Week discussion post - CLDE 5030

docx

School

University of Colorado, Denver *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5820

Subject

Accounting

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by marisol321

REPLIES completed: Weeks 8, 10, 11, 13 Discussion Post Estrada & Wang (2017) compared the process and results for reclassifying EL students from two different districts in California. Thompson (2017) studied data over the course of several years of students who entered kindergarten as identified EL students in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Both articles conducted studies that found that standards for EL reclassification differ widely and that what constitutes English proficiency is a nebulous, indeterminate measurement and label. Thompson (2017) found that there was an optimal window for in which “students’ likelihood of reclassification rises steadily during elementary school, peaking after students have spent 6 years in the district (when the vast majority of students are in fifth grade). After this peak at the end of elementary school, students’ likelihood of reclassification drops” (p. 347). Students are more likely to test out if they have strong initial English proficiency, are young, smart, female, do not come from low-income households, are not in SPED, have educated parents, have had experienced teachers, quality educational systems, their heart-language is not Spanish- speaking - because of the correlation between LatinX households and low socioeconomic status (Thompson, 2017, p. 336 and 357). A 2011 CDE report, as cited by Estrada & Wang (2017) found an “apparent discrepancy between the substantial percentage of ELs who meet state guidelines for ELP (37%) and English language arts (ELA) content standards achievement criteria (60%) and the much smaller percentage reclassified FEP (11%)” (p. 209). Reclassification is difficult, complicated, and not always easy to predict; however, those students who were “reclassified in Grades 2-4 (but not later) showed large gains in ELA test scores and GPA for 7 subsequent years” (Estrada & Wang, 2017, p, 210). The results of delayed EL reclassification is that students may often feel a sense of hopelessness, that the target is moving and there is no real faith that hard work and determination will make them capable of hitting a difficult, small, moving target. One of the two districts that Estrada & Wang followed didn’t even notify students that they qualified to reclassify but were denied reclassification, so parents and students likely would not even know how close they were and could not contest the results. Working in the dark with no idea of the progress or even of the objectives could be very detrimental to students’ and families’ morals. Delayed EL reclassification also resulted in denying students opportunities to learn (OTL), thus further handicapping them. EL Curricular Streams “often diminish OTL by omitting or curtailing ELD instruction, limited access to mainstream core content and the full curriculum, and increasing remedial instruction, linguistic and social isolation, and stigmatization” (Callahan & Shifrer, 2012; Dabach, 2014; Dabach & Callahan, 2011; Estrada, 2014a, 2014b; Estrada & Wang, 2013, 2015; Thompson, 2015b, as cited by Estrada & Wang 2017, p.209). Students may also become dependent or reluctant to or fearful of joining the mainstream without their EL peers or without their EL supports. Also, “delays in reclassifying, which can result in permanent EL status” (Estrada & Wang, 2017, p. 209). Estrada & Wang (2017) cited a California State Auditor 2005 report which surveyed eight California school districts and found that 62% of students who met reclassification criteria were not reclassified (p. 210). That means roughly 62% of students who are being denied educational opportunities.

Failure to automate the reclassification resulted in delayed or failure to reclassify EL students. An unnecessarily complicated system requiring signatures and sign-offs by parents and / or staff could also delay or deny a s student’s EL reclassification. Also, Carroll and Bailey (2015) as cited by Estrada & Wang (2017) found that “an ELP proficient first criterion, aggregated with content achievement at or above standards resulted in 59% ineligibility for all Els and 30% ineligibility for academically high-performing Els” (p.237, emphasis from original retained). Also, staff who were not trained in reclassification standards and expectations and lack of transparency or understanding of the EL reclassification process also resulted in delayed or denied EL reclassification. The more complicated and the more opportunities for humans to overrule students’ scores resulted in delayed or denied EL reclassification, since school staff, teachers, and even parents have various reasons for denying reclassification. For the most part, most of the teacher or staff generated reasons for denying or delaying reclassification, most of them seem to be based on serving the best possible outcome for the student and working in their best interests – everything from keeping them with their peers, to hoping they would find more academic success with the additional EL supports (Estrada & Wang, 2017, p. 231). Some of the quotes indicate that staff or students didn’t fully understand the process, requirements, expectations, or implications of EL reclassification. Some of the quotes showed that the staff or teachers thought students didn’t deserve to be reclassified due to “nonacademic factors such as being ‘off task,’ ‘not showing a lot of effort,’ or being a ‘high performer, but spacy’” (Estrada & Wang, 2017, p. 231). I always assume most teachers have positive intentions. However, of all the quotes about why a student’s EL reclassification should be delayed or denied, the one I found the worst was not an actual quote, but the fact that some students were denied because “staff mentioned that schools received additional funds for ELs” (Estrada & Wang, 2017, p. 231), meaning the student was denied for the purposes of acquiring additional funds. My question for my peers: how many of you feel that before beginning this MA in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners, were you aware of or did you really understand the requirements for reclassification of EL status in our state and district? How many of your peers do you think know what the process is? References Estrada, P., & Wang, H. (2017). Making English Learner Reclassification to Fluent English Proficient Attainable or Elusive: When Meeting Criteria Is and Is Not Enough. American Education Research Journal . 55(2), 207-242. http://www.doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831217733543. Thompson, K. (2017). English Learners’ Time to Reclassification: An Analysis. Educational Policy . 31(3), 330-363. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/08959004815598394.

Nov 11 – Week 12 Both articles this week address the over-representation of emergent bilinguals in special education, especially for those SPED categories that are based on subjective measures – “learning disabilities, mental retardation, and emotional disturbance” (Klingner & Artiles, 2003 p. 67). Multi- or bilingual students are also under-represented in gifted programs. Since LatinX students represent majority of multi- or bilingual students in public education, they were the focus of many of the studies. Often referrals to special education are made based on standardized tests that are English only based, and happen without observing the student in the classroom by someone from the referral process other than the classroom or referring teacher. Also, the process often doesn’t consider language proficiency in consideration of whether or not SPED referrals are necessary because “the student’s native language and the number of years of English instruction that the student had received” (Klingner & Artiles, 2003 p. 68). However, these two articles seem to offer differing information, since Klinger and Artiles suggested more observations, but Hoover (2012) seem to indicate that some of the behaviors associated with multi- or bilingual students who are struggling academically can often traced back to English language issues as well as cultural differences, and such struggles often manifest in “short-term behaviors, such as withdrawal, acting out, extended periods of silence, or anxiety” (p. 41). It seems likely that an observer who saw these behaviors over a short period of time may also interpret they behavior as indicative of SPED behaviors. Hoover also suggested cultural and linguistic factors influence instruction should be considered in the referral decision making process, as well as the CREDE standards for Culturally Responsive Instructional Standards be practiced in the classroom to help prevent SPED referrals. Most importantly, both articles stated that the CLDE training of educators and staff is paramount in preventing mis-identification of multi- or bilingual students as needing SPED services, as well as appropriate testing and referral requirements that acknowledge differences in performance that are based in second-language proficiency acquisition. Moll (1990) as cited by Klingner & Artiles, (2003) “recommends looking for the cultural, linguistic, and social resources – funds of knowledge – that students and their families bring to the school setting and viewing these as strengths on which to build problem-solving abilities” (p. 69). However, all these steps are still subject to human error and lack objective testing, so it is problematic that “the field has not yet adequately determined how to distinguish between disabilities and normal second-language learning development, nor have we discovered how to assess students’ true learning potential rather than knowledge acquired through previous home and school experiences’ (p. 70). Question for my peers: have you seen students who are learning English as a second or third language but students who are marked or indicated who are labeled as needing SPED services when they do not need those services, or the other way around? Do you see students who are not referred to SPED services who may need SPED services but have not been referred because teachers or other staff assume academic struggles are due to second-language acquisition process instead of an actual mental or learning disability? “acculturative stress often accompanies the process of acculturation; stress may trigger certain behaviors that may appear to be a disability (e.g., withdrawal, anxiety) when in reality they are

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

temporary and will subside after student becomes more comfortable with the new environment.” (Hoover, 2012, p.42). References Hoover, J. (2012). Reducing Unnecessary Referrals. Teaching Exceptional Children . 44(4), 38- 47. Klingner, J., & Artiles, A. (2003). When Should Bilingual Students Be in Special Education?. Educational Leadership . 61(2), 66-71.

Week 13, Nov 17 This week’s readings were about students who are labeled has being both emerging bilingual and as having learning deficits. All of the articles advocate for teachers who are in special education general education or content area, and bilingual educators to work together to better serve students. The articles also address MTSS instruction, although in my experience students who are on an IEP are rarely also placed on an MTSS plan, and their IEP is just modified to meet their needs. Thompson (2015) as cited by Schissel & Kangas (2018) stated that “roughly one in every three L-TELs in one district have identified disabilities” (p. 568), but that Emerging Bilinguals on a national scale “are under-represented in special education in comparison to those from homes where English is the primary language” (Morgan et al, 2015, as cited by Ortiz, Fránquiz, & Lara, 2020, p. 245). The numbers vary greatly from state to state and by district but in urban districts in California Emerging Bilinguals were “significantly over-represented in the upper grades” (Schissel & Kangas, 2018, p. 245). All three articles sight the overlap between these twice-identified or intersectional students, and since their labels are often based on students’ performance on standardized tests that are not created to measure emerging bilingual student’s skills in language because of their monolingual focus or cultural bias. Schissel & Kangas (2018) focused on the process of testing out of the ELL label and how difficult that is for twice-identified students because “emergent bilinguals with disabilities were unable to meet reclassification criteria” (p. 568). This inability to shirk their ELL label is based on a system that doesn’t properly measure their skills because of the misuse or over-reliance of standardized assessments in which “few appropriate accommodations have been found to be beneficial for emergent bilinguals” (Schissel & Kangas, 2018, p. 572). Since the tests cannot accurately measure what students can do, they continue to receive pull-out instruction in both special education and for English language learning classes, meaning they receive fewer opportunities to learn deep and rich lessons that would encourage the kind of cognitive, intellectual growth, and thereby “their collective experience of historic and systemic disadvantage is profound as reclassification policies and structures often ignore or fail to account for their distinct education needs as assets” (Schissel & Kangas, 2018, p. 574). As a result, LTELS are “prone to higher rates of dropping out and limited opportunity in attending post- secondary education (U.S. Department of Education, 2016; Olsen, 2014, as cited by(Schissel & Kangas, 2018, p. 582). For these reasons, Schissel & Kangas (2018) advocate for more a change in reclassification criteria away from standardized assessments. Emerging bilinguals in general are struggling to find success and catch up with their English- only speaking peers in a general education classroom because “while 39% of native English speakers score at or above proficient in reading in the 12 th grade, 4% of emergent bilingual students reach this threshold. [while EM students who are on an IEP only ] 8% of the 12 th graders are at or above proficient in reading” (Golloher, Whitenack, Simpson, & Sacco, 2018, p. 128). While all students with learning disabilities are struggling, and all students who are Emerging Bilinguals are struggling, students who are both Emerging Bilinguals with learning disabilities struggle even more. This is partially true because identifying students accurately and in a timely fashion is difficult. Emerging Bilingual students are more likely to be inaccurately identified as needing special education because learning English can delay students’ academic performance in the same ways that those students with a learning disability. Conversely, some students with an actual learning disability are likely to be missed and their intellectual disabilities

are blamed on the fact that they are just learning English, instead of being accurately diagnosed. “under-identification would suggest that emergent bilingual students it learning disability may not be receiving the types of interventions that would address their learning needs […]. At the same, by the secondary level those students who were currently identified as English learners were over-represented in special education” (Golloher, Whitenack, Simpson, & Sacco, 2018, p. 129). For these reasons Golloher, Whitenack, Simpson, & Sacco (2018) focused on providing more MTSS instructional practices for twice-identified students since special education services do not always meet the unique needs of students who do not speak English as a first language. For example, in a special education setting “[s]ight-word instruction is often delivered out of context […] For emergent bilinguals, this can be especially challenging and be in conflict with instructional methods that call for the teaching of vocabulary in context of the story, lesson, or activity for emergent bilinguals” (Golloher, Whitenack, Simpson, & Sacco, 2018, p. 136). This article suggests that these students would be best served if teachers collaborated more including general, special, and ELD. This sounds like a good idea, but it means that regular content area teachers, and more specifically English Language Arts teachers will need to do more modifications, get guidance from both SPED and ELD teachers for instructional techniques and scaffolds to help students. “As a corollary to this recommendation, we should note that ensuring that general educators, special educators, and bilingual specialists have adequate time and space to engage in collaboration suggests a need for administrative support as well” (Golloher, Whitenack, Simpson, & Sacco, 2018, p. 138). This collaboration sounds lovely, but maybe I am in an extra cynical mood, but that also seems like the general classroom teacher is being asked to do more with less, again. Everyone agrees that the goal is to avoid doing “potential harm to students from their being removed from the general education environment” (Golloher, Whitenack, Simpson, & Sacco, 2018, p. 140). The process this article suggests for teaching students from their introductory education classes in college and throughout their academic teaching careers of not segregating the different teaching specialties seems like a great idea, but also necessitates a systemic change that seems dauntingly big and challenging, though arguably necessary. Still, I would say, as a high school English language arts teacher, the onus is often on me to do all the documenting, modifications, scaffolding, accommodations, etc. and the special education teacher or ELD teacher, who has never been in my classroom, may come to me after a unit is completed to tell me what I could have or should have done to help a student, or suggest time-consuming modifications/ adaptations without really knowing which modifications/ adaptations have already been made. So the general education teacher does all of the planning, grading, documenting, adjusting, and reassessing while the student, SPED and ELD teacher do all the second-guessing. I am sure I sound more cynical than I truly feel, but this seems to be where we are right now – and I have a good relationship and enjoy working with our SPED and ELD team. I prefer the method of the co-taught class, where the core teacher takes care of the core instruction, and the SPED or ELD co-teacher takes care of modifications / adaptations, can help in the grading and documenting, and their expertise can be more readily utilized in planning and direct instruction as well as for daily, instructional supports. This also has the added benefit of giving the student of all of the benefits of being in a general education class (with some modifications), but with the added bonus of more attention, lower teacher-to-student ratios, and more time in small groups. If, as Ortiz, Fránquiz, & Lara (2020) state, about 77% of emerging bilingual students are incorrectly identified as having a learning disability (p. 246), this is a significant number and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

requires more attention as “inaccurate identification and/or classification has serious consequences for EB’s including lowering teachers’ expectations for student performance, regardless of their actual academic performance (Kangas, 2020, as cited by Ortiz, Fránquiz, & Lara, 2020, p., 246). This article also suggests teachers who collaboratively to plan, modify, document, assess, and implement instruction specific to the needs of these twice-identified students. It seems that the biggest hurdle addressed in all three of these articles is that many teachers and all if not most assessments do not understand the needs and abilities of emerging bilingual students and often for special needs students and how those are exponentially different when both needs and abilities intersect in a single student. My questions for my peers: how many emergent bilingual students have you had who you suspect are have special needs who are not identified as such? How many emergent bilingual students have you had who you are identified as having special needs who you believe have been misidentified because of their English language skills? When do you have students in one or both of these categories, who does the planning, instruction, modification / accommodations, grading, and documenting for the students? References Golloher, A., Whitenack, D., Simpson, L., & Sacco, D. (2018) From the ground up: Providing support to emergent bilinguals to distinguish language difference from disability . Insights into Learning Disabilities , 15(2), p. 127-147. Ortiz, A., Fránquiz, M., & Lara, G. (2020) The education of emergent bilinguals with disabilities: state of practice. Bilingual Research Journal , 43(3), p. 245-252. https://10.1080/ 15235882.2020.1823734. Schissel, J., & Kangas, S. (2018) Reclassification of emergent bilinguals with disabilities: The intersectionality of probabilities. Language Policy , 17, p. 567-589. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10993-018-9476-4.

Week discussion post - CLDE 5030

Related Documents