Hispanic Representation in Special Education: Patterns and Implications

Hispanic Representation in Special Education: Patterns and Implications Mark Guiberson

ABSTRACT: The inaccurate placement of minority students in

not identified and do not receive appropriate services. Last, misidentification occurs when students with disabilities are identified as having a disability that they do not have (Meyer & Patton; Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2006). Recent demographic data reveal that Hispanics compose the fastest growing and largest minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). I use the term Hispanic throughout this article to correspond with the term used in the sources that I reviewed. However, the terminology to describe people with Hispanic origins continues to evolve, and some people may prefer other terms (e.g., Latino and Latina or specific national origins such as Mexican, Chilean, or Nicaraguan; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The Hispanic population in the United States is diverse. Variables such as country of origin, reason for and type of migration, level of acculturation, and family educational history make each Hispanic family and student unique (Zuniga, 2004). Taking into consideration the history of disproportionate representation of minorities in special education and current demographic trends in the United States, it is important to ask, “Are Hispanic children disproportionately represented in special education?” To answer the question, I conducted a literature review in a systematic manner using computerized databases. Also, I provide an integrative review of the literature on Hispanic representation in special education, present specific issues that complicate the accurate identification of Hispanic or Latino, and identify implications for practice.

special education programs can take various forms including overrepresentation, underrepresentation, and misidentification. First, overrepresentation occurs when the percentage of minority students in special education programs is greater than that in the school population as a whole. Second, underrepresentation occurs when students with disabilities are not identified and do not receive appropriate services. Last, misidentification occurs when students with disabilities are identified as having a disability different from the one they actually have (G. Meyer & J. M. Patton, 2001; C. Y. Wilkinson, A. A. Ortiz, P. M. Robertson, & M. I. Kushner, 2006). To answer the question of whether Hispanic children are disproportionately represented in special education, the author conducted a literature review in a systematic manner using computerized databases. In addition, the author provides an integrative review of the literature on Hispanic representation in special education, presents specific issues that complicate the accurate identification of Hispanic or Latino, and identifies implications for practice.

KEYWORDS: Hispanic and Latino students, intervention, multicultural education, referral, special education programs

EDUCATORS HAVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED with the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education programs. In his seminal study, Dunn (1968) found that 60–80% of children in special education programs were minorities or from lower SES backgrounds. More than 40 years later, the disproportionate representation persists, despite the attention of the Office of Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Gersten, & Woodward, 1994; Meyer & Patton, 2001). The inaccurate placement of minority students in special education programs can take various forms including overrepresentation, underrepresentation, and misidentification. First, overrepresentation occurs when the percentage of minority students in special education programs is greater than that in the school population as a whole. Second, underrepresentation occurs when students with disabilities are

Method In this integrative review of the literature, I focus on two broad themes: patterns of Hispanic representation in special Address correspondence to Mark Guiberson, University of Northern Colorado, Campus Box 140, Greeley, CO 80639, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications 167

168

Preventing School Failure

education and implications for practitioners. I applied the following strategies that Creswell (2003) described: Step 1: Identify keywords (e.g., Hispanic, Latino, special education, intervention, referral, multicultural education). Step 2: Search for these and a combinations of these keywords in computerized databases (e.g., Education Research Information Center, PsychINFO). Step 3: Obtain copies of articles or books from the search. Step 4: Identify articles and books that are useful and relevant (i.e., include articles that tie into the broad themes of the literature review). Step 5: Sort these articles into the broad theme categories. Step 6: Summarize articles and organize themes and concepts. Step 7: Assemble the literature review by broad theme and important concepts, and identify areas for further research. Patterns of Hispanic Representation in Special Education Analyses of nationwide data suggest that overrepresentation of Hispanic students in special education is not a national trend, but rather a problem that varies across states and school districts (Meyer & Patton, 2001). Some researchers have linked specific school or district characteristics with overrepresentation of Hispanic students in special education. These characteristics include an increase in diversity in student population, school district size, and—surprisingly —spending per student (Finn, 1982; Heller, Holtzman & Messick, 1982; Meyer & Patton; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Nguyen, 2001). This seems counterintuitive because schools with a more diverse student population would seem less likely to overidentify Hispanic students, and wealthier schools have more funds to address the problem of disproportionate representation of minorities in special education. Oswald et al. investigated identification patterns in all 50 U.S. states and found that the representation of minorities in special education was not uniform across minority groups or disability categories. For example, Hispanic students were less likely to be identified as mentally retarded than were European American or African American students. Thus, at the national level, researchers have identified numerous variables (e.g., district or school characteristics and disability category) that lead to overrepresentation, underrepresentation, and misidentification. Nevertheless, researchers should conduct more national- and state-level studies to understand these trends and patterns of Hispanic students’ representation in special education. Researchers have conducted few state-level studies in which they document patterns of Hispanic representation in special education. The available studies are frequently constrained by a small sample size or other limitations. Nonetheless, these studies provide informative preliminary findings that may inform future state-level studies. Ortiz

Vol. 53, No. 3

and Yates (1983) documented that in Texas, Hispanic students in learning-disabled programs were overrepresented by more than 300%. In another study, bilingual special education specialists reviewed the assessment data of 21 students from Texas who spoke English and Spanish and were classified as learning disabled. The specialists found that 10 (49%) of the students may not have had a disability; rather, their learning differences were related to their cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Wilkinson et al., 2006). In addition, 5 (24%) of the students presented behaviors that were more characteristic of disabilities that were not learning disabilities. Thus, in Wilkinson et al.’s small study, more than 70% of students who were classified as learning disabled were either overidentified or misidentified. In a dissertation study, Valdez (2003) documented similar patterns of Hispanic representation in special education in New Mexico over the course of 10 years. Valdez found that Hispanic children were more frequently identified as speech-language impaired and learning disabled than European American children. Conversely, Hispanic children were less likely to be classified as having an emotional disability or mental retardation. Because Valdez’s study has not been published, in the future, researchers should substantiate and interpret the findings with caution. At the same time, on the basis of the studies I reviewed, the pattern of Hispanic representation in special education seems to vary by disability category. More Hispanic students are identified as learning disabled or speech-language impaired, whereas fewer students are identified as mentally retarded. This pattern may reflect the fact that school officials are struggling to accurately identify Hispanic students with disabilities. It may also reflect the fact that school officials are implementing a default system for all students regardless of language and culture background. Nevertheless, current practices are not meeting the educational needs of Hispanic students. Referral practices and language-minority status complicate accurate special education identification. Referral Rates Hosp and Reschly (2003) completed a 10-study metaanalysis to investigate referral rates of students from different racial backgrounds. For their analysis, referral included specialized general education interventions or special education assessment. This definition of referral parallels the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, which mandated that school district officials document students’ response to intervention (RTI) before special education assessment. Hosp and Reschly found that for every 106 Hispanic students referred for special education assessment, 100 European American students were referred. This finding reflects the fact that Hispanic children are being overreferred for special education assessment. Nonetheless, the rate of children who qualified for spe-

Spring 2009

cial education was disparate from the referral rate. Hispanic students qualified for special education programs less often than did European American; for every 89 Hispanic students who qualified for special education, 100 European American students qualified. Referral patterns are informative when considering patterns of Hispanic representation in special education; however, it is not clear why school professionals overrefer this population. It is possible that general educators—83% or more of whom are European American (U.S. Department of Education, 2007)—have difficulty understanding Hispanic cultural and language differences and thus tend to refer these students more frequently. Often, teachers and other school professionals are unprepared to work with diverse populations. For example, in one recent survey that included over 200 speech-language pathologists, one third of the respondents indicated that they had not received training to work with multicultural or multilingual populations (Hammer, Detwiler, Detwiler, Blood, & Dean Qualls, 2004). Other researchers have described similar problems with teacher preparation (for a review, see Meyer & Patton, 2001; Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney, & Kushner, 2006). English Language Learners (ELLs) The majority of ELLs in the United States are Hispanic, and Spanish is their first language (Kindler, 2002): Language proficiency may affect the likelihood of these students being referred to special education. Artiles et al. (2005) used data from 11 urban districts in California to study ELLs and the effects that language proficiency has on special education placement. More than 90% of the ELLs in Artiles et al.’s study were Hispanic. The researchers separated the ELLs into the following two categories: still acquiring English (i.e., ELL) or English proficient (EP; i.e., they had acquired sufficient language competency to function in the classroom with native English speakers). District level analyses revealed that ELL and EP students were not disproportionately represented in special education programs. However, grade-level analyses revealed that ELL students were underrepresented in special education in Grades K–5 and overrepresented in Grades 6–12, whereas EP students were underrepresented at the secondary level. Further analysis revealed a subgroup of students who demonstrated limited English and nativelanguage skills. These students were overrepresented as learning-, speech-, and language-disabled, and—at the secondary level—mentally retarded. ELLs may be underidentified at the elementary school level because of the existence of supplemental general education programs (e.g., Title 1, literacy support, more intensive ELL programming) that provide increased specialized instruction. Elementary school educators may feel satisfied or supported knowing that students are receiving

Guiberson

169

a level of extra support through one of these programs. These educators may be less likely to feel the need to refer to special education. However, at the secondary level, there are fewer extra supports for these students and increased demand for language skills across subject areas. These factors may result in increased referral to and representation of Hispanic students in special education (Artiles et al., 2005; Echevarria & Graves, 1998; Peregoy & Boyle, 2001). Some researchers have suggested that ELLs may need between 5 and 10 years to fully develop their academic language skills (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Therefore, continued ELL programming and sheltered language instruction is crucial to ensure favorable academic outcomes for these students. Hispanic Parental Perceptions Many researchers have studied how Hispanic parents perceive special education. Bailey, Skinner, Rodriguez, Gut, and Correra (1999) surveyed 200 parents of Hispanic children with disabilities and revealed that the majority of parents reported moderate levels of satisfaction with special education services. However, a relatively high number (17%) of these families were mostly or entirely dissatisfied with their child’s special education programming. In a follow-up study, Alvarez-McHatton and Correra (2005) surveyed 50 Mexican and Puerto Rican mothers of children with disabilities and found that maternal satisfaction with special education in early childhood set the precedent for future interactions. Mothers who reported negative interactions or experiences of bias and discrimination early on became defensive, distrusting, and suspicious of school staff in subsequent interactions. Other researchers have found that Hispanic parents were confused by disability determination and classification (Zetlin, Padron, & Wilson, 1996); received limited contact or communication from the school (Lian & Fontánez-Phelan, 2001); and believed that school professionals demonstrated low effort when providing services, negative attitudes toward the child, and poor treatment of parents (Shapiro, Monzó, Rueda, Gomez, & Blacher, 2004). Taking these perceptions into consideration, parental refusal of special education assessment or services may also effect the disproportionate representation of Hispanic students in special education; however, none of the studies that I reviewed identified this as a pattern or common occurrence. In some instances in which parents were dissatisfied, they reported concerns about their child’s lack of progress and decreased services from related services providers such as speech-language pathologists and occupational and physical therapists (Tejero Hughes, Martinez Valle-Riestra, & Arguelles, 2002). Conversely, in a study of 100 parents, Lian and Fontánez-Phelan found that more than half of Hispanic parents believed that they should not interfere with teachers’ decisions and maintain a respectful distance.

170


The present review of the literature demonstrates distinct patterns and complicating variables that are reflective of the difficulties that school officials have in distinguishing difference from disability in Hispanic students. Many general educators are not adequately prepared to address the educational needs of Hispanic students (Meyer & Patton, 2001; Ortiz et al., 2006). Special education professionals also face challenges as they assess Hispanic students. Linguistic and cultural differences may mask, mimic, or be mistaken for symptoms or characteristics of a specific disorder (Anderson, 2004; Artiles et al., 2005; Cheng, 1991; Fletcher & Navarrete, 2003). Special education assessments for Hispanic students may be difficult for professionals for many reasons. These difficulties include a shortage of bilingual professionals or professionals who are knowledgeable on second language development; lack of appropriate and valid standardized assessment tools and practices; and challenges in considering cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic variables related to development (Fletcher & Navarrete; Harry & Anderson, 1994; Kayser, 1995; Wyatt, 1998). Also, without adequate parental involvement, it is difficult for school professionals to fully understand a child’s development and thus determine whether a child’s behavior is reflective of cultural and linguistic differences or a developmental difficulty. In addition, in some cases, there may be a reluctance to qualify Hispanic children for certain disability categories (e.g., mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed) partly because of fears of Office of Civil Rights complaints or district, state, or national audits (Artiles et al., 2005). In all, the literature demonstrates that there is a compelling need to address this problem. Implications for Practitioners Cultural Competency There are many policies that address the problem of disproportionate representation of minorities in special education. The IDEIA continues to require special education teams to determine whether a child’s learning difficulties are not the result of a lack of English language proficiency or appropriate and consistent instruction. Also, most evaluators are bound by professional certification policies or organizations that require constituents to be knowledgeable on and responsive to culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) populations with whom they work (American Psychological Association, 2002; American Speech-LanguageHearing Association, 2004; Council for Exceptional Children, 2005; Division for Early Childhood, 2002). Despite these efforts, the problem of disproportionate representation of minorities in special education persists. Many researchers have recommended addressing this problem through improved teacher training programs that allow teachers to develop cultural competency (Artiles et al., 2005; Meyer & Patton, 2001; Oswald et al., 2001).

Vol. 53, No. 3

Cultural competency includes knowledge of (a) one’s own culture and worldview, (b) racism and biases, (c) students’ cultures and worldviews, and (d) the ability to understand the world through diverse cultural lenses (McAllister & Irvine, 2000). Cultural competency also includes knowledge and skills that enable a person to appreciate, value, and celebrate similarities and differences (Singh, 1996). It is much more than content knowledge alone; instead, it is a process that evolves and changes across time for each individual (McAllister & Irvine). To explore cultural variables that may hinder serving diverse populations and identify goals for developing cultural competence, tools such as the Cultural Competence Self-Reflection Tool (Moore, Beatty, & Perez-Mendez, 1995) are helpful. Cultural competency requirements for preservice teachers that include mandatory coursework and field experiences may foster cultural sensitivity and competence and compel educators to incorporate instructional strategies into their teaching to match the cultural and linguistic needs of students (Meyer & Patton; Oswald et al., 2001; Pennington, 1996; Schinke-Llano & Vicars, 1993). Coursework requirements may include courses such as multicultural perspectives on disability, cross-cultural perspectives on parenting, or literacy and the second-language learner. Field experiences (e.g., semester internship in an urban school with an ELL teacher or in a bilingual Head Start program) may provide preservice teachers with the opportunity to translate theory and content into practice. Direct field work experiences are most effective in developing cultural competency; however, indirect strategies (e.g., readings, videos, simulations, field observations) may also be effective if someone with cultural competency facilitates them (McAllister & Irvine, 2000). Cultural competency requirements may prepare school professionals to serve the increasing populations of CLD students and families. Although implementing cultural competency requirements may address the training needs of preservice teachers, it does not address the needs of in-service teachers. The practice of coaching may assist in-service teachers in developing cultural competency. Teachers who attend professional development workshops on linguistically diverse learners have reported that workshops that include hands-on practice with a coach or mentor in their classrooms are most helpful (August & Siegel, 2006). In Colorado, the State Department of Education implemented a coaching model that provides elementary and secondary-content classroom teachers with essential skills to meet the needs of ELLs in their classrooms (Colorado Department of Education, 2006). Through this coaching model, in-service teachers receive direct support from an educator with a specialty in cultural and linguistic diversity. For example, in a third-grade classroom, the classroom teacher and an ELL coach can brainstorm strategies and modifications that support comprehen-

Spring 2009

sion skills for ELL students. Coaching is strengths-based, which allows professionals to reach their individualized teaching goals and supports the larger goals of the school and district (Drake, 2003). Although there is a need for additional research to demonstrate the effectiveness of coaching in-service teachers—specifically, the use of coaching to improve educational outcomes for Hispanic students—the potential benefits of coaching are encouraging. When teachers increase awareness of their own culture, identify biases, and explore other cultures, they begin to develop cultural competency in teaching. This occurs naturally as teachers refine their knowledge and explore culture in the classroom through continual observation, interpretation of child behavior, and other ethnographic strategies. Peregoy and Boyle (2001) developed a list of cultural-content questions that may assist teachers in exploring dimensions of cultural content (e.g., family structure, discipline, time and space, health and hygiene) and their effect on students’ learning. Another crucial step in developing cultural competency is identifying the classroom culture. This involves reflecting on how the classroom operates and contrasting the classroom culture to that of the student’s home culture (Peregoy & Boyle). For example, some researchers have described the Hispanic family structure as more collectivist in style (Kayser & Guiberson, 2008); this knowledge may apply to literacy instruction. Gutierrez-Clellen (1999) recommended using constructivist approaches to literacy instruction such as teaching topics that represent the child’s daily experiences, allowing the child to select topics of interests and having the child read to family members. Gutierrez-Clellen also recommended that educators use cooperative learning with Hispanic students. This may include peer teaching, working in groups, and establishing a collaborative climate in which students serve as mediators for each other and all students are acknowledged for their contributions. Peregoy and Boyle recommended implementing similar strategies such as writing response groups or literature response groups. These teaching strategies integrate student background and knowledge-base and encourage skills through collaborative, positive interdependence in which students share and support each other’s learning in a culturally and socially appropriate way. Researchers should further evaluate the effect that teachers’ cultural competency may have on student outcomes and quality of instruction. Nevertheless, these practices are promising and may enhance outcomes for Hispanic students. Instructional Support Teams (ISTs): Providing Targeted Intervention Providing targeted intervention before special education assessment referral is another way to address the educational needs of Hispanic students (Artiles et al., 2005). Generally,

Guiberson

171

this process begins with a team of general educators who meet to discuss students’ progress. Teacher-assistance teams were first introduced more than 25 years ago; however, many states do not require such teams, and, in many cases, this process has been considered a required step for special education referral rather than a process that provides educators with targeted intervention for their students (for a review, see Bahr & Kovaleski, 2006). The IDEIA’s focus on the RTI model clarifies and expands the role of general educators and educational assistance teams in the special education referral process. ISTs, problem-solving and intervention assistance teams, and other terms describe these new approaches to educational assistance teams (Bahr & Kovaleski; Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Recently, the focus on ISTs has moved from special education prereferral formality to intensive targeted intervention (Bahr & Kovaleski, 2006). The major charge of ISTs is to brainstorm and provide students differentiated instruction that is research-based and tailored to their specific needs (Denton et al., 2003). Most children receive sufficient benefit from the existing general education instruction; however, some need targeted intervention to address their learning needs; this intervention is considered to be the second tier or targeted level in the RTI model that is described in the IDEA reauthorization (Bahr & Kovaleski; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). In essence, this intensive targeted intervention redefines a child’s general education instruction and targets children’s specific areas of need. If students fail to improve academically after receiving differentiated and intensive instruction, they should be considered for a special education referral. However, if students improve, the general education team should continue the intervention (Kovaleski et al., 1999; Vaughn & Fuchs). In a study of more than 400 students who were referred to ISTs in Pennsylvania schools, Kovaleksi et al. found that ISTs are effective only when they provide consistent, intensive implementation. Half-hearted, or minimal, interventions made no difference in student performance (Kovaleski et al.); in other words, if interventions are discussed but not consistently and intensively implemented, students will not demonstrate growth. The intensity of targeted intervention services for students is highly individualized, but it may range from small-group instruction to one-on-one explicit instruction for 35–80 hours across 10–30 weeks (Denton et al.; Vaughn & Fuchs). In numerous studies, researchers have documented that these practices reduce special education referral, insure improved instruction, and result in favorable outcomes for students who are at risk for academic difficulties (Bahr & Kovaleski; Kovaleski et al.; Kovaleski & Glew, 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs). In relation to the current discussion, ISTs have also been found to be effective in decreasing the referral rate

172


of minority students and ELLs (Ortiz et al., 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). In some instances, this may mean that the student will completely bypass the special education referral route as they receive benefit from intensive, targeted intervention provided through general education. The responsiveness that these students demonstrated suggests that it is likely that they do not have a disability and are able to benefit from intensive intervention provided through general education. However, some students may not be responsive to intensive targeted intervention and may ultimately need special education assessment to determine their learning needs and identify whether they have an educational disability. The benefit of implementing an IST is that it may document the student’s responsive to interventions implemented and provide general and special education teachers with information to enhance students’ educational experience. ISTs for Hispanic students should be responsive to cultural and linguistic differences; Ortiz et al. (2006) identified many practices that may assist ISTs in this endeavor. First, for children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds, a specialist in bilingual or English language development should be included and should, perhaps, lead the IST. Language specialists provide critical information that is necessary to keep in mind when considering a student’s academic development. Second, parents should be included in the IST. Many studies have called for Hispanic parents’ involvement in their child’s educational planning (Lian & Fontánez-Phelan, 2001; Tejero Hughes et al., 2002; Zetlin et al., 1996). Ortiz et al. stated that parents (or, in some cases, extended family members) can provide valuable information on language, cultural, and social values that may affect classroom behavior. However, in some cases, Hispanic parents believe that they should maintain a respectful distance and not interfere with their child’s education (Lian & Fontánez-Phelan). Therefore, teachers and school staff should offer more encouragement and explain to parents the importance of their participation. Involvement in the IST also allows families to reinforce and practice interventions in the home with the student. Last, when ISTs implement intensive services with Hispanic students, they should implement strategies that have been developed for use with students from CLD backgrounds. For example, Shanahan and Beck (2006) reviewed the literature and suggested that effective literacy teaching strategies for students from CLD backgrounds should include more than decoding and fluency instruction; it should also emphasize oral language development. Similarly, August and Siegel (2006) reviewed the literature on CLD students with disabilities and found that literacy instruction that emphasizes key vocabulary and oral language through instructional conversations may be most effective. For CLD students with advanced language proficiency, access to sheltered language instruction is critical for con-

Vol. 53, No. 3

tinued academic success (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1993). Sheltered language instruction is grade appropriate, is cognitively demanding, and includes key teaching modifications such as (a) speaking clearly and slowly, (b) repeating key points multiple times, (c) defining and explicitly teaching vocabulary, and (d) pairing language with visual supports (e.g., pictures, graphs, objects, gestures). When selecting specific strategies to include in intensive interventions, ISTs should take into account students’ language proficiency and educational history. For example, students who have recently begun to learn English may need more emphasis on vocabulary and oral language development. Under other circumstances, if students have not received appropriate instruction or have had inconsistent schooling, they may encounter academic difficulties that are more significant and may require more intensive services across a longer period. In this respect, targeted interventions are tailored to each student’s specific learning needs and take into account his or her cultural, linguistic, and educational background. Dynamic Assessment For students who do not respond to the intensive targeted intervention, researchers have recommended special education referral (Kovaleski et al., 1999; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). However, even at this point in the process, specific assessment practices should be applied to ameliorate the disproportionate representation of Hispanic students in special education (Fletcher & Navarrete, 2003; Meyer & Patton, 2001). Special education teams should be trained to implement assessment practices that are more accurate in capturing the abilities of Hispanic children. Because of limitations with standardized tests, alternative methods to assess CLD children are needed. (Laing & Kamhi, 2003; Roseberry-McKibbin, 1994). Many researchers have found dynamic assessment practices to be especially well suited for the assessment of linguistically diverse children (GutierrezClellen & Peña, 2001; Laing & Kamhi; Peña, Iglesias, & Lidz, 2001). On the basis of Vygotsky’s (1986) zone of proximal development, dynamic assessment views development in the context of rich social and language learning experiences. An examiner obtains baseline data before implementing mediated instruction that supports the development of the target skills. Ideally, the data that the IST has kept on the student will be passed on to special education teams as they begin assessments. Through dynamic assessment, the interventionist usually tests students’ limits by (a) restructuring or modifying an activity, (b) providing graduated prompting to see how much support students need to be successful, and (c) teaching specific skills and retesting or evaluating the skills to determine whether the child generalized the skill. During this process, the interventionist pays attention to the teaching effort, amount of prompting needed, and the child’s respon-

Spring 2009

siveness. The use of dynamic assessments assists in ruling out a diagnosis for a child who is able to progress and learn a particular skill when provided with scaffolding. Conversely, dynamic assessment will provide detailed documentation that supports a diagnosis for a child who has an organic compromised ability. This diagnostic information provides critical data that may not only assist in determining special education eligibility, but also provide important information on the student’s skills that will inform the child’s educational program. Researchers have found that dynamic assessment is an effective assessment process for students from a variety of cultural backgrounds (e.g., Hispanic, African American, Native American; Laing, Kamhi, & Catts, 1997; Lidz & Peña, 1996; Ukrainetz, Harpell, Walsh, & Coyle, 2000). However, researchers should further explore the reliability and validity of dynamic assessment. Nevertheless, there are serious problems with the use of standardized assessment tools. High levels of content and linguistic bias, and lack of inclusion of diverse groups in normative samples render many standardized assessment tools inappropriate and ineffective to use with CLD populations (for a review, see Laing & Kamhi, 2003). Conclusion Researchers should conduct longitudinal research at the national, state, and district levels to document the disproportionate representation of Hispanic children in special education programs. On the basis of a review of the literature, it appears that Hispanic students continue to be overrepresented in special education programs as learning disabled or speech-language impaired. At the same time, Hispanic students are sometimes underrepresented in the disability categories of mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed. These patterns are costly to the education of Hispanic children. Some children are being kept in programs that may hinder their potential, whereas others are not being provided services that may promote educational success. Although there is an increased referral rate for Hispanic children, there appears to be a reluctance to place these students in certain disability categories. Parents of these students are frequently uninformed or are not included in critical stages of their children’s general and special education planning. In this article, I presented a number of practices that may assist in addressing the needs of Hispanic students. Universities and teacher preparation programs should provide teachers with training and experiences that promote cultural competency. In-service teachers can develop cultural competency through coaching relationships in which they are paired with a professional who is skilled in working with diverse populations. Furthermore, intensive and well-planned IST scans slow the special education referral rate of Hispanic students and assist teachers in implement-

Guiberson

173

ing appropriate targeted intervention for these students. These teams should include ELL and bilingual teachers or other school specialists knowledgeable on the linguistic and cultural needs of Hispanic students. In addition, ISTs should include the families of Hispanic students so that they can provide the school staff with crucial information while learning how to support their children at home. The Appendix summarizes these concerns and presents guiding questions. Last, for students who do not respond to targeted interventions, special education teams should implement dynamic assessment strategies when evaluating Hispanic students. By implementing these strategies, educators ensure that Hispanic students experience success and have equal access to appropriate instruction. AUTHOR NOTE Mark Guiberson is an assistant professor at the University of Northern Colorado, where he teaches courses on language development, research methods, and assessment and intervention with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. REFERENCES Alvarez-McHatton, P., & Correra V. (2005). Stigma and discrimination: Perspectives from Mexican and Puerto Rican mothers of children with special needs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 131–142. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Knowledge and skills needed by speech-language pathologists and audiologists to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services. ASHA Supplement, 24, 152–158. Anderson, R. T. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss and implications for clinical practice. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish–English speakers (pp. 187–212). Baltimore: Brookes. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continued debate. Journal of Special Education, 22, 410–436. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Palmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education: Legacies and prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 716–735). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. August, D., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Literacy instruction for language-minority children in special education settings. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners (pp. 523–553). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bahr, M. W., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). The need for problemsolving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 2–5. Bailey, B. D., Skinner, D., Rodriguez, P., Gut, D., & Correa, V. (1999). Awareness, use, and satisfaction with services for Latino parents of young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 367–381.

174


Brinton, D. W., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Contentbased second language instruction. In J. W. Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers (2nd ed., pp. 136–142). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Cheng, L. L. (Ed.). (1991). Assessing Asian language performance: Guidelines for assessing LEP students (2nd ed.). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates. Colorado Department of Education. (2006). Guidebook on designing, delivering, and evaluating services for English language learners. Denver: University of Colorado Department of Education. Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). CEC policies on diversity. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://www.cec.sped.org/ diversity/policies.html Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211. Division for Early Childhood. (2002). DEC position on responsiveness to family cultures, values, and languages. Denver, CO: Author. Drake, D. (2003). Mentoring and coaching: What they are and why they matter in Head Start. Disability Services Quality Improvement Center Dispatch, 6, 3–4. Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 23, 5–21. Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language learners with diverse abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Finn, J. D. (1982). Patterns in special education placement as revealed by OCR surveys. In K. A. Heller, W. H. Holtzman, & S. Messick (Eds.), Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity (pp. 322–381). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Fletcher, T .V., & Navarrete, L. A. (2003). Learning disabilities or difference: A critical look at issues associated with misidentification and placement of Hispanic students in special education programs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22, 37–46. Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310–322. Guiterrez-Clellen, V. F. (1999). Mediating literacy skills in Spanishspeaking children with special needs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 285–292. Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 212–224. Hammer, C. S., Detwiler, D. S., Detwiler, D., Blood, G. W., & Dean Qualls, C. (2004). Speech language pathologists’ training and confidence in serving Spanish-English bilingual children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 91–108. Harry, B., & Anderson, M. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 602–619. Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: A meta-analysis of racial differences. Journal of Special Education, 37, 67–80. Kayser, H. (Ed.). (1995). Bilingual speech-language pathology: An Hispanic focus. San Diego, CA: Singular. Kayser, H., & Guiberson, M. M. (2008). Family and child socialization. In H. Kayser (Ed.), Educating Latino preschool children (pp. 47–60). San Diego, CA: Plural.

Vol. 53, No. 3 Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2001–2002 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction and Educational Programs. Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170–183. Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16–25. Laing, S. P., & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Sciences in Schools, 34, 44–55. Laing, S. P., Kamhi, A., & Catts, H. (1997). Dynamic assessment of phonological awareness in school age children. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, Boston, MA. Lian, M.-G. J., & Fontánez-Phelan, S. M. (2001). Perceptions of Latino parents regarding cultural and linguistic issues and advocacy for children with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 189–194. Lidz, C., & Peña, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model, its relevance as a nonbiased approach, and its application to Latino American preschool children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 367–384. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Education Research, 70, 3–24. Meyer, G., & Patton, J. M. (2001). On the nexus of race, disability, and overrepresentation: What do we know? Where do we go? On point . . . brief. Newton, MA: National Institute for Urban School Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED462487) Moore, S. M., Beatty, J., & Perez-Mendez, C. (1995). Developing cultural competence self reflection tool. Boulder: University of Colorado. Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. W., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Remedial and Special Education, 27, 53–63. Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (1983). Incidence of exceptionality among Hispanics: Implications for manpower planning. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 7, 41–54. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Nguyen, N. (2001). Impact of sociodemographic characteristics on the identification rates of minority students as having mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 39, 351–367. Peña, E., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. S. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children’s world learning ability. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 138–154. Pennington, M. C. (1996). The cognitive affective filter in teacher development: Transmission-based and interpretation-based schemas for change. System, 24, 337–350. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, & learning in ESL: A resource book for K–12 teachers (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (1994). Assessment and intervention for children with limited proficiency and language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3, 77–88. Schinke-Llano, L., & Vicars, R. (1993). The affective filter and negotiated interaction: Do our language activities provided for both? Modern Language Journal, 77, 325–329.

Spring 2009

Guiberson

Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners (pp. 415–488). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shapiro, J., Monzó, L. D., Rueda, R., Gomez, J. A., & Blacher, J. (2004). Alienated advocacy: Perspectives of Latina mothers of young adults with developmental disabilities on service systems. Mental Retardation, 42, 37–54. Singh, N. N. (1996). Cultural diversity in the 21st century: Beyond e pluribus unum. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 211–136. Tejero Hughes, M., Martinez Valle-Riestra, D., & Arguelles, M. E. (2002). Experiences of Latino families with their child’s special education program. Multicultural Perspectives, 4, 11–17. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). Our findings: The ‘how long’ research. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Ukrainetz, T., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergarteners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 142–154. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). The Hispanic population: Census 2000 brief (U.S. Census Bureau Publication No. C2KBR/01–3). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). U.S. Census Bureau news. Retrieved June 14, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/ www/releases/archives/population/010048.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: Author. Valdez, C. M. (2003). Placement of ethnic minority students in special education: A study of over and underrepresentation issues. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 66569 (UMI No. 9315947) Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language learners with reading-related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 129–141. Wyatt, T. (1998). Assessment issues with multicultural populations. In D. E. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations (2nd ed., pp. 379–418). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Zetlin, A. G., Padron, M., & Wilson, S. (1996). The experience of five Latin American families with the special education system. Education and training in mental retardation and developmental disabilities, 31, 22–28. Zuniga, M. E. (2004). Families with Latino roots. In E. W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson (Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.

APPENDIX Concerns and Guiding Questions for Educators to Consider Before Referring Hispanic Students to Special Education Concern

175

Guiding questions

The referral process fails to include addressing • Was an instructional support team (IST) involved in redefining academic problems in the general education strategies used in general education settings? setting and, thus, fails to apply the Individuals • Has differentiated instruction been provided? with Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s (2004) • What is the fidelity of the intervention (including instruction federally mandated response to intervention model. consistency and intensiveness)? In other words, has sufficient time been given for this intervention (e.g., 10–30 weeks or 35–80 hr of intensified instruction)? • Has data been collected that reflects the student’s response to intensified instruction? Cultural differences have not been fully explored • Were the student’s parents or family included as part of the IST, and considered. and did they participate in the initial steps and throughout the referral process and intervention planning? • Is there a member of the IST who has received coaching or training that has prepared him or her to assist the team in understanding cultural differences? • Is the presenting concern related to cultural differences? Has the IST considered the cultural content of the home and classroom cultures? (For a review, see cultural content questions in S. F. Peregoy & O. F. Boyle, 2001). • Have constructivists and cooperative teaching strategies been applied? Students who are English language learners (ELLs) • Has the student received appropriate instruction for an ELL and for are disproportionally referred to and represented a sufficient amount of time? in special education. • Has sheltered language instruction been implemented to support the student’s achievement in content areas? (appendix continues)

176


Vol. 53, No. 3

APPENDIX (cont.) Students who are English language learners (ELLs) are disproportionally referred to and represented in special education.

• Is the referral related to transition out of a general education support program (e.g., Title 1, literacy, or ELL support)? If the child responds favorably to general education support programs, his or her learning needs may reflect his or her need for continued intensive programming from general education. • At the secondary level, is the presenting concern related to the student’s language proficiency (including oral, comprehension, reading, and writing skills)? If so, have strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective with culturally and linguistically diverse learners been implemented (e.g., explicit vocabulary and oral language instruction, sheltered language strategies)? • Has an ELL or bilingual-language specialist been included on the IST and in implementing targeted interventions?

� � ��

��

��