This article was downloaded by: [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill]On: 31 October 2014, At: 07:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Reading, Writing,and Learning DisabilitiesInternational: OvercomingLearning DifficultiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl19

Recognizing LearningDisabilities in BilingualChildren: How to LessenInappropriate Referrals ofLanguage Minority Studentsto Special EducationAlba A. Ortiz & Elba Maldonado‐ColónPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Alba A. Ortiz & Elba Maldonado‐Colón (1986) RecognizingLearning Disabilities in Bilingual Children: How to Lessen Inappropriate Referralsof Language Minority Students to Special Education, Journal of Reading, Writing,and Learning Disabilities International: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 2:1,43-56, DOI: 10.1080/0748763860020105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0748763860020105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and

views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Recognizing Learning Disabilities inBilingual Children:

H o w to Lessen Inappropriate Referrals of LanguageMinority Students to Special Education

Alba A. Ortiz and Elba Maldonado-Colón

The Education for All Handicapped ChildrenAct of 1975, Public Law 94-142, requires thatassurances be provided that a child's problemsare not due to differences of language, culture,socioeconomic status, or to not having had oppor-tunities to learn. Preliminary findings of astudy conducted under the auspices of The Univer-sity of Texas at Austin Handicapped MinorityResearch Institute on Language Proficiency indi-cate that such assurances are routinely providedfor virtually all limited English proficient(LEP) students. However, when student recordsare examined, it is difficult to determine whatdata, if any, were deliberated to provide thiscertification. This procedural safeguard, then,is reduced to simple compliance with a bureaucra-tic requirement and little consideration is givento the significance of this action by placementcommittees. The long-term, and potentially nega-tive, effects of special education placementon a student's social, academic, and vocationalfuture warrants a critical look at the effective-ness of referral, assessment, and placement proce-dures for language minority students.

Ortiz and Yates (1983, 1984) suggest thatnormal, but underachieving, language minoritystudents are dramatically over-represented inprograms for the learning disabled. These inap-propriate placements are an artifact of the

Journal of Beading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 4 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

referral process; children are referred to specialeducation on the basis of behaviors which donot fit the expectations of educators and areplaced, not because they require special educationservices, but because placement committees erron-eously interpret linguistic, cultural, economicor other background characteristics as deviant.While one could argue that language minoritystudents profit from the individualized instruc-tion provided by specially trained teachers,the placement of underachieving (as opposed tohandicapped) students in special education de-creases the effectiveness of appraisal andinstructional personnel available to serve thehandicapped.

The key to reducing inappropriate specialeducation placements is to reduce inappropriatereferrals. Educators must be made aware thatsome behaviors, while they do not conform tothe norms or expectations of members of the major-ity society, are normal given an individual'sreference or social group and his/her prior exper-iences. Such behaviors are better characterizedas differences, rather than as deficits or handi-capping conditions. Accommodating individualdifferences to increase the likelihood of schoolsuccess is, first and foremost, the responsibilityof regular educators, not of special educationpersonnel.

Problem Behaviors:Alternative Explanations

Table 1 presents a student behavior check-list similar to those used by school districtsto help teachers and others support their refer-rals to special education. These checklistsare intended to capture problem behaviors whichthe referral agent feels warrant special education

44 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1

Student Behavior Checklist

Reducing Inappropriate Referrals

ATTENTION/ORDER PERSONAL/ EMOTIONAL INTERPERSONAL/SOCIAL ADULT RELATIONS/AUTHORITY SCHOOL ADAPTATION LANGUAGE

• Short attention span

• DU tractable

Talks excessively

• Daydreams

Unable to wait turnLoud and noisy

Constant need forstimulation

Hyperactive** Demands immediate

gratification

•* Disorganized

** Unable to stay on task

• Appears confused

Sad/Unhappy

•Nervous/Anxious

* Shy/Timid * •

Short tempered

•Poor self-confidence

Extreae mod changes » ,

Cries easily

Unusual mannerisms . .

or habits

• Fearful

Easily excitableInappropriate emotional

responsesImmature

Toileting problems

'Di f f icu l ty In adjustingto new situations

Cruet

Uncooperative

Loses control

Overreacts

Has few friends

Verbally aggressive

Denies responsibilityfor actions

Instigates misbehaviorsin others

Easily influenced

Bossy

• Demands attention

Inconsiderate

Selfish

Lies

Steals

Jealous

Can't keep hands toself

Manipulates others

Suspicious

Cannot handlecriticism

Avoids competition

Prefers to be alone

Physically aggressive

Talks back to adults

Intimidated by authority

Overly anxious to please

** Passively uncooperative

Distrustful of adults

Refuses to accept limits

"Def iant

Ambivalent toward adults

Uses profanity

"Cl ings to adults

** Overly dependent

"Seeks constant praise

Rebellious

** Needs teacher directionand feedback

Disrupts other students

Speaks out of turn

••Does not completeassignments

" Cannot workindependently

Copies other's work

"Exerts l i t t l e effort

"Lacks interest/apathetic

Frequently tardy,or absent

"Gives up easily

** Cannot manage time

"Lacks drive

"Disorganized

••Cannot plan

"Unable to toleratechange

"Sporadic academicperformance

Makes excuses

Destructive

"Does not ini t iate

Needs reminding

Speaks excessively

•Speaks infrequently

•Uses gestures

•Speaks In singlewords or phrases

•Refuses to answerquestions

• Does not volunteerinformation

• CommentsInappropriately

•Poor recall

• Poor comprehension

• Poor vocabulary

•Di f f icul tysequencing ideas

• Difficultysequencing events

'Unable to te l l orretell stories

•Confuses similarsounding words

• Poor pronunciation

• Poor syntax/grammar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

intervention. However, many of the behaviorson the checklist, those marked by asterisks,for instance, are just as likely to reflect normalbehaviors for some students. In the followingsections, two examples of normal, but differentbehaviors are used to illustrate this point.

Language. Behaviors directly or indirectlyrelated to linguistic proficiency constitutethe most frequent reason for referral of languageminority students (Carpenter, 1983; Garcia, 1984;Maldonado-Colon, 1984; Ortiz and Yates, 1983;Shepard and Smith, 1981). The research literaturedocuments that many of the behaviors consideredproblematic by teachers are, in reality, charac-teristic of students who are in the process ofnormal second language acquisition. This canbe seen by comparing the behaviors in Table 1,those marked with one asterisk (*) with the fol-lowing descriptors of normal second languageacquirers:

1. Limited comprehension and productionof the second language (Dulay, Burt and Krashen,1982);

2. Errors in production of the phonemesof the second language or the use of other struc-tures or words to replace those sounds the childis either unable to produce or which cause confu-sion (Barkin, 1982; Celce-Murcia, 1978);

3. Temporary competition between the twolanguages, commonly referred to as the interlin-gual stage (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982;Selinker, 1972);

4. Inappropriate syntax and grammar(Saville-Troike, 1976);

46 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

5. Limited or inappropriate use of lexicon(Saville-Troike, 1976);

6. Code-switching, switching from one lan-guage to another (Trudgill, 1976), used as anethnic or social marker or as a transition toolas the child acquires the second language (Garcia,Maez & Gonzalez, n.d.; Penalosa, 1980), or result-ing from being forced to speak a language beforehaving adequate control (Krashen, 1981);

7. Gradual or partial loss of the firstor the second language (Lambert and Freedman,1982; Watson and Omark, 1982).

That the preceding behaviors are includedon behavior problem checklists reflects confusionabout what distinguishes linguistic differencesfrom language or learning disabilities. It isnot surprising, then, that referral and placementcommittees may disregard the fact that the childis a second language learner; further, the appro-priateness of their decision is open to questiongiven a lack of understanding of language profi-ciency, bilingualism, and of how limited Englishproficient students acquire the English language(Cummins, 1981, 1984; Maldonado-Colon, 1985;Shepard and Smith, 1981).

The case of the code-switcher illustratesa common misconception about native languageacquisition. When Hispanic children who code-switch are tested in both English and in Spanish,it is not unusual for them to obtain low scoresin both languages. Because of their poor per-formance, these children are considered to belanguage disordered or delayed and are describedas being "alingual," without language, or "semi-lingual," limited in both languages. This inter-pretation disregards the fact that some childrenare exposed to mixed language models in their

Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 4 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

home and community; for these children, code-switching is not a mixture of two separate lan-guage systems but, rather, constitutes a uniquecommunication system, with its own rules andrestrictions. This implies that high performancein either language alone is not necessarily tobe expected and that the child should not bepenalized for failure to demonstrate such. Eval-uations which take this into account usuallypoint to programs for language development andenrichment in mainstream settings, not to remed-ial programs in special education.

There is also a lack of understanding ofthe relationship between the native languageand the second language (Cummins, 1981). Theresearch literature is rather clear that thechild's proficiency in English is dependent uponhis/her level of native language proficiency.It is unfortunate that native language develop-ment is interrupted for those students who arenot eligible to paticipate in bilingual educationprograms. These students receive English-onlyinstruction in regular classroom settings andthe subsequent lack of rich native language stimu-lation diminishes the potential for high levelsof proficiency in the second language (Cummins,1981; Krashen, 1981; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1980).This exclusive emphasis on English instructionnot only interferes with a natural developmentalsequence, but also triggers the possibility ofnative language loss (Lambert and Freedman, 1982).Language loss further limits academic potentialbecause of its negative effects on second languageacquisition (Krashen, 1981; Skutnabb-Kangas,1980).

A word of caution is necessary in the caseof bilingual children who seem to have adequateEnglish skills. Many students manage to rapidly

48 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

acquire the surface structures of English andimpress professionals as having the linguisticabilities necessary to handle the complex context-reduced language which is used by teachers andfound in textbooks and other instructional mater-ials. When these students begin to experienceachievement difficulties, a referral to specialeducation is likely to follow. Lack of Englishproficiency is ruled out as a possible causeof the problem because the child appears to haveno difficulty understanding or communicatingwith teachers or peers. These students, whilethey demonstrate good interpersonal communicationskills, need more time to obtain academic languageproficiency required for schooling (Cummins,1981; 1984). Unless sufficient time is afforded,the possibility of school failure will be exacer-bated.

It is the role of appraisal personnel toconduct evaluations which will ascertain whethera child's problem can be attributed to a handi-capping condition, or to the fact that he/sheis in the process of learning English. Thisdistinction is critical and merits careful de-liberation since appropriate and effective inter-vention depends on the ability of professionalsto tell the difference.

Learned Helplessness. There are studentswho continuously meet with academic failure be-cause of incompatibilities between the way theylearn and the way teachers teach. Various termshave been used to discuss behaviors of thesestudents, including internal versus externallocus of control (Vasquez, 1975); learned help-lessness (Henderson, 1980); field independenceversus field sensitivity (Ramirez and Castaneda,1974); and cultural deprivation (Feuerstein,1980). These authors suggest that for a variety

Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 4 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

of reasons, including socioeconomic level orminority status, certain students exhibit be-haviors which predispose them to school failure.

For example, Vasquez (1975) submits thatstudents with an external locus of control willexperience achievement difficulties. Locus ofcontrol is a term which describes to whom orwhat an individual attributes his successes orfailures. A person with an internal locus ofcontrol credits accomplishments to his/her ownskills, abilities, or efforts; an external personbelieves outcomes are controlled by powerfulothers (e.g., teachers) or are the result ofluck, chance, or fate. Vasquez enumerates charac-teristics common to students with an externallocus of control, including the following:

1. Self-reliance

a. Prefers to work in groupsb. Cannot work independentlyc. Seeks teacher direction and feedback

2. Achievement Motivation

a. Does not set goalsb. Does not know how to planc. Cannot break tasks down into com-

ponent parts

3. Expectancy of Success and Reaction toReinforcement

a. Does not see cause-effect relation-ships

b. Cannot anticipate how things willwork out

c. Reacts in similar ways to successand failure

50 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

d. Appears to lack motivation

4. Intensity of Effort

a. Does not know how to change ownbehavior to influence outcomes

b. Does not generalizec. Does not apply prior learning to

new tasks

5. Performance Under Skill Conditions

a. Does not like competitionb. Does not analyze difficulty of tasksc. Frustrates easilyd. Does not complete assignments

Many of the behaviors which Vasquez attri-butes to differences in cognitive or learningstyle are also found on the student behaviorchecklist in Table 1. As a matter of fact, thebehaviors marked by two asterisks (**) closelyparallel behaviors which are frequently associatedwith learning disabilities. It is critical,then, that teachers be aware that in some in-stances these behaviors are normal, but reflectcultural or socioeconomic status differences;in other instances, they indeed suggest a handi-capping condition.

Documenting Prior Interventions

The key to distinguishing differences fromhandicapping conditions is the careful documenta-tion of prior interventions. For example, exter-nal students are unlikely to analyze their per-formance or feedback to determine how to changetheir behavior to become more successful in theschool system. Feuerstein (as cited in Chance,1981) suggests that they fail to recognize that

Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 5 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

their own intellectual efforts may contributeto the solution of a problem and, instead, seethemselves as passive recipients of information.Their difficulties may be the result of a lackof mediated learning experiences (MLE).

The MLE is a process by which someone,usually an adult, assists the child in interpret-ing and organizing stimuli in the direction ofa specific goal or outcome. Stopping at a redlight is a direct experience; having an adultpoint out that "red" means "stop" is a mediatedlearning experience. Two few mediated exper-iences can result in poor thinking skills which,in turn, reduces the individual's ability tolearn from direct experiences. Neither remedialefforts aimed at providing a stimulating environ-ment nor emphasis on traditional academics willbe effective in overcoming cognitive deficiencies.Instead, what is called for is that someonemediate learning experiences and frame the stimulito provide insight into the thinking process.Instructional intervention should be aimed atteaching how solutions are derived and how factsare acquired. In essence, the student must betaught how to learn if he/she is to be expectedto conform to expectations of school programsand personnel.

If the external child is exposed to learningstrategies, and instruction is linguisticallyand culturally relevant, improved performancewould suggest that achievement difficulties couldbe attributed to differences associated withcognitive or learning style. However, if thestudent continues to experience difficulty, evenafter the teacher has adapted the instructionalenvironment to accommodate learning style, thena referral to special education would be appro-priate. The teacher will be able to provide

52 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

careful documentation which shows not only thatcurricula and instruction were adapted, but thatthese adaptations reflect an understanding of,and are consistent with, unique student charac-teristics. Only in this way can decision-makingcommittees be more confident that problems arenot the result of differences of language, cul-ture, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or tonot having had opportunities to learn.

References

Barkin, F. (1980). Southwest Area Language andLinguistics Workshop. Tempe, AZ: ArizonaState University.

Carpenter, L. (1983). Communication Disordersin Limited- and Non-English Proficient Child-ren. Los Alamitos, CA: National Centerfor Bilingual Research.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1978). The simultaneous acqui-sition of English and French in a two-year-old child. In E. M. Hatch (Ed.), SecondLanguage Acquisition (pp. 38-53). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Chance, P. (1981). The remedial thinker. Psy-chology Today, 16, 63-73.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary languagedevelopment in promoting education successfor language minority students. In Schoolingand Language Minority Students: A Theoreti-cal Framework (p. 3-49). Los Angeles, CA:California State University.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and SpecialEducation: Issues in Assessment and Peda-gogy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 5 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

Dulay, H.; Burt, M.; & Krashen, S. (1982). Lan-guage Two. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment:An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modi-fiability. Baltimore, MD: University ParkPress.

Garcia, S. B. (1984). Effects of student charac-teristics, school program and organizationon decision-making for the placement ofHispanic students in classes for the learningdisabled. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.The University of Texas at Austin.

Garcia, M.; Maez, L.; & Gonzalez, G. (nd). ANational Study of Spanish English BilingualismAmong Young Hispanic Children of the UnitedStates. Los Angeles, CA: National Dissemi-nation and Assessment Center.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Bilingual education andsecond language acquisition theory. InSchooling and Language Minority Students:A Theoretical Frameowrk (pp. 51-79). LosAngeles, CA: California State University.

Lambert, R. D., & Freedman, B. F. (Eds.) (1982).The Loss of Language Skills. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.

Maldonado-Colon, E. (1984). Profiles of HispanicStudents Placed in Speech, Hearing and Lan-guage Programs in a Selected School Districtin Texas. Doctoral dissertation. Universityof Massachusetts. Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Microfilms International (No. 84-10309).

Maldonado-Colon, E. (1985). The Role of Language

54 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

Assessment Data in Diagnosis and Interventionfor Linguistically/Culturally DifferentStudents. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouseon Handicapped and Gifted Children.

Ortiz, A.; & Yates, J. R. (1983). Incidenceof exceptionality among Hispanics: Implica-tions for manpower planning. NABE JOURNAL,7(3), 41-53.

Ortiz, A. A.; & Yates, J. R. (1984). Linguis-tically and culturally diverse handicappedstudents. In R. Podemski, B. Price, T.Smith, and G. Marsh, II (Eds.), ComprehensiveAdministration of Special Education (pp.114-141). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.

Penalosa, F. (1980). Chicano Scoiolinguistics:A Brief Introduction. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Saville-Troike, M. (1973). Bilingual Children:A Resource Document. Arlington, VA: Centerfor Applied Linguistics.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. Interna-tional Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,209-231.

Shepard, L.; & Smith, M. L. (1981). Evaluationof the Identification of Perceptual-communi-cative disorders in Colorado (Final Report).Boulder, CO: Laboratory of EducationalResearch.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1980). Language in theProcess of Cultural Assimilation and Struc-tural Incorporation of Linguistic Minorities.Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse forBilingual Education.

Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 5 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS

Trudgill, P. (1976). Sociolinguistics: An Intro-duction. New York: Penguin Books.

Vasquez, J. (1975). Locus of control, socialclass and learning. In School Desegregationand Cultural Pluralism: Perspectives inProgress. San Francisco, CA: Service,Training, and Research in Desegregated Edu-cation, Far West Laboratory for EducationalResearch & Development.

* * *

About the Authors:

Dr. Alba A. Ortiz is Associate Professor,Department of Special Education and Director,Bilingual Special Education and the HandicappedMinority Research Institute on Language Profi-ciency, The University of Texas at Austin. Shereceived a Presidential appointment to the U.S.President's Committee on Mental Retardation andwas a member and Chairperson of the MinorityGroups Committee of the Council for ExceptionalChildren. She is the author of many scholarlyworks, including an article in the scon-to-be-published Education of Culturally and Linguis-tically Different Children.

Dr. Elba Maldonado-Colon is Coordinatorof the Bilingual Special Education UndergraduateProgram, The University of Texas at Austin.A frequent presentor at professional meetings,she has spoken on Hispanic communication dis-ordered children, curriculum and instructionalintervention programs for exceptional bilingualstudents, first and second language acquisition,language assessment, and school-community involve-ment. She is also the author of several handbooksand training manuals for teachers of culturally/linguistically different students.

56 Vol. 2, no. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:42

31

Oct

ober

201

4