general education and special education teachers collaborate

Huong Tran Nguyen 127

Volume 21, Number 1, Spring 2012

General Education and Special Education TeachersCollaborate to Support English Language Learners

with Learning Disabilities

Huong Tran NguyenCalifornia State University, Long Beach

Issues in Teacher Education, Spring 2012

Introduction

TheCensus2000Brief(U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,2004b)in-dicatesthatEnglishisnottheheritagelanguageofapproximatelyoneinfiveAmericans,andthenumberoflimitedEnglishproficient(LEP)students,alsoknownasEnglishlanguagelearners(ELLs),grewabout50percentinthelastdecade.Itisestimatedthatnearly400,000ELLstudentsingradesK-12wereidentifiedasneedingspecialeducationservicesintheschoolyear2001-2002(McCardle,McCarthy-Mele,Cut-ting,Leos,&D’Emilio(2005).Paradoxically,thereisanover-representa-tion,andalsoanunder-representation,ofstudentsinspecialeducationprograms(Artiles&Ortiz,2002;Klingneretal.,2006;IndividualsWithDisabilitiesEducationActAmendments,1997).MoreresearchneedstobeconductedtodecipherwhetherELLsstruggletodevelopliteracybecause of their limited English proficiency or because they have alearning disability (Klingner, et al., 2006). Not surprisingly, generaleducation(GE)teachershesitatetoreferstudentstospecialeducationbecausetheyareunsureifthechallengestheseELLsfacerelatetoasecond languageacquisitionora learningdisability (LD) issue (U.S.DepartmentofEducation,USDOE,&NationalInstituteofHealthand

Huong Tran Nguyen is an associate professor in the College of Educa-tion at California State University, Long Beach. Her email address is [email protected]

Innovative Practices

General Education and Special Education Teachers Collaborate128

Issues in Teacher Education

HumanDevelopment,NICHD,2003).AccordingtoArtiles,Rueda,Salazar,andHigareda(2005),thepatternofover-representationofstudentsinspecialeducationprogramsoftenoccurindistrictswithasizableELLpopulation, especiallyamongolder studentswith limitedproficiencyinboththeirfirstlanguageandEnglish.Itisnotknownhowdistrictsdetermineplacementofstudentsintheseprograms;theirdecisionmaybebasedonstudents’lackofproficiencyinthefirstlanguage,familypov-erty,assessmentprocedures,orreferralbias(Artiles&Klingner,2006).Hence,thetaskofidentifyingELLsforeligibilityinspecialeducationbecomescomplexforeducatorswhomuststillcarryitoutthistaskintheirlocalcontexts.WhoareELLs?WhoareELLswithLD?WhoareGEteachersofthesestudents?Whattypeofprofessionaldevelopmentdoallteachersneedtoworkwithallstudents?

Methodology

ThisarticleisnotareviewofallempiricalresearchaboutELLsandELLswithLDwhoexperienceavarietyofreadingdifficultiesorasynthe-sisofallavailablestudiesbasedonthisbroadspectrum.Itisbeyondthescaleofthisarticletoaddresseverysinglerange,type,andseverity(mild,moderate,severe),andscope(intensity,duration,frequency)oflearningdisabilitiesacrossthedisciplines(e.g.,math,science,socialstudies,Englishcomposition).Rather,theauthoracknowledgesthat,whileresearchershaveyettoassertwithconfidencethatthedifficultiesELLsfaceinschoolareattributedtoalanguageacquisitionissue,alearningdisability,orboth,allteachersareexpectedtoaddressthecomplexneedsofstudentsundertheircare.ThisarticlesuggestscollaborationbetweenGEandspecialeducation(SE)teachers,otherspecialists (ESL/ELD,speech,reading),and/orstafftoworktogethertodesignappropriatelearningexperiencesforELLsandELLswithLD.Theauthoralsosuggestsresearch-basedmethodsandstrategiesthatallteacherscanuseintheleastrestrictiveenvironment(LRE)toprovideshelteredinstructionwithinthecontextofculturallyresponsivepedagogy. InorderforteacherstoprovideshelteredinstructiontoELLstudents,theymusthaveknowledgeofthesestudents’Englishproficiencylevels,asdeterminedbytheCaliforniaEnglishLanguageDevelopmentTestorCEDLT(beginning,earlyintermediate,intermediate,earlyadvanced,ad-vanced),toplanrelevantactivitiesandposelanguageappropriatequestions.ResultsfromtheCELDTtestalsoinformaschoolastotheappropriateclassinwhichthestudentmustbeplaced.TheclassesrangefromELDI(beginning),ELDII(earlyintermediate),ELDIII(intermediate),toacontent-specificSheltered Instruction orSpecially Designed Academic



Instruction in English or SDAIE class (see California Department ofEducation,EnglishLanguageDevelopmentStandards,K-12,2002). Withregardtoculturallyrelevantpedagogy,teachersmayconsiderenrichingtheircurriculumbyselectingliteraturewrittenbyauthorswhosediversebackgroundsandlivedexperiencesmaymirrorthoseoftheirstudents,inadditiontotheschool-adoptedmaterialthatteach-ersareexpectedtoteach.Inselectingauthorswhorepresentmultipleperspectivesandliteraturefromdifferentgenres,teachersacknowledgethattheculturalheritagesofethnicgroupsarelegitimateandworthycontenttointegrateintheschool’sofficialcurriculum(Gay,2000).Whenteachersaffirmstudents’identityandknowledge,theybuildhome-schoolbridgeslinking“academicabstractions”tostudents’“livedsocio-culturalrealities”(Gay,p.29). Intermsofmethodology,theauthorconductedcomputersearchesofdatabasesbytopic(Education)using“AcademicSearchComplete”and“PsycInfo”todetermineappropriatedescriptorsforELLs.Manytermshavebeenusedtorefertothispopulation.Forexample,U.S.governmentfederalandstateagenciescontinuetousethetermlimited English pro-ficient(LEP)orlanguage minority studentsintheirofficialdocumentswhileEnglish language learners (ELLs)orEnglish learners (ELs)aregenerallyadoptedinthecurrentresearchliteratureandbypractitioners.Theauthorusedsetsofdescriptorsforsearches,whichincluded:“Englishlanguagelearnersandlearningdisabilities,”“learningdisabilitiesandEnglishlearner,”“limitedEnglishproficientandlearningdisability,”and“Englishlearnerandlearningdisabilities.”Theauthoralsoexaminedlistsofcitationsfromrelevantstudiestoconsiderarticlesorbookchapterscitedforinclusioninthereviewofliterature.Finally,theauthorconsultedwithresearcherswhohavepublishedarticlesorbooksonELLs,ELLswithLD,andwithteachereducatorsinSEfortheirindividualandcollectiveinsights.WhoareELLs?WhoareELLswithLD?WhataresomeofthechallengesthesestudentsfaceintheGEclasses?

Background

English Language Learners IntheirreporttotheNationalClearinghouseforEnglishLanguageAcquisition,Ballantyne,Sanderman,andLevy(2008)notedthatthereareoverfivemillionstudentslimitedinEnglishintheU.S.,a57%increaseoverthepast10years.Nearlysixin10oftheseELLsarerecipientsoffreeorreducedpricelunch,whichindicatesthattheirfamiliesarefromloweconomicstatusbackgrounds.Itissafetosaythatallteacherswill,atsomepointintheircareers,haveatleastoneELLundertheir



tutelage. Do ELLs represent a homogeneous group? Not so. In fact,ELLsareheterogeneousinrace,ethnicity,nationality,socio-economicbackground,immigrationstatus,generationintheU.S.,proficiencyintheirnativelanguage(orL1)andinEnglish(orL2),andtheirparents’levelofeducation(August&Shanahan,2006;Wright,2010).

English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities Inthere-authorizationoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEduca-tionAct(2004),alearningdisabilityisdefinedas:

Adisorderinoneormoreofthebasicpsychologicalprocessesinvolvedin under-standing or in using language, spoken or written, whichdisordermaymanifestitselfintheimperfectabilitytolisten,speak,read,write,spell,ordomathematicalcalculations.(ascitedinGarcia&Tyler,2010,p.115)

Approximately50%ofallstudents,rangingfrom16to21inage,receive SE services under the LD category; half of them have dis-abilitiesrelatedtospeech-languageimpairment(U.S.DOE&NICHD,2003). Nearly 80% of this heterogeneous group experience readingdifficulties(Artiles&Klingner,2006;Garcia&Tyler,2010).However,exactnumbersofELLswithLDareunknownbecausemanydistrictsacrosstheU.S.donotclassifythesestudentsasadistinctsubgroup.Educators have difficulty distinguishing language differences fromdisabilitywhenexplainingtheacademicstrugglesthesestudentsen-counter,andschoolofficialsreportlackingtools,procedures,orquali-fiedstafftoadequatelyidentifythesestudentsandtheirneeds(U.S.DOE,OfficeofEnglishLanguageAcquisition,2003;Zehler,etal.,2003).Echevarria,Vogt,andShort(2008),forexample,offeredanexplana-tionfordistinguishinglanguagedifferencesfromlanguagelearningdisabilities.Forstudentswithlanguagedifferences(e.g.,ELLs),theirlanguageperformancemaynotbecomparabletothatoftheirpeers;theymaylackculturalandlinguisticexperiences,limitedvocabularyfromlittleexposuretohearingandusingEnglish,andfewEnglishrolemodels(Olsen,2010).Whencommunicating,theseELLsshiftfromonelanguagetoanotherwithinanutterance;anaccentordialectmaybetheimpediment.Theirnon-verbalskills(gestures,facialexpressions,physicalproximity),however,areageappropriate.Studentswithlan-guagelearningdisabilities(ELLswithLD),however,haveauniquelanguagepatternwhichisunlikeothersintheirculturalcommunity.Theyhavelimitedvocabulary(evenintheirnativetongue),strugglewithfindingwordsandusesubstituteonesinanotherlanguage.Theyexhibitdeficitsinexpressiveandreceptivelanguage,anddemonstrate



difficultywithinterpretingnon-verballanguage,whichcanoftenleadtosocialproblems(Echevarriaetal.,2008,p.195). DatafromtheNationalClearinghouseforEnglishLanguageAc-quisition(2008)indicatethatteacherswhoworkwithELLsarethose“…whospecializeinteachingstudentswhoarenotyetfullyproficientinEnglish…teacherswithcertificationsinEnglishforSpeakersofOtherLanguages(ESOL),EnglishasaSecondLanguage(ESL),orbilingualeducation(p.3).ThisdefinitionencompassesahostofteachersresponsiblefortheeducationofELLs(someofwhomhaveadiagnosed/undiagnosedLD),butpersonnelassignmentsmayvaryfromdistricttodistrict,statetostate.Intermsofqualifications,only29.5%ofU.S.teacherswithELLsintheirclassesarepreparedtoworkwiththesestudents.Only20states(e.g.,Arizona,California,Florida,NewYork) require thatall teachershavetrainingtoworkwithELLs;only26%ofteachershavebenefitedfromELL-relatedprofessionaldevelopment(PD)programs,57%believetheyneedadditionaltrainingtoteachELLseffectively.ThistypeofPDrequiresthatteachersreceivespecializedtraininginordertobeeffectivewithstrugglinglearnerswhotendtohavelessqualifiedteachers,limitedresources,fewopportunitiesforintellectuallychallengingcurricula,andplacedincrowdedclassrooms(Darling-Hammond,2004,2006).Whatdoteachersneedtoknowandbeabletodotoprovidetheirstudentswithlanguageanddevelopmentallyappropriatelearningexperiences?Trainingforallpre-serviceandin-serviceteachershaslaggedbehindtherealitiesoftheclassroomintheU.S.giventherapidincreaseofELLswithLD.

Teacher Preparation TheNo Child Left Behind(NCLB)legislationhasplacedgreaterfocusonallteacherstoaddresstheneedsofallstudentsintheirclassrooms.Schooldistrictsacross theU.S.mustensure that in-service teachersareableandreadytoworkwithallstudents.Schoolsofeducationmustalsoshoulderpartoftheresponsibilityforpreparingtheirpre-serviceteachersfortherealitiesoftoday’surbanclassroomsto:

…understanddeeplyawidearrayofthingsaboutlearning,socialandculturalcontexts,andteachingandbeabletoenacttheseunderstand-ingsincomplexclassroomsservingincreasinglydiversestudents;inaddition,ifprospectiveteachersaretosucceedatthistask,schoolsofeducationmustdesignprogramsthattransformthekindsofsettingsinwhichnoviceslearnandlaterbecometeachers.(Darling-Hammond,2006,p.302)

Totransformthetypesofsettingsinwhichpre-serviceteacherslearn,teachereducatorsneedtoprovidecandidateswithopportunitiestocol-laboratewithpeers(e.g.,intra-andinter-disciplinaryprojects,multi-



mediapresentations,leadingdiscussionsoftextbookchaptersorarticles,communityserviceprojects).Additionally,courseworkmustbelinkedtofield-basedexperiencestohelpcandidatesconnecttheoreticalknowledgetheyhadlearnedintheircollegecoursestopracticalapplicationstheywouldbeobservingin“real”classrooms,implementedby“real”teacherswith“real”students,includingthosewithdisabilities. Classroommanagementisoneofthedomainsthatcandidatesandbeginningteachersoftenreportfeelingunder-prepared.AneffectivetooltoaddressthistopicisaPBS-producedworkshopforparentsandteach-ersofstudentswithLDcalled“HowDifficultCanItbe?TheFAT(Fear,Anxiety,Tension)CityWorskhop.”ThisproductionwaspresentedbyRich-ardLavoie,anationally-knownexpertonLDwhohasworkedinspecialeducationsince1972asateacher,administrator,author,consultant,andownerofEagleHillSchool (aresidentialschool foryoungadolescentswithLD).OneofthestrategiesLavoiesuggestedisforteacherstoadoptpreventiveratherthancorrectivediscipline,andbepro-activeinsteadofreactive inaddressingbehavioral issueswiththisstudentpopulation.Another technique Lavoie recommended is for teachers to follow thesameroutines,usefamiliarprocedures,andlisttheagendaforthedayontheboardtoprovideELLswithLDwithexternalpredictabilityandreducetheanxietyfactorbecausethesestudentsare“environmentallydependent”andpossess little internal structure. Incidentally,Lavoie’srecommendationhasalsobeenfoundtobeaneffectiveapproachforusewithstudentswhoareintheprocessofacquiringEnglish(Echevarria&Graves,2007;Echevarria,Vogt,&Short,2008). When candidates have a chance to observe teachers implementstrategiessuchastheabove,theyarebetterabletoconnecttheoreticalknowledgeofmanagementtheoriestheyhadbeenexposedtointheircol-legecoursestopracticalapplicationsintheclassroom.Finally,toinspireprospectiveteacherstosustainthepursuitofprofessionalgrowthandbecomefuturecollaborators,theyneedtobeobservingtheirownprofes-sorsincollaborativerolessuchas,conductingaresearchprojectwithcol-leaguesorwithothers,teamteachingaco-plannedcourse,participatinginagrant,co-presentingasessionataconference,orfulfillingserviceattheuniversity,college,department,community,orschoolsitelevels.

From Pre-Service to In-service Teaching Generally,candidatesenrolled intraditionalprogramsmustsuc-cessfully fulfill their student teachingpracticumormini-apprentice-ship(Lortie,1975)towardtheendoftheirprogrambeforetheymaybeconsideredforemployment.Thetransitionsfromcollegestudenttostudentteachertoin-serviceteacherrequiresomeadjustmentformost



prospectiveteachers;collaborativesupportfrommoreexperiencedcol-leaguesthroughoutthelearningprocessensuressuccessfuladvancementinto theworkplace (Nguyen,2009).All teachers (GE,SE, specialistssuchasspeech,reading,ESL/ELD)—noviceorseasoned—canbenefitfromongoingprofessionaldevelopmenttrainingtocontinuallyreassesswhetherornottheirskillsarethemosteffectivemethodstomaximizetheirstudents’success.GEteachersneedtobeableto:(1)identifytheabilitiesofstudentswithdisabilities;(2)understandhowthesestudentsqualify(ornot)forSEservices;(3)appropriatelyfacilitatethestudentsmeetingthelearningobjectivesbasedontheirIndividualizedEducationProgram(IEP);and(4)knowwhattypeofsupporttheycanreasonablyexpectfromSEteachers(andotherspecialists,ifavailable).Conversely,SEteachers(andotherspecialists)mustalsobecognizantofthedailyworkofGEteachers to instructallstudentswhile jugglingmultipleequallydemandingduties.SuchknowledgehelpsSEteachersbetterassist theirGEcolleagues inprovidingappropriateaccommodationsforstudentswithdisabilities intheLRE.Throughcarefully-plannedprofessionaldevelopment(PD),GE,SE,andotherstaffcanexchangeideas,andsupportoneanother.Acollaborationmodelcanbeadoptedasastructureforthinkingabouttheprocessofdesigningindividualizedadaptationsormodificationsthatareappropriateforindividualstudentsandfeasiblewithinagivenclassroomsituation.

A Collaboration Model Intheirco-authoredbook,Teachers’ Guides to Inclusive Practices: Modifying Schoolwork,JanneyandSnell(2000)suggestthatallteachersandsupportstaffdrawontheirrespectiveareasofexpertisetocollaboratewhilebeingmindfulthatthestructureandfundingofprograms/schoolsmayvaryfromsitetosite.Theseauthorsarguethat“[n]olongerisoneteacherresponsibleforplanning,teaching,andevaluatinginstructionfortheentireclass”(p.16).Theyrecommendamodelforallteachersandstafftoconsiderasaframeworkforcollaborationby:(1)workingtogethertoproperlyidentifyELLsforeligibilityinspecialeducation;(2)recommendingplacementoptionsintheLREforELLstudentswithLD;(3)participatinginPDworkshops/seminarstogainunderstandingofinterventiontechniquesforcurricular,instructional,andassessmentpurposes;(4)co-planninglessonsandactivitiestocarryoutineachother’sclassrooms;(5)observingeachotherintheclassroom;and(6)critiquingandprovidingconstructivefeedbacktooneanotherforimprovementinsubsequentteachingepisodes. Tomeettheaboveobjectives,JanneyandSnell(2000)cautionthatopencommunicationamongmembersiscritical.Thatis,theteammust



agreeonstepstocarryouttheirwork,responsibilitiestobedivided,arisingchallengestobeproblemsolved,andhowdecisionsaretobemade.Teammemberswillneedthesupportoftheirschooladministra-torstoensurethattimeisbuiltintotheirrespectiveschedulestomeetandthinkcriticallyabouttangiblewaystoworktogetherinthegeneraleducationclassroomtosupportthispopulation.

What Does the Research Tell Usabout Approaches for Educating ELLs? KeyfindingsfromtworesearchreviewsconductedbytheNationalLiteracyPanel(NLP)andtheCenterforResearchonEducation,Di-versityandExcellence(CREDE)ontheeducationofELLscametothefollowing conclusions: First, teaching students to read in their firstlanguagepromotesincreasedlevelsofreadingachievementinEnglish.Bilingualstudentswhohavesomeproficiencyintheirheritagelanguagemustbeencouragedtouseit,especiallywhenithelpstoclarifyabstractconceptsinEnglishandsupportstheirsenseofselfasbilinguallearn-ers.Furthermore,educatorscanbebiasedaboutthesocietalstatusofalanguageotherthanEnglishsince,“[l]anguagesindifferentsociocul-turalcontextsareaffordeddifferentvalues.Thisdifferentialevaluationaltersmotivationtospeakandusethelanguage,whichwillimpactitsdevelopment”(Wagner,Francis,&Morris,2005,p.13).Inotherwords,speakersofSpanish,forinstance,maybelessinclinedtodeveloptheirheritagelanguagehavingbeenmadeaware,throughouttheireduca-tionalexperience,thatEnglishisthelanguageofschoolandbecomingproficientinEnglishiswhatcounts. AnexampleofsuccessinservingadiversestudentpopulationisthatofStoneCreekElementary(K-6),locatedinanuppermiddleclasscom-munityintheIrvineUnifiedSchoolDistrict,Irvine,California.Itscampusopenedin1978andwasnamedaCaliforniaDistinguishedSchoolin1998.Accordingtotheschool’swebsiteforthe2009-10academicyear,StoneCreekenrolled:1.68%BlackorAfricanAmerican,46.64%White;0.19%AmericanIndianorAlaskaNative;13.64%TwoorMoreRaces;29.85%Asia; 2.43% Filipino; 6.54% socioeconomically disadvantaged; 14.21%EnglishLearners;8.02%HispanicorLatino8.02;6.92%studentswithdisabilities;and.56%NativeHawaiian/PacificIslander.InNovember,2011,theschoolwasfeaturedintheRegister(anOrangeCountynewspaper)forhavingsignificantlyraisedtestscoresofELLstudents.WriterScottMartindalecharacterizedtheschoolas“fullspirit”whereeveryoneworks“smarternotharder.”Inprincipal’sMichaelShackelford’swords,

Wehadkidswhowereatthesamelevelforthreeorfouryears;the



staffwasn’tsurewhattodowiththem…Thentheyrealizedthattheydidn’treallyknowwhatthechild’slevelwas.Westudiedthedataandsawthateventhoughtheyareproficientorallyandauditorily,theywerenotproficientinreadingandwriting.

Basedontheabovedataanalysis,StoneCreekteachersreceivedintensivetrainingintechniquesandstrategiesforworkingwithELLs,includingculturalsensitivity.Theschoolusesahighlyfluid,multi-tieredinter-ventionsystemtoensurethatstudentsreceiveappropriateacademicassistance,andoffersdailyafterschooltutorialsessions. Successfulschools(e.g.,StoneCreek)recognizethatELLswithLDfaceamulti-dimensionalsetofchallengesinlearningcontentandskillswhiledevelopingproficiencyinEnglish.Second,suchschoolsacknowledgethatgoodinstructionandcurriculum,ingeneral,holdstrueforELLs,butteacherscansupportstudents’acquisitionofEnglishbyintroduc-ingvocabularywithinaspecificcontext,modeloralspeechandwrittenlanguage(e.g.,sentenceframes),andpromoteanaturalprogressionoflanguagedevelopmentovertime.ThisprocessisalsoknownastheNatural Approach(Krashen&Terrell,1983)ratherthanfocusingprimarilyon“drill-and-kill”exercisesanderrorcorrecting.Moreover,teachersmustusecomprehensibleinput(Krashen,1995)tohelpstudentsgainaccesstovocabularyandconceptsembeddedineachlessonandactivity.Thiscomprehensibleinputconsistsof,butisnotlimitedto:gestures,bodylanguage,andfacialexpressionsthroughtheTotal Physical Responsestrategy(Asher,1966),highfrequencyvocabulary,wordwalls,simplersyntax,fewerpronounsandidioms,lessslangandincreasedrepetition,clearenunciation,longernaturalpauses,andqualityvisuals(Krashen,1995).Factorssuchasawelcomingenvironment,alowaffectivefilter,positivereinforcement,andteachermodelingofexpectedlearningout-comesarealsokeyelementstothisprocess,particularlyforELLsatthebeginningstagesofEnglishacquisition(Krashen,1995).Schooladmin-istratorsandteachersoftenreportfeelingpressuredtopushtheirELLstogainspeedyEnglishacquisition.Theseeducatorsmustberemindedthatitisexpectedtotakethreetofiveyearstodeveloporalproficiencyandfourtosevenyearsforacademicproficiency(Cummins,2000). Furthermore,studentsdobetteracademicallyininstructionalsettingsgearedspecificallytowardtheirneeds(ESL/ELD,bilingual,etc.)thaninmainstreamEnglish-onlysettings(Genesee,Lindholm-Leary,Saunders,&Christian,2005).Secondlanguageacquisitionhasbeenfoundtobecomparable,butnotidentical,tofirstlanguage(L1)acquisition(Cum-mins,2008;Goldenberg,2008).Itis,therefore,potentiallyharmfulforteacherstoassumethat“goodteaching”isgoodforallstudentsbecauseofthetendencytooverlooktheuniquelinguisticandculturalneedsof



theselearners,whichmaycontributetotheirdelayinL2andacademiccontentinL2(deJong&Harper,2008).Thispositionpresumesthatthepriorknowledge,culturalexperiences,andeducationalneedsofnativeEnglishspeakersarenodifferentthanthoseoftheirnon-nativepeers.Secondly,thispresumptionleadstoclassroompracticesthatarelessoptimalforhelpingstudentsachievetheirpersonalgoals.ELLswithLDhaveaneurologicaldisorderthatmakesprocessingandrecallinginformation and performing school tasks challenging (Santamaria,Fletcher,&Bos,2002).Howcanteachersfacilitatethislearningprocessandsupportstudents? Teacherscanassistthesestudents’learninginEnglish-onlysettingsthrough:predictableandconsistent classroommanagement routines(diagrams,lists,easy-to-readschedules,etc.);graphicorganizers;addi-tionaltimeandopportunitiesforpractice;repetitionofmajorconceptsusingvisualcues,pictures,physicalgestures;identifying,highlighting,and clarifying difficultwordsandpassageswithin texts to facilitatecomprehension; emphasizing key vocabulary; and helping studentsconsolidatetextknowledgebyhavingtheteacher,theirpeers,andELsthemselvessummarizeandparaphrase(Goldenberg,2008,p.20).Forexample,somestudentsfindmathematicshighlychallengingbecausetheyhavetroubleunderstandingatraditionalpresentationoftendevoidofvisualsandrelevancetoreal-lifeexamples.Instead,whenteachingratios,mathteacherscoulduseproblems(suchastheonesbelow)torelatetostudents’priorknowledgebysystematicallyshowingstepbystep,guidingstudentstodrawshapes(orotherobjectsoranimals)todocomparisons,andhavingthemworkinpairstosolvewordproblems.Thefollowingisanexampleofamathlessononratios.Theteacherinstructstheclass,“Let’scompareshapes.Therearethreerectanglesontheleftandfourtrianglestotheright.”Theteacherproceedstoshowvisualsofthestatedobjects,andstates:

So,therearemoretrianglesthanrectangles.WatchasIcountonebyone.Allright,onerectangle,two…NowIcountonetriangle,two…Onyourpaper,Iwantyoutofollowmeandcountwithme.Startontheleftwiththerectanglesandlet’scount.Onerectangle,two…Now,let’sgototheright,andcount.Onetriangle,two…



Theteacherposesaquestion,“What istheratioofrectanglestotri-angles?”

Theteacherwaitsforresponses,thensays:

Allright,therearemoretrianglesthanrectangles.Theratioofrect-anglestotrianglescanbewritteninthreedifferentways.SinceIamaskingtheratioofrectangles(whichIsaidfirst)totriangles(whichIsaidsecond),herearethreewaysIcanrepresenttheratio.Watchme.NoticethatIwritenumber3first,thennumber4second.

3to4 3/4 3:4

Theteacherthenprovidesampleopportunitiesforstudentstouseratiosduringguidedpracticeandcheckforunderstandingthroughouttheles-son.Theteachercontinueswith“Now,let’stryanotherproblem.Therearethreesharksontheleftandfivelionstotheright.Aretheremoresharksormorelions?”Theteacherwaitsforaresponse,andconfirms,“Yes,therearemorelionsthansharks.”

Withapartner,discusshowtowritearatiooflionstosharks.Remem-ber,youhearmesay lionsfirst,andsharkssecond.Whatare threedifferentwaystorepresentthisratio?Iwillgiveyou_____minutes.WhenIsay“ready?”youwillholdupyourwhiteboardandshowmeyourresponse.Allright,go!

5to3 5/3 5:3

Duringthisindependentpracticeexercise,theteacherneedstocircu-latearoundtheroomtomakecertainthatstudentsareontask,offerneededassistance,andidentifypartsofthelessontobere-taught.Theabovemathexamplescanbealsobetaughtusingrealia(realobjects)ormanipulatives(beans,beads,sticks,straws,shapes,etc.)aspartofshelteredinstruction,whichhasbeenfoundtosupporttheacademicsuc-cessofstudentswithdiverseabilitiesandneeds(Echevarria&Graves,



2007;Echevarria,Vogt,&Short,2008;Geneseeetal.,2005;Goldenberg,2008).Byusingrealiaormanipulativesthatarefamiliartostudents,themathexercisecanbefunandrelevanttostudents’lives. GEteachers,SEteachers,andotherspecialistscanadoptashelteredinstructionmodeofteachinginco-planninglessonsandactivities,carry-ingthemoutinoneeachother’sclassrooms,andcritiquingandprovidingconstructivefeedbacktooneanotherforimprovementinsubsequentteaching episodes.This debriefing period is critical for practitionersbecauseitaffordsthemachancetostepbackandreflectupontheles-sonandaccompanyingactivitiesaswellashearingeachprofessional’srationaleandperspectiveaboutstudentaccessibilitytoandcomprehen-sibilityofcontentandlanguage(Nguyen,2009).Intheircollaboration,GEandSEteachersandotherspecialistscanadoptashelteredmodeofinstructiontoco-planlessonsandaccompanyingactivities,teamteach,andgiveoneanotherfeedbackaboutareasofimprovements.

Sheltered Instruction Sheltered instruction,alsoreferredtoasSpecially Designed Aca-demic Instruction in English(SDAIE),isanapproachthatemphasizesthedevelopmentofgrade-levelacademiccompetencies(Echevarria&Graves, 2007) in content area classrooms where secondary teachersusuallyhavemasteryoftheirownsubjectarea.Tosuccessfullyimple-mentSDAIE,teachersalsoneedtodemonstrateenthusiasminteach-ing,loveoflearning,andafundamentalbeliefthatallstudentshavethecapacity for learning (Echevarria,Vogt,&Short,2008).TomakethecontentcomprehensibleforELLsandELLswithLD,Echevarriaetal.suggesttheSheltered Instruction Observation Protocol(SIOP)tobeusedasatoolforoperationalizingshelteredinstructionbyofferingpre-andin-serviceteachersofallstudentsamodelforlessonplanningandimplementationthatprovidesthemwithaccesstograde-levelcontentstandards.Itseightcomponentsinclude:lessonpreparation,buildingbackground,comprehensibleinput,strategies,interaction,practiceandapplication,lessondelivery,reviewandassessment(seeEchevarriaetal. fordetails).Accordingtotheauthors,theSIOPmodelbeganasaresearchprojectthroughCREDE,hasbeenfieldtestedwithshelteredinstructionteachers,andiscurrentlyimplementedthroughoutall50statesintheU.S.andseveralothercountries. Aprerequisitetoplanningrelevantactivitiesandposinglanguageappropriatequestions,andengagingstudentsusingtheSIOPmodel(oranyothermodel),isforteacherstohaveknowledgeofself(whotheyareinfluenceshowtheyteach),ateachingphilosophy(howtheyperceivestudents’potentialandcapacityforlearning,ornot),andstudents’back-



grounds(ethnic,cultural,andlinguistic)andneeds(academic,social,emotional). Another prerequisite of effective instruction is teachers’knowledgeofELLs’proficiency inL2(beginning,early intermediate,intermediate,earlyadvanced,advanced),asmeasuredbytheCaliforniaELDTest(CELDT),andwhatcanbeexpectedofthesestudentsintheirprocessofacquiringcontentandlanguage.Forane-copyoftheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation,EnglishLanguageDevelopmentStandards,visit:http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/englangdev-stnd.pdf. Whenteacherinputiscomprehensible,thelikelihoodofdesirablestudentoutputwillbeincreased(Geneseeetal,2005);studentsneedtounderstandthewordstheirteachersarespeaking.TeacherinputiscriticalinSDAIEbecauseteachersaremodelinghowacademiclanguageisused,grammar,syntax,correctpronunciation,andnaturalspeechflow.Somestructuresforinteractionthatpromotespeakinginclude:coopera-tivelearning,peertutoring,discoverylearning,usingwhiteboardstorecordresponses,think-pair-share,jigsaw,post-itnotes,gallerywalk,raisinghand,thumbs-upthumbs-down,partner/buddyreading,lineup,inside-outsidecircles,numberheads(Herrell&Jordan,2008;Echevar-ria,etal.,2008;Parkay,2006;Vogt&Echevarria,2008).Whenusinganumberedheadsactivity,forinstance,studentsnumberofffromonetofour(smallgroupsareeasiertomanage).Theteacherposesaquestionoratopicfordiscussion.Inturn,thestudentsputtheirheadstogether,discussthecorrectanswer,andmakesurethateveryoneknowsit.Theteacherthencallsanumber(byrollingadice)andthosestudentsraisetheirhandtorespond.Theabovestructuresareexamplesofactivepar-ticipationapproachestopromotestudenttalk.Afeaturethatshelteredinstructionshareswithculturallyresponsivepedagogyisitsfocusonlearner-centeredteaching.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2000) considers students’priorknowledge,helpsthemmakeconnectionsbetweenthe“known”and“unknown”;assiststheminorganizingnewknowledge(concepts)withinacognitivestructure;tiesincultural,geographical,emotionalexperiences to the new learning; and allows students to share theirheritagebackgroundandknowledgewithothers.Forinstance,El Día de los Muertos(DayoftheDead)isanationalholidayinMexico,annuallyobservedonNovember1(AllSaints’Day)andNovember2(AllSouls’Day).Familiestakethisopportunitytorememberlovedonesthathavepassedaway,honorthedeadinprivate,andsharefamilycelebrationsandreunions.StudentslearnthatDay of the DeadhasitsrootsinSpan-ishandindigenouscultures(Aztecs),isobservedinMexico,otherLatin



Americancountries(thoughtoalesserextent),Asia,Mexican-AmericancommunitiesthroughouttheU.S.,andinthePhilippines.Incidentally,Mexico’sDayoftheDeadwasthethemeofa2008RoseParadefloatinPasadena,California,builtbyTimEstes,presidentofFiestaParadeFloats;hehascapturedthecovetedSweepstakesAwardforthepast17years(Los Angeles Times,Paradesection,December26,2010). Teacherscanusethisholidaytohelpstudentsmakeconnectionsbetweentheircommunity,national,andglobalidentities.Studentscanreadselectedbooksonthissubjectanddiscussacross-culturaltraditionofhonoringthedeparted.Otherscanreadpartsofthebook,dependingonthestudents’readabilitylevels,orhavetheoptionofreadinganeasiertextoralarge-printbook.Teacherscantakeadvantageofthediversityintheirstudents’backgroundsbyhavingstudentsfromMexico,LatinAmerica(e.g.,CubaandPuertoRico),andAsia(e.g.,Japan,Korea,andChina)collaborateonagroupprojectbyinterviewingtheirparents/rela-tivesabouttheirfamilyritualsandcelebrations,andpresentingtheirfindingstotheclass.ThefollowingphotographsdepicthowagroupofSpanish-speakingstudentsrepresentedanaltar(#1)withanofrenda(offering)tothedeceased,andtheirtraditionofpayingavisittothecemetery.Incontrast,theirgroupmembersmadeupofAsianAmericanstudentsoftheBuddhistfaith,preparedAltar#2asasymbolofhowfriendsandfamilyrememberandshowgratitudetothedeceasedandtalkabouttheirgooddeeds.Rice,fruits(mandarins,oranges),andsweetsaretypicalofferings.

Altar #1 Cemetery



Asafollow-upactivity,theclasscancompleteaVenndiagram(seebelow)notingsimilarities(partC)anduniquefeaturesofeachculturalpractice(partsAandB)betweenthetraditionalpracticesofthetwogroups.StudentswhoarelimitedinL2butmoreproficientinL1canrecordresponsesintheirL1orboth.

Theabove Day of the Dead lessonandgroupactivity illustrateshowteacherscanbuildonthediversityoftheirstudentsbytappingonwhattheyknow,validatetheirindividualityandfamilialresources,andenrichtheircross-culturallearningexperiences.Thisassignment

Altar #2

Incense is used for purification. It is associated with cleanliness and fills the home or temple with a pleasant smell. The bell and rosary beads in photograph to the left are for prayer and chanting.

PhotographsarecourtesyofCindyMaedaandKristinaKoehler,usedwithpermission.



exemplifiesaculturallyresponsivewayofteachingwherebythecur-riculumis“filteredthroughstudents’framesofreferencetomakethecontentmorepersonallymeaningfulandeasiertomaster”(Gay,2000,p.24)becauseitactivelyandinteractivelyengagesstudentswiththeirownculturalidentityandthatofothers.Moreover,thistypeofpedagogy“acknowledgesthelegitimacyofculturalheritagesofdifferentethnicgroupsasworthycontenttobetaughtintheformalcurriculum…[and]buildsbridgesbetweenhomeandschoolexperiences”(Gay,2000,p.29)bynotexpectingstudentstoshedtheirheritagelanguageandculturewhileacquiringEnglishandU.S.ways.StudentswithLDmayneedspecificadaptationsormodificationstofullygrasplessonconcepts.

Adaptations and Modifications Alongwithculturallyresponsivepedagogy,teachersmustensureaccessibilityandcomprehensibilitytocontentandlanguagebymakingspecificadaptationsormodificationsforindividualstudents.AdaptationsforELLswithaLD,are“…changestolearningtaskrequirements,suchaschangestotheinstructionalcontent,teachingmethodsandmateri-als,orphysicalenvironment”(Janney&Snell,2000,p.16).Teachingastudenttouseacalculatorratherthandomathematicalcalculationswithpaperandpencilordictatinganexperienceratherthanwritingtheessaythatotherstudentsmaybeexpectedtobewritingareexamplesofadaptations.Third,teachersmustmodifyinstructiontotakeintoaccountstudents’languagelimitationswheninstructingELLsinEnglish. Modifications forELLswithLDareconsidered“achange in thecourse,testpreparation,location,timing,scheduling,andsoon,whichprovidesaccessforstudentswithdisabilitiesbutdoesnotfundamentallyalterthestandardorexpectation”(Janney&Snell,2000,p.16).Givingastudenttheoptiontotakeaquizoratestintheprivacyoftheschoolcounselor’sofficeoranotherdesignatedareawithanextendedperiodoftimefortaskcompletionisanexampleofamodification.Teacherscanalsomodifyreadinggroupsbasedonstudents’readabilitylevelsbyselectinganeasierbook,usingalarge-printbook,havingfewerstudentsinagroup,assignshorterpassagestoread,orscheduleashorterreadingtimeperiod(Echevarria&Graves,2007;Echevarria,etal.,2008).

Scaffolding AnothermethodfoundtobeeffectivewithbothELLsandELLswithLDisscaffolding.Teachersneedtoidentifystudents’zone of proximal development (ZPD) todeterminehowmuchassistanceor scaffoldingthesestudentsneedfromthem,otheradults,orcapablepeerstoac-complish their school tasks successfully. The students’ ZPD will be



“stretched”fromtheircurrentlevelofunderstandingtotheirpotentialstateofdevelopment.Oncethesestudentsarecapableofcarryingouttheirwork independently,help canbe removedgradually (Vygotsky,1978).Scaffoldsarefluid,dynamicandinteractiveinnatureofferingstudentsatemporarystructuretohelpthemmakecognitiveconnections(Santamaria,Fletcher,&Bos,2002). Intheleastrestrictivegeneraleducationclassroom,generaleduca-tion,specialeducationteachers,andotherspecialistscancollaborateonscaffoldingstrategies,suchasmediatedscaffolds(gradualremovalofadultorpeerassistanceand transferof learningresponsibility tostudent’sindependentpractice), taskscaffolds(systematicmodificationof task and work load reduction, as discussed earlier), andmaterialscaffolds(usageofstorymaps,paragraphframes,andsentencestart-ers),assuggestedbySantamariaetal.(2002).Belowisanexampleofagraphicorganizerstudentscancomplete,individuallyorinpairs,afterhavingreadapassageorpartofit.AnintermediatelevelELLcanfilloutwords/shortphrasesbutmayhavedifficultywiththewhyandhowquestionswhereashis/hercounterpartattheearlyadvancedlevelmaybewritinglongerandcomplexsentencesforallitems.AnELLwithLDmayneedaneasiertext,moretimetocompletethisassignmentormaybegivenfeweritemsatatime.

Who Name____________________________________________

What Information______________________________________

When Time,day,week,month,year______________________

Where Place____________________________________________

Why Explanation______________________________________

How Explanationorinformation________________________

Verbalscaffolding,forexample,whenconsistentlyusedduringlessondelivery and checking for understanding, helps to support studentunderstanding, which includes paraphrasing, using “think alouds,”providingcorrectpronunciationbyrepeatingstudents’responses,slow-ingspeech,increasingpauses,andspeakinginphrases(Echevarria,Vogt,&Short,2008).

Wait and Think Time Additional“waitandthinktime”lowersstudents’anxietyandoffers



themanotheropportunitytoprocessinformationandmakesenseofit(Echevarriaetal.,2008;Rowe,1996).Sometimesthebestgiftateachercangiveanystudentisthegiftoftime.ForELLswithLD,processingin-formationisadualcognitivetask:(1)processingthequestiontheteacherposesinEnglishandmentallytranslateitintotheirfirstlanguage;and(2)processingtheanswertothatquestionintheirfirst languageandtranslatingitintoEnglish.Atechniquethatteacherscanuseistoquietlycounttofiveafterposingaquestion(Nguyen,2007;Rowe,1996);fivesec-ondsormoreof“waitandthinktime”canmakeaworldofdifferencetostrugglinglearners.Teacherscanalso“buy”timeforstrugglinglearnersbydevelopingasecretsignalwiththem(e.g.,directeyecontact,teacherstandingnexttoorbehindthestudents,orteachergentlyplacinghandthestudents’desk)togivethemadvancenoticethattheywillbecalleduponnext.Thissimpletechniquecanhelptominimizestudentdiscomfortandnervousnessaswellastoslowthepaceofinstruction,whichispar-ticularlyhelpfultostudentswhoareintheprocessofacquiringEnglishandcontentpresentedinEnglish(Nguyen,2007).

Pace of Instruction Non-nativelearnersofEnglishandELLswithLDoftencharacterizethepaceoftheirteachers’instructionas“a-mile-a-minuterace,”leavingtheminundatedwithinformationandoverwhelmedwithEnglish“noise.”Howaboutverballycommunicatingkeyconceptsandterminologyandwritetheseideasontheboard?Whataboutguidingstudentsintakingnotesofessentialconceptsandimportantideas,stoppingatfrequentintervalsto“scan”theroomforanysignsofneededhelp(Nguyen,2007)?Forinstance,contentstandardsarewritteninsuchawaythateventeachersfindthemconfoundingandambiguous.Therefore,breakcontentstandardsintosmallerchunks,step-by-step,anddelineatewhatteachersareexpectedtoteachandwhatstudentsareexpectedtolearn.

Reviewing Note Taking and Organization Skills Teachers often assume that by the time students reach middleschool,theymusthaveknownhowtotakepropernotesfromclasslec-turesandorganizethemintofolders/bindersfromoneclassperiodtothenext(Nguyen,2007).However,somemaynothavemasteredtheseskills,especiallywhenEnglishandLDarepartoftheirdailychallenge.Whenteachersreviewnote-takingskills,studentslearntofocustheirattentiononspecifickeyconceptsandideasfromwhichtostudy,andtodemonstratetheirunderstandingofthematerialincourseassignments,discussions, and examinations. For ELLs with LD, this process maytakesometimeandpractice.Teacherscanencouragethesestudents



totakenotesinthelarge,righthandcolumn,inanyformattheydesire(outline,narrative,bullets),andnotescanbetakenfromanyresource(lecture,textbooks,video).Teacherscanalsoremindstudentsto leavespacesbetweenmajortopics,leavespaceswhentheymissinformationduringthesession,highlightmainideasandcritical information,anduseabbreviationsandsymbols.Anotherwaytobuildclassroomcommu-nityandtohelpthesestudentswithnotetakingistopartnerthemwithotherstocomparenotes,talkaboutwhattheywroteandwhy,andlookforgapsandmissedinformation.Bothpartnersshouldfeelfreetomakeadjustments(add,change,delete)totheirnotes.Teachersmayconsiderrewardingstudents’effortsbyassigningapercentageofthetotalcoursegrade to note taking and organization skills. By examining students’notes,teacherslearnmoreabouttheirstudentsbythewayinnotesareorganized(e.g.,sequenceorder,textonly,orwithillustrations,orwithgraphicorganizers),andanyhelptheymayneed(Nguyen,2007).

Constructivist Approaches Constructivistapproaches to learningblendartandscience intoactive teaching and help to stimulate students’ minds and awakentheircreativity.Dewey’s(1938)notionofembeddinglearninginreal-lifeexperiencechallengesteacherstoprovidetheirstudentswithrelevantlessonsandhands-onactivities(e.g.,civicprojects,communityservice,simulations,fieldtrips)thatgobeyondtheclassroomwalls.Piaget’s(1970)discoverylearningisaneffectivemethodforengagingallparticipantsandpromotingcriticalthinkingbecauseofthecollectiveroleteachersandstudentsplayinmakingsenseoflearningcontentandconcepts.Forexample,usingCuisenairerods(orothertypesofmanipulatives)canhelpstudentslearnmathematicalconceptssuchasaddition,subtrac-tion,multiplication,division,andfractions. Anotherexampleofdiscoverylearningoccurswhenstudentshypoth-esizewhethervariousobjectswillfloatorsink,followedbyanactualexperimentofplacingeachobject,onebyone,intoawatercontainer.Thisexercisecanhelpstudentsconstructmeaningbasedontheirobserva-tion,interpretation,andrecordingofthedatatheycollect.Moreover,thishands-onapproachmakesiteasierforELLsandELLswithLDtograspabstractconcepts.Otherteachingstrategiesare:guidedreading,processwriting,cooperativelearningwiththesupportofgraphicorganizersasatoolforvisuallyrecordingandrepresentingconcepts(seenextpage,andvisithttp://www.readingquest.org/formoreideas).



Sequence My identity Flow Chart

Evaluation Charts Categorize/Organize Relationships (PyramidLevels) (CauseandEffect)

KWL

TreeMap PieChart(Parts)SinkFloat

Inadditiontoreal-lifeexperiencesanddiscoverylearning,text-richinstructionalenvironmentsareveryimportant.Teachersmustbeex-amplesofgoodreadersbydemonstratingwhatgoodreadersdo.Studentsbenefitfrombeingreadtoandtoreadbooksattheirlevelofdifficultyandcontenttowhichtheycanrelate.Kinsella(2002)suggestedthatteachersteachstudentsacognitivestrategyforpre-readinganexposi-torytext.Thatis,teacherscanguidestudentsinreadingthetitleofthe

aa

a



article,theauthor’snameandbackgroundinformationprovidedaboutthe author, and the publication source of the article. Next, studentsreadthefirsttwoparagraphs,eachboldfacesubheading,andthefirstsentenceofeachparagraph.Also,teacherscanguidestudentstolookoveranytypographicalaidssuchasunderliningandboldfaceoritalicprint,anyothervisualaidssuchasphotographs,graphs,ormaps.Finally,studentsreadtheconclusionorlasttwoparagraphs,andreadquicklyanyend-of-articlematerialsuchasfootnotes,vocabularyorquestions. Toreinforcereadingskills,parentscanalsosupporttheirchildren’seducationathomebyreadingtotheirchildren,havingtheirchildrenreadtothem,checkingtheirchildren’shomework,projects,andremindingthemofassignmentdeadlines.Withtheassistanceofteachers,parentscan provide scaffolds for their children by using any of the graphicorganizersdiscussedabovewhenhelpingstudentsconceptualizeideasandorganizetheirthoughtsinavisualmanner.SuchassistancecanbeconductedinL1,ifnecessary,whichcontributestothefamilypre-serving theirhome languageandculture.Parentscanalsoreinforcetheirchildren’sL1byhavinginformalconversationsathome,readingtochildreninL1,orcheckingbooksoutfromthepubliclibrary.Whenteachersandparentsprovidescaffolds(mediated,task,ormaterial)forstudentsbasedontheirZPD,itreducestheelementoffear,anxiety,andfrustration,enhancesstudents’confidencelevel,encouragesrisktaking,andreinforcestheirlanguagecompetenceinL1and/orL2.

Parent Participation Parentsaretheirchild’sfirstteacher.Itisinconceivableforthemnottobeintegralpartoftheteaching-learningequation.Itisequallycriticalforeducatorstoforgeahealthypartnershipwithparentstomaximizestudentacademicsuccessandsocial-emotionaladjustmentinschool.These collectiveeffortswillhelp close theachievementgapbetweenhavesandhave-nots,English-onlyandEnglish-learnerstudents,generaleducationandspecialeducationneedsyoungsters.Culturallyresponsivepedagoguesvaluethecrucialroleparentsplayintheirchild’seduca-tionandfuturesuccess.Ideally,parentsreinforceskillsandprovideanenvironmentwithconsistentexpectationsandstandards;theyinstillavaluesystem,orientationtowardlearning,andviewoftheworld(Banks,2010)inraisingtheirchild. Teacherscanestablishatwo-waycommunicationbetweentheschoolandhomebyhavinganopen-doorpolicythatletsparentsknowthattheyarewelcome.Someparentsmayfeelintimidatedtoapproachtheirchild’steacherbecausetheydonotbelievetheypossesstheeducationalbackgroundorcredentialstobeinvolvedintheirchild’sschool.Others



mayhesitatetoentertheschoolcampusortalktotheofficestaffbe-causetheylackcommunicationskillsinEnglishandareunabletoseekthehelptheyneed.Thisreluctanceonbehalfofparentsisespeciallytrueinmiddleandhighschoolswherestudentshavemovefromclasstoclassandwhererulesandexpectationsvarygreatlyfromteacherto teacher, period to period.Another source of parent ambivalencemayrelatetoanegativeexperiencesomemayhavehadintheirownschooling(Banks,2010). Tohelpbridgethishome-schoolgap,teacherscanencourageparentstocallorsendnotesiftheyhavequestionsorconcerns,keepparentsabreastof theirchild’sprogress,andoffersuggestionsastohowthechildcanimprove.SomeparentsmaybelimitedinEnglishandwillneedassistancefromabilingualinterpreter.Schoolsneedtodotheirbesttoaccommodatesuchparentswhetheritbewiththeofficestaff,atanIEPmeeting,orduringaparent-teacherconference.Whenworkingwithculturallydiversefamilies,teachersneedtoacknowledgediffer-entcharacteristicsinculturallydiversefamilies(e.g.,structure,child-rearingpractices,modesofdiscipline,behavioralexpectationsfortheirchildren,verbalandnon-verbalcommunication)inordertobuildtrustandforgepositiverelationshipswiththeparents(Taylor&Whittaker,2009).Culturallycompetentteachersmakeconnectionsbetweentheirclassroompracticestotheirinteractionswithfamilies/parents. Second, parents appreciate teachers who demonstrate a genuineinterestintheirchild,community,andculture.Thereareotherwaysforteacherstosupportparentparticipationintheirownchildren’seducation.Simplytellingparentsthattheyneedtoworkwiththeirchildrenmaynotbeadequate;parentsappreciatespecificrecommendations.Ifteach-ersexpecttheirstudentstocompleteprojectsathome,provideparentswithresourcesormaterialstouse.Itisimportanttokeepinmindthatnotallhomeshaveinternetaccess(digitaldivide).Somefamiliesmaynotfinanciallybeabletopurchasematerialsforhomeprojectsorhavethetimetodevelopthem.Additionally,teacherscanaskparentstosigntheirchild’shomeworkpapers,andrewardstudentswithextrapointswhentheirparentssigntheirreportcards,readtothem,attendschool-sponsored events (Back-to-School Night, Open House, parent-teacherconferences).Readingisacrucialpartoflearningandisthefocusofmanyschools’initiatives.Toemphasizetheimportanceofreading,teacherscansendhomeinformationandasuggestedreadinglist.Readingaloud(inL1and/orL2)isagreatwayforparentsandchildrentobond,discussthestories,meaningofwords,relatetotextandconnecttotheirownexperi-ences.Finally,someparentsmaybewillingtoplayamoreactiveroleatschool:solicitvolunteerstopresentalesson;shareaschool-relatedlived



experience;participateinacauseorphilanthropicproject;helpintheplayground,lunchroom,classroom,office;andleadparentmeetingsorcontactparentsforconferences(Taylor&Whittaker,2009).

Conclusion

Giventhatnearly400,000ELLstudentsingradesK-12wereidenti-fiedasneedingspecialeducationservices(2001-2002),andanincreaseof72percentofthispopulation(1992to2002)inU.S.schools,educatorsmustlendoneanotherahandtoworkonbehalfofthesestudents.Withincreasingdemandsplacedontheteachingprofessionbyfederal,state,andlocalagenciesinaneraofschoolreformandaccountability,educatorscannolongeraffordtocarryouttheirworkinisolation.Collaborationbetweenallteachersresponsiblefortheeducationofallstudentsseemsinevitablesincethereis“apressingneed…forteachersatallstagesintheircareers…toprepareorupgrade[their]knowledgeandskillsinordertoclosetheachievementgapbetweenlinguisticminoritystudentsandtheirnativeEnglishspeakingpeers”(Ballantyne,Sanderman,&Levy,2008,p.10),especiallythosewithaLD. Collaboratorsneedtobemindfuloftheimportanceofopencommu-nicationamongmembers,agreeonstepstocarryouttheirwork,divideresponsibilities,problemsolvearisingchallengestobeproblemsolved,andbeawareofhowdecisionsaretobemade(Janney&Snell,2000).Additionally,thesuccessofsuchcollaborationiscontingentuponthesup-portofadministratorstoensurethattimeisbuiltintotheseeducators’respectiveschedulesthroughouttheschoolyeartoco-planandteamteach.Educatorsmustalsobeencouragedtotakeadvantageofdistrict-sponsoredorschool-designedPDopportunities (attendingconferences,seminars,presentingworkshops,accessingprofessionalliteratureandtechnology)forthemtoenhancetheirtheoreticalandpedagogicalknowledgeofcurrentresearchontheeducationofstudentswithdiverseabilitiesandneedsonasustainedbasisaslifelongadultlearners.TofullyincludeEnglishlan-guagelearnerswithadisabilityintheleastrestrictivegeneraleducationclassroom,allteachersmustuseespeciallyemergingresearchspecifictoELLsandELLswithLDasdiscussedabove,toproperlyidentify,place,andensurequalityinstructionforthesestudents.Finally,educatorsmustnotforgettoforgepartnershipswithparentswhoplayapivotalroleintheirchild’slife,success,andfutureofournation.

ReferencesArtiles,A.J.,&Klinger,J.K. (2006).ForgoingaknowledgebaseonEnglish

languagelearnerswithspecialneeds:Theoretical,population,andtechnical



issues.Teachers College Record, 108(11),1-7.Artiles,A.J.,&Ortiz,A.(Eds.).(2002).English language learners with special

needs: Identification, placement, and instruction.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.

Asher,J.(1966).Thestrategyofthetotalphysicalresponse:Areview.Modern Language Journal, 50,79-84.

August,D.&Shanahan,T.(Eds.).(2006).Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Chil-dren and Youth.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Ballantyne,K.Sanderman,A.,Levy,J.(2008).Educating English language learn-ers: Building teacher capacity.Washington,DC:NationalClearinghouseforEnglishLanguageAcquisition.

Banks,C.M.(2010).Communities, families,andeducatorsworkingtogetherforschoolimprovement.InJ.Banks&C.M.Banks(Eds.),Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives(7thed.,Ch.7,pp.417-438).Hoboken,NJ:Wiley&Sons.

California Department of Education. (2002). English-language development standards for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve.Sacramento,CA:Author.

Cummins,J.(1981).Theroleofprimarylanguagedevelopmentinpromotingeducationalsuccessforlanguageminoritystudents.InSchooling and lan-guage minority students: A theoretical framework(pp.pp.3-49).LosAngeles:NationalDisseminationandAssessmentCenter.

Cummins,J.(2000).Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters.

Cummins,J.(2008).BICSandCALP:Empiricalandtheoreticalstatusofthedistinction.InB.Street&N.H.Hornberger(Eds.),Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 2. Literacy(2nded.,pp.71-83).NewYork:Springer.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2002).Access to quality teaching: An analysis of inequal-ity in California’s public schools.(Documentwws-rr002-1002).LosAngeles:UCLA,InstituteforDemocracy,Education,andAccess.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2004).ThecolorlineinAmericaneducation:Race,re-sources,andstudentachievement.W. E. B. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1(2),213-246.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3),300-314.

deJong,E.J.,&Harper,C.A.(2005).PreparingmainstreamteachersforEnglishlanguagelearners:Isbeingagoodteachergoodenough?Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2)101-124.

deJong,E.J.,&Harper,C.A.(2008).ESL is good teaching “plus”: Preparing standard curriculum teachers for all learners. Language, culture, and com-munity in teacher education(chapter6,pp.127-148).NewYork:ErlbaumAssociates.

Dewey,J.(1938).Experience and education.NewYork:Macmillan.Echevarria,J.,&Graves,A.(2007).Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English

language learners with diverse abilities(3rded.).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.Echeverria, J.,Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible



for English learners: The SIOP Model(3rded.).Boston:PearsonAllyn&Bacon.

Farmer,J.D.,Gerretson,H.,&Lassak,M. (2003).What teachers take fromprofessionaldevelopment:Casesandimplications.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(4),331-360.

Garcia, S. B., & Tyler, B.-J. (2010). Meeting the needs of English languagelearnerswithdisabilitiesinthegeneralcurriculum.Theory into Practice, 49,113-120.

Gardner,J.(1983).Frames of mind.NewYork:BasicBooks.Gay,G. (2000).Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice.

NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.Genesee,F.,Lindholm-Leary,K.Saunders,W.&Christian,D.(2006).Educating

English language learners.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Goldenberg,C.(2008,Summer).TeachingEnglishlanguagelearners:Whatthe

researchdoes—anddoesnot—say.American Educator, 32(2),8-44.Herrell,A.L.,&Jordan,M.(2008).50 strategies for teaching English language

learners(3rded.).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.IndividualswithDisabilitiesActAmendments (1997).Retrieved fromhttp://

www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/ideas.idea.pdf.IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementActof2004,H.R.1350,

20USC104,section602(3)(A).Kellough,R.D.&Roberts,P. (2002).A resource guide for elementary school

teaching: Planning for competence(5thed.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Mer-rillPrenticeHall.

Janney,R.,&Snell,M.(2000).Teachers’ guides to inclusive practices: Modifying schoolwork.Baltimore,MD:PaulBrooks.

Kinsella,K.(2002).Reading in the content areas: Strategies for reading success.Boston:PearsonLearningGroup.

Klingner,J.K.,Artiles,A.J.,&Barletta,M.,L.(2006).Englishlanguagelearnerswhostrugglewithreading:LanguageacquisitionorLD?Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 39,108-128.

Krashen, S. D. (1995). Principles of second language acquisition. NewYork:PrenticeHallMacMillan.

Krashen,S.,&Terrell,T.(1983).The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.Hayward,CA:AlemanyPress.

Lortie,D.C.(1975).Schoolteacher.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.McCardle,P.,McCarthy-Mele,J.,Cutting,L.,Leos,K.,&D’Emilio,T. (2005).

LearningdisabilitiesinEnglishlanguagelearners:Identifyingtheissues.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1),1-5.

Milner,R.,&Ford,D.(2007,Spring).Culturalconsiderationsintheunderrep-resentationofculturallydiverseelementarystudentsingiftededucation.Roeper Review, 29(3),166-173.

Nguyen,H.T.(2009).Aninquiry-basedpracticummodel:Whatknowledge,prac-tices,andrelationshipstypifyempoweringteachingandlearningexperiencesforstudentteachers,cooperatingteachers,andcollegesupervisors?Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5),655-662.

Nguyen,H.T.(2007).EducatingVietnameseAmericanstudents.Multicultural



Education, 15(1),23-26.Ortiz,A.A.,&Yates,J.R.(2001).AframeworkforservingEnglishlanguagelearn-

erswithdisabilities.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14,72-80.Parkay,F.W.(2006).Curriculum and instruction for becoming a teacher.Boston:

PearsonAllyn&Bacon.Piaget,J.(1970).Piaget’stheory.InP.Mussen(Ed.),Carmichael’s manual of

child psychology.NewYork:Wiley.Rowe,M.B.(1996).Science,silence,andsanctions.Science and Children,35-37.Santamaria,L.J.,Fletcher,T.V.,&Bos,C.S.(Eds.)(2002).English language

learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruc-tion.McHenry,IL:CenterforAppliedLinguistics&DeltaSystems.

Shulman,L.S.(1986).Thosewhounderstand:Knowledgegrowthinteaching.Educational Researcher, 15,4-14.

Shulman,L.S.(1987).Knowledgeandteaching:Foundationsofthenewreform.Harvard Educational Review, 57,1-22.

U.S.DepartmentofCommerce. (2004b).Language use and English speaking ability: 2000.Retrievedfromhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf

U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfficeofCivilRights.(2003).OCR elementary and secondary school survey.Retrievedfromhttp://205.207.175.84/ocr2000r/

U.S.DepartmentofEducation,&NationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment.(2003).National symposium on learning disabilities in English language learners. Symposium summary.Washington,DC:Authors.

Vogt,M.,&Echevarria,J.(2008).99 ideas and activities for teaching English learners with the SIOP model.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

Vygotsky,L. (1978).Mind in society.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wagner,R.K.,Francis,D.J.,&Morris,R.D.(2005).IdentifyingEnglishlanguagelearnerswithlearningdisabilities:Keychallengesandpossibleapproaches.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1),6-15.

Zehler,A.M.,&Fleischman,H.L.,Hopstock,P.J.,Stephenson,T.G.,Pendzick,M.L.,&Sapru,S.(2003).The descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities.OfficeofEnglishLanguageAcquisition,LanguageEnhancement, andAcademicAchievement forLEPStudents.Arlington,VA:DevelopmentAssociates,Inc.

general education and special education teachers collaborate

Documents