English 311,"Introduction
to Linguistics"
Identification, Assessment and Linguistically Appropriate
Goals
For Learning Handicapped Students
Participating in Special Education Programs
by
Teshami Reid
The development and acquisition of language is a major focus for educators of
linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. This paper presents
the critical components necessary to ensure successful language development of
learning handicapped students who are classified as Limited English Proficient
(hereafter referred to as LEP): Identification, assessment, and linguistically
appropriate goals written into the Individualized Education Program (IEP).
There are several handicapping conditions that language minority students can
possess. According to Paula Olson’s 1991 Educational Resource article entitled
Referring Language Minority Students to Special Education, statistically,
about 12% of the language minority population in the United States may require
special education. Learning handicapped LEP students may have difficulties
evident in both languages or in one or all four of the language skill areas:
Listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Some students may have difficulty
processing language, and may not comprehend oral input; they may look puzzled
when questioned, or may respond with completely irrelevant responses or with
garbled speech. An auditory memory or auditory processing deficit may be
evident. Other students may have significant difficulties learning to read.
Those students who may have visual deficits may display weaknesses in their
written work: inadequate spacing between words and many misspellings. Little
sound/symbol correspondence may exist between the word written and the word
intended, or the student may have difficulty writing on the line and may not
discriminate the size of letters. The difficulties experienced by some language
minority students may not be entirely language based. Referral to special
education may not be entirely language based. Referral to special education may
also be necessary for behavioral, emotional, cognitive, neurological, or
sensorial reasons. Olson (1991) also recognizes that because many of these
children are losing or have not fully developed first language skills, it may be
difficult to ascertain that the learning difficulty exists across languages.
Along this same strand, Barbara Flores, Patricia Tefft-Cousin, and Estaban Diaz
(1991) argue against placing children in special education programs, especially
children who are second language learners:
For years our school system has identified students who differ from the
mainstreamwith certain labels. As the decades change, so do the labels. But
the same kinds of children are identified as slow learners, learning disabled,
culturally deprived, semi-lingual, limited-English speaking, or the label of
the late 1980s and early 1990s-at risk. Who are these children?
They are largely the children of minority groups, Children from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, children who are bilingual, or children who speak
English as a second language...And we currently have a situation in which many
students are doubly labeled-as linguistic minorities and as special education
students...Those students in special education are in double
jeopardy...Certainly, some children need some children need some additional
support; but categorical programs necessitate identification, labeling, and
separation for the student to receive help. This process often negates any
possible positive effect from the extra help.
However, these categorical programs and labels are present in the school
systems, and educators are mandated to assist second language learners in
special education programs with the development of English language: The first
step in this process identification.
When a student is enrolled into school, the parents/guardians, regardless of
their language spoken, are required to fill out a home language survey. When a
language other than English is indicated, the student is given an achievement
test in both their dominant language and English as required by Public Law
94-142. For learning handicapped LEP students, the test most frequently
administered is the Woodcock-Johnson, the English version (see Appendix A), and
a second test in their dominant language (for Spanish speakers, that test is
called the Woodcock-Munoz; see Appendix B). When the results are calculated, the
student is then classified into one of three language based categories for the
purpose of educational instruction: English Only (EO), Fairly English Proficient
(FEP), or Limited English Proficient (LEP). In addition the Woodcock Johnson
test, there are several other factors to consider in determining the students
language of instruction, as deciding on the language of instruction for
individual students should not be an arbitrary process.
The decision regarding language of reading instruction should be made by the
IEP team, based upon the results of careful systematic consideration of several
major variables. First, Oral language development, including level of
proficiency in language one (L1) and language two (L2) should be addressed with
careful review of the students receptive (understanding input, following
directions) and expressive (communicating orally with others) strengths, Prior
instruction in L1 and L2, Levels of concept development in L1 and L2, as well as
specific gaps in oral language skills. Other areas to consider are cognitive
level/learning ability, delays in academic skills/degree of discrepancy between
ability and achievement (especially the discrepancy between achievement in the
two languages), student motivation, home situation (languages spoken at home,
presence of English models at home and their relationship to the student,
parental preference regarding language of instruction), and the Individual
Educational Program (specifically, the availability of bilingual personnel to
offer L1 instruction). Once identified, assessed, the learning handicapped LEP
student, his/her parents, the receiving special education teacher, school
psychologist/case carrier are required by law to meet and develop the
Individualized Educational Program (IEP).
Title V Regulations of the Code of California Regulations (CCR-LEP-2-5)
mandates that the bilingual learning handicapped student have a
"linguistically appropriate" IEP. According to the definition in the
Title V regulations, Linguistically Appropriate Goals and Objectives are:
1. Activities which lead to the development of English language
proficiency through the use of the primary language of the individual with
exceptional needs; and
2. Instructional systems either at the elementary or secondary level which
meet the language development needs of the limited English proficient pupil
by building on the pupils existing language skills in order to develop English
proficiency.
The goals and objective on the student’s IEP are valid for one calendar
year from the date on which the IEP meeting is held, unless the student moves or
changes schools/educational placements. The IEP goals and objectives are based
on a program of English language development (ELD) that increases the student’s
proficiency in English as effectively and efficiently as possible by utilizing
the student’s primary language and/or Special Designed Instruction in English
(S.A.D.I.E., more commonly called sheltered English). The IEP goals and
objectives are written based on the learning handicapped LEP student’s current
English language status, usually referred to in "stages".
Similar to Breyne Moskowitz’s stages of language acquisition (1998), the
bilingual, special education student is categorized by stages of English
language acquisition. Stage one, called the "Pre-production Stage"
parallels Moskowitz’s One-Word stage. Here, the student understands simple
vocabulary and commands with ample visual and multisensory input, can
demonstrate understanding by following simple directions; can answer yes/no
question, and can answer with his/her name. An example of a linguistically
appropriate goal and objective for this stage would be: Goal-To increase
comprehension/Objective-When asked a question, student will (point, gesture
yes/no, act out) the answer with ____% accuracy as measure by _____________ to
increase English language development. For Moskowitz’s One-Word stage, there
are only a few words in a child’s vocabulary at this stage and those words are
primarily concrete nouns and verbs. Stage two, Early production, finds that the
LEP student progresses from yes/no answer to one-word answers to either/or
question; to one word answers to short, open-ended question; to listing words in
response to a short question. He/she uses two word responses with grammatical
errors, uses non-native pronunciation, and is often difficult to understand.
He/she has a limited range of vocabulary. Moskowitz calls this the Two-Word
Stage which is indicative of "binary semantic-syntactic relations such as
possessor-possessed. An example of a linguistically appropriate goal and
objective at this stage would be: Goal-By ______, student will develop English
grammar skills in the classroom/Objective-By ______, student will learn and use
noun and very agreement with ____% of accuracy. Stage three, Speech Emergence,
appears to lie between Moskowitz’s Two-Word and Telegraphic Speech stages.
According to Moskowitz, "there is no three word stage in child
language.", but admits that "...the absence of a three word stage has
not been satisfactorily explained as yet...". At the Speech Emergence
stage, students can participate in conversation about the here and now, using
sentences ranging from three words to longer utterances. He/she has a wider
vocabulary but is characterized by gaps and lack of synonyms. He/she also
possesses a non-native, but more comprehensible pronunciation. Therefore,
language goals should focus on vocabulary and oral language development. For
example, the goal for this student would be: By ____, student will develop
English grammar skills/Objective-By____, student will learn and use correct verb
tenses, both regular and irregular, with ___% accuracy. Finally, in stage four,
the Intermediate Fluency Stage, conversation in non-academic contexts approaches
that of native speakers. He/she may retain non-native pronunciation to some
degree but not usually enough to interfere with comprehension. The student at
this stage does not have the large academic vocabulary of fluent speakers. This
student’s speech needs further refinement in terms of grammar. It is this
stage, the teacher must be meticulous with pragmatics: The speaker must not only
understand the meanings of word spoken by the speaker, but the context in which
it was spoken as well. Essentially, the physical, epistemic, linguistic, and
social contexts must all be taken into consideration by both the speaker and the
hearer (Buckhoff, 2000). A goal at this stage of fluency would be: Goal-By
______, student will improve English language development/Objective-By _______,
using a target, word, or picture, student will generate an original sentence
that is grammatically and syntactically correct.
Many of the factors to consider in determining placement for
a LEP special education student have already been addressed. Based upon the
student’s present levels of performance and the gals/objectives developed, the
IEP team considers placement options, determines the most appropriate placement
to meet the student’s needs, writes a justification for the placement as the
least restrictive environment, and completes the information regarding
placement, related services, special education areas of need, percentage of time
in the mainstream regular education program and activities to transition the
student into regular education (as appropriate). Educators of linguistically
diverse students in special education programs need to be sensitive to the fact
that, "Often when we are talking, we leave a lot to the listener to fill
in. The more similar the listeners are, the easier it is for that communication
to take place. But when you’re talking across cultures, people have different
sets of understandings, and you often can’t get across your meaning unless you
are able to be very explicit…So it is often necessary to be explicit both with
what you’re trying to communicate and why that information is important to the
task at hand.
REFERENCES
Buckhoff, Michael. Winter, 2000. The English Language, California State
University,
San Bernardino, CA.
Delpit, Lisa. November, 1991.A Conversation with Lisa Delpit. Language
Arts.V68,p541-547.
Genishi, Celia.1988.Young Children’s Oral Language Development. The
Educational
Resources Information Center (ERIC). Retrieved 03/01/2000.ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Urbana, Ill.
Flores, Barbara, Tefft-Cousin, Patricia, & Diaz, Esteban.
September,
1991.Transforming Deficit Myths About Learning, Language, and Culture.
Language Arts.V68,P.369-379.
Moskowitz, Breyne.1998.The Acquisition of Language. Language:
Readings in
Language and Culture. Ed. Virginia Clark, Et.al. St. Martin’s
Press, Inc.
Olson, Paula. March, 1991.Referring Language Minority Students to
Special
Education. The Educational Resources Information Center
(ERIC).Retrieved 03/01/2000.ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics. Washington, D.C.
Unknown Author. Title V Regulations. Pamphlet.
Unknown Author. 1999.Writing Culturally Linguistically Appropriate Goals
and
Objectives.
