# data[].attributes.body
Within many issues in children's education, ELL's have troubles dealing with the idea whether they have learning disabilities or are just English Language Learners. this article describes to us the intellectual development along with different models for assessing and teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article outlines a theoretical matrix for conceptualizing issues within the emerging field of bilingual special education. Among current issues are the difficulty of distinguishing genuine learning disabilities from second-language-acquisition problems, nondiscriminatory assessment of language and intellectual skills, the effects of bilingual interactions in home and school, and appropriate forms of pedagogy and intervention for at-risk minority students and those with disabilities. These issues are discussed in relation to the nature of language proficiency and intellectual development, the sociology of dominant-subordinate group interaction, and models of teaching and learning.

References

Chomsky, C. (1981). Write now, read later. In Cazden, C. (Ed.), Language in early childhood education (2nd ed., pp. 141-149). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Google Scholar

Gonzalez, L. A. (1986). The effects of first language education on the second language and academic achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school children in the United States. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Education.
Google Scholar

Rueda, R. , & Mercer, J. R. (1985). Predictive analysis of decision-making with language minority handicapped children. Paper presented at the BUENO Center 3rd Annual Symposium on Bilingual Education, Denver.
Google Scholar

Swedo, J. (1987, Fall). Effective teaching strategies for handicapped limited English proficient students. Bilingual Special Education Newsletter, 6, 1-5.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, Wong L. (1983). The language learner as an individual: Implications of research on individual differences for the ESL teacher. In Clarue, M. A. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL 1982: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 157-171). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Theoretical Framework for Bilingual Special Education - Jim Cummins, 1989

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article outlines a theoretical matrix for conceptualizing issues within the emerging field of bilingual special education. Among current issues are the difficulty of distinguishing genuine learning disabilities from second-language-acquisition problems, nondiscriminatory assessment of language and intellectual skills, the effects of bilingual interactions in home and school, and appropriate forms of pedagogy and intervention for at-risk minority students and those with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
It is sad that Bilingual Educators are a necessity right now. This article goes into depth on how to persuade students into becoming an educator, or seeing if students are capable of tutoring, or help benefit other students.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes against a study and explains to us the depths of Emergent Bilinguals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
English language learners are making scant progress in overcoming the achievement gap, not only because of inadequate funding, but also because federal and state educational policy actually create stumbling blocks by prohibiting or discouraging the use of the educational practices that research has clearly shown to be most effective for their needs. This was the basic message that Ofelia Garcia, Professor of Bilingual Education at Teachers College, Columbia University delivered to a standing room only audience on January 30, 2008.

Garcia's talk was the first of a series of forums being convened by the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College. Her remarks were drawn from an extensive study of the research in this area entitled " From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals " which she co-authored with Professor Jo Anne Kleifgen, and Lorraine Falchi.

The paper calls for a new attitude and a new approach to the students that are now generally referred to as English language learners (ELLs) or students with limited English proficiency (LEPs). By using the new term "emergent bilinguals," Professor Garcia urges educators to view these students as a national resource, not as a deficit. She argues that past policies have misunderstood bilingualism and led to educational inequities, and she sees a high potential in nurturing the bilingual capacity of these students in an increasingly globalized world.

Persistent Gap Between Research and Practice

Evidence shows that using a student's home language in the classroom helps emergent bilinguals reach higher levels of achievement and that through linguistic interdependence a student's native language can be used to bolster English acquisition and promote cognitive learning. Consequently, a great body of research supports bilingual education over monolingual education for ELL students. Yet, the report points out that state and federal policy orientation is tilted dramatically against bilingual education.

According to the report, between 1992 and 2002 the number of ELLs in grades K-12 grew by 72 percent, while their enrollment in bilingual programs declined from 37 percent to 17 percent. Several states, including , adopted legislation that prohibits or severely restricts use of these programs. This move towards an "English-only" approach was reinforced by the Bush administration when the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2002. The authors conclude that these policies have furthered inequities in educating and assessing emergent bilinguals, and they advocate a change in policy from English only instruction to bilingual and dual language programs.

The report concludes that current assessments do not measure the learning of emergent bilinguals because they contain built-in content and speech biases, and because subject matter is often tangled with academic language - making it difficult to measure cognitive knowledge. Furthermore, the report highlights the devastating effects of high-stakes testing required by NCLB, and it supports "dynamic" performance based assessments instead. According to the authors, ELL assessments raise key equity concerns regarding two main issues: content proficiency and validity. The validity of assessments for emergent bilinguals is often questioned because these assessments run the risk of not measuring what they intend to measure.

James Crawford, President of the Institute for Language and Education Policy and a discussant at the event, provided a historical perspective that illustrated the sharp turn in policy regarding language proficiency at the federal level over the past few decades. Alluding to policy language in the major media, he demonstrated how references to education policy dramatically shifted from an overwhelming use of "equal opportunity" concepts in the 1960s and 1970s to an output oriented focus on accountability and achievement gaps in the 1990s and 2000s. Building on his presentation, the second discussant and Co-Director for the Center for Immigrant Families, Donna Nevel, provided a community organizers' perspective on the challenges involved in mounting a bilingual or dual language program that truly meets the needs of emergent bilingual students.

Equity Forums

In its equity forum series this spring and continuing into the next school year, the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, will cover issues in the following 11 other areas that define its conception of comprehensive educational equity [link to record article]:

High quality early childhood education programs

Rigorous and challenging curricula for all students

High quality teaching

Effective, sustained educational leadership

Appropriate class sizes

Mental and physical health care services

Appropriate academic support for special education students

Appropriate academic support for children in areas of highly concentrated poverty

Effective after-school, community, and summer programs

Effective parental involvement and family support

Polices that foster racially and economically diverse schools

Read the report, "From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals," by Ofelia Garcia, Jo Anne Kleifgen, and Lori Falchi.

Listen to the podcast of the January ELL forum
(iTunes software required. Download iTunes)

Published Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emergent Bilinguals: How Policy Has Misunderstood a National Resource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
English language learners are making scant progress in overcoming the achievement gap, not only because of inadequate funding, but also because federal and state educational policy actually create stumbling blocks by prohibiting or discouraging the use of the educational practices that research has clearly shown to be most effective for their needs.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is specified to NJ stating that there has been many mistakes with special education programs and English Learners. It explains that talking with parents is beneficial, taking another test for ELL's to be aware that they do not have disabilities, but are considered ELL's.

# data[].attributes.body
This article dives into the national data indicating that EBs are under-represented in special education programs as opposed to those from homes where English is the number one language. It explains how the number one problem of this could be the fact that educators are not taking the time to get to know the background of their students and making them feel comfortable in who they are .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1968, Lloyd Dunn wrote a classic article on the over-representation of "socioculturally deprived" children in special education programs. He attributed disproportionality to several factors, including general education teachers who did not have the skills to meet the needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds and who resorted to special education referral to remove "problem children" from their classrooms. When CLD students were referred to special education, assessment personnel diagnosed disabilities based on results of norm-referenced assessments that were invalid for CLD students. The performance of students classified as having disabilities did not improve because special education teachers were ill-prepared to serve them. Both general and special education teachers responded to disability labels by lowering their expectations for student success. The net result was that neither general nor special education programs were effective in providing CLD students with appropriate educational opportunities. Sixteen years later, Baca and Cervantes () described barriers to educational opportunities for Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) almost identical to those identified by Dunn (): overrepresentation in special education, biased assessments, stigma associated with disability labels, and teachers' negative attitudes toward, and lowered expectations for, the potential of these students. The articles in this issue of the Bilingual Research Journal suggest that, almost four decades later, these barriers are entrenched and continue to deny EBs equitable, appropriate educational opportunities.

Disproportionate representation of EBs in special education

In aggregate, national data indicate that EBs are under-represented in special education in comparison to those from homes where English is the primary language (Morgan et al., ). However, there is great variability across states, districts, and schools in special education representation based on students' race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, age and grade. For example, in a study of urban school districts in California, Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda () found that EBs tended to be under-represented in the specific learning disability (SLD) and speech/language impairment (SLI) categories in the elementary grades, but significantly over-represented in the upper grades. EBs with low skills in both English and Spanish were more likely to be placed in special education than their English proficient peers. Those in English immersion programs were also more likely to be placed than students in bilingual education programs or in modified immersion programs that provided instruction in English with native language support. These within-group differences in referral and placement rates underscore that EBs are not a monolithic group. Understanding special education representation requires that data be disaggregated at several levels (e.g., national, state, district, and, perhaps most importantly at the school level). Data must also be disaggregated across multiple factors, including student characteristics (e.g., age, grade, language proficiency), language instruction educational program in which students are served (e.g., bilingual education vs. English as a second language program), disability categories, and special education programs and services provided.

Whether EBs are over-, under-, or proportionately represented in special education is based on the assumption that prevalence equates with accurate identification. This is not always the case. In studies involving 44 EBs with reading-related specific learning disability, researchers concluded that some EBs were accurately identified (n = 10; 23%), some had primary disabilities (e.g., speech/language impairment) other than specific learning disability (n = 18; 41%), and that, in more than a third of the cases (n = 16; 36%), data were insufficient to qualify students for special education or to support a specific learning disability diagnosis (Ortiz et al., ). As many as 77% of these students may have been misdiagnosed. Inaccurate identification and/or classification has serious consequences for EBs, including lowering teachers' expectations for student performance, regardless of their actual academic performance (Kangas, this issue) and limiting their long-term social, academic, and economic opportunities.

Education reform without reform for emergent bilinguals

In the present context of comprehensive school reform and evidence-based instructional programs and practices, one would expect that school improvement initiatives would specifically target the needs of EBs, the country's fastest-growing segment of the preK-12 student population. However, school reform is oftentimes a response to federal and state laws that delineate requirements and responsibilities (e.g., addressing the language needs of EBS or providing appropriate educational opportunities for students with disabilities). However, laws do not prescribe models, services, practices or actions, leaving it to local education agencies to determine how they will meet federal and state mandates. Consequently, reforms tend to begin with "one size fits all" approaches, with modification or alternatives for CLD students an afterthought. For example, the Elementary and Secondary Action Act (Section 8101(21)(A)) mandates that schools use evidence-based programs and interventions to ensure positive academic outcomes, but does not mandate that EBs be provided native language instruction, giving states wide latitude in choosing the language of instruction, including allowing states to adopt English-only approaches to the education of EBs. Such approaches run counter to research that documents that EBs who are provided native language instruction achieve at higher levels than peers instructed primarily in English and native English speakers (August & Shanahan, ; Thomas & Collier, ). These findings hold for EBs with disabilities (Genesee & Fortune, ; Connor, Baker, & Allor, this issue).

Multi-tiered system of support and response to intervention

To prevent disproportionate representation of CLD students and EBs in special education, most states and school districts have now implemented Multi-tiered System of Support and/or Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks that include: (a) school-wide improvement plans, (b) universal screening to establish performance levels of all students, (c) decision making based on student data, and (d) continuous progress monitoring. The models also include multi-tiered instruction that provides evidence-based practices in delivering core instruction to all students, supplemental intervention for those experiencing academic difficulties or behavioral problems, and specialized instruction for students with disabilities. Research on whether these frameworks have improved the academic achievement of EBs, reduced inappropriate referrals, or led to accurate diagnosis of disabilities among EBs are limited. However, achievement data (e.g., retention rates, graduation rates, performance on state-mandated accountability assessments) and patterns of over- and under-identification of EBs with disabilities suggest they have not. A possible explanation is that MTSS/RTI frameworks are not culturally and linguistically responsive. Most do not include a systematic process for universal screening, progress monitoring, and benchmark assessments in the oral language domain (Cavazos & Ortiz, this issue). Yet, language data are central to differentiating instruction consistent with students' language proficiency(ies), evaluating instruction, and determining whether students are making adequate progress toward meeting state-mandated language proficiency and content standards. For MTSS/RTI to meet the goal of providing appropriate educational opportunities, educators must evaluate whether, and how, each of the essential components represents culturally and linguistically responsive and evidence-based practices.

Special education practices involving EBs

As is the case for MTSS and RTI, special education practices and procedures must also be linguistically and culturally responsive.

Special education assessment

When EBs are referred, special education assessment instruments and procedures must be (a) administered in the student's native language, (b) valid and reliable for EBs, and (c) administered by appropriately trained and/or certified personnel (IDEA, ). Complying with these federal mandates is difficult given the limited number of valid and reliable assessment instruments for EBs in languages other than English and the shortage of bilingual assessment personnel (e.g., school psychologists and speech pathologists) who have in-depth expertise specific to the assessment of EBs. One of the most common reasons for not developing standardized assessment instruments in Spanish, the second most common language spoken in the U.S., is that doing so is impossible given the number of Spanish dialects. One cannot help but wonder how it was possible to develop standardized assessments in English given the variety of dialects of English spoken across the country. Without instruments in the native language and/or instruments developed with representative samples of EBs in norming samples, EBs will continue to be disproportionately represented in special education. The costs associated with educating EBs who are inaccurately identified as having disabilities, or who are placed in the wrong disability category, are likely greater than the costs of developing appropriate assessment instruments.

Multidisciplinary teams

Special education multidisciplinary teams are responsible for determining students' eligibility for special education services. They examine results of the comprehensive special education assessment and data from other sources (e.g., developmental and school histories, parent reports, progress monitoring data) and provide assurances that students' learning problems are not primarily the result of limited English proficiency, cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or lack of access to appropriate instruction [CFR x 300.306(b)(1)(i)(iii)]. To that end, multidisciplinary teams must include personnel with expertise specific to EBs, including the child's parent(s). Educators must provide parents of EBs the supports and resources they need to participate meaningfully in Individualized Education Program (IEP) proceedings (e.g., interpreters; orienting them to what the meeting is about and the significance of the decisions that will be made). Educators should also assure that parents understand their rights and those of their children in all proceedings. For example, parents should know that their child has a right to be served in special education and language instruction educational programs. Denying them access to both programs is expressly prohibited by federal law and constitutes a civil rights violation (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education ()).

Individualized education programs

IDEA () requires that EBs with disabilities have an IEP that addresses both disability- and language-related needs (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, ). The IEP is the cornerstone of a quality education for EBs. Yet, IEPs contain little or no reference to students' diverse linguistic and cultural characteristics and do not recommend native language or English as a second language instruction or accommodations that should be provided to EBs (Hoover, Erickson, Patton, Sacco, & Tran, ). Without such guidance, instruction will reflect educators' perceptions and beliefs, not evidence-based practices. Cioè-Peña (this issue) and Connor and colleagues (this issue) present evidence that educators believe that EBs with disabilities should be educated in English-only to avoid linguistic confusion. They convince parents that their children should be placed in general education programs in which instruction is entirely in English or, if the student is already enrolled in a bilingual education program advice parents to request that their child be exited and placed in a general education classroom. Excluding EBS with disabilities from educational programs that use bilingual approaches denies them the opportunity to become bilingual and biliterate. This, in turn, deprives them of future social, educational, and economic disadvantages. Cioè-Peña (this issue) and Martínez-Álvarez (this issue) argue that these inequities emanate from racism, sexism, classism, and ableism perspectives. They urge educators to advocate on behalf of EBs and their parents to eliminate deficit orientations, to provide access to equitable learning opportunities, and to ensure that EBs with disabilities reach their maximum potential.

Collaboration in service delivery

Educators must accept joint responsibility for planning and implementing instruction to address the needs of EBs with disabilities. They must work together to understand the complex factors that contribute to the success, or lack of success, of these students. One of the difficult conversations about the education of EBs with disabilities must center on how schools serve to maintain the social, educational, economic, and political inequities reflected in society, inequities that result in long-term, negative consequences for EBS, including academic underachievement, high rates of school attrition, and disproportionate representation in remedial and special education programs. As suggested by Martínez-Álvarez (this issue) and by Cioè-Peña (this issue), educators must develop a sense of agency and the capacity to change deficit orientations, their own and those of their colleagues, and all must work together to eliminate institutional racism and policies and practices that serve to disempower EBs. In schools, change can begin with collective agency, dialogue and collaboration across disciplines for the express purpose of enhancing the education of students with disabilities (Martínez-Álvarez, this volume). Educators must move out of departmentalized approaches to the education of EBs and EBs with disabilities (e.g., bilingual educators are responsible for addressing native language and English proficiency; special educators address (dis)ability-related needs). Departmentalization ignores the reality that EBs have multiple identities (e.g., a Latino male who is economically disadvantaged, classified as an emergent bilingual, and identified as a student with a disability) and that these identities must be acknowledged in every program and every classroom in which students are served. Creating a shared knowledge base among educators is a key strategy for ensuring the success of EBs. Bilingual educators must share their expertise about language acquisition and culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy with special education personnel; in turn, special educators must share their expertise about (dis)ability and effective practices for inclusive classrooms. Collaboration across disciplines and programs prepares educators to address the intersections of identity markers and to select, modify, or create programs, instructional approaches, and curricula that truly serve the whole child, not their characteristics in isolation.

There is no better way for educators to understand EBs than by providing them, and their families, opportunities to share their lived experiences. This information will help teachers understand, and appreciate, students' and families' social, linguistic and cultural capital, as well as supports they may need to assure school success. Incorporating student, family, and community funds of knowledge into the teaching-learning process is the essence of culturally and linguistically responsive education practice. Kangas (this issue) shares the voices of EBs with disabilities and shows how they challenge educators' deficit perceptions of them as low-performing students based on their language characteristics and disability classifications. Emergent bilinguals showcased their bilingual proficiencies and their academic accomplishments, countering that the root of their academic difficulties is instruction that is irrelevant and uninspiring, not their language and disability status.

Cioè-Peña (this issue) documents that parents of EBs with disabilities understand their children's need and recognize the benefits of bilingualism in a global society. But, parents give in to the misguided advice of educators about which program placement and language of instruction are in the best interest of their children with disabilities. The advice given by educators to parents is based on misconceptions about the intersection of language proficiency and (dis)ability, misconceptions that cannot be changed unless educators have deep expertise about, and implement, evidence-based practices for EBs and EBs with disabilities. The research literature is clear that using the native language is an effective instructional practice for EBs (August & Shanahan, ; Thomas & Collier, ) and for EBS with disabilities (Genesee & Fortune, ; Connor, Baker, & Allor, this issue). Dialogs involved in collaborative approaches are instrumental in changing deficit perspectives and creating a shared knowledge base among all educators who serve EBs with disabilities (Martínez-Álvarez, this issue).

The education of EBs with disabilities in the context of COVID-19

Providing appropriate educational opportunities for EBs with disabilities has always presented complex challenges, but these challenges are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools must develop proactive plans to meet the needs of EBs with disabilities who are more likely than their non-disabled peers to have chronic medical conditions that put them at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Plans should ensure that the provisions of students' IEPs are implemented, in-person or virtually, including individualized social and academic interventions and specialized services such as speech or occupational therapy. Educators must ensure that students and families have appropriate, accessible technology (e.g., computers, assistive or augmentative devices), access to internet services to be able to use that technology, and the resources needed to support instruction in home or school settings. They must also ensure that parents understand that if their child does not receive the services specified in their IEPs, they may be eligible for compensatory services to make up for services lost because of the school's failure to provide appropriate educational opportunities during the pandemic. Compensation is critical given that it may take years for students to fill in gaps that widened because of interrupted or inconsistent instructional opportunities associated with the pandemic.

The articles in this issue of the Bilingual Research Journal, along with the books reviewed, take a fresh look at the barriers to the education of EBs with disabilities identified by Dunn in 1968 and Baca and Cervantes in 1984. These barriers continue to characterize the state of practice in the education of EBs with disabilities today. Contributors offer specific guidance for overcoming these barriers and moving the education field closer to the promise of a free, appropriate education for EBs with disabilities.

Research articles and book reviews

In Bilingualism for Students with Disabilities, Deficit or Advantage?: Perspectives of Latinx Mothers, María Cioè-Peña argues that bilingual educators must advocate to safeguard bilingualism as a basic human right of Emergent Bilingual Learners Labeled as Dis/abled. (EBLADs). These students continue to be placed in educational settings where instruction is primarily in English. Educators recommend to mothers that their children with disabilities be placed in English-only instructional programs to avoid linguistic confusion. Although they first resisted, mothers subsequently internalized educators' deficit-perspectives about their children's language skills and agreed to recommended placements. Bilingual educators have contributed to the shift from perceptions of bilingualism as a deficit to bilingualism as an advantage and from bilingual education as a right to bilingual education as a privilege. These shifts have negatively impacted the education of EBLADs by limiting their access to multilingual instruction.

In an ethnographic embedded case study, Counternarratives of English Learners with Disabilities, Sara Kangas draws upon dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit) as a lens for understanding the lived experiences and perceptions of 12 English learners with disabilities in middle school. Challenging a dominant narrative that focused on students' perceived academic and linguistic deficiencies, these students recounted their academic achievements and efforts as well as their bilingual proficiency. Further, in opposition to the dominant notion that intersecting disability and low English proficiency limited their learning opportunities, students indicated that unengaging learning environments negatively influenced their academic success. Students' counternarratives highlight how important it is for research and practice to be inclusive of the voices of English learner students with disabilities.

Carlin Conner, Doris Luft Baker, and Jill Allor reviewed studies that examined whether children who have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and who are from culturally and linguistically diverse communities benefit more from being exposed to one versus two or more languages. Findings reported in Multiple Language Exposure for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities suggest that children with autism spectrum disorder benefit from richer interactions with parents and teachers in their native language. These findings contradict practitioners' advise that parents of children with autism spectrum disorder speak only the majority language to reduce deficits in language development. In fact, the results from the review suggest that there appears to be no advantage to limiting a child with autism spectrum disorder to one language. Promoting the use of the child's native language, along with the predominant language used at school, may actually promote social language and academic growth.

Essential Constructs in the Preparation of Inclusive Bilingual Education Teachers: Mediation, Agency, and Collectivity, by Patricia Martínez-Álvarez, addresses the question, how can we build the knowledge base in teacher education to prepare teachers for inclusive bilingual education classrooms? She argues that three constructs are essential to the preparation of teachers who work in these settings: mediation, agency, and collectivity. Implications for teacher preparation programs are discussed and praxis examples are provided.

Linda O. Cavazos and Alba A. Ortiz make the case that oral language assessments should be routinely included in Multi-tiered System of support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention frameworks for English Learners. Without up-to-date language data, teachers may not have sufficient information about native language and/or English proficiency to plan and deliver lessons that support oral language development or to judge whether students are making expected progress toward mastery of the target language. The English Learner Oral Narrative Scale (ELONS) was developed as an informal, criterion-referenced instrument to assess the personal narrative skills of ELs (i.e., skills in recounting personal experiences). The ELONS was piloted with 28 third grade ELs in a transitional bilingual education program to describe participants' personal narrative skills and to explore relationships between narrative skills and reading achievement. Mean scores were at the Advanced level for English global narrative proficiency and vocabulary, grammar, and fluency; mean ratings for oral comprehension and pronunciation were at the Advanced High level. Twelve of 28 ELs produced Spanish narratives of sufficient length to score. Mean global and subskill scores were at the Advanced level except for fluency (Intermediate level). ELONS global proficiency scores showed moderate correlations to state assessments of English language proficiency and English reading. Implications for oral language assessment in MTSS/RTI frameworks and future research directions are discussed.

Three books that can serve as important resources for educators who serve emergent bilingual learners with disabilities are included in issue 43(3) of the Bilingual Research Journal.

Laura Turner reviews Disabled upon arrival: Eugenics, immigration, and the construction of race and disability by J.T. Dolmage. Rhetoric surrounding immigration has been used throughout the course of North American history to justify policy aims and to create boundaries around what is considered normal and acceptable. This process of normalization - a process by which certain people, behaviors, and ways of being serve as limits for what is considered normal - accompanied the immigration experience in both the United States and Canada in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Jay Dolmage roots this historical framework within the confines of normative Whiteness and the "science" of eugenics, defining what was important, of value, and normal, in society during this particular time period in North American history. The book serves as a close examination of the intersection between the race and dis/ability constructs. The interdisciplinary nature of Disabled Upon Arrival makes it applicable and relevant to the work of scholars interested in immigration, dis/ability studies, rhetoric, and the intersection of race and dis/ability in North American history and education.

Language, culture, and education: Challenges of Diversity in the United States, edited by E. Ijalba, P. Velasco, and C. J. Crowley, is reviewed by Fabiola Vargas Londono. The book provides an overview of the current situation that immigrant families experience in the United States. To represent the ongoing impact of the political and social situation, the authors focused on five groups, Chinese, Korean, Hispanic, Arab-American, and Mixteco-Spanish, and their experiences navigating both the school system and health services in New York. Part I offers an introduction to the history of bilingual education in the United States and the challenges in diagnosing a disability from bilingual students. Part II provides an in-depth understanding of cultural differences and practical ideas to enhance bilingualism with immigrant families. The final sections move from the experiences of immigrant families in the school to their experiences with health services, and ends with the current political situation and future actions. This book offers valuable information for caregivers and speech-language pathologists, the latter of whom are the main focus of this book. Teachers, health-care professionals, and therapists can also benefit from the information provided since they also impact the daily lives of immigrant families. Overall, this book enriches the practices of service providers by cultivating the bilingualism of diverse students and families.

Finally, Cheryl Y. Wilkinson, reviews Supporting English learners in the classroom: Best practices for distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities by Eric Haas and Julie Esparza Brown. This book is intended to help educators and caregivers (parents and guardians) determine what EL students need to succeed and the best ways to provide these supports. The book's eight chapters present evidence-based practices and decision-making strategies for ELs using a three-tier Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) model, and detail the processes needed (i.e., referral, eligibility assessment, eligibility determination and Individualized Educational Program development and implementation) when an EL is suspected of having, or has, a language-related disability. The book also includes resources for schools and districts that wish to implement the practices and procedures described. Haas and Esparza Brown have provided a strong resource for researchers, but also for schools or districts looking to evaluate and improve their services for ELs, and this would be an excellent work for learning communities or working groups to read and discuss.

In summary, educators must recognize that the issues faced by emergent bilingual students with disabilities stem, in large part, to misconceptions about these students and the lack of culturally and linguistically responsive educational policies and instructional practices. The articles and books included in this issue of the BRJ provide guidance to help educators and families advocate for equitable, appropriate learning opportunities for emergent bilingual students with and without disabilities. An important first step is for educators to reflect on their worldviews and how these influence their professional practice. A second step is to engage in evaluation of the extent to which the programs, curricula and instruction provided all emergent bilingual students reflect evidence-based practice. If they do not, educators must shift their attention from prevention and intervention strategies that focus on students to strategies to eliminate institutional policies and practices that place students at-risk of failure.

References

, , , & (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300. doi:10.1177/001440290507100305

, & (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel for language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

(1968). Special education for the mildly retarded-Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/001440296803500101

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016)

, Erickson, J. R. , , , & (2018). Examining IEPs of English Learners with learning disabilities for cultural and linguistic responsiveness. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 34(1), 14-22. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12183

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No 94-142, 20 U.S.C. §1415 (2004).

, Robertson, P. M. , Wilkinson, C. Y. , , , & (2011). The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: Implications for response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal: Journal of the Association for Bilingual Education, 34, 316-333. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.628608

, & (2012). Dual language education for a transformed world. Albuquerque: Dual Language Education of New Mexico - Fuente Press.

U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Dear colleague letter: English Learner students and limited English proficient parents. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The education of emergent bilinguals with disabilities: State of practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1968, Lloyd Dunn wrote a classic article on the over-representation of "socioculturally deprived" children in special education programs. He attributed disproportionality to several factors, including general education teachers who did not have the skills to meet the needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds and who resorted to special education referral to remove "problem children" from their classrooms. When CLD students were referred to special education, assessment personnel diagnosed disabilities based on results of norm-referenced assessments that were invalid for CLD students.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, we take a look into a study of those who advocate for separate educational settings would argue that these separate systems allow schools to meet the special needs of children, to protect them and effectively to

educate all students. On the other hand of the study, it represents the barrier that can be put up in unified classrooms.

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives a "kudos" to the NJ Ed. Department for acknowledging Equity in the classrooms. Bringing in the Civil Rights Act shows a great representation on how classrooms should handle ELL's and disability students.