edu 570 research paper, cdl students

Running Head: CULTURALLY & LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS 1

Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Students:

Lauren A. Bonanno

Molloy College

Summer 2011

CULTURALLY & LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS 2

Abstract

The author argues for the ideas of diversity as it pertains to public education in the U.S. and its

implications of quality, equality, and opportunity for all students – including diverse and those

with special needs. Culturally and linguistically diverse students face several unique challenges

that pose threats for their future. Fortunately, there is hope and the author explores these

possibilities in detail as it pertains to the diverse population of elementary and secondary

students today.

Key Words: Education, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (CDL), ,

Constructivist, Strategies, Students with Disabilities, Poverty


Introduction

Marcel Proust is quoted as saying, “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking

new landscapes, but in having new eyes”. It is with this powerful concept of rediscovery by

means of shifting perspective (having new eyes) that one can understand the process of teaching

our nation’s growing diverse population of students. As a country founded on principals of

freedom by those original immigrants in flea of persecution, one would assume that diversity,

equality, and acceptance would be intrinsically woven into the basic thread of American Culture;

however, our society has, on more than one occasion, slighted, mistreated, and underrepresented

certain groups of Americans.

This unfortunate discrimination has traditionally targeted people in the following five

categories set by the federal government: African American (Black), Hispanic (Latino/a),

Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native (Native American)” (Smith and

Tyler,2010, p.74). Often referred to as the “minority”, these broad and over generalized groups

of Americans have too often been the victims of the perceived majority’s racism, prejudice, and

discrimination.

Furthermore, these injustices have long embattled minority students within our public

education system. Over the course of the past decade, the journey of legislation and reform has

made momentous progress in our nation’s fight for equal opportunities in learning for all

students.

Historical Context of Diversity in Education

Public education is one of our nations most powerful institutions. The themes of

bilingualism and multiculturalism have long played a major role in this system. In the late 19th

Century, immigrants from Southern, central, and Eastern Europe settled here, disrupting the


heterogeneous communities, systems, and schools that existed at the time. In attempts to

preserve their status quo, known as nativism, foreign language instruction was banned

throughout all schools at the time (Smith & Taylor, 2010).

The next wave of cultural movement came during the WWI era when the country came

together and fostered what is known as “Americanization”, or in other words the traditional idea

of the “melting pot”. This movement fostered the abandonment of all outside cultures and

filtered them into a unified cohesive “American Dream” (Smith & Taylor, 2010). This idea of

the assimilation of culture seemed ingenious at the time, but before it wasn’t before long that this

exclusivity led to racism, segregation, poverty, and aggression among Americans.

In union with the civil rights movement, the 1960’s brought an era of change for not only

American culture, but for society and the education system. The new social philosophy was

known as cultural pluralism. This new vision was guided by the liberties of the civil rights

movement and promote equality for minorities and acceptance of diversity within our nation.

Similarly, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, public education seemed to be following a similar

path towards equal opportunity. Legislation and movement was passed to protect the rights of

and provide an equal opportunity to learn for diverse students.

Outwardly, this movement towards fairness was making an impact in the lives of diverse

students who had previously been inappropriately diagnosed or dismissed because of a cultural

or linguistic barrier. For example, in 1970, Diana v. the State Board of Education found that

using IQ tests to identify Hispanic students as having mental retardation was discriminatory

(Smith & Taylor, p. 75). In 1971, in the case Larry P. v. Riles, the court drew attention to the

overrepresentation of African American students in classes designed for intellectually disabled

students. Additionally, in 1974, a landmark case in the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lau v.


Nichols, that limited-English proficient students have a right to special assistance as part of equal

educational opportunity. These rulings set precedents that opened doors for new equal

opportunities and paved the way for our present day legislation.

Current Legislation

Today, in the pursuit of an equitable education for all students, the federal government

issued two major reforms, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act of 2004. Despite their critics, these two documents are intended to

serve as manuals of hope and equality for our American students, specifically those

disadvantaged by diversity or disability. This tag team of powerful literature provides structure,

guidance, and expectations for high quality planning and implementation of best teaching

practices for all students, as well as protections and accommodations for specific students so that

they may be afforded an equal opportunity to succeed.

In 2001, NCLB was passed with the intention of reforming the previous Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by means of increasing student achievement and changing the

cultural dynamics of American’s schools. The reform holds educators accountable for providing

highly qualified teachers and instruction in every classroom, proper and effective use of

accommodations, modifications, and alternate assessments for students with disabilities as well

as appropriate assessment of English Language Learners (ELL).

The most innovative and revolutionary decree issued by this document is its

accountability mandate. Educators are to be held fully responsible for the learning of every child

("No Child Left," 2010). The onset of this document quickly changed the face of education from

an instruction-oriented and teacher-focused routine and into a universally designed student-

learning machine, programmed to understand children and meet their individual needs.


Secondly, the 2006 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) effectively

compliments NCLB as it plays a significant role in supporting and meeting the various needs of

students who have been identified as having a disability. Specifically, the document highlights

supports and reinforcements appropriate for culturally and linguistically diverse populations

("Culturally and Linguistically," 2010).

Prevalence of CDL Students

National statistics and data that describe the country’s school-aged population and the

breakdown of these students by race can easily be misinterpreted. First, as previously

mentioned, the federal government filters the country’s “minorities” into five generalized groups:

White (Caucasian), African American (Black), Hispanic (Latino/a), Asian/Pacific Islander,

American Indian/Alaska Native (Native American)”. These categories do not accurately

represent the true diverse backgrounds of most people that supposedly fall into that group.

Secondly, the system that categorizes this diverse group of individuals also makes

significant assumptions about the consistency of characteristics among people within a particular

group. For example, in comparing two Chinese students, one child’s family has lived in the U.S.

for 150 years and the other immigrated to the U.S. with his family when he was five. In this

instance, the cultural attributes are not comparable, yet the federal government places them in the

same broad group of Asian/Pacific Islander.

Finally, one last inconsistency in national data involves the disparity between statistics in

local, state, and regional data that is used to calculate the national numbers. While these

problems with data are important, it is not a priority within the education system; rather a helpful

piece of information to remind educators to use a critical lens when assessing such information.


The National Center for Educational Statistics reports that as of 2009, there was a total of

49,054 students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools in the United States. Of

these students, 57% were considered White, 17% were considered Black, 20% Hispanic, 5%

Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% of these students were considered American Indian/Alaska

Native. In certain cities, such as Nashville, Chicago, and New York City, these same minorities

account for an overwhelming majority of the student population in public schools, ranging

anywhere from 66% - 92% (Smith & Taylor, 2010).

Factually speaking, research predicts that by the year 2020, 45% of American school

children will be children of color – as previously noted, it is the white middle class students who

are slowly becoming the minority. Bennett (2011) explains, “current patterns of immigration,

particularly with the influx of people from South East Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean,

ensure that ethnic pluralism will continue to be the American way in the foreseeable future”.

With these predictions in mind, it is evident that our nation is becoming more of a cultural

mosaic, which has significant implications for educators and the approach teachers take in the

classroom.

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

In today’s public education system, minority children are defined as culturally and

linguistically diverse (CDL). IDEA categorizes these students into one or more of the following

three groups: culturally diverse students, linguistically diverse, and any CLD student who, in

addition to being considered diverse, also has a documented disability, as determined by the

guidelines of IDEA ’04.

Linguisticaly diverse describes those students whose native language is one other than

American English. IDEA refers to this group as Limited English Language Proficient (LEP), but


more educators more commonly refer to them as English language learners (ELL or just EL).

Also, it is likely that the linguistically diverse student whose native language is not English will

be considered culturally diverse, as these two groups are not mutually exclusive.

Being a diverse student does not automatically qualify a child for special education

services, however, the learning needs of these students are unique and require special attention,

as they are generally directly linked to their diverse cultural and linguistic differences (Smith &

Taylor, 2010).

Characteristics of Diverse Students

Culturally diverse students are defined as a student who is “ not Eurocentric or

mainstream America” (Smith & Taylor, p.77), yet it seems that they are the future American

mainstream. Keen awareness and constant reflection of the specific cultural elements within the

classroom is necessary to identify and effectively manage the varying needs, challenges, and

amazingly rich opportunities associated with a culturally diverse group of students.

It is quite clear that to accurately describe an individual by one trait or characteristic is

impossible, and in some ways, children are more complex than adults. Children, particularly of

school age, are heavily influenced by culture and often find themselves “Caught between two

cultures” (Smith & Taylor, 2010), which has the potential to be a positive or negative situation

depending upon the teacher’s response and classroom strategies.

Cushner, (2010), defines culture as the human-made part of the environment… that which

determines, to a large extent, people’s thoughts ideas, patterns of interaction, and material

adaptations to the world around them. Socialization, he says, is the process by each person

experiences and makes sense of the world. Socializing agents, such as school, community,

family, sports, media, technology, among other elements, are consistently influencing one’s


cultural identity – the core basis of one’s identity comprised of ethnicity, social class, gender,

health, age, language, ability/disability, etc (Cushner, 2010).

The culmination of these biological and environmental factors greatly affects a child’s

worldview, habits, values, and perhaps their ability to “manifest their mental powers” (Bennett,

2011). How a student best absorbs new complex information, processes the material, and how

well he or she retains the knowledge is reflected in their individual learning style and

preferences. For these reasons, teachers are encouraged to differentiate materials, processes, and

strategies in the classroom as much as possible so that learning occurs for all students.

According to Lynch and Hanson (2004), children come to school with a good

understanding of the norms and expectations of their homes, which is typically developed by the

time they are five years old. The immigration process does not prepare individuals for the

numerous and often overwhelming implications of a new culture, which can include a new

language, landscape, and new definition of “normal”. (qtd. in Smith & Taylor, 2010). Concepts

and beliefs, conscious or not, affect our actions and perceptions of social interactions. For

example, competition is a common American theme, whereas collaboration is emphasized in

other cultures such as Asian and Latino. Eye contact, personal space, relationship between child

and authority figures, as well as perceptions of value, meaning, and priorities will vary

depending upon the student’s specific culture, socialization, and experiences.

Wade Boykin and his associates at Howard University studied African American children

and the effects of the socialization process on cognitive development and learning styles. His

framework was based upon the premise that African American culture encompasses three

different realms of experience: mainstream, minority, and Black cultural or Afro-cultural”

(Bennett, 2011). Bennett (2011) finds the results of his study to “reflect the bicultural nature of


the African American community and captures the ‘uniformity, diversity, complexity, and

richness of Black family life’. One can conclude from this research the level of complexity of

child’s development and the importance of cultural competence among all educators.

The second group of CLD students includes the linguistically diverse students, or those

who speak a native language other than English. Approximately 10% of the current school

population has limited proficiency in English, which is an alarming increase of 57% over the

course of the past ten years (NCELA, 2008). IDEA ’06 refers to linguistically diverse students

as “limited English proficient” or LEP, but educators commonly refer to them as English

Language Learners or ELL.

As outlined in IDEA ’04, the strengths, abilities, and variables associated with

linguistically diverse children vary considerably and must be assessed strategically and

professionally. Communication between ELLs and the teacher can create considerable confusion

that can later lead to behavioral or academic problems. One major concern for teachers of ELL

students is the teacher’s lack of understanding between language differences, disabilities, and/or

impairments. “One general guideline for determining whether a bilingual student has a language

impairment is to discover whether the impairment occurs in both English and the child’s

dominant language” (Smith & Taylor, 2010, p.79).

Knowledge of various dialects, grammar structures, and the cultural roots associated with

particular languages will help clarify any initial doubts. For example, many consonant sounds in

English do not exist in Chinese and therefore, many Chinese-speaking students are referred for

speech therapy for an articulation concern, which in reality, is unwarranted (Smith & Taylor,

2010). Understanding various language elements is key to avoiding any confusion that might

lead to unnecessary interventions or improper referrals for special education services.


Additionally, many culturally diverse students in the U.S. can speak their native language

as well as English. In the process of mastering the second language, students often use a blend

of the languages when communicating verbally. Referred to as code switching, this interchange

of languages should not be cause for alarm, rather it is “often a sign that dual language

proficiency is developing” (Smith & Taylor, 2010, p. 80).

Moreover, recent language debates have focused on appropriate variations of the English

language. Particularly, many schools do not recognize Ebonics as a proper form of English;

however, many African American children come to school speaking this dialect because it is the

cultural norm at home, but at school, these children are often perceived negatively (Smith &

Taylor, 2010). It is critical for teachers to understand that “the majority of academic learning is

language based: students who struggle linguistically face exceptional disadvantages in the

classroom” (Smith & Taylor, 2010, p. 81), and thus, just as we accommodate and serve

disabilities, teachers must address the learning needs and empower linguistically diverse students

to reach their potential.

Finally, the third group identified through IDEA includes those CDL students who have

been properly identified as having one of the 13 disabilities. It is important to remember that

CDL students do not necessarily have a disability. On the contrary, despite a lack of data, some

research have shown that the majority of culturally diverse students do not have disabilities and

often have potential, but are overlooked for gifted programs. Each CDL student, however, does

have unique learning needs that are inevitably compounded by his or her personal cultural and or

language elements. The secret to success with these students is recognizing and anticipating that

their individual cultural components will likely affect the way in which the disability is

conceptualized, manifested, and managed (Smith & Taylor, 2010, p. 78).


Lastly, behavioral challenges are common with CDL students as a result of frequent

misconceptions, stereotypes, or misunderstandings on behalf of the teacher. Student behavior and

the boundaries associated with societal norms is linked to biological elements, but more strongly

influenced by his or her socialization experiences and cultural roots. Behavior is a cultural trait

that commonly varies by student, and despite their potentially gifted abilities and often, best

efforts, CDL students often find themselves at the bottom of the class, suspended, or disciplined

for reasons beyond their control at the teacher’s digression.

Cultural misunderstandings or confusion regarding expectations of the teacher and

assignments are to blame for management concerns in a diverse classroom. If the cultures of a

student’s home clashes with the culture of school, the child generally suffers negative

consequences” (Smith & Taylor, 2010, p.83). This clash is known as cultural dissonance and

can usually be avoided if proper classroom management techniques are implemented.

Similarly, stereotypes concerning various cultural groups or linguistic differences can

pose an additional hurdle for CDL students. For example, a study conducted by Neal and

colleagues (2003) found that a significant number of classroom teachers unknowingly held

misconceptions about African American boys’ – subconsciously linking their behavior to their

nonverbal movement styles, such as assuming an assertive or defiant posture, swinging one’s

arms, and walking with a swagger or stroll (qtd. in Smith & Taylor, 2010, p. 83). These unjust

generalizations are formed by prior negative experiences and/or influences of another person’s

attitudes towards an individual. It is imperative that educators disregard stereotypes and personal

bias, specifically in regards to the behavior of a particular ethnic or racial group. These

misconceptions form a rift in the classroom and reflect unwarranted suspicions and pressure on

students.


These examples highlight the importance of taking the time to build an accurate and

comprehensive picture of each child’s abilities and learning needs. Completing a full assessment

of both the student’s personal, academic, social, and cultural factors as well as a personal

inventory, including potential flaws in teaching strategies, will prove more effective in solving

the problem.

Unique Challenges

The problem, Bennet (2010) argues, is rooted in the lingering affects of inequitable

socioeconomic and historical patterns of prejudice and discrimination within our society.

Despite the statistics that Similarly, Harold Cruse, an American writer and civil rights activist,

also shares this historical rationalization. Cruse once said, “America is a nation that lies to itself

about who and what it is. Even today, it is a nation of minorities ruled by a minority of one--it

thinks and acts as if it were a nation of white Anglo-Saxons and Protestants” (Gorski, 2010).

Theoretically, this unjustifiable elitist attitude that maintains a belief in the superiority of a

homogeneous and selective American culture has merit, as it does help explain the denial of our

diverse society and the origin of the fundamental injustices found in our society.

Assuming Bennett and Cruse were correct in their assumptions, the enduring

consequences of such a deep-seated elitist perception are quite obvious. Recent studies (Gordon,

Bridglall & Meroe 2004; HFRP 2005) suggest that the real problem surrounding the nation’s

achievement gap is rooted equally in the learning opportunities available to students, both in and

out of school. Progress has been made to equalize the classroom and provide an fair opportunity

for everyone to learn. Outside the classroom, however, diverse learners are less likely then their

mainstream peers, to compensate for the lack available opportunities at home and in their

communities.


Unfortunately, these historical and societal injustices have led researchers to conclude

that, “culturally and linguistically diverse children (CDL) are more likely to find themselves

challenged by a multitude of factors that put them at risk for unnecessary unsatisfactory

outcomes” (Smith & Taylor, 2010, p.76). Today, we consider these CDL students to be “at risk”

– a phrase acknowledging the high probability of negative outcomes that diverse learners will

face. At no fault of their own, in order to succeed, CDL students must overcome significant

hurdles throughout their life - poor academic achievement, low socioeconomic status, and

significant health related problems - challenges that their mainstream peers are unlikely to ever

face.

Poverty is the most significant force negatively affecting CDL students today. According

to 2009 data from National Council for Educational Statistics (2010), 20% of children under the

age of 18 who live with their family are living below the poverty line – the number jumps to

44% for children under 18 who live with a single mom. Of the 20% of children living below the

poverty line, 11% are white, 35% black, 33% are Hispanic, and 14% are considered Asian. This

socioeconomic disparity of classes has proven to be the single most powerful deterrent of

academic success and literacy among diverse children.

In the unfortunate wake of socioeconomic injustice, according to Smith & Tyler (2010),

children and their families are often limited in their access to health care and have a higher

potential for homelessness. Furthermore, these struggling families are forced to live in

underprivileged neighborhoods, which have been proven to negatively shape a student’s affect

and potential for success.

As of 2009, data from the study concluded that extremely low literacy levels are directly

related to poverty and other socioeconomic disadvantages (Burns, 2000). In extremely poor


communities across the U.S., little opportunity and minimal resources are available to help foster

growth and learning for our nation’s youth.. Ironically, these poor neighborhoods are the same

areas desperate for quality education. Reality is these neighborhoods are subject to failing

schools, at the expense of the students,. These students battle with unkempt facilities and poor

building conditions, inadequate funds for school programs and technology, as well as

inexperienced or low performing teachers with high turnover rates (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb,

Rockoff, & Wyckoff, 2008).

The 1997 amendments to IDEA (P. L. 105-17) also added the requirement that states

collect data for the purpose of monitoring and reducing disproportionality (Section 674).

Congress found the need to be particularly urgent because the number of children from diverse

backgrounds in the nation’s schools was increasing steadily. According to the National Center

for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCREST, 2006), African American children in

poverty are 2.3 times more likely to be identified by their teacher as having mental retardation

than their White counterpart. As of 2000, one in three children was African American, Hispanic,

Asian-American or American Indian. Children of color now comprise more than 75% of the

enrollment in many large city schools, and White students have become a minority in many

more.

Proactive & Pragmatic Strategies

Highlighted by NCCREST (2006), the ultimate challenge for educators and policymakers

is to address the real underlying problems that produce disproportional (i.e., the unequal

opportunities for many students of color because of the consequences of structural poverty and

the discriminatory treatment of students of color in the general education system) as well as the

referral, assessment, and identification process for Special Education.


The RTI and Special Education referral process is designed to assess and meet the specific

needs of “students who are persistently non-responsive to more intensive and alternative

instructional or behavioral interventions over time…. These students are viewed as the most

likely candidates for special education” (Fletcher, Barnes, & Francis, 2002: Ortiz, 2002). The

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) strongly supports comprehensive

assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities by a multidisciplinary team for

the identification and diagnosis of students with learning disabilities. Comprehensive assessment

of individual students requires the use of multiple data sources. These sources may include

standardized tests, informal measures, observations, student self-reports, parent reports, and

progress monitoring data from response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches (NJCLD, 2005).

More culturally and linguistically diverse children continue to be served in special

education than would be expected from the percentage of culturally and linguistically diverse

students in the general school population. Although African Americans represent 16 percent of

elementary and secondary enrollments, they constitute 21 percent of total enrollments in special

education (NCCREST, 2006). There is also an emerging appreciation among policymakers that

culturally and linguistically diverse students are at increased risk for being educated in restrictive

settings and a concern that such restrictive placement may not always be justified on the basis of

student learning challenges and behavior.

Assessment Process

In recognition of these difficulties, a number of solutions and best practices have been

developed. Learning occurs through high-quality instruction; a process that stems from good

assessment. There are five main issues to consider when designing and using an RTI assessment


system for students who are linguistically and culturally diverse: The importance of multiple

measures; The multi-dimensional nature of language and reading; The importance of academic

language for school success; The role of progress monitoring in an RTI framework; The way in

which the information will be used and who it is shared with (NCCREST, 2010).

In general, these concerns can be effectivly addressed by following the systematic and

proven four-step process of RTI. The first step involves convening a full, multidisciplinary

assessment team including parents, educators, and assessors. Second, using pre-referral strategies

and interventions. If a student is having difficulties, information should be gathered to determine

whether these difficulties stem from language or cultural differences, from a lack of opportunity

to learn, or from a disability. Third, sensitivity to cultural and linguistic diversity in assessments

and assessment procedures is another factor that is receiving attention in reading and literacy

research (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006; Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2006). Although

assessment instruments are now translated into Spanish, Chinese, and other languages, particular

care must be taken when assessing ELL students whose native language is not English. Finally,

identifying learning disabilities in such students requires planning, keen observation, and

sensitivity, knowledge, and skill on the part of all team members (Klingner & Harry, 2006;

Macswan & Rolstad, 2006).

IDEA outlines regulations that support appropriate service to culturally and linguistically

diverse populations. Included in this policy is rules of assessment, which prevents radical or

culturally discriminatory evaluation materials from being used, the opportunity for the evaluation

and assessment to be administered in the child’s native language, as well as entitlements for

parents and the rights to an interpreter throughout the IEP process. Additionally, IDEA ’06 sets


strict criteria for special education eligibility and the assessment process of CLD students.

Significant strides have been made in an effort to prevent, and/or determine the presence of

disproportional number of diverse students within special education (ASHA, 2010).

Determining the language to be used in testing-assessment of language dominance and

proficiency should be completed before further testing is conducted for students whose home

language is other than English (NAEE, 2005). Conducting an individualized and age-

appropriate assessment of the child and his or her home environment can produce valuable

insight. Parents are crucial to understanding the student's background and how the student

functions in the home and in the community. Parents can provide information that forms a

framework for understanding the information about the student, and the parent's perspective can

be invaluable for accurately interpreting data as well as for subsequent planning and instruction.

Along the same thought, recent research has begun to address the importance of

understanding the interactive factors, such as family, community, and the nuances of one’s

particular culture and language. It is critical to understand how a child’s socializing agents affect

the their literacy development, specifically in bilingual students (Petrovic, 2010). For example, if

a student is said to have a problem with "auditory processing," the problem should be evident not

only on tests, but also in the classroom and at home. For students with limited English

proficiency, the auditory processing problem should be evident not only in English, but also in

the student's native language (Leung, 1966).

Ideally, these assessments will be nonbiased, using appropriate methods in combination

with additional personal observations of the child’s performance using various forms of authentic

assessments from an assortment of environments (school, home, community) to produce a

multidimensional assessment. For example, student-learning journals/logs, guided reading, K-


W-L charts, group projects and presentations, and other forms of multisensory evaluations.

Specifically, graphic organizers have proven to provide teachers with the ability to determine if

the child’s misunderstanding stems from a cultural or linguistic misconception (Ciascai, 2009).

Educators and assessors also need training to ensure accurate placement decisions.

Acquiring a second language can produce complex effects on the child's language, cognitive and

social development (McLean, 2000). Too often, unqualified assessors misinterpret assessment

results and as a result, misidentify and/or misplace a child in a inappropriate learning

environment.

In order to properly assess a CDL student, an assessor must be trained to understand

cultural, linguistic and experiential differences and their impact on a child's development and test

performance. A trained and experienced assessor develops a clinical memory that serves as a

resource of information and wisdom.

A number of team interaction models, such as the Transdisciplinary Team Assessment

model, can be used to help structure and guide the team. One key to reducing inappropriate

placement in special education is to reduce inappropriate referrals for evaluation. Educators

should carefully collect and analyze information on a CLD child prior to making a referral for

special education evaluation.. If the student's learning problems are related to either of these

variables, interventions should be directed to the identified variables (Leung, 1996).

Pre-referral

A variety of pre-referral strategies are available to educators, and techniques such as

curriculum-based assessment can be used to tell if instruction has made a difference. Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires a language assessment of any child who may be limited

English proficient, including an assessment of the child's proficiency in English as well as in his


or her native language in order to distinguish language proficiency from disability needs. This

act states that an accurate assessment should include objective assessment of reading, writing,

speaking, and understanding.

Further, IDEA requires that "any materials and procedures used to assess a child with

limited English proficiency are selected and administered to ensure that they measure the extent

to which the child has a disability and needs special education rather that measuring the child's

English language skills."The job of the assessment team is to develop a comprehensive,

multidimensional assessment tailored to the child being evaluated. Such an assessment includes

both formal testing (e.g., standardized tests) and informal testing (e.g., interviews and

observations) in a variety of environments (e.g., home and community).

Any formal tests that might be used should be examined for cultural bias by a person

from the cultural group and should be administered by a person who is very knowledgeable

about the child's cultural group and speaks the child's language or dialect (McLean, 2000). If

modifications are required to make the instrument appropriate, the test should be used to provide

descriptive information only (rather than scores), since modifications may invalidate the scoring

of the test.

Monitoring Student’s Current Levels of Performance

Once the assessment is completed, the group of qualified professionals and the child's

parents must determine if the child has a disability, and move on to developing an instructional

plan for the child regardless of whether or not the child is considered disabled. Smith and Taylor

(2010) discuss the common concerns that children who do not have disabilities will be assessed

as having them because of cultural or linguistic differences, but they point out that there are also

cases in which children who do have disabilities have gone unserved because of the difficulty of


distinguishing between cultural or linguistic differences and disability. According to Leung

(1966), "Assessment must be a means to an end. As such, the ultimate quality indicator of

assessment is how directly the results aid in instructing the student."

Specific steps must be taken to ensure the progress and monitor a student’s current level

of performance upon efforts to remedy a particular skill. The following process must be

followed in sequential order and with optimal accuracy and consistency.

Process of monitoring and assessing current levels of performance (SPAM): 1. Conduct initial screening assessment; 2. Assess students regularly (Progress Monitoring) • Disconfirms risk: responsive students remain in Tier 1 • Confirms risk: unresponsive students move to Tier 2. 3. Compare student performance to an established goal 4. Use results to determine if an instructional change is needed or goals need to be increased

Teaching & Classroom Strategies

Promising research has emerged in many areas, including an integrated model of

differentiated instruction, universal design for learning (UDL), and multicultural pedagody. The

implementation of this blend lends itself to various preventative and response-based problem-

solving models in literacy, complexities of reading, non-cognitive influences, brain function,

genetics, and accountability measures (Garden and Whittaker, 2006). “The individual

components of each of the mentioned strategies have proven to be exceptionally helpful in

meeting the needs of students from diverse backgrounds in the general education curriculum”

Garden & Whittaker, 2006).


Differentiated instruction enables educators to meet the demanding standard-based

expectations set fourth by education reform, specifically NCLB 2001. UDL has radically

changed the way educators consider education and the learning process. This theory will

revolutionize and significantly improve student learning by taking into account elements such as

school and classroom’s physical environment and atmosphere, learning styles, cognitive

processing preferences, and universal access to the most accurate information, technology, and

innovation available.

Multicultural pedagogy and individual cultural identities are not topics to be entertained

and quickly dismissed; On the contrary, these concepts must be universally accepted and

embraced as core educational themes embedded deep into the credence of every teacher,

administrator, and academic institution. It is not enough to simply introduce the idea of “culture”

in a lesson or discuss accomplishments of selected minorities during black history month – the

occasional celebration and ceremonial consideration of diversity in education is inadequate and a

true disservice to our students.

In pursuit of an equal learning opportunity for all students, ironically, a teacher must take

an unequal approach to teaching. Equity, when employed as a strategy in the classroom,

maintains fairness in its approach to all students, but does not necessarily deliver an equal level

of support.

The idea of equity provides an individualized and needs-based support system that

effectively targets and prioritizes specific needs of each child. Bennett (2011) agrees and takes

the idea a step further when she says, “equity pedagogy envisions teachers who create positive

classroom climates, use culturally responsive teaching to foster student achievement, and


consider cultural styles and culturally based child socialization, as well as the conditions of

poverty or wealth, in their approach to teaching and learning". Equity, as a teaching strategy, is a

progressive and critical element in the pursuit to achieve success for every child amongst the

diverse population of our nation’s schools.

Earlier, teacher quality was discussed as a significant determent in a child’s academic

successes (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff, & Wyckoff, 2008). The variables that affect a

teacher’s quality include teaching experience, ability to provide clear and explicit instruction and

expectations, teaching style, attitudes and potential personal bias, which can be discovered

through personal reflection of ones cultural identify. This is of particular relevance in regards to

teaching a diverse group of students. A teacher’s choice and successful implementation of

culturally responsive instructional strategies also affects student’s performance.

Culturally competent teachers will exercise a variety of strategies that support the active

involvement of the student. Cooperative multisensory learning environments that target specific

skills and provide appropriate accommodations have proven effective in addressing the learning

needs of diverse students (Schiering, 1999). For example, target skills might include alphabet

awareness, handwriting, phonological prerequisites, test taking strategies, punctuation, and

syntax.

The instructional strategies used to teach these skills should include accommodations

tailored to meet the needs of a specific student. Appropriate “accommodations enable students to

work independently, by changing the setting, requirements, demands, and/or expectations”

(Schiering, 1999). Schiering (1999) offers a extensive list of these accommodations for diverse

learners, which can include slowing down the rate of verbal instruction, increased response time,

preferred seating, alternative directions, frequent opportunities to review, ask questions, and


clarify information, as well as the flexibility to use various relevant technologies, self-corrective

materials, and any support that will increase the child’s confidence in her or her learning as the

child establishes a pattern in their learning.

Today’s children are students of the 21st Century; facing a future of a globally networked

community that is more diverse and changing at speeds greater than any generation before.

Educators must consider the imminent realities of our evolving world and anticipate the

expectations of the multicultural future our students will face. Regardless of race, color, language,

or ability level it is the responsibility of educators to effectively meets the needs of each child so

they are equipped with the tools necessary tackle the problems of tomorrow.

Using the technology available, educators must plan diverse global learning experiences,

emphasizing a high level of international awareness, encourage and strengthen technology and

critical literacy skills, and support each child as he or she hones-in on their individual strengths.

These points, among others, are part of the training students need to progress, think critically,

and remain flexible in the face of constant change.

Culturally responsive literacy instruction requires relevant multicultural literature and

other reading materials to which the student can personally relate (including youth culture).

Students benefit from “windows, bridges, and mirrors,” windows so that they can see into other

worlds, mirrors so that they can see themselves reflected in what they read, and bridges to

connect the two.

Culturally responsive literacy programs also tap into community resources that promote

children’s literacy, such as by inviting volunteers from the community to serve as reading tutors

or even just “listeners” while students read. Inviting and involving parents and others in the


neighborhood to share their expertise or “funds of knowledge” about various topics is another

effective and culturally responsive strategy. For example, the results of one effective model

involved local elders helping in the schooling of American Indian youth. Both the students and

the elders benefit as they gain new insight from the perspective of a different culture as well as

generation. Lastly, programs should also focus on developing partnerships with parents,

sometimes including home visits, so that teachers can better understand the multiple and varied

literacy practices already in the home and so that parents can enhance home literacy experiences.

Success in learning should not be measured on a set scale, but on the capacity of each

individual child. Bennett (2011) shares in this view when she wrote, "our goal as teachers is to

foster the intellectual, social, and personal development of all students to each one’s fullest

potential”. In order to reach this goal, Bennett (2011) also argues that in today’s world, it is

imperative for all teachers to pursue cultural competence as a means of understanding our

students on a personal so that we can provide each child with an equal opportunity to learn and

reach their full potential.

Specific Strategies for ELL Students

U.S. schools are rapidly becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse. For example,

between 2000 and 2005, the population of English language learners (ELLs) increased from 3.8

million to 4.5 million, with the largest number of ELL students in urban cities across the U.S.

Data by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (EPERC) show that “60% of the

nations’ English Language Learners are concentrated in 20 metropolitan areas… Spanish is

spoken by 75% of the ELL population with some 100 other native tongue languages constituting

the other 25%.


Interestingly, “Asian Americans currently represent the most rapidly growing segment of

the population, yet the majority of ELLs speak Spanish, with Latio/a children under the age of

five comprising 22% of the entire U.S. population” (Diaz et al, 2008….. qtd. Smith & Taylor,

2010, p. 87). The data reflects the realities of our country’s increasingly diverse population and

emphasizes the pressing need to provide these students with effective ELL learning

opportunities.

The instruction these children receive, according to 2006-07 Title III data, includes dual

language and two-way programs, transitional bilingual programs (instruction in native language to

support English development), structured English immersion programs, as well as content-based

English as a Second Language support provided in English-only programs. The majority of the

states (36 of 48) participating in the survey reported providing English only as well as programs

that provide native language and instruction.

Regardless of the program, the most crucial element in effective ly teaching ELL students

is the employment of culturally competent and responsive instruction. In a true multicultural

classroom, students will participate in authentic literacy activities in a supportive learning

environment while also experiencing the explicit instruction needed to gain important skill and

strategies. This instruction should include frequent opportunities to practice reading with a

variety of rich materials in meaningful contexts.

Conclusion & Thoughts

Research tells us that this disparity poses a significant threat to our nation’s children and

their ability to compete in the diverse global market and culturally extensive future of the 21st

Century. It is therefore difficult to remain positive in the face of discouraging literacy statistics


rooted in socioeconomic causes, as it might seem like an unfathomable fatal social problem – but

there is hope! Quality education has proven to improve the outcomes of our diverse student

population. In fact, research (NYSED, 2009) has shown that literacy alone can reverse the

adverse affects of poverty and enabling students to be successful.

Frederick Douglass once said, “Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.”.

Similarly, in regards to our diverse society, James A. Banks, (2010), the director of the Center

for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington also believes that the ultimate goal

of genuine multicultural education is education for freedom. A true and complete education, he

claims, is one that promotes the autonomy, abilities, and skills necessary for our students to

cross ethnic and cultural boundaries to embrace peaceful participation or simply acceptance of

other cultures and groups (Banks, 2010).

These powerful ideas illustrate the importance of literacy and quality education for all

students, but specifically for those with a cultural disadvantage . One can argue that the aim of

education today, with the help of legislation and quality educators, is to empower all students

with the skills necessary to free themselves from injustice and adversity.

Encouraging students to “learn by doing and discovering” (Cooper & Cooper, 2007)

enables the child to make personal connections to the information, and thus retain more

knowledge. Teachers must remain flexible and offer a variety of options to students. Empowered

by the ability to choose, students are likely to develop a sense of responsibility for their own

learning. For a diverse child, the idea of choice is exhilarating (Wallace, 1974 ). Posing even

simple choices that are based on their preferences, such as beanbag or a chair, activity A or B,


draw or write, as well as the collective democratic feel of a classroom community enables them to

express themselves and ultimately thrive.

Possibly the most vital and beneficial strategy for teachers to follow is to remain curious

and actively engage oneself in the learning process – as the best teacher is also the best student.

Demonstrating one’s ability to stay current, knowledgeable, and also capable of making mistakes

is a refreshingly honest method of connecting with children. Students are comforted by the

realization that mistakes are normal as long as you learn from them; and ultimately, that life is a

learning process. Lastly, teachers that employ these progressive and constructive methods must

be organized by nature and maintain consistency in their practice as these student-centered

strategies can be easily led astray.

The goal of education today is to close this achievement gap by creating a positive,

academic, and creative environment for all children to learn from the past, actively engage in the

present, and think critically about the future. Horace Mann, one of the first advocates for public

education, once argued that school should be “a great equalizer of the conditions of men”, and in

today’s global climate, these words are extremely powerful. John Dewey’s approach to

academia was inspirational as he set out to “make each one of our schools an embryonic

community life, active with types of occupations that reflect the life of the larger society and

permeated with the spirit of art, history, and science” education (Ryan & Cooper, 2010, P. 309).

With these inspiring thoughts in mind, it is imperative that classrooms are seen as a common

ground and “community” where race, socio-economic situations, gender, and bias are all

disregarded for the sake of the students and active learning.


References

Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241–247. Banks, J. (2010). Multicultural education: goals and dimensions. Retrieved from

http://education.washington.edu/cme/view.htm Bennett, C. (2011). Comprehensive multicultural education: theory and practice. (7thed.). Burns, M. (2000, May 29). Family literacy: tools that help parents promote reading in the

home. Brain Connection, Retrieved from www.brainconnection.compositscience.com/topics/?main=col/burns00may

Boyd, D, Lankford, H, Loeb, S, Rockoff, J, & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in new

york. city teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), Retrieved from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/34787 doi: 10.1002/pam

Brighton, C.M., (2003). The Effects of Middle School Teachers’ Beliefs on Classroom Practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 2/3, pp. 177–206. Ciascai, L. (2009). Using graphic organizers in intercultural education. Acta Didactia

Napocensia,2. Retrieved from http://dppd.ubbcluj.ro/adn/article_2_s1_3.pdf Cooper, R., & Cooper, J., (2007). Those who can, teach. (11th ed.). Boston:

Houghton Mifflin. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. (2010).American speech-language hearing

association. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/advocacy/federal/idea/CLDStudentsBrief.pdf#search=%22Culturally%22

Cushner, K.; Muri, A. and Sundh, S (2010). Baltic Sea Regional Cross-Cultural Materials Development Project. Gotland, Sweden: University of Gotland.

Daniels, V. I. (1998). Minority students in gifted and special education programs: The case for education equity. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 41-43. Dunn, R. (2000). Learning styles: Theory, research, and practice. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal. 13, 1, 3-22. Gorski, P. (2010). Social justice quips and quotations. Retrieved from

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/language/quotes.html Guskey, T.R. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “learning


for mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 8-31. Huebner, T. A. (2010). Differentiated Learning: Meeting Students Where They Are. 67, 5, 79- 81. Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C.Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M I. (1991). AIM for the Best, Assessment and Intervention Model for the Bilingual Exceptional Student: A handbook for teachers and planners. Arlington, VA: Developmental Associates, Inc. Melby, E. O., (1963). The Teacher and Learning. New York, NY: Basic Book Publishers. NCES, Initials. (2010, October). Poverty status of all persons, persons in families, and related

children under age 18, by race/ethnicity: selected years, 1959 through 2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_027.asp

No Child Left Behind Fact Sheet on Assessment of ELL. (2010). American speech-language

hearing association. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/advocacy/federal/nclb/NCLBELLAssess.pdf

Ryan, K., & Cooper, M., (2010). Those who can, teach. (12th ed.). Boston:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wallace, J. (1974). Decision making: the role of education. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 56(1),