ELLs: Identification and Intervention
Why the Overrepresentation of ELLs in the Classroom
Artiles, Rueda, Salazar and Higareda (2005) state that ELLs are overrepresented in the classroom 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 enough in the schools and are therefore expecting same-level ability from minority groups that may be quite proficient at learning languages, as manifested by their ability to understand multiple languages at once. Similarly, another contributing factor to overrepresentation is the lack of efficient identification models (Rueda, Windmueller, 2006). Teachers are not taking contextual analysis in to play when performing diagnoses and are therefore missing ethnic and racial factors that are causing students to be misrepresented. Sullivan (2011) also identifies the cause of overrepresentation as being related to the evaluation of minority students with regard to their "white peers" in the classroom, which has the effect of a negative grade curve on the minority student (p. 317).
Culture influences on the values, learning and behavior of individuals with exceptionalities and their families can range from positive ones to negative ones. 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 could be the result on an ELL. The ELL, on the other hand, is approaching the educational process from a completely different perspective and may even be required to be multilingual as a result of the environment. The idea, however, that multilingualism should not be viewed as a specialty but rather treated as a norm is a good one, as is indicated in a multilingual student's experience of growing up using various languages, believing them to be one entity not separate as they are viewed in the West (DeJong, 2011, p. 1). For instance, the tendency to "teach" a separate language in one class but to ignore it in all other occasions does not help to support the actual learning or usage of that language. Yet schools still have a tendency to feel the need to label students and language learners as though they needed to be marked as special or different. It should be the norm for all to learn multiple languages especially at a younger age in order to develop skills and open doors for later careers. Too much is being wasted: the potential for more is there and no one is taking advantage of it. Instead, "structuring classroom participation" is viewed as the height of creative response to this problem: it is not. The 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 are a growing percentage in schools -- yet there is no real embrace of Spanish language or culture: on the contrary, the cultural establishment does not encourage this approach regardless of the lip service that is paid to multiculturalism.
Educators can advocate through their language decisions by embracing pluralism and showing respect for cultures and languages. This promotes a positive image and concept. Language ideologies play a role in influencing these decisions by narrowing or expanding one's view and willingness to partake in the multilingual phenomenon. The demographic myths regarding English Language Learners suggest that the approach that teachers should take with respect to ELLs is that individual families and learners should be embraced with an attitude of openness and acceptance rather than marginalized or scrutinized for 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 by cultural bias or inefficient models of evaluation (Sullivan, 2011). At the same time, there could be a failure to properly motivate on the part of the teacher, who is more willing to diagnose, label and discard rather than supply the needed motivation for minority groups who do not meet the same language efficiency standards as their "white peers." Lopez, Rodriguez, Esteban et al. (2013) assert that students with success in school look for themselves how to learn. They note that the most successful students apply themselves on a more concerted effort...
Thus, a lack of academic success is related to the learning style that only uses the surface of things for its learning process and is not deeply engaged with content and study processes. The researchers conclude that "training guidance" should be given to students so that they are not simply operating on a surface level but are given a more demanding pathway to how to involve themselves on a deeper level (p. 1361).
Thus pre-referral strategies should include assessing all aspects of the situation, including the teacher's own performance and regard for the student under consideration. It may so happen that the teacher is failing the student, which is why the student is failing the curve. As Freire (2000) notes, the central problem in such circumstances is that the students must become authentic beings who participate "in developing the pedagogy of their liberation," i.e., education (p. 48). In other words, the students must view themselves and their teachers in a radically different paradigm and this paradigm shift will constitute the means by which liberation, ideation, education and self-determination can be achieved. The "grit, curiosity and hidden power of character" are what Tough (2012) finds to be consistent factors across cultures and across generations in terms of defining success in education. These factors play a part in the establishment of "long-term success," as Tough (2012) acknowledges.
According to Boyle, Duffy, and Dunleavy (2003), fit indices were used in combination with the four-factor model of Vermunt which monitors learning styles to show how there is a different and best fit for various students based on learning orientations. The orientation itself is derived from different ways that students have of processing material, mental capacities, and strategies for applying themselves to study and learning. What Boyle, Duffy and Dunleavy find is that there are four basic ways that a student can learn, which previous research also identified. These four ways are meaning-directed learning, which focuses on identifying meanings; reproduction-learning, which focuses and reproducing answers; application-learning, which focuses on understanding how to apply lessons and oneself; and undirected-learning, which has no focus but the whim of the student. Undirected learning had the least negative impact on academic success, whereas meaning-directed learning had the least positive impact. This suggests that students should find for themselves process of learning that works best for them. Empowering students to achieve this objective is where teachers can most significantly come into play. By overemphasizing the need to label students as having a speech impairment, an intellectual disability or a learning disability, teachers undermine their own objectives in this sense.
Safeguards for Avoiding Misidentification of Speech Impairment, Intellectual Disability and Learning Disability
Safeguards for avoiding misidentification of speech impairment, intellectual disability and learning disability include the following: to guard against misidentification of speech impairment, teachers should consider the background and ethnicity of the student and ask, "Is the student bilingual?" and "What is his/her socio-economic condition?" These questions will help to assess whether there are external factors that are really the cause of the student's speech. Labeling it as an impairment when it is actually simply a naturally occurring phenomenon of specific factors in the student's life would be disadvantageous for both student and teacher. For intellectual disability, the teacher should guard against this by considering the same external factors as well as the teacher's own teaching approach. It may be that the student has not acquired the proper learning technique that suits his or her skills and individual personality. Furnham (2012) states that learning styles and personality traits can predict academic performance outcomes (p. 117). The finding illustrates how related the individual personality and approach to learning is unique and impacts quality of education. Considering this can help to guard against misidentification of intellectual disability. As far as learning disability is concerned, the same holds true. The study by Uzuntiryaki (2007) shows that learning styles are a very important factor in achievement in the classroom. The study indicates that learning styles are not isolated from teacher's teaching styles and thus the two can be non-complimentary. Thus it is important to understand how teaching styles impact student learning styles and vice versa. This finding shows that teachers too…
