ELL Misidentification, Overrepresentation, and Intervention

Why ELLs Are Overrepresented in Special Education

Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda (2005) state that English Language Learners (ELLs) are overrepresented in special education because of a "tendency to overestimate the homogeneity of populations by failing to disaggregate factors such as language proficiency or to consider social class or program type" (p. 283). In other words, administrators and teachers are not recognizing diversity sufficiently in schools, and are therefore expecting the same level of ability from minority groups that may in fact be quite proficient at acquiring languages — as demonstrated by their ability to navigate multiple languages simultaneously. Similarly, another contributing factor to overrepresentation is the lack of efficient identification models (Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). Teachers are not incorporating contextual analysis when performing diagnoses and are therefore overlooking ethnic and racial factors that cause students to be misrepresented. Sullivan (2011) also identifies the cause of overrepresentation as being related to the evaluation of minority students relative to their "white peers" in the classroom, which has the effect of a negative grade curve on the minority student (p. 317).

Cultural Influences on ELL Learning and Behavior

Cultural influences on the values, learning, and behavior of individuals with exceptionalities and their families can range from positive to negative. For instance, if a teacher possesses a degree of xenophobia and expresses this in the manner in which he or she teaches, a negative impact on an ELL could result. The ELL, on the other hand, approaches the educational process from a completely different perspective and may even be required to be multilingual as a result of his or her environment.

The idea that multilingualism should not be viewed as a specialty but rather treated as a norm is an important one. This is illustrated by the multilingual student's experience of growing up using various languages and perceiving them as one integrated entity rather than as separate systems, as they tend to be viewed in the West (DeJong, 2011, p. 1). For instance, the tendency to "teach" a separate language in one class while ignoring it in all other contexts does not help to support the actual learning or use of that language. Yet schools still tend to label students and language learners as though they needed to be marked as special or different. It should be the norm for all students to learn multiple languages, especially at a younger age, in order to develop skills and open doors for later careers. Too much potential is being wasted, and no one is taking full advantage of it. Instead, "structuring classroom participation" is viewed as the height of creative response to this problem — but it is not. The deeper problem is that these languages are not being embraced culturally and that there is no incentive to use them outside the rigid confines of the classroom (DeJong, 2011, p. 5).

If schools have supposedly embraced pluralism, they should respect pluralist discourses: "Within pluralist discourses, diversity is accepted as a basic part of an increasingly mobile, global, and diverse world" (DeJong, 2011, p. 15). Yet, as Samway and McKeon (2007) indicate, "Spanish is the native language of approximately 76% of ELLs" (p. 2) in America, and ELLs represent a growing percentage of the school population — yet there is no genuine embrace of Spanish language or culture. On the contrary, the cultural establishment does not encourage this approach, regardless of the lip service paid to multiculturalism.

Educators can advocate through their language decisions by embracing pluralism and showing respect for diverse cultures and languages. This promotes a positive image and concept for all students. Language ideologies play a role in influencing these decisions by narrowing or expanding one's willingness to participate in the multilingual phenomenon. The demographic myths surrounding English Language Learners suggest that the approach teachers should take is one of openness and acceptance toward individual families and learners, rather than marginalizing or scrutinizing them for their differences.

How ELLs Can Be Misidentified as Having Speech Impairment, ID, or LD

ELLs can be misidentified as having speech impairment, intellectual disability, or learning disability due to cultural bias or inefficient models of evaluation (Sullivan, 2011). At the same time, there may be a failure on the part of the teacher to properly motivate students — a willingness to diagnose, label, and disengage rather than supply the needed motivation for minority groups who do not meet the same language proficiency standards as their "white peers." Lopez, Rodriguez, Esteban et al. (2013) assert that academically successful students seek out their own strategies for learning. The most successful students apply themselves with concentrated effort and take reflective, theory-based approaches to learning, whereas less successful students engage with the educational process on a more superficial level and do not challenge themselves deeply with the material. The researchers conclude that "training guidance" should be given to students so that they are not simply operating at a surface level but are directed toward deeper engagement with content and study processes (p. 1361).

Pre-referral strategies should therefore include assessing all aspects of the situation, including the teacher's own performance and regard for the student under consideration. It may be that the teacher is failing the student, which is why the student is failing to meet expectations. As Freire (2000) notes, the central problem in such circumstances is that students must become authentic beings who participate "in developing the pedagogy of their liberation," i.e., education (p. 48). Students must view themselves and their teachers through a radically different paradigm, and this paradigm shift constitutes the means by which liberation, ideation, education, and self-determination can be achieved. "Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character" are what Tough (2012) finds to be consistent factors across cultures and generations in defining educational success — factors that play a part in establishing long-term achievement.

According to Boyle, Duffy, and Dunleavy (2003), fit indices used in combination with Vermunt's four-factor model of learning styles demonstrate that different students have different best-fit learning orientations. These orientations are derived from different ways students process material, their mental capacities, and their strategies for approaching study. Boyle, Duffy, and Dunleavy identify four basic learning approaches: meaning-directed learning, which focuses on identifying meanings; reproduction learning, which focuses on reproducing answers; application learning, which focuses on understanding how to apply lessons to oneself; and undirected learning, which follows no consistent strategy. Undirected learning had the least positive impact on academic success, whereas meaning-directed learning showed the most positive association. This suggests that students should find the learning process that works best for them, and that empowering students to do so is where teachers can make the most significant difference. By overemphasizing the need to label students as having a speech impairment, an intellectual disability, or a learning disability, teachers undermine their own objectives.

Conclusion

Careful consideration of the academic and educational process depends upon students using a learning style that works with their personality. Since everyone is different, each student may require a unique approach. As long as that approach is oriented toward deep engagement with the material, the likelihood of success is greater. If engagement remains only at the surface level, the student is not applying himself or herself sufficiently — or it may be that the teacher is simply not reaching the student at a meaningful level. The learning style should be genuinely engaging in order to be effective, and the teacher should focus on complementing that learning style for the sake of the student's success, rather than searching for internal deficits in the student that appear beyond the teacher's ability to address.

References

Artiles, A., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.

Boyle, E., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt's inventory of learning styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 267–290.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.

DeJong, E. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practices. Caslon Publishing.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Furnham, A. (2012). Learning style, personality traits and intelligence as predictors of college academic performance. Individual Differences Research, 10(3), 117–128.

Lin, C. (2013). Revealing the "essence" of things: Using phenomenology in LIS research. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), 4, 469–478.

Lopez, B., Rodriguez, J., Esteban, P., et al. (2013). Learning styles and approaches to learning in excellent and average first-year university students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1361–1379.

Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass.

Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. (2006). English Language Learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 99–107.

Samway, K., & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for language minority students. Heinemann.

Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English Language Learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334.

Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Uzuntiryaki, E. (2007). Learning styles and high school students' chemistry achievement. Science Education International, 18(1), 25–37.