounds for drawing meaningful diagnostic conclusions
Academic or other difficulties are rarely attributable to a
single cause
Assessment is far more than determining an individual’s
weaknesses – it is more important to ask, “What can this
student do?”
No material may be used without permission of
author
Assessment of English language learners with special needs
should include the following:[adapted from Morrison]
 Consideration of cultural and developmental





information
Collaboration of parents, teachers, counselors,
psychologists, speech/language pathologists, and
ESL specialists
Determination of first language proficiency
Determination of English Language Proficiency
Examination of assessor's cultural assumptions and
expectations
Continual revision of the assessment instruments
and procedures used
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Identification of English language learners with
exceptionalities should also include
consideration of the following factors:[adapted from
Morrison]







Family history
Developmental and health history
First language and literacy development
Previous schooling
Cultural attitudes toward education
Learning styles
Learner’s current academic ability
No material may be used without permission of author
Assessment of English language learners with special needs should also
include the following:
 Consideration of cultural and developmental information
 Collaboration of parents, teachers, counselors, psychologists,
speech/language pathologists, and ESL specialists
 Determination of first language (L1) proficiency
 Home Language Survey
 Determination of rate & level of acculturation and sociocultural profile
(RTI-Tier 1)
 Determination of English Language Proficiency – BICS/CALP


LAS Links, CELDT, SPEAK, TSE, SELP
SOLOM, Classroom Language Interaction Checklist
 Examination of assessor’s assumptions and expectations regarding
bilingualism, code switching, first language loss, etc., as well as cultural
assumptions and expectations
 Continual revision of the assessment instruments and procedures used
No material may be used without permission of author
Acculturation (Collier, C., 2004)








Number of years in US
Number of years in school
Time in ESOL program
Home language proficiency
English language proficiency
Bilingual proficiency
Ethnicity/national origin
Percent in school speaking student’s langauge or dialect
No material may be used without permission of author
Sociocultural Profile Factors (Collier, C., 2004)
 Acculturation level
 Code switching, stress/anxiety in cross-cultural interactions,
confusion of locus of control
 Cognitive learning style
 Perseverance, task analysis, cause/effect
 Culture & language
 Culturally appropriate behaviors, not mainstream
 Experiential background
 SES, school attendance, school behaviors, family mobility
 Sociolinguistic development
No material may be used without permission of author
Common Diagnostic Tests For Individuals
With Learning Disabilities
 Cognitive
 Achievement
 Memory
 Visual/Spatial Perception
 Foreign Language
 Receptive Language
No material may be used without permission of author
Cognitive Tests – This is only a partial list of the range of
cognitive tests available. The following slides are additional
examples of other kinds of tests.














WISC-IV and WISC-IV Integrated [6-16.11]
WISC-IV Spanish [6-16]
WAIS-IV [16-90] and WAIS-IV Canadian [16-90]
WJ-IIINU [2-90+]
Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz [2-90]
KABC-II [3-18]
KAIT [11-85+]
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System [8-89]
Stanford-Binet-V [2-90]
Differential Ability Scales-II [2.5-17.11]
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (individual and multilevel) [5-17]
TONI-4 [6-90]
Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale [3-94]
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence -II[6-90.11]
No material may be used without permission of author
Achievement/Language Processing
 Aprenda 3 [K-12th]
 Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test-NU [5-Adult]
 Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 &







CELF-4 Spanish [5-21]
Gray Oral Reading Test-4 [6-18]
KeyMath3 [4:6-21:11]
Test Of Adolescent and Adult Language-4 [12-24.11]
Test Of Written Language -4 [9-17.11]
Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test-III[4.050.11]
Wechsler Fundamentals: Academic Skills [5-50]
Woodcock-Johnson-III Diagnostic Reading Battery [290+]
No material may be used without permission of author
Memory
 Wechsler Memory Scale-IV [16-90.11]
 Wechsler Memory Scale – Third Edition – Abbreviated
[16-89]
 Memory Assessment Scale [18-90]
 Children’s Memory Scale [5-16]
 California Verbal Learning Test – Second Edition [1689]
 California Verbal Learning Test – Children’s Version
[5-16.11]
No material may be used without permission of author
Visual/Spatial Perception
 Benton Visual Retention Test-5th Edition (BVRT-5) [2



adult]
Bender-Gestalt II [4-85]
Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration-Fifth Edition (VMI-5) [2-18.11]
Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Second Edition
(DTVP-2) [4-10]
Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Adult (DTVP-A)
[11-74]
No material may be used without permission of author
Receptive Language
 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition
(PPVT-IV) [2.6-90]
 Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA) [16-70]
 IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT) [preK-12th]
 Language Assessment Scales-Links (LAS-Links) [K12th]
No material may be used without permission of author
What is a Learning Disability?
 According to the National Center for Learning Disabilities:
A learning disability (LD) is a neurological disorder that affects the
brain's ability to receive, process, store and respond to information.
The term learning disability is used to describe the seeming
unexplained difficulty a person of at least average intelligence has
in acquiring basic academic skills. These skills are essential for
success at school and work, and for coping with life in general. LD
is not a single disorder. It is a term that refers to a group of
disorders.
Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/
No material may be used without permission of author
Please do not use any material without permission of the author
What is Intelligence?
 According to Howard Gardner:
"The ability to solve a problem or create a product
that is valued within one or more cultures."
No material may be used without permission of author
No material may be used without permission of author
Possible Diagnostic Indicators, Skills, and Deficits of
Learning Disabilities
 Oral language - auditory discrimination; ordering of
syllables within words
 Oral reading - word substitution; word attack;
transposition, substitution, or omission of
letters/syllables
 Spelling - omissions, substitutions, or transposition of
letters/syllables; similar words
No material may be used without permission of
author
Diagnostic Indicators, Skills, and Deficits continued
 Arithmetic - place values; decimals; calculation (addition,
subtraction, multiplication, division); sequencing (times
tables, long division, money, time, or measurement)
 Writing - vocabulary/syntax; sentence complexity;
homophones; organization
 Other areas – memory; attention; adjustment; visuospatial
skills; social/behavioral skills
No material may be used without permission of
author
No material may be used without permission of author
Psychoeducational Reports: A Diverse
Perspective
 Initial Screening (e.g., interview, SATA, PPVT, consider
native language, etc.)
 Comprehensive Evaluation
 Background information (family history, developmental and
health history, First language and literacy development
previous schooling, cultural attitudes toward education, rate of
acculturation, sociocultural profile, learning styles)
 cognitive (reasoning, language use, visual/spatial skills,
memory, and executive functions)
 social-emotional
 academic achievement
 summary and recommendations
No material may be used without permission of author
Key Components of Psychoeducational Reports
 Tests administered
 Background information
 Test results
 Test corroboration
 Diagnosis
 Recommendations
No material may be used without permission of author
Reading Psychoeducational Reports: SIRCH
[Medina]





Survey/scan report
Isolate & identify tools administered
Read report - look for test results & test corroboration
Check for discrepancies & profiles & diagnosis
Home in on recommendations/accommodations
No material may be used without permission of author
An effective instructional program for ELLs
with disabilities
 provides instruction consistent with students’:
 cultural and linguistic backgrounds;
 degrees of acculturation;
 prior school experiences; and
 learning styles and preferences; (Collier, 1998)
 and simultaneously addresses their:
 cultural characteristics;
 language needs; and
 identified disabilities (Cloud, 2002).
No material may be used without permission of author
Yet, ELLs with disabilities are less likely than their peers
w/o disabilities to receive services specifically designed
for ELLs
 Extensive services specifically designed for ELLs are
provided to only 27.7% of ELLs with disabilities (vs. 52% for
their non-disabled peers)
 Some instruction designed to support/supplement regular
instruction (ESL pull-out) is provided to 56.2% of ELLs
with disabilities (vs. 36.4% for their peers)
 No services specifically designed for ELLs are provided to
16.1% of ELLs with disabilities (vs. 11.7% for their peers)
No material may be used without permission of author
ELLs with disabilities are more likely to receive all English
instruction and less likely to receive instruction involving
significant native language use than their peers w/o disabilities.
 63% (vs. 59.6% of peers) receive all English instruction
 23.9% (vs. 20.1% of peers) receive some native
language instruction (2-24% of instruction)
 13.1% (vs. 20.4% of peers) significant native language
use (25% of instruction)
No material may be used without permission of author
Reading to Learn
In content area classrooms students are expected to read and
comprehend increasingly more difficult text. Yet students
with language-related disabilities, including ELLs often
may lack:
 content area vocabulary;
 familiarity with subject content;
 familiarity with expository text structure;
 basic decoding skills and reading fluency;
 effective reading strategies that facilitate comprehension of
content area text; and
 the ability to activate and integrate prior knowledge.
No material may be used without permission of author
Content Area Instruction
Teachers of ELLs with language related disabilities must
integrate the teaching of language and reading skills
into content area instruction.
During content area instruction, effective teachers:
 Use instructional strategies known to effective for ELLs
(Ortiz, Robertson, Wilkinson, & Kushner, 2004)
 Negotiate meaning, help students to convey messages
which focus on meaning, and expand and refine
student language (Met, 1994)
No material may be used without permission of author
Content Area Instruction
Effective teachers additionally:
 Merge language development with content instruction,
adapt language input to differing proficiency levels to
contextualize learning, and create multiple
opportunities for the negotiation of meaning (Milk,
1992)
 Provide native language instruction and/or adapt
instruction using ESL strategies (Yates & Ortiz, 1998;
Cloud, 2002).
 Employ explicit cognitive and metacognitive strategy
instruction to transfer strategies learned in L1 to
English (Bos & Reyes, 1996).
No material may be used without permission of author
Instructional Techniques for Accommodating ELLs with
Disabilities Reported in the Research and Research-toPractice Literature
 Plan for and accommodate students’ individual abilities
when setting expectations, assigning tasks, and making
grading modifications (Fletcher, Bos, & Johnson, 1999).
 Provide focused, teacher-directed remediation in areas of
need (Fletcher, Bos, & Johnson, 1999; Kaufman, 1996; Zigmond & Baker, 1996).
No material may be used without permission of author
Additional ELL/D Accommodations
 Use the native language to: provide access to challenging
content area knowledge and skills (Reyes, Duran, & Bos, 1989;
Lopez & Reyna, 1996; Gersten & Baker, 2000); intensify and prolong
engagement (Willig, Swedo, & Ortiz, 1988);clarify and elaborate
key concepts taught in English (Tikunoff, Ward, van Broekhuizen,
Romero, Castaneda, Lucas, & Katz, 1991); and,encourage peer
mediation of complex procedures (Klingner & Vaughn 1996).
 Provide for mediated learning by teachers, teacher
assistants, or more proficient peers to make new
information and learning tasks accessible (Santamaría, Fletcher, &
Bos, 2002).
No material may be used without permission of author
ELL/D Accommodations continued
 Provide materials scaffolds, in the form of advance
organizers (e.g. story starters or idea calendars ) and
task scaffolds (e.g. tape-recorded description of an
experiment) which reduce the amount of information
students must independently generate (Santamaría,
Fletcher, & Bos, 2002). Then gradually withdraw them,
as students demonstrate greater capacity for
independent learning.
 Deliver explicit, teacher-directed phonics instruction,
as it is integral to the development of decoding skills in
students with severe reading problems (Fuchs, 1996;
Stanovich, 1994).
No material may be used without permission of author
ELL/D Accommodations continued
 Connect reading and writing by having students generate
oral or written summaries of texts or by having them read
books with predictable language patterns; generate their
own books, using these language patterns; use language
experience approach, and finally read the books they have
written (Englert, Raphael, & Mariage, 1994).
 Allot time to plan and collaborate with other faculty and
specialists (Fletcher, Bos, & Johnson, 1999;Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher &
Saunell, 1996).
 Utilize the principles of Universal Design for Learning and
incorporate Assistive Technology (eg., voice-synthesized
software programs, like textHELP) (www.cast.org).
No material may be used without permission of author
Related Resources on the Internet







Crosscultural Developmental Education Services www.crosscultured.com
Teaching Tolerance www.teachingtolerance.org
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) www.cec.sped.org
National Association for Bilingual Education www.nabe.org
TESOL www.tesol.org
LDOnline www.ldonline.org
White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
http://www.yic.gov/
 Families and Advocates Partnership for Education www.fape.org
 National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
www.nichcy.org
 Summary of Performance
www.ldaamerica.org/aboutld/adults/docs/SOP_Template.doc
No material may be used without permission of author
References
Anderson, M. E., Minnema, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Hall-Lande, J. (2004). Confronting the unique
challenges of including English language learners with disabilities in statewide assessment (ELLs with
Disabilities Report 9). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes.
Baca, L. & Cervantes, H. (2004). The bilingual special education interface, 4th edition. Boston: Pearson.
Baca, L. & Fletcher, J. (n.d.).Future directions for preactice with ELLs. Retrieved from
www.nccrest.org/ELL_PPT/Baca_Fletcher.ppt
Collier, C. (2004). Separating difference from disability. Ferndale, WA:Crossculutral Developmental
Educational Services.
Diaz-Rico, L. & Weed, K.Z. (1995). The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A
complete K-12 reference guide. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fletcher, Jack M., W. Alan Coulter, Daniel J. Reschly & Sharon Vaughn. Alternative approaches to the
definition and identification of learning disabilities: some questions and answers. From Annals of
Dyslexia. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/_lib/pdfs/RTIannalsfinal.pdf
Groce, N. E. (August 28, 1999). Disability in cross-cultural perspective: Rethinking disability. The Lancet
354, 756-757.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Lyon, G. R.& Fletcher, J. (2001). Early warning system. Retrieved from
http://www.educationnext.org/200212/22.html
Morrison, S. (n.d.). English language learners with special needs. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/special.html.
No material may be used without permission of author
National Research Center on Disabilities(2003). Response to intervention models, identify,
evaluate & scale. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti/RTIinfo.pdf
Orza. J. & Medina, J.(2007). Diversity in the classroom [co-author of chapter 3 in:
Zirpoli, T., Behavior management: Applications for teachers, 5th edition.
New York, NY: Prentice Hall.]
Rivera, C., Stansfield, C. W., Scialdone, L., & Sharkey, M. (2000). An analysis of state
policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in
state assessment programs, 1998–99. Arlington, VA: Center for Equity and
Excellence in Education, George Washington University.
Thurlow, M. L., Anderson, M.E., Minnema, J.E., & Hall-Lande, J. (2005).
Policymaker perspectives on the inclusion of English Language Learners with
disabilities in statewide assessments. (ELLs with disabilities report 8).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes. Retrieved from
http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/ELLsDisReport8.html.
Thurlow, M. L., Minnema, J. E., & Treat, J. E. (2004) A review of 50 states’ online large-scale
assessment policies: Are English language learners with disabilities considered?
(ELLs with Disabilities Report 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2003). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and atrisk students in the general education classroom, 3rd edition. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T.
G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students
with disabilities (No. 4 Special topic report: findings on special education
No material may be used without permission of
LEP students).
Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.
author