Transcript Negotiation

The Special Education Referral
Process for English Language
Learners:
The Role of Child Study and
Multidisciplinary Team Meetings
Janette K. Klingner
University of Colorado at Boulder
Beth Harry
University of Miami
Acknowledgements:
• This research was conducted with
support from the United States
Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs, Grant No.
H324C980165.
Challenges to the Referral Process
• We still lack adequate measures of language
proficiency.
• Students appear to be proficient in English long
before they have fully developed cognitive
academic language proficiency.
• Educators often misinterpret ELLs’ lack of full
proficiency in English as low intelligence or as a
language or learning disability.
• An over-reliance on IQ test scores when making
placement decisions
• Too little consideration for other factors that may
be affecting a student’s performance.
The Special Education Referral Process
General 1
Education:
-Teacher concerned
about student
-Refers to CST
General
Education:
-1st CST
-Pre-referral
2 strategies
-Student monitored
Staffing
-Special education?
-LRE?
5
-Parental involvement?
-Language &
culture?
Referral Process
-2nd CST
-Decision to refer
for a formal evaluation
-Parental
3
involvement?
Assessment
-Instruments
-Personnel
-Settings
4
-Language &
culture?
Terms
• The CST might also be called the Student
Study Team (SST) or other similar names.
• The multidisciplinary team is often called
the M-Team or the Individualized
Educational Plan (or Program) (IEP)
Team. Meetings of the multidisciplinary
team are sometimes referred to as
“staffings.”
Previous Research
• In the 1980s several investigations were
conducted of CST and multidisciplinary
team meetings.
• Mehan, Hartwick, and Meihls (1986;
Mehan, 1991) focused on how team
decisions were made.
– They concluded that “placement outcomes
were more ratifications of actions that had
taken place at previous stages of the decisionmaking process than decisions reached in
formal meetings” (p. 164).
• Prereferral strategies seem to be
unevenly or rarely applied.
• The preeminent role of the psychologist
in this process has been well
documented.
• Several researchers have studied group
dynamics and suggested ways to
enhance the decision-making process.
• Most parents do not actively participate in
meetings, instead spending most of their
time listening to professionals.
Purpose
• To investigate the referral process and the CST
and multidisciplinary team meetings for English
language learners.
– We wished to learn how school personnel determined
if ELLs who were struggling with reading had learning
disabilities.
– We wondered to what extent those involved in the
process understood second language acquisition, and
to what extent consideration was given to language
issues.
– We were interested in the roles of various team
members and how decisions were made.
– We also wanted to find out more about the interactions
among professionals and parents.
• The data for this study are from a large,
three-year ethnographic study of the
decision-making processes that result in
the overrepresentation of culturally and
linguistically diverse students in special
education in a major, urban school
district in a southern state (Harry &
Klingner, in press).
Sampling
• 8 schools (out of 12 purposively selected to
represent a range in ethnicity, socio-economic
status, language, and schools’ rates of referral for
the larger study)
• 19 English Language Learners
– K – 5 grade levels
– 11 Hispanic (the term preferred in that part of the
country) who spoke Spanish as their 1st language
– 6 Haitian who spoke Haitian Creole
– 1 Middle Eastern who spoke Arabic
– ESOL levels ranged from 1 (just beginning to acquire
English) to 5 (just exited from ESOL and considered at
least moderately proficient in English)
School Demographics (in percentages):
School
Ethnicity of Students
White Black Hispanic
Free or % MMR % EH
Reduced
Lunch
% LD
3.5
1
0+
92
8
97.2
0.1
2
0+
89
10
98.9
0.5
3
2
0+
98
88.9
4
7
4
92
65.6
0.01
6.8
5.3
5.8
12.5
School Demographics (in percentages):
White Black
Free or
Reduced
Hispanic Lunch
5
8
1
90
68.7
6.6
6
6
11
82
89.6
4.2
7
2
79
17
98.3
0.5
8
1
69
29
98.4
2.6
9
2
56
42
99.0
School
Ethnicity of Students
% MR
% EH % LD
0.3
5.8
4.2
0.1
4.4
Data Sources
• Primary data source:
– Observations notes from 21 CST meetings and staffings
• 12 first CST meetings, 2 second CST meetings, 7 staffings.
• Other data sources (from larger study):
– Observations
• Classrooms during instruction (627)
– Interviews
• 272 open-ended or semi-structured interviews
• Notes from 84 informal conversations
– Documents
•
•
•
•
IEPs
Psychological reports
Students’ test protocols and work samples
School district guidelines and policies
Findings
• Though we noted variability across schools,
our data yielded some clear patterns
regarding CST and multidisciplinary teams
and the referral process for ELLs.
– The district had developed detailed guidelines
for how the process should be carried out (that
followed the letter of the law); yet how these
guidelines were carried out varied.
Differentiating between English
Language Acquisition and LD
• Confusion about when to refer:
– Some psychologists and school personnel said
they were not allowed to refer ELLs still at
beginning levels of English proficiency:
• “The district will not allow psychological testing of
young children at ESOL levels 1 & 2.”
– Yet the district administrator in charge of this
process assured us that this was not the case:
• “No, not at all. No, no. At every meeting…we say it.”
• Not knowing when a child is ready to be tested
only in English:
– Though district guidelines specify it takes about 7 years
before a child can be tested only in English, some
personnel did not believe this:
• “Actually, actually they are proficient before 7 years.”
– Children were tested only in English before 7 years.
• Reina’s IQ score was determined to be 51, using the WISC-III,
yet she spoke Spanish as her first language and her mother
only spoke Spanish. Because she had just exited from ESOL
(after 3 ½ years) all of her testing was done in English and no
mention was made of her not being a native speaker at her
staffing.
– Over-reliance on a parent’s or teacher’s opinion about a
student’s English proficiency in SOME cases.
• Misinterpreting limited English proficiency as low IQ
or LD:
– Lack of consideration given to language issues. Many seemed
quick to attribute a child’s difficulties to presumed intrinsic
deficits rather than a lack of full English proficiency.
– Many confused language acquisition for processing disorders,
low intelligence, problems with attention, or LD.
– Students described as having poor auditory memory or not
able to follow directions without any mention of whether this
could be related to the language acquisition process:
• Paul was ESOL 4, yet there was no mention of language proficiency
in the psychologist’s report or at his staffing. He was described as
having “auditory processing deficits” through English-language
testing. It was determined he had LD, though his achievement
scores were actually higher than his IQ score.
– Not enough attention given to students’ skills in their native
language.
• Over-reliance on test scores:
– School personnel expressed confidence in the ability of
the psychological evaluation to “diagnose disabilities.”
– Little consideration given to other factors that might
provide alternative explanations for students’ behaviors.
– Personnel did not take into account the ecology of the
classroom from which a child was being referred.
– Observations by someone other than the classroom
teacher were not conducted.
– Psychologists very rarely observed students before
conducting an evaluation:
• “Only if I feel that I need to. The whole morning with them
(testing) gives you a good idea, you know it does. And you rely
on the teacher’s comments and you rely on your notes.”
“Alternative Strategies”
• The quality of attention given to pre-referral strategies
and the value of the actual strategies was often
minimal:
– “Write first and last name without model; identify
rhyming words; hold book, paper, scissors.”
– Claude’s teacher was told to just “pick the most basic alternative
strategies on the list.”
• In some schools the quality of attention to strategies
was better:
– “I look at a form the psychologist is holding out to me. It has a list of
alternative strategies: Move around room, touch base with student.
Provide visuals. Reduce distractions. Present both auditory and
visual cues.”
• Six students were referred immediately for a formal
evaluation at their first CST meetings.
Role of Psychologists
• Psychologists usually did not attend the 1st CST
meeting, but sometimes attended the 2nd. When
present, their word carried the most weight.
• Psychologists conducted all of the achievement,
modality, and intelligence testing. Tests used:
– The WISC III (in both English and Spanish) seemed
to be the intelligence test of choice by most.
Alternative IQ tests, including the K-ABC, the UNIC,
or the Differential Ability Scales, were used by some:
• “You would try to use a non-verbal type of test to get a
score that is not decreased by the language. But I like
to use the WISC III anyway because… I want to look at
the verbal. My favorite is the WISC III; that is my
favorite because you want to look at how the child
does on both scales.”
Role of Bilingual Assessor
• Supposed to evaluate all students at ESOL Levels 3, 4,
and 5 (who have been exited from the program for less
than 2 years).
• Determined in which language a child should be tested
and if the child’s difficulties were due to confusion
learning a new language:
– “My role as a bilingual assessor is to determine if the child’s
difficulties are due to (learning a second) language or due to
other factors…”
• Did not attend CST meetings or staffings and their
reports were rarely mentioned.
• It seemed that once a child had undergone a bilingual
assessment, personnel felt there was no additional need
to attend to this feature. For example:
– In Rex’s case the staffing specialist said, "I see
he's ESOL Level 4. Do you think that has a
bearing on this?" The teacher responded, "No, he
speaks English well." The psychologist said that
Rex was tested in Spanish as well as English
because he is bilingual and because he is low in
academics. She added, “He preferred English
during the testing.” Yet only the scores of the
English testing were reported during the meeting
or included in the psychologist’s written report,
and no further mention was made of the possible
influence of language on Rex’s IQ score of 74.
Interactions with Parents
• We observed little evidence of strong parental
involvement in the process.
• We saw a range of interactions across schools,
and even within schools.
• We noted several problems, including negativity, a
lack of consistent translation services, ignoring and
unprofessionalism, and insensitivity.
• In general, we detected a pervasive negative
attitude towards families and communities, and the
tendency to blame parents for their children’s
problems.
Decision-Making at Staffings
• Decisions seemed to have been made
ahead of time.
– When a child was going to be moved to another
school, a faculty member from that school was
typically in attendance to explain the program to
the parent.
• When asked, psychologists emphasized that
it is a team decision, but also acknowledged
that they have a lot of influence over the
outcome. One psychologist explained:
–I test. I write my report. I write my
recommendations and I give it to the
staffing specialist… We discuss it and
we come to a decision. And we
discuss it prior to the meeting just to
make sure we are providing the best
for the child. And once we have a
unified front for the parents, we
can bring them in just so they
know what is going on.
Conclusion
• In principle, the CST process is intended to provide a
network of support and prevent inappropriate referrals. Yet
in practice most students seemed pushed towards testing,
based on an assumption that poor academic performance or
behavioral difficulties have their origins within the child and
indicate a need for special education.
• We found tremendous variation between what was written
on a checklist and the quality of what actually transpired
during a meeting. These differences were influenced by the
intentions, knowledge, skills, and commitment of CST or
multidisciplinary team members.
• All of the factors we have described point to aspects of the
process that should be improved.
Epilogue
• The school district in which we conducted our
research has shown a strong commitment to
working with us to improve the referral process:
– New procedures require specific goals, target dates,
and rigorous monitoring of progress for each child
brought to the SST.
– We believe that this district can provide a model to
others in terms of their collaboration with us as
university researchers as well as the collaborative
model they are developing between general and special
education district administrators and school personnel.
For More Information
• Contact:
Janette Klingner
University of Colorado at Boulder
School of Education
249 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0249
Phone: 303-492-0773
E-mail: [email protected]