Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program
(USC Thesis Other)
The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE INTERSECTION OF RACE AND LANGUAGE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: A STUDY OF THE REFERRAL PROCESS OF EMERGENT BILINGUAL STUDENTS TO THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM By ANGELINA SOTERA S. CLARK, B.A., M.A.T. __________________________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION © Angelina Sotera S. Clark 2019 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA May 2019 EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 2 Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to my dissertation chair, Dr. Paula Carbone, whose guidance, trust, and patience enabled me to develop and refine this dissertation. Without her motivation, support, and close supervision, this study would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the other committee members, Dr. Jennifer Crawford, and Dr. Erin Craig, for providing their valuable direction and expertise on this topic. I am especially grateful to my husband, Wayne Clark, whose unwavering support manifested in so many aspects required to finish this proposal. He was indefatigable in reading, re-reading all my manuscripts and driving me to all my classes both in the USC Irvine campus and in the main campus. I am sincerely grateful to my friends and family for believing in me. I would like to thank my co-teachers Doreen Denegris and Valerie Duffin for their encouragement and proofreading work throughout this project. I am very thankful to my son, Nico Leandro Samaniego and his wife, Michelle Ann Nagar-Samaniego for their support, encouragement and patience throughout this endeavor. Finally, I am extraordinarily thankful for my classmates from the Irvine campus, Donovan Roy, Josh, Chris, Stephanie, Alexis, Tamara, Catherine, Kyle, Darjene, RJ, and Francisco. I am also remarkably thankful for my classmates in the Los Angeles campus, Love Anuakpado, Aida Babayan, Enrique, Josh, Adrean Askerneese, Ofelia, Sunita Sinor, Kristine Cortez, Karol, Monica Jara, Esperanza Sanchez, Gotti, Jaime, Madeline Murphy, Rachel Antrobus, Selise Eiseman, Ed Eiseman, Ngari Kabia, Miguel Solis, Eriberto, and Hagop. All of my classmates have been encouraging, constructively critical, and endlessly cheering us onwards to completion. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Table of Contents 3 Abstract 5 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 7 Background of the Problem 7 Persistent Opportunity Gaps 8 Historical and Institutionalized Racism 10 Legislation and Policy in K-12 Public School 11 Emergent Bilingual Students and Placement in Special Education 12 Overrepresentation in Special day Classes 15 Statement of the Problem 17 Purpose of the Study 17 Research Questions 17 Overarching Concept/Framework 18 Significance of the Study 18 Limitations and Delimitations 18 Definition of Terms 18 Organization of the Study 20 Chapter 2: Literature Review 21 History of Public Schooling and Emergent Bilingual Students 23 Deficit Views of Emergent Bilinguals 23 Academic Trajectories 25 Opportunity gaps 26 A Brief History of Special Education 28 Early Practices of Educating Individuals with Disability 29 Review of Legislation 29 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act 33 The Referral Process 33 Pedagogies of Opportunity 36 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 36 Appropriate Pedagogies in Special Education 38 Universal Design for Learning 39 Special Education and Emergent Bilinguals 41 Professional Development 43 Conceptual Framework 45 Chapter 3: Methodology 47 Methods 47 Participant & Site Selection 48 Site Selection 48 Participants 50 Data Collection 51 Instrumentation 51 Interview 51 Artifacts 52 EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 4 Data Analysis 52 Researcher’s Positionality 54 Chapter 4: Results of the Study 55 Table 1. Interview Participants’ Characteristics 56 Findings: Research Question 1 57 Theme 1: Teacher awareness of the special education referral process 57 Teacher 1 58 Teacher 2 60 Teacher 3 62 Teacher 4 64 Teacher 5 66 Teacher 6 69 Theme 2: Perceptions of English as a Second Language 71 Teacher 1 72 Teacher 2 73 Teacher 3 74 Teacher 4 75 Teacher 5 77 Teacher 6 77 Findings: Research Question 2 80 Teacher 1 81 Teacher 2 83 Teacher 3 85 Teacher 4 87 Teacher 5 88 Teacher 6 90 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 93 Review of the Study 93 Statement of the Problem 93 Purpose of the Study 93 Research Questions 94 Major Findings 94 Implications and Recommendations of the Study 97 Future Research 98 Personal Connection 99 References 101 Appendices 113 Appendix A: Interview Questions 113 Appendix B: Electronic mail: Correspondences made during requests for interviews (9/18/2017 through 10/27/2017) 115 Appendix C: Electronic mail: Correspondences made between 10/2017 through 11/2017 116 Appendix D: Electronic mail: Correspondences made during follow up for interviews 118 EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 5 Abstract There is currently a disproportionate amount of emergent bilinguals qualified in the special education program in the PK-12 public school system. This study examined the context of how general education teachers perceived the referral process of emergent bilingual students for special education purposes and how they viewed the role that they played. The purpose of the study was to establish a teachers’ own understanding and recollection of their decision-making processes during the referral process in qualifying a student for special education services. Qualitative methods were used in this study of K-8 general education teachers. The sites were purposefully chosen for accessibility and willingness of participants to be interviewed. There were three main themes that emerged from the interviews: first, all six teachers were aware that there were criteria that need to be followed prior to the referral of any student into the special education program; second, most of the teachers were cognizant that language should not be part of the criteria for recommending students to the special education program; and third, all six teachers interviewed were aware of their roles and responsibilities during the pre-referral and referral procedures of the special education program. The differences in the levels of awareness between elementary and the middle school general education teachers may have impacted their reasons and frequency during the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program. It was also evident that their years of experience as educators influenced their perception of emergent bilingual students. Finally the implications and recommendations culled from the data and analysis point towards a need for a shift in the teaching framework of educators at all levels. Trainings were recommended to standardize practices on doing referrals and to provide continuing professional development for both new and veteran teachers. From a deficit perspective of emergent bilingual students that may possibly have contributed to their qualification into the special education EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 6 program, changing directions towards a culturally additive framework of education might considerably prevent the growing disproportionality of emergent bilingual students in the special education program. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 7 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study This chapter presents the background of the problem to provide a clear perspective of the study. It also presents the statement of the problem, the purpose and significance of the study, and its limitations and delimitations. The focus of this dissertation is to examine and better understand the context of how general education teachers perceive the referral process of emergent bilingual students for special education services. Emergent bilingual youths are often minoritized youths from different ethnic groups that speak a language other than English at home (Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008). According to the California Department of Education, there are at least 1,373,724 English learners that comprise 22.1 % of the total enrolment as of Fall 2015 (CDE). Of the 1,373,724 English learners in California, 83.5% speak Spanish. The Spanish speaking EB youths will be the focus of this study. The issue of opportunity for academic achievement will also be discussed in this chapter, as a central concept unifying the information regarding the problem. Background of the Problem Opportunity gaps refer to the ways in which race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English proficiency and a host of other factors contribute to and/or perpetuate educational disparities and intergenerational economic inequality (Carter & Welner, 2013). Research shows there are persistent gaps in grades, standardized test scores, high school graduation rates, access to advanced placement and college preparatory courses, suspensions and expulsion rates for emergent bilingual (EB) youths (Howard, 2010; Milner, 2010). Academic opportunity is a pressing issue for EB youths, who experience disproportionately high dropout rates and student underachievement (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002). The US Department of Education indicated that in 2001, 1.4 million Latinx between the ages of 16 and 24 dropped out from high school (NCES, 2002). Emergent bilinguals also experience EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 8 disproportionate representation in special education (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005). Emergent bilingual youth are especially vulnerable to failure as they face various forms of opportunity gaps (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2007). Results from standardized testing shows that EB youths are failing disproportionately in the current public education system. Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi (2008) emphasized the importance of how emergent bilingual students have been derogatorily labeled by policymakers and school districts. The terms English Language Learners (ELLS) and limited English proficient students (LEPs), omits “idea that is critical to the discussion of equity in the teaching of these children” (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008, p. 6). Focusing only on the language they are learning ignores the heritage languages they bring to the classroom. Through a narrow focus only on the language they are learning, educational policy and resulting mandates have ignored the emergent bilinguals’ heritage language and worked within the paradigm of a “one size fits all” mentality, treating this group the same as monolingual students (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008), resulting in teaching practices that are not designed to support emergent bilinguals for equity in academic achievement. Persistent Opportunity Gaps In addition to educational policies that disregard emergent bilinguals’ heritage Language, the current educational system focuses on achievement gaps between groups of students with the assumption that all students have been provided the same access to quality of resources and teachers (Milner 2012). Milner (2010) argues that instead of focusing on the achievement gaps of emergent bilingual students, we need to root out the real reasons for the disparity in test scores and achievement such as differences in school funding, healthcare and nutrition, school integration and a welcoming school environment. Hence, if we look at the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 9 reasons for the disparities, it is not really an achievement gap but a loss of equal opportunity for EB youths to access the same quality of education as other students. Darling-Hammond (2007) stressed the persistence of opportunity gaps between dominant groups and youths from non-dominant backgrounds, including emergent bilinguals: Educational outcomes for students of color are much more a function of their unequal access to key educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality curriculum, than they are a function of race (p. 320). In line with Darling-Hammond’s statement, other scholars indicated that opportunity gaps are manifested in wide disparities usually referred to as achievement gaps between White and non-Asian students of color (Gabel, Curcic, Powell, Khader & Albee, 2009; Shifrer et al., 2011; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2006). Using the language of opportunity reframes the problem from focusing on achievement, which locates the problem as emerging from the fault of the student, to relocating the problem to institutional and organizational structures that work to limit opportunities for certain students (Milner, 2010), such as emergent bilinguals. Scholars have discussed opportunity gaps and the many factors contributing to them in K-12, public educational settings. According to Milner (2010, 2012) and Ladson-Billings (2013), opportunity gaps result from policies that focus on standardized assessments. Other researchers have pointed to other possible reasons contributing to their recurrence in public education. Orfield (2014) traced the effects of zip code-based education funding formulas that reinforce re- segregation efforts (p. 40), providing opportunities for youths in high-income neighbors that are unavailable to youth in low-income neighborhoods. Examples of these opportunities are access to highly qualified teachers, advance placement courses or college preparatory courses, more challenging electives, and better equipment and facilities, to name a few. Additionally, some EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 10 teachers may have a deficit perspective of students’ capabilities or potential, in which they blame minority students’ cultural background and native language for the student’s performance in school (Bensimmon, 2005). Framing the problem of continued disparity in educational achievement as an opportunity gap highlights the roles that policy and practice take in students’ outcomes. Opportunity gaps persist, as the latest statistics provided by The Nation’s Report Card (2015) indicated an 18-point gap in math and English assessment scores between White and Hispanic fourth grade students. Assessments also showed that the scores for both fourth grade students and eight grade students only increased by an average of 6 points as compared to 1992 results (The Nation’s Report Card, 2015). Historical and Institutionalized Racism At several key events in the nation’s history, racism manifested through the near annihilation of Native Americans, the practice of slavery in the South, the extended practice of slave labor through Jim Crow laws, and the separate but equal educational policies for students of color and emergent bilingual youth. Despite the gains made during the early 1960s civil rights movement and the landmark legislation Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), the public education system still reflects persistent institutional racism (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Darling- Hammond, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Pinilla, 2016) as manifested in the continuing opportunity gaps that results in disparities in graduation rates, test scores, and those advancing to higher education (Bensimmon, 2005). The decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 was particularly significant because the Supreme Court ruled directly against school segregation. The ruling also stipulated that segregation violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and overturned the infamous case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 which permitted racial segregation EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 11 under the guise of “separate but equal” (The Leadership Conference in Civil and Human Rights, 2017). However, the promise of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) has not been realized and has not critically impacted or addressed the inequities (i.e. segregation, inequitable distribution of resources) that were evident then and now (Kroger, 1999). During the time of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the minoritized population of focus was African-Americans. In this study, the minoritized population in focus is the Latinx emergent bilinguals. Specific to the Latinx emergent bilingual student population, the aggregated impact of racism, social stratification, forcible language assimilation, and marginalization through misplacement in special education predict their limited options and mobility after high school (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Hopstock & Stephenson, 2003; Smeeding, Erikson, & Jäntti, 2011). Legislation and Policy in K-12 Public School Several scholars and researchers traced the deficit perspective of English Language Learners through decades of policy changes brought about by federal and state appropriations and court cases as early as 1775 (Ream & Stanton-Salazar, 2007; Santa Ana, 2004; Valencia, Menchaca & Donato, 2002). For example, Santa Ana (2004) presented a chronology of events, court decisions and varied legislation that impacted emergent bilinguals from as early as the forced assimilation of Native American children in 1775 and the various state statutes in 1870 (People of California v. de la Guerra) through Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. However, as indicated in an earlier discussion, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 did not resolve institutional racism nor did it provide systemic changes to provide equity to minoritized groups such as the Latinx emergent bilingual youths. Instead it spawned federal measures such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that instituted tracking (sorting students according to school-defined academic ability) based on test scores through standardized assessments (Darling- Hammond, 2007) and compensatory educational programs such as the special education program EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 12 as mandated by the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) in its various authorizations in 1975, 1990, 1997, 2004, and 2009. (Hale, 2015; Shifrer, 2015). The last re-authorization of IDEA in 2009 contains six salient provisions. These are the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), free and appropriate public education (FAPE), least restrictive environment (LRE), appropriate evaluation, parent and teacher participation, and procedural safeguards (USGAO, 2013). The six provisions cover elements of confidentiality of information, parent and teacher participation, transition services and appropriate placement of students with disabilities in the right learning environment (USGAO, 2013). All these additional provisions were put in place to ensure that students with disabilities are provided with the most appropriate placement and due process was observed in the formulation of their IEP. The impact of the special education program on students with disabilities was questioned by educators and researchers (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hale, 2015; Shifrer, 2013; Shifrer, 2015). Some researchers claim that the special education program has been utilized as a re- segregation measure due to the disproportionality of African-American and Latinx emergent bilingual students in the program (Klingner & Artiles, 2003; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Gibb, Rausch, Cuadrado & Chung, 2008; Sullivan, Artiles & Hernandez-Saca, 2014). The implementation of the IEP, FAPE, LRE and use of appropriate evaluation systems further exacerbates the difficulty of Latinx emergent bilingual students because their proficiency in the English language is the basis for qualification (Hale, 2015; Shifrer, 2013; Shifrer, 2015; Valencia, Menchaca & Donato, 2002; Ream & Stanton-Salazar, 2007). Emergent Bilingual Students and Placement in Special Education The persistent opportunity gaps in the US public school system are even more pronounced in the area of special education. The disproportionate number of African American and emergent bilingual students in special education programs has been well documented since EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 13 the passage of the Individuals with Disability Education Act, or IDEA (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Hopstock & Stephenson, 2003; Smeeding et al., 2011). IDEA was passed to ensure services to children with disabilities (Etscheidt, 2012). Since then, researchers have provided evidence of the overrepresentation of emergent bilingual youths in the special education program. Reiterating the statistics provided by Artiles and Ortiz (2002), special education placement for Latinx emergent bilinguals students in California alone increased by 345% between 1994 to 1999 despite a mere 12% increase of emergent bilingual youth in the student population for the same period (p. 27). These statistics point to over-identification of English learners towards special education placement. Moreover, once identified as a special education student, a child will often be put into a non-college preparatory track (Zhang, Katsiyannis & Zhang 2002), limiting opportunities for equal educational attainment. The misplacement of emergent bilingual youths in special education may have a significant impact on the student’s long term outcome as research shows that people who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher earn at least four times as much and have a better quality of life (Autor, 2014). Emergent bilingual youths who are placed in special education will have difficulty navigating the secondary school system successfully (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). This is a problem because, once students have been tracked into non-college preparatory courses, they will not have the same opportunities as their peers upon graduating from high school. For example, according to the longitudinal study of the National Center for Education Statistics (2015), students with special needs only constituted.025 percent of incoming freshmen for the 2013- 2014 school year. According to the admissions requirements of both the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU), incoming freshmen need to complete the requisite college preparatory courses (referred to as A-G requirements) prior to admission. Students with individual education plans or IEPs in the mild to moderate category are usually EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 14 placed in the specialized academic instruction classes (SAI) or a special day class (SDC) that are smaller in size and generally do not offer the same rigor of curriculum as general education classes. If a student with an IEP is placed in any of the core disciplines such as math, science, English and social sciences in the SAI or SDC classes, these do not qualify as the A-G college preparatory course required by the state colleges and universities such as UC or CSU. Aside from being placed in a non-college preparatory curriculum, other systemic problems may arise to prevent emergent bilingual students not only from graduating from high school but also from having a career after high school (Cheng & Lee, 2009). These systemic problems include the processes of identifying and qualifying students in the special education program (Cheng & Lee, 2009), and exclusionary practices once students are deemed qualified and placed in special education (Wagner & Blackorby, 1996). These systemic problems start with being identified as a student receiving services from the special education program. The first systemic problem is the process of identification of a student with special needs. The racial and cultural differences between teachers and students can create a barrier for academic opportunities for emergent bilingual youths (Duncan-Andrade, 2007). For example, recent statistics from the California Department of Education for the school year 2014-2015 show that 64% of teachers are white, only 24% of the student population are White, 54% Hispanic, 5.81% African American, .56% Native American, 8.85% Asian, .49% are Pacific- Islander (Educational Data Partnership, 2015). The race, culture and language differences between teachers and students can lead to over-referral of English language learners to the disciplinary office or to Special Education (Roberts, Ju, and Zhang, 2014). Secondly, the process itself is somewhat problematic in qualifying students into the special education program (Coutinho & Oswald, 2015). Most school districts still use outdated and culturally insensitive benchmark tools such as the Woodcock Johnson series that were EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 15 designed for native English speakers (Skiba et al., 2008). Hence, emergent bilingual youth who are referred to special education will qualify in at least the reading and writing comprehension part of the assessment as the medium of assessment is in English (Spinelli, 2007). Several educators and researchers have suggested the use of alternative methods of assessment for English learners to prevent misplacement to special education (Woolley, 2010; Chu, 2011; Spinelli, 2007). Lastly, there are exclusionary practices among teachers once students are qualified into special education. IDEA (1975, 1990, 1997, 2004, 2009) mandated that all students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson & Hoppey, 2012). The LRE provide for several different settings, which may include general education (GE) placement, pullout (PO), Special Day Class (SDC), and Separate School (SS), which may include homebound independent studies or hospital facilities (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson & Hoppey, 2012). In general education inclusion settings, core subject teachers more often than not consider the placement of special education students in their classroom as a punishment (Skiba et al., 2008). This may lead to lower expectations and the delivery of a less rigorous curriculum (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002), acting to block educational opportunity for students in special education. Overrepresentation in Special Day Classes Studies indicate that, aside from prejudicial attitudes of some teachers, counselors and administrators about emergent bilingual students, problematic processes in the identification of emergent bilingual students in special education and other exclusionary practices resulted in their tracking and misplacement in special day classes (SDCs) instead of in inclusion settings (Cheng & Lee, 2009). This means that if an emergent bilingual is misplaced, instructional opportunities are limited and inequitable to what those in a general education classroom would experience. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 16 SDCs have a smaller class size and it offers less rigorous curriculum for students, which do not comply with the A-G entrance requirements of California state colleges or universities. Currently, there are a disproportionate number of emergent bilingual youths qualified in special education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Studies indicate that there is an over- identification of minority students in special education classified under the emotional and behavioral disorder category, or emotional disturbance (ED) and auditory processing disorder (Wiley, Brigham, Kauffman, & Bogan, 2013). This over-representation of emergent bilingual youths in special education suggests that disproportionality is the result of bias against the members of these overrepresented groups (Wiley et al., 2013). The overrepresentation of emergent bilingual students in special education raises questions about whether these students are incorrectly qualified or diagnosed as having disabilities (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002). These concerns are raised by researchers and educators and are amplified by concerns about whether students benefit from their placement in special education (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Roberts, Ju, and Zhang, 2014; Skiba et al., 2008). There is considerable disagreement regarding the relative benefit of special education. Research reveals that placement in special education may harm students by stigmatizing them with labels, allowing for lower expectations from special education teachers and/or core subject teachers in English language arts, math, social sciences, and science (Hale, 2015; Shifrer, 2013; Shifrer, 2015). There is also concern about whether placement in separate settings provides them with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by law. Historically, placement in special education has not shown to increase the educational achievement of students with disabilities, or to provide opportunities with which to do so (Sullivan, Artiles, & Hernandez- Saca, 2014). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 17 Statement of the Problem This paper addresses the problem of the disproportionate number of emergent bilingual youths misidentified in special education (De Matthews, Edwards & Nelson, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014; Sullivan, 2011; Shifrer & Callahan, 2015). This is a problem that needs to be addressed because, once misidentified in the special education program, they may be put in special day classes (SDC) that do not expose them to the full rigor of the high school curriculum. This does not prepare them for a college track transition when they graduate (De Matthews, Edwards & Nelson, 2014). This problem is important to address because emergent bilingual students often come from poor, ethnic minority and immigrant families, and misplacement limits their transition options after high school graduation, essentially putting them in a cyclical pattern of school failure and limited opportunity (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2013). Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to identify teacher’s perceptions of how they understand the referral process in qualifying a student for special education services. The goal is to examine teachers’ descriptions of their decision process to refer students for placement in special education, especially students who are emergent bilingual youths, in order to pinpoint issues in the referral system that might be addressed to promote a more equitable referral process. Research Questions In order to uncover teacher’s perceptions and how they understand the processes in referring students for placement in special education, the following research questions will guide the study: 1. How do elementary, general education teachers discuss their understanding of the special education referral process? EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 18 2. What are general education teacher’s perceptions about their role in referring emergent bilingual students to the special education program? Overarching Concept/Framework The culturally additive schooling framework will assist in highlighting data that may support a reduction in misplacement of emergent bilingual youth in special education. Significance of the Study The study has the potential to illuminate teachers’ understanding of the process of identifying student characteristics to use in deciding to refer a student for assessment to the special education department. Teacher perceptions of the referral process, and their descriptions of the factors they use to determine whether or not they will make a referral have the potential to benefit administrators, special education teachers, and other practitioners as they examine referrals for racial and cultural equity. Limitations and Delimitations There are several limitations expected to occur in the conduct of this study. First is the number of teachers who would be willing to participate in the interviews. Second are the permissions from the district office with regards to interviewing the teachers at their school sites. Time might be a factor because teachers usually abide by union and district contracts not to work beyond school hours. Delimitations of the study may include identification of participant teachers by administrators and education specialists who may not meet all the criteria for research. Definition of Terms • Achievement gap – the term used to define the differences in the achievement indicators between certain groups of students EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 19 • Cultural Competence - is the ability to successfully teach students who come from cultures other than the teacher’s own. • Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) - is an approach to teaching grounded in teachers' displaying cross-cultural competence. They enable each student to relate course content to his or her cultural context. • Emergent Bilingual (EB) – students who are in various stages of learning English • English Language Learners (ELLs) – students who are non-native speakers of English • Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – an educational right of children with disabilities in the United States that is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). • Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - a federal mandate that requires schools to serve the educational needs of eligible students with disabilities • Integration/inclusion – Students designated as mild/moderate in special education are placed in the general population and receive inclusion support from education specialists • Limited English Proficient (LEP) – a term used to describe students who are still learning the English language. • Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). LRE is further defined as the most appropriate placement for a student with disability who has an approved IEP. The placement maybe in the general education setting with inclusion support; a special day class; homeschool or hospital setting; a pull out from the general education setting to a separate room. The main principle behind the indication of the LRE is to ensure that the student is in the most optimal environment for learning (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). • No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) – a law that authorized several federal education programs that are administered by the states. The law is a reauthorization of the Elementary EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 20 and Secondary Education Act. Under the 2002 law, states are required to test students in reading and math in grades 3–8 and once in high school. • Opportunity gap - is the disparity in the access to quality schools and the resources needed for all children to be academically successful (Ream & Stanton-Salazar, 2007). • Pull-Out – a form of LRE that takes out a student from his regular education placement for a specified period of time. • Referrals – when a teacher submits a recommendation to either the administration or the special education department to assess a student for qualification to services; • Special day class (SDC) – a type of school placement for some students with IEP; has a very small group of students with similar disability or challenges (usually 15 students or less); does not offer comply with A-G requirement for California state universities; • Special Education (SPED). The special education program is part of the compensatory program started after the passage of IDEA. Organization of the Study The study will be organized into sections from Chapters one through five. Chapter one will contain the introduction, statement of the problem and the statement of purpose. Chapter two will provide a review of literature. Chapter three will explain the methods employed during data collection, and chapter four will provide the data collection report. Finally, chapter five will provide the analysis and conclusion for this study. This study will employ qualitative research in the form of interviews and collection of artifacts to identify the characteristics teachers look for when they make referrals to the special education department. It will also examine the referral processes with which students are qualified and labeled as having a disability. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 21 Chapter 2: Literature Review Recent studies indicate that there is a disproportionate amount of emergent bilingual (EB) youths misidentified and placed in the special education program (De Matthews, Edwards & Nelson, 2014; Shifrer & Callahan, 2015; Sullivan, 2011; Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju & Roberts, 2014). Emergent bilingual students are non-native English speakers and are English learners (Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008). In the current referral process, teachers play a significant role in the identification and placement of students in special education (LAUSD’s Special Education Manual, 2007). This study will focus on the problem of teacher’s misidentification of emergent bilingual youth as candidates for the special education program. This problem is important to address because it is a critical piece in addressing opportunity gaps in the K-12 public school system. Furthermore, emergent bilingual youths often come from minoritized non-dominant ethnicities and migrant families; hence, placement in certain special education programs limits their transition options after high school graduation (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2007). Two research questions guide the study: 1. How do elementary, general education teachers discuss their understanding of the special education referral process? 2. What are general education teacher’s perceptions about their role in referring emergent bilingual students to the special education program? The purpose of the research questions is to examine general education teachers’ perceptions of the referral process and how they view their role in that process. The study has the potential to provide information to help general education teachers, special education teachers, and administrators address the disproportionality of emergent bilinguals in special education and develop possible safeguards during the referral process to avoid inappropriate identification of EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 22 this group of students. The term “emergent bilingual” focuses on an additive perspective of students learning English as a language (Garcia Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008), rather than as “problems” whose historical underachievement situates their language and culture as culpable (Flores, 2005). Using this term attempts to shift focus from the English learner as someone who has a lack of language to someone who is adding on a second language. This shift attempts to highlight the intellectual advancement of emergent bilingual students and veer away from deficit viewpoints. This chapter will provide an overview of the existing literature on emergent bilinguals and misidentification into special education for students from non-dominant backgrounds, particularly those who are English learners, in order to understand the current theory and practice informing the misplacement of emergent bilingual students in special education. The first section of the chapter will trace the history detailing educators’ perspectives of emergent bilinguals, especially deficit thinking, and how pedagogies of opportunity can possibly provide educators with more effective ways to stem the tide of the disproportionate misidentification of emergent bilinguals in the special education program (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010). In the review of literature, a brief history of public schooling will outline how deficit views evolved and how it negatively impacts the academic trajectories of emergent bilingual youths. The next section will present a discussion of the history and current referral practices in the special education program and how some beliefs or interpretations of current policies lead to the disproportionate amount of emergent bilinguals in the program. The last section of the chapter will discuss pedagogies of opportunity and the possibilities it presents to addressing the needs of emergent bilinguals. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a discussion on the guiding asset- based culturally additive framework of analysis with which the perspectives of the study are situated. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 23 History of Public Schooling and Emergent Bilingual Students Throughout the history of the United States, emergent bilinguals have experienced consistent marginalization (Santa Ana, 2004). Deficit views that stemmed from years of racism in the United States lead to flawed educational policies that perpetuate inequitable outcomes for emergent bilingual students (Flores, 2005). Legislations as far back as 1775 posed legal barriers and established educational policies that institutionalized most educators’ and the American public’s deficit mindset (Flores, 2005). These deficit viewpoints would eventually lead to opportunity gaps for emergent bilinguals and other minoritized ethnic groups (Milner, 2012), which despite legal challenges, remain prevalent, as seen in the disproportionate number of emergent bilinguals placed in special education (Flores, 2005). Education research on the schooling experiences of emergent bilingual students have shown schools to historically assist in their marginalization through segregating tactics and deficit thinking (Valencia, 1997; Garcia & Guerra, 2004). A brief history of segregation, desegregation efforts and re-segregation practices will be discussed later in this chapter. Deficit Views of Emergent Bilinguals Valencia defined the deficit-thinking model as a theory that assumes that emergent bilingual students who fail in school do so because of “internal cultural deficits or language deficiencies” (p. 2, 1997). Valencia posits that the long history of school failure in the US can be attributed to this deficit-thinking model that aims to fix the deficits and deficiencies (1997). Instead of reflecting on the inequitable distribution of educational resources, the deficit-thinking model produced policies and federal programs that aim to fix what are viewed as deficits and deficiencies in emergent bilingual youth. Valencia stressed that the main manifestations of deficit thinking are evident in laws and policies that blame the victim, such as finding fault with the “failure” of the student to learn; segregation of ethnic groups; inferior culture or genes; citing EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 24 endogenous factors such as “limited intelligence” and/or “linguistic deficiencies” (1997). The same deficit mindset would pave the way for the passage of compensatory education programs such as special education. The same deficit views are reflective of the culturally subtractive views that instigated the passage of flawed educational policies for emergent bilingual students (Flores, 2005). Later in this chapter, the impact of deficit thinking on the part of the public, the teachers, administrators and policy makers would be explained as manifested in the form of re- segregation of Latinx emergent bilinguals through disproportionate placement in special education. Flores (2005) traced the different generational culturally subtractive purview of lawmakers, educational professionals (administrators, school psychologists, teachers and other school staff) that used terms such as “the Mexican problem”, “mental retardation”, “bilingualism”, “need to change Mexican culture” in identifying the “problem”. This culturally subtractive perspective of emergent bilinguals leads to labeling, stereotypes and lower expectations because of their Mexican culture and heritage. As a result of this culturally subtractive mindset, Latinx emergent bilingual students may be placed in education settings such as the special education program and in classes that do not offer the same rigor as in a regular general education placement. Furthermore, Flores (2005) questions the validity of various research published in the 1960s that perpetuated stereotypes of emergent bilingual students such as “mentally retarded”, and “slow learners”. Flores (2005) also cited that the 1960s Civil Rights movement served as a catalyst for mobilizing marginalized sectors of people including the emergent bilingual communities not just to end discrimination and inequality but also to demand the right to use their own language and culture. Flores (2005) enjoins researchers to continue to interrogate the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 25 beginnings of the deficit view of Latinos in the US, and in doing so, help transform linguistic and cultural deficit mindsets (p. 91). Academic Trajectories Some educators might carry a belief that intelligence is a static trait, thereby having a fixed mind-set that negatively influences teachers’ expectations and use of pedagogies to teach their students (Dweck, 2010). Educators’ and society’s deficit views negatively impacts the academic trajectories of minoritized youth, more specifically, Latinx emergent bilinguals (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002). Artiles emphasized that deficit views cause minority students to be disproportionately identified and placed in the special education program (Artiles et. al, 2010). The latest National Research Council (NRC) data revealed that students from “historically underserved” groups are overrepresented in high-incidence disability categories at the national level (2015). Current research literature on the academic trajectory of emergent bilinguals placed in special education indicate that they face various challenges in transitioning to college because they lack appropriate academic credits as soon as they graduate from high school (Shifrer, 2013; Wagner & Blackorby, 1996). In a study of 11 school districts in California, Artiles, Rueda, Salazar and Higareda (2005) concluded that there was a sharp increase for emergent bilingual youths who were identified as requiring special education services beginning at the 5 th grade up to secondary school. Artiles and colleagues traced the rise of special education identification to the decrease of language supports in the high-grade levels (2005). Without appropriate language supports for emergent bilingual students, their opportunities to learn often results to undesirable outcomes such as behavioral issues, low or lack of engagement, grade retention, and dropping out (Suarez- Orozco, 2001). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 26 Opportunity Gaps Instead of focusing on achievement gaps, wherein US society assumes that every student have been provided with the same resources and high quality teachers, US educational policies should focus on redressing gaps in opportunity available to minoritized youths, specifically emergent bilinguals (Milner, 2012). Milner (2010) argued that instead of looking at achievement gaps of emergent bilinguals, we need to look at the causes of disparities among students in schools such as teacher quality, school funding, the digital divide, healthcare and nutrition available to students and their families, school integration and school environment. Milner (2010) further stated that teachers without appropriate diversity trainings often adapt color-blind ideologies. Colorblind ideology is defined as a manifestation of racism Milner (2010). A colorblind approach allows individuals to avoid uncomfortable cultural differences because it is often controversial. As a result, when teachers practice color blindness, it often leads to overrepresentation of emergent bilinguals in special education. The underrepresentation in gifted education and advance placement courses or honors courses and over-referral of African and Latinx students to the discipline office and consequent suspension or expulsion is common. Finally, underrepresentation of students of color and emergent bilinguals in clubs, academies and other prestigious areas or program in the school further limits their academic engagement and ultimately their academic success (Milner, 2010). There are forces outside of the school environment that influence the implementation (or lack of) de-tracking reforms and provide access to any curriculum (Stuart-Wells & Serna, 1996). In a study of 10 public schools in western states, the authors identified resistance from mostly White parents to try to preserve the status quo representing the socially constructed hierarchy of students based on parents’ wealth and influence. Local elites were found to adhere to the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 27 “ideology of diversity at a distance” because they felt that their own children’s status is threatened by de-tracking (Stuart-Wells & Serna, 1996). Consequently, Conchas (2001) claim that structural and cultural processes at some schools are divided by race and distributed opportunities among students in such a way that it reproduced social inequities. Distinct Latinx subcultures existed that either perpetuated these racial and ethnic divisions or attempted to circumvent them. In a study conducted at Baldwin High School located in one western state, it was determined that the school used the different academies (schools within schools) and students’ networks to respond to the institutional reinforcements of inequities in the school such as Asians and White students dominating the academies while Black and Latinx joined gangs and disengage early on from academic pursuits. The results of the observations showed that the simultaneous interplay of structure, culture and agency as the proximate source of engagement (or disengagement) and school success or failure (Conchas, 2001). While Stuart-Wells and Serna (1996) and Conchas (2001) identified specific examples of institutional manifestations of inequitable practices that continue to marginalize Black and Latinx students, Stanton-Salazar (1997) contend that institutional and ideological forces makes access to social capital and educational supports problematic for working class emergent bilingual children and adolescents. Stanton-Salazar (1997) further argues that emergent bilingual youths need to effectively negotiate relational strategies to succeed in the current political system in the U.S. However, current trends favor individualism that encourages competition and pursuit of self-interest. This is what is seen in our schools today that needs to be countered by both agents of change such as educators and the emergent bilingual youths. Since US educational policies have historically prevented minoritized youths such as emergent bilingual students from pursuing higher academic trajectories, US society owes them EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 28 an “educational debt” that must be paid by addressing/correcting current institutional barriers (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Ladson-Billings (2010) argues that instead of looking at minoritized youths’ achievement gap, we need to reframe institutional perspective as an educational debt. This educational debt is defined by a historical lack of access of minoritized youths, such as emergent bilinguals, to formal public education. When deficit views from members of society, policy makers at all levels, and educators frame emergent bilinguals as deficient, it takes away the responsibility of our historical debt and puts all the blame on the victims. This deficit mentality does not fix the problem; instead it exacerbates the education crisis. A Brief History of Special Education In order to put in context how the issue of misidentification and placement of emergent bilingual youths in special education came to be, an examination of the history of its legislation from the early 1900s through the different variations of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) (1975, 1990, 1997, 2004) will be discussed. After which a review of contemporary practices in special education will follow, such as inclusion, co-teaching or collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers and the concept of universal design for learning or UDL. Santa Ana (2004) contend that the US government implemented flawed educational policies and strategies that aimed to “silence” the culture and language of emergent bilinguals from different ethnic groups such as the Native Americans, the descendants of the African Americans and Latinx emergent bilinguals. Santa Ana (2004) outlined documented legal challenges to these inequitable policies that caused disadvantages to the educational opportunities for these three ethnic groups in a series of court cases from 1775 through 2003. Manifestations of this lack of opportunity include segregation of White and non-White students, EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 29 inequitable distribution of educational resources (highly qualified teachers, facilities, college preparatory courses, fully staffed libraries, etc.). While there have been several legal challenges filed with the courts that claimed several victories such as Alvarez v. Lemon Grove School District, 1931; Mendez v. Westminster, 1946; Brown v. Board of Education, 1954; et. al.; Santa Ana (2004) also stated that even these legal victories did not fix the systemic flaws of public education or transform the deficit mindsets of some educators, policy makers and the general public. Early Practices of Educating Individuals with Disability While all the states have had compulsory education laws since the early 1918, children with disabilities were still excluded from the general education population (Winzer, 1993; Yell, Rogers, & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). In reviewing the various cases and legislation from the 1900s to reauthorization of the IDEA in 1997, Winzer (2009) traced the development of the exclusion of youth with disabilities to the laws that aimed for inclusion in the American public education system. Review of Legislation The context of how minoritized youths, specifically emergent bilingual students were excluded, re-segregated and limited in their academic trajectories can be explained in a review of the legislation starting from the time of compulsory attendance laws started by Rhode Island in 1840 up to the federal special education mandate and accompanying changes in policies through current practices. By 1918, all of the states had compulsory education laws (Winzer, 1993; Yell, Rogers & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). However, when compulsory attendance was mandated in public schools, students with disabilities were excluded (Wizner, 1993; Yell, Rogers & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). Long before exclusion of students with disabilities was the norm, legislation was passed to EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 30 authorize the exclusion and expulsion of students who are unable to take care of themselves as in the case of Watson v. City of Cambridge, 1893 (Yell, Rogers & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that students who are not able to benefit from instruction and would prove burdensome to other children could be expelled from the school. Several other states made the same ruling against students with disabilities such as Beattie v. Board of Education, 1919 (Wisconsin Supreme Court); Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals in 1934 (Ohio); Department of Public Welfare v. Haas, 1958 (Illinois); What followed soon after was the organization of parents who had children with disabilities backed by the support of advocacy groups (Wizner, 1993; Yell, Rogers & Lodge- Rogers, 1998). The first documented group of parents to band together to change the exclusion of their children from public education was in 1934. Known as, “The Cuyahoga County Ohio Council for the Retarded Child”, they initially consisted of five mothers of children excluded from participation in public schools (Yell, Rogers & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). Since then, parent associations of students with disabilities grew into national networks that conducted research and advocacy in both houses of congress to pursue equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities. Initially, the Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 was hailed as a landmark legislation that promised the end of segregation in public schools. However, an examination of various court cases and changes in legislation governing the full inclusion of individuals with disabilities within the US educational system up until the various reauthorizations of IDEA (1975, 1990, 1997, 2004) yielded vague policy recommendations that did not help abate the disproportionate identification of minoritized youths, specifically emergent bilinguals in special education (Yell, Rogers, & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). The law does not specify how to address or prevent the disproportionate identification of learning disabilities among certain demographic subgroups EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 31 such as the African-American and Latinx emergent bilingual youths (Shifrer, Muller & Callahan, 2015). The Civil Rights Movement that later lead to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, provided the momentum for subsequent legislation and litigation granting students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education (Winzer, 1993; Yell, Rogers & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). Two landmark cases in acquiring these rights were PARC v. Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education (1972). The early 1970s witnessed a number of federal legislative efforts to improve the education of students with disabilities. The major pieces of legislation to emerge during the 1970s were Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Finally, in 1975, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was passed (Wizner, 1993; Yell, Rogers & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). Reauthorizations of the EAHCA renamed it to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, 1997 and 2004 (Sullivan, 2008). IDEA and its various reauthorizations are considered the backbone of special education today. While these laws have been considered as major successes for students with disabilities, there remains a lot of ambiguity with how these legal breakthroughs would be implemented at the state and district levels (Yell, Rogers, & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). This vagueness in how to implement the law would lead to variations in how each state, district and even schools would provide service to students with disabilities (Sullivan, 2008). Several studies connected the issues of race, culture, language and disability in reference to special education identification, and service delivery to minoritized youths and emergent bilinguals (Blanchett, Klingner & Harry, 2009; Ferri & Connor, 2005; Fierros & Conroy, 2002). Blanchett, Klingner & Harry (2009) contend that minoritized youths and emergent bilingual students are often blamed for academic failure and are perceived as “broken” and deficient. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 32 Thus, policies and mandates in special education continue to lead to their over-identification in special education programs (Blanchett, Klingner & Harry (2009). The current authorization of IDEA stipulates that any state accepting federal special education funding must provide “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to all children with disabilities as stipulated in the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) (Hochschild & Hovronick, 2010). The law’s intent was to prevent discrimination of students with disabilities from fully participating in public education. Theoretically, as a federal mandate, funding for special education services would constitute approximately 40% of extra costs of educating disabled students (Hochschild & Hovronick, 2010). However, in actuality, only 12% comes from the federal government, 44% comes from the state and 44% comes from the local district (NCES, 2017). Much of the budget for special education and assumed additional cost of educating students with disability stem from the assumption that they are being provided with the least restrictive environment (LRE) and placed in inclusive classrooms. Inclusive classrooms are classrooms that have a core subject teacher, in a general education setting, and have an additional teacher or para educator specifically trained to provide support to students with disabilities (LAUSD Division of Special Education, 2007). The determination of LRE is made by the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team consisting of the parents, the student with disability, the case manager or the special education teacher assigned to the student, the school psychologist, the chairman of the Special Education Department, a school administrator and other school staff or special education support professionals (speech pathologist, behavioral specialist, orthopedic specialist, etc.) (LAUSD Division of Special Education, 2007). Effective last 1977, all school districts and county school offices in California were required to organize by geographical regions of sufficient size and scope to cater to all special education service needs of children residing within its boundaries. Each region, Special EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 33 Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), is mandated to develop a local plan describing how it would provide special education services. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act Each state has the ability to supplement provisions that provide more protection than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code Section 51, which is more encompassing than the ADA and provides broader protection for children with special needs (CDE, 2009). California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act has been cited as the state mandate for ensuring a more inclusive environment for individuals with disabilities, specifically, students with special needs (CDE, 2009). California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act provided the basis for additional recommendations for inclusive practices in special education during the state conference on the establishment of Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) in Sacramento. In the California Department of Education’s Special Education Reference Policy Manual, chapter 4.45 Section 56441 (f) stipulate that each SELPA need to “reduce the need for special class placement in special education programs once a child reaches school age” (CDE, 2017). This section could have provided protection for the unnecessary placement of students with disabilities in self-contained classrooms or special day classes (SDC). However, in the same policy manual, a series of protocol for the development of the IEP also require that each child with a “perceived” disability need to undergo a referral process. The Referral Process Research studies have shown that the referral, assessment, and eligibility processes vary from state to state and from each school district specifically those states bordering Mexico (DeMatthews, Edwards & Nelson, 2014). A comparative review of California and Texas special education referral process reveal similarities in the areas of identification/recognition of a child’s disability; pre-referral process; referral for special education evaluation; special education EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 34 evaluation; determination of eligibility for services; the initial IEP meeting and determination of the LRE; IEP implementation; and finally, the periodic reevaluation (Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 2013; Judicial Council of California, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 2016; CDE, 2017). The differences and variations in the implementation of the referral process for special education in both states are situated in the first phase up until the special education evaluation process. The variable common to both states, which are notably both Border States, is that during the evaluation and assessment of the student, the student’s primary language needs to be used (Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 2013; Judicial Council of California, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 2016; CDE, 2017). This aspect of the referral process and student assessment in their native language is critical for the emergent bilingual students to prevent misplacement and misidentification in the special education program. Meanwhile, with the re-authorization of IDEA in 2004, a strategy referred to as Response to Intervention (RTI) became part of the national education policy built in around the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2000) and the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). RTI’s integration with NCLB was aimed at improving reading achievement among emergent bilingual students to possibly serve as an intervention before special education referral (Lopez & Mendoza, 2013). Some researchers argue that the referral process is increasingly problematic for minoritized youths, specifically emergent bilinguals who are qualified into special education because of the use of English during the assessment phase (Artiles & Klingner, 2006; Sullivan, 2011). Researchers of disproportionality issues in special education point to lack of access to the English language as the problem associated with the referral process and the ensuing assessment to qualify students with disabilities (Artiles & Klingner, 2006; Duran, 2008; Suarez-Orozco, 2001; Sullivan, 2011). Other researchers contend that the trend of racial/ethnic representation in EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 35 special education remains the same as it was a decade ago (Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju & Roberts, 2014). The implications of emergent bilinguals’ increase in probability of misidentification and eventual misplacement in special education programs has a direct bearing in their lack of exposure to the general education program. Once they are placed in a non-inclusive learning environment, this lowers their chances for success in graduating from high school, employment and postsecondary education (Ferri & Connor, 2005). Even with legislation stipulating the use of the student’s native language during assessment and qualification in special education, emergent bilingual students are still qualified and placed in special education classes (Blanchett, Klingner & Harry, 2009). In fact, statistics presented to Congress in 2004 reveal that students of color, including emergent bilingual youths spend 60% of their school time in segregated education placements (Blanchett, Klingner & Harry, 2009). The lack of access to the English language by emergent bilingual students is symptomatic of other problems in the educational system. The first problem identified is the English-only legislation that limits support for emergent bilinguals and often results in unsatisfactory outcomes such as behavioral issues, low or lack of engagement, grade retention, dropout and placement in special education (Sullivan, 2011). Second, emergent bilinguals are being “over- assessed” as being emotionally disturbed and intellectually disabled rather than identifying that they have a need for adding English as an additional language to access the curriculum in U.S. public schools (DeMatthews, Edwards & Nelson, 2014). Because of the lack of a more coherent policy during the referral process, the current referral system exacerbates the problem of disproportionality of emergent bilingual students’ placement in special education. Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher and Ortiz (2010) claim that minoritized students such as Latinx emergent bilingual youths continue to be increasingly misidentified in the special EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 36 education program. This is evident with the latest National Research Council (NRC, 2015) data, which revealed that students from “historically underserved” groups such as the Latinx emergent bilingual youth are overrepresented in high incidence disability categories at the national level. There are some interventions and learning strategies that have shown promise with minoritized youths and emergent bilinguals. These interventions come in the form of inclusive and collaborative practices such as co-teaching, use of multiple options in presenting student understanding and assessments. These strategies counter the negative effects experienced by minoritized youths and emergent bilinguals (Calaff, 2008). In the next section, alternatives to traditional and segregation prone practices in special education for emergent bilingual youths will be discussed. Pedagogies of Opportunity Even with the recurrent practices of misidentification of Latinx emergent bilingual youth in the special education program, there exist pedagogies of opportunities that can better address the educational and socio-cultural identification needs of Latinx emergent bilingual youth (Carter & Welner, 2013). There are several researchers that proposed changes in the curriculum design, the strategies employed in curriculum and standards based approach to public education and the central actors or stakeholders that should be at the forefront of change in the current system (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart, 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In this section, the proposed changes in the way we currently approach student learning from a “one size fits all” framework will be discussed with proposed strategies such as culturally relevant pedagogies and alternative approaches to special education. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Connell (1994) argues that although public education is already a universal benefit for every child, the institution that implements it still contains “powerful mechanisms of privilege EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 37 and exclusion” (p. 32) as can be seen in recent cases of resegregation in school districts across the nation. However, Connell (1994) also cited two main assets that were not available during the 1960s when compensatory programs such as the special education program were first designed. First is the accumulated practical experience of teachers and parents with compensatory programs. Second is the more “sophisticated sociology of education”. She believes that the “focus has gradually shifted from the characteristics of the disadvantaged to the institutional character of school systems and the cultural processes that occur in them” (p. 14). Connell (1994) proposes two major recommendations as an alternative to compensatory programs. The first recommendation is the adaptation of curricular justice (Connell, 1993, p. 27). She believes that, “Curriculum empowers and disempowers, authorizes and de-authorizes, recognize and mis-recognize different social groups and their knowledge and identities” (1993, p. 27). Second, she stated that, “Curricular justice concerns the organization of knowledge and through it the social relations being produced through education” (1993, p. 28). Connell (1994) believed that the problems of public education could not be isolated from the rest of societal problems that promotes and exacerbates poverty. She presented cases and studies that support this idea that equality in education cannot be truly achieved by compensatory education alone because it was framed on a flawed premise of the “culture of poverty” and deficit mentality that minority culture is deficient such that they can only achieve so much through public education. Connell’s (1994) other recommendation is to place the teachers as the main catalysts for change or the center of the “workforce of reform” (p. 30). She believes that the teachers have historically been excluded from policy making and strategy formation during debates in public education. For any reform agenda to be successful, she believes that teachers should be centrally involved in the design of reform strategies and second, any reform agenda should concern the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 38 recruitment, training, in-service education and career structures of teachers in disadvantaged schools. Finally, she stated that any standard of teacher professionalism should be relevant to competence in working with disadvantaged groups. Appropriate Pedagogies in Special Education Nieto (1994) stated that all students deserve to dream and that teachers and schools are in the best position for “creating a chance” for these students to do so. Nieto (1994) proposes that to successfully educate all students in US schools, we must challenge all existing policies and practices that place roadblocks in our students’ academic achievement. Research identified and referenced by the author provided a rich history of failure for many students from all backgrounds but especially for children of Latinos, African American, Native American families, some European Americans and more recently, Asian Americans and Pacific-Islanders. The author also cited numerous knee jerk reactions to these researches with government programs that threw money at these educational problems without examining the structural roots of the problems. Nieto examined other studies that documented some successes from schools that produced successful students from varying minority backgrounds and noted that there is several factors that have helped these students overcome the odds. Nieto (1994) identified these factors as, first, having an enriched and demanding curriculum; second, respect for students’ language and culture; third, high expectations for all students; and fourth, constant encouragement for parent involvement in their children’s education. Griner and Stewart (2012) argues that culturally responsive practices in schools and classrooms are effective counter measures in addressing the achievement gaps and disproportionality issues of racially, culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse students placed in special education programs. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 39 Similarly, Carter (2005) stated that many researchers found strong and improved results on emergent bilingual students’ academic achievement, attitudes, and engagement when the curriculum is more expansive and inclusive of materials that reflect their heritage and ethnicity. She further claimed that for real engagement to take hold inside the classroom, “curricula needs to reflect the realities of all students” (p. 151). One study that provide critical evidence that culturally relevant pedagogies (Ladson- Billings, 1995) work for emergent bilingual youths is that of Garcia, Woodley, Flores and Chu’s (2012) exploration of the success of Latinx emergent bilingual youths in some New York City public schools. Results of the study maintain that an overarching learning strategy referred to as “transcaring” has taken hold in some New York City public schools and was the main reason why Latinx emergent bilingual students were relatively more successful at 66% graduation rate compared to the 45% Latinx emergent bilingual state average (New York City Department of Education, 2011). Transcaring is defined as the overarching culture of care from all stakeholders in some of the New York City public school system that allows for the creation of a safe space for emergent bilingual youth (Garcia, Woodley, Flores and Chu’s, 2012) . This safe space or “third space” transcends traditional conflicts caused by differences in language and culture found in many schools (Garcia, Woodley, Flores and Chu’s, 2012). Universal Design for Learning (UDL). One pedagogical concept that originated in the field of architecture in the 1970s was pioneered by Ron Mace to provide the same “safe space” for everyone, with or without disabilities and for all types of diverse people (Center for Universal Design, 1977). There are seven principles applied to universal design that was also adapted in the field of education and is now known as the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (King-Sears, 2009). The seven principles are equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 40 and use (King-Sears, 2009). The key to UDL is making the curriculum more accessible to all types of learners such as the use of manipulative for math, or the use of technology to drive a better understanding of a specific concept, and providing choices and alternatives to learners depending on their specific needs. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is based on the belief that students with disabilities should have an equal opportunity to learn in the general education environment. Abiding by the principle of giving each individual equal access, the Center of Applied Science and Technology (CAST) developed UDL for schools. The objective is to provide teachers more options in lesson development and presentation by giving their students multiple means of receiving information, various means of showing their understanding of concepts and ideas, and multiple means of engagement. Supporters of UDL also believe the curriculum is often what is disabled rather than students (Rose & Meyers, 2000; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Students with disabilities, emergent bilingual youths and those without an identified disability enter classrooms with different needs. Often times, students are unable to adjust to the rigid, inflexible curricula. UDL, in turn, allows the educator to develop curricula with UDL principles in mind to better meet the diverse needs of all students. A quantitative study conducted by Boyer (2016) in the state of Mississippi sought to measure the difference between implementation of UDL principles and Early Childhood Outcome ratings. In the state of Missouri, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is also being integrated into the Missouri Model Curriculum ("Integrating universal," 2013). The Missouri Model Curriculum, in the draft phase, organized by educators, is based on UDL principles and the Ohio Department of Education guidelines for working with students with disabilities (“Strategies for diverse,” 2013). UDL has been referenced in public policy and the Missouri EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 41 Model Curriculum, therefore gaining the attention of many special education departments. Boyer (2016) believed that it is imperative to test UDL and its effectiveness on special education students, specifically those in Early Childhood Special Education programs. In Boyer’s study, a total of 254 surveys were completed out of 700 teachers and coordinators originally targeted (2016) . Participants answered through a survey, questions about their usage of the three UDL guidelines that include multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression and multiple means of engagement. In all areas of questions, a difference was found in perception among teachers and process coordinators. Specifically, the difference was 73 among integrated ECSE teachers and process coordinators. The data analysis suggests teachers answered more favorably towards the use of UDL than process coordinators in its impact on early childhood education (Boyer, 2016). Boyer’s findings in her recent study points out to the fact that UDL has the potential to positively impact emergent bilingual youth’s learning especially when used during the early years of English language acquisition. Special Education and Emergent Bilinguals Lopez and Mendoza (2013) stated that IDEA and its accompanying strategy, RTI were built on frameworks and assumptions that were based from research done 20 years ago. As such, Lopez and Mendoza (2013) argue that RTI was never re-calibrated or adjusted to the developments of recent years and yet it is expected to prevent the current issues of the misplacement of emergent bilinguals in special education. When RTI was conceptualized and put into effect, it’s premise was built on the assumption that although there was an insignificant amount of emergent bilinguals 20 years ago, they did not anticipate the current realities that in border states like Texas more than 20% of its student population in PK-12 would be emergent bilinguals (Texas Education Agency, 2010). In some school districts, more than 50% are emergent bilinguals (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2007). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 42 RTI was designed as a three-tier reading improvement system that focuses on getting emergent bilingual youths the capability of accessing the curriculum. Stanley Deno first conceptualized it in 1970 as a way to address the needs of emergent bilingual youth (Buffum, Mattos & Weber, 2009). Later on, RTI was re-designed as a program that will provide early intervention to emergent bilinguals to prevent school failure (Garcia & Ortiz, 2008). Lopez and Mendoza (2013) further argue that RTI was designed as a one-size-fits-all program. It does not differentiate one emergent bilingual student from the needs of another (Lopez and Mendoza, 2013). The previous design during its first passage in 2004 does not work with current realities and as a result, more and more emergent bilingual youths are misplaced in special education instead of being placed in a more integrated and inclusive learning environment. With the various reauthorizations of IDEA, the practice of special education students’ inclusion in the general education classes started with variances in implementation from state to state (Winzer, 2009). According to Fisher (2007), despite many years of research in the topic of special education inclusion, bilingual education, diversity and overrepresentation of emergent bilingual youths in special education, the current public educational system is still unable to address the increasing diversity within our schools. The practice of inclusion of all students in the general education setting would be the ideal as opposed to segregation. Fisher (2007) also argued that inclusive practices should not be a debate or an “option” for school administrators at the district or site level. Instead, it should be the norm (Fisher, 2007). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 43 Professional development Researchers like Garcia and Guerra (2004) contend that efforts towards comprehensive school reforms often fail because educators are not willing to do an honest deconstruction of the roots of school failure. Through a research and development project entitled Organizing for Diversity Project (ODP), at the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) in Austin, Texas, Garcia and Guerra sought to challenge teachers and school administrators’ deficit thinking about culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. The ODP resulted in the development and validation of the 33-hour staff development program that focused on examining the educators’ perceptions, beliefs and practices of diversity and equity. Research results indicated positive changes in terms of the shift in thinking among the educators and proved that professional development geared towards a reframing from deficit thinking towards a culturally additive view of the CLD students and communities is possible (Garcia and Guerra, 2004). Villegas and Lucas (2002) contend that in order to implement a more culturally responsive education to our growing diverse student population, teacher education needs to center on several layers of socio-cultural consciousness. These may be in the form of affirmative views of all students from diverse backgrounds; seeing themselves as change agents; be student and community centered; and finally, be knowledgeable in designing curriculum that builds on their students’ funds of knowledge (Villegas and Lucas, 2002). Milner (2010, 2012 & 2015) maintain that the teacher’s mindset need to veer away from “color-blind” ideologies that takes away their socio-cultural sensitivity of their students’ realities and needs. Milner (2012) further contend that when teachers adapt these “color-blindness”, they assume a deficit mindset of students who are the most in need such as students of color and Latinx emergent bilinguals. Milner (2015) recommends that teachers, school administrators and district administrators and professionals need to re-shape how they view the students and their EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 44 communities. Milner (2015) recommends that educators (teachers and administrators) need to learn how to adopt learner’s lenses, habitually engage in critical self-examination and self- reflection, use accessible and relevant language with their diverse students, display caring and empathetic attitudes and dispositions, reject deficit thinking, and cultivate cultural and racial awareness. One study that examined pre-service practitioners’ professional dispositions looked into the relationship between an innovative culturally responsive teaching model in a social studies methods course and teacher’s culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. The study was conducted by Fitchett, Starker and Salyers (2012). They claim that pre-service teachers exposed to an in-depth culturally responsive teaching epistemology were more confident in their abilities to employ culturally relevant teaching practices and that these pre-service teachers were more willing to work in culturally diverse communities as well (Fitchett, Starker and Salyers, 2012). If this is the case, similar professional development geared towards existing teachers and administrators can be developed during the summer months or period when school is not in session. In a study of contributing factors to minoritized youth’s over representation in special education, researchers interviewed 66 educators about their perspectives on urban education and special education processes (Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2005). Results of the study indicated that teachers and administrators feel unprepared to meet the needs of minoritized students owing to cultural and language challenges (Skiba, et. al., 2005). Research results indicate that due to high-stakes and minimum competency requirements driven by national and state-level policies, educators feel that special education is the only place for struggling minoritized students, most notably, emergent bilingual youths (Skiba, et. al., 2005). In this case, it is possible that accountability testing policies conflicts with another federal EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 45 priority, IDEA that aims to reduce the disproportionate placement of minority students in special education (Skiba, et. al., 2005). One aspect that could balance the possible role of educational professional practitioner’s disposition towards is exposing all educators towards a more diverse and culturally additive outlook of all students. Conceptual Framework For this study, the culturally additive schooling framework will be used to analyze research data that may support a possible reduction in the misidentification and placement of emergent bilingual youths in the special education program (De Jesus, Garcia, Pedraza & Rivera, 2006;Garcia & Guerra, 2004;). The culturally additive schooling framework was developed by educator-researchers as a counter measure to shift the targets of deficit thought analysis from the students and teachers to the school system and other societal systemic factors that perpetuate educational inequalities for minoritized youths such as the emergent bilingual students (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Sleeter, 1992). The culturally additive schooling framework of analysis is borne out of the combined belief that each student that enters the classroom brings with them their own funds of knowledge and their own socio-cultural identity (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014). Funds of knowledge refer to the acquired ideas, customs and social behavior developed by an individual within a family unit and community that is essential for his/her well being (Moll, Amanti & Kneff, 1992). There has been previous research done that established the centrality of culturally relevant pedagogies to the academic success of minoritized youth, particularly emergent bilingual students (Delpit, 1995; Ladson Billings, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). These culturally relevant pedagogies help bridge and diminish the incongruence between the emergent bilingual EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 46 students’ world of home, school, peers and community however diverse and linguistically different from the mainstream (Calaff, 2008). In using the culturally additive schooling framework as a lens in going through the data that will be generated from this study, it will posit teacher’s knowledge and mindset in a positive rather than subtractive perspective. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 47 Chapter 3: Methodology Currently, there exist a disproportionate number of emergent bilingual youths misidentified in special education (Artiles, 2010). This problem was important to address because misplacement in special education results in limited opportunities and economic advancement for these students. The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ knowledge of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program in order to possibly shed light into factors impacting the disproportionality of emergent bilingual students in special education, which has the potential to reduce their misidentification of emergent bilingual students as students with disabilities. There were two research questions that guided the study: 1. How do elementary, general education teachers’ discuss their understanding of the special education process? 2. What are general education teachers’ perceptions about their role in referring emergent bilingual students to the special education program? This chapter presented the methodology used to answer these questions. Methods Qualitative methods were used in this case study of K-8 general education teachers to examine the phenomena of inappropriate referrals to special education of emergent bilingual students. This study explored teachers’ perceptions and existing knowledge of the referral process. The use of a qualitative method of interviews and review of documents proved to be the most effective way of gathering data and answering the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Patton (2002) stated that an important purpose of interviewing was “to allow us into enter into other people’s perspective” (p. 341) and interviews of general education teachers provided their EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 48 perceptions and description of referrals to special education for emergent bilingual students. Qualitative interviews also provided detailed but integrated perspectives from elementary and middle school general education teachers, that was not currently available from any other means of data collection (Weiss, 1994). Participant & Site Selection The sites were purposefully chosen for accessibility. Maxwell (2013) stated that purposeful selection is a preferred way of selecting both sites and participants. In purposeful sampling, the researcher deliberately selected individuals; events or settings that could provide specific and relevant information to the research questions that may not be obtained any other way (Maxwell, 2013). Site Selection The Director of Special Education at the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) and several elementary school site administrators were approached for permissions to access and interview teachers. The District Director of Special Education was the first one to be contacted in person during the two-day preparatory period for teachers during the second week of August 2017. The objective of the study was discussed with the director and the qualifications of potential teacher respondents were also discussed. Follow through correspondence was delivered via electronic mail sent during the months of September 18 through October 27, 2017 (Appendix A). Site administrators for Cahuilla Desert Academy, Bobby Duke Middle School, Mountain Vista Elementary School, Sea View Elementary School, Cesar Chavez Elementary School and Valley View Elementary School were initially contacted via electronic mail that detailed a summarized version of the study objectives and the potential teacher respondents’ characteristics required by the study. After a week with no response, phone calls were from September through October 2017. Only one of the site administrators responded, the principal of EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 49 Cahuilla Desert Academy who promised to get back to me within the month of September. Unfortunately, there was no positive response from the teachers who met the study qualifications. The other middle school contacted was Bobby Duke Middle School. The assistant principal was very responsive and enthusiastic about the study as she was previously a district coordinator of the Special Education Program. She facilitated the recruitment of study participants and was able to come up with three teachers, one is a history teacher and the other two are both science teachers. Arrangements for the interviews were done both via electronic mail and phone calls between the months of October and November of 2017 (see Appendix B). Initially, responses from administrators were scarce and communications were held up because of a lot of changes in the district. The district had a newly hired superintendent and all assistant superintendents including the Human Resource Manager were replaced during the first three months of the 2017-2018 school year. Site administrators were also replaced or moved around the different school sites up through December 2017. Fortunately, the Director for Special Education Services Department was retained and he facilitated the introductions with the newly site administrators and access to teachers was then granted. The elementary school sites were selected based on the initial recommendations of the Director of the Special Education Department and Special Education School Coordinators. They were in the best position to know where the most referrals were coming from. All the elementary school teachers are English teachers. One teacher each from Mountain Vista, Cesar Chavez and Sea View Elementary Schools responded. No teacher or administrator responded from valley View Elementary School. Just like the arrangements made with the assistant principal from Bobby Duke Middle Schools, electronic mail correspondences and follow through phone calls were made from September through November 2017 (see Appendix C). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 50 Participants Once access to the school sites was obtained, potential participants who were current elementary school and middle school general education teachers were approached. For the purpose of this study, three elementary school teachers and three middle school teachers were interviewed. Maxwell (2013) stated that purposeful selection of individuals that might be uniquely qualified and relevant to the research questions and goals cannot be achieved any other way. Therefore, participants were selected according to the number of referrals of emergent bilingual students that they have made to the special education program. Ideally, teachers who made multiple referrals to the special education program would have made the best interview participant, as they will know what qualities or characteristics of the students served as “triggers” in their referral to the special education program. However, permissions for interviews were hard to get from this group of teachers initially identified by the Special Education administrators at the district level. Therefore, I had to appeal to the school site administrators to select volunteer teachers for the study whether or not they have made multiple referrals to the special education department or not. Those who agreed to participate were asked to give informed consent before the scheduled interview. In this study, all of the participants’ identities were masked to protect them from possible adverse effects. Maintaining confidentiality also encouraged the participants to provide honest responses since they had the freedom to voice out their opinions or experiences without fear of reprisals. Although initially, there were three teachers each from two elementary school sites that were pre-selected, eventually, all teachers from the elementary schools worked at three different sites. The selection was also expanded to three middle school teachers coming from one site as EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 51 the assistant principal was very cooperative and facilitated access to general education teachers. There were a total of six general education teachers interviewed, three elementary school teachers and three middle school teachers. As previously stated, the participant selection was highly impacted by the changes in both district and site leadership during the first few months at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, and the time constraints to finish all interviews by December of 2017. Teachers were approached after permissions were granted by the site administration as presented in Appendix B. As soon as district access and site permissions were acquired, I made initial contact with the teachers via email as indicated in Appendices C and D, and then followed up by phone calls between October through November 2017. I approached each of the teachers for interview requests. Each teacher participated in at least one 30 to 45 minute in person interview in their classrooms after school except for one middle school teacher who asked to meet outside the school premises because of previous commitments on the date of the interview. Data Collection Instrumentation. The use of interviews and collection of artifacts enabled me to use data from several sources to answer the research questions. A copy of the interview questions was made available in Appendix A. Interviews were conducted with participants as the primary method of collecting data. Artifacts were also collected that helped provide perspective on the participants’ perceptions of the referral process to special education for the emergent bilingual youths. Interview. Individual interviews were conducted with the participants, hereinafter referred to as teachers, in their own classrooms after school except for one middle school teacher who asked to be interviewed during the weekend because of previous commitments after school. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 52 The teacher interview was designed to gather information about teachers’ understanding of the referral process and their perceptions of their role in referring emergent bilingual students to special education. The interview lasted anywhere from approximately 45 minutes to slightly over one hour. Some teachers had a follow-up interview over the phone after initial transcription of the first interview was transcribed. The reasons for the follow-up phone calls was to clarify some parts on the audiotaped interview session because of noise distraction for the two science teachers interviewed in their classrooms after school. They were both preparing for a Science Fair contest and students were working in the same room where the interviews were being conducted. Although the teacher’s table was set up on the far end of the room, the voices of the students were recorded and are typical of ambient noise during taped interviews. Each interview was audio-recorded, with the teacher’s consent. Some field notes were also taken as supplements to the teachers’ answers to note their behavior and responses to interview questions. Artifacts. Initially, a review of referral documents was scheduled to determine the frequency of each teacher referral made to the special education department. The reasons for the referral and initial observation data were also indicated in the referral document. However, in the middle of artifacts gathering, there was a change in the district administration. The director of special education transferred to another school district and the position was vacant for several months. Permission was not granted to access student referral files. Instead of student referral files, student profiles were accessed and used to provide documentation and triangulation of data gathered from teacher interviews. Data Analysis The use of interviews and collection of artifacts were analyzed separately and compared for coherency. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 53 First, the transcripts and audio logs were reviewed through open coding, in which sections of data were marked and words and phrases were assigned in the margins to describe the marked information as emergent codes. These words and phrases were synthesized into recurring concepts, or categories, as data reduction took place. Categories were examined and analyzed for further patterns and collapsed into themes. For the interviews, I listened to each response in five-minute increments, and summarized each with time stamps that documented the interview logs. The summaries were reviewed repeatedly, and any salient data was flagged for transcription, specifically the ones that provided information for the research questions. I transcribed those sections in detail. Artifacts were analyzed using a priori codes of “referral process” criteria with the codes: behavioral issues, inattentiveness or lack of engagement, lack of self-regulation for age group. Use of open coding for evidence of mandates and similarities or uniformity in the referral process were also practiced. One other criterion that was as important was easily accessed from the general student profile, the category for “EL” or “English Learner”. The other criteria of pre- selecting general education teachers who had more referrals to special education were accessed with permissions from school site administrators, the special education director and the school psychologists. Once permissions were granted, some artifacts such as student profiles were accessible. Although privacy laws were in effect, access was given for educational research purposes only. To ensure credibility of the findings, I used reflexivity and consistently search for discrepant data. Reflexivity is the conscious practice of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction as I analyzed the data, with special attention to the effect of the researcher, at every step of the research process. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 54 Researcher’s Positionality As a fellow teacher in the same school district, the teachers did not seem to have any problems opening up to me. The entire teachers’ collective endured a lot of challenges during the last two years of the collective bargaining agreement and an environment of cooperation and collaboration helped me gather the data I needed. I also have met most of them previously as a result of previous district trainings on technology during the dispersal of IPADs for students a couple of years ago. Despite all these, I had reservations that I might be viewed or regarded as an outsider because I am a special education teacher, and I am not Latina or White. Most of the teachers are either White or Latina. There is a limited number of Asians in the whole school district. There were only two in the school site where I teach out of a hundred teachers. I have the impression though that being Asian probably helped gain cooperation with the teacher participants who are native to the Coachella Valley area. This might be due to their favorable past experiences with Asian teachers that came before me who, despite their small number, have represented the teachers’ union in national conferences. Furthermore, there is a historically friendly atmosphere and relationship with Asians specifically with Japanese-Americans since the advent of US government preparation for World War 2. Huge agricultural landholdings of Japanese-Americans were turned over to their predominantly Mexican-American neighbors or farm supervisors prior to their internment during World War 2. This part of history is believed to have helped Mexican Americans socio-economically. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 55 Chapter 4: Results of the Study This chapter states the results of this study on the examination of how general education teachers perceive the referral process of emergent bilingual (EB) students for qualification into the special education program. The current disproportionality of emergent bilingual youths qualified into the special education program has consequently limited the possibility of social and economic advancement for these students (Artiles, 2010). The purpose of this study was to explore general education teachers’ knowledge of the referral process of emergent bilingual students into the special education program and how they discern their roles and responsibility during the undertaking itself. This qualitative study aimed to illuminate and point out possible factors impacting the disproportionality of emergent bilingual students in special education in K-12. During the data collection for the study, six teachers were interviewed. Three of the teachers were elementary school teachers and three were middle school teachers. All six teachers work in the same school district in Southern California. Below is a matrix of teacher participant characteristics that include the number of years they have taught in the PK-12, their specific placement (elementary or middle school), other relevant characteristics and the length of interview. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 56 Table 1: Interview Participants’ Characteristics Participants Relevant Characteristic 1 (e.g., years in public school) Relevant Characteristic 2 (e.g., Years of experience in current role) Other Relevant Characteristics Length of Interview Teacher 1 12 3 (teacher in middle school) Social Science teacher 45 minutes Teacher 2 25 2 (elementary school English literacy and SST coordinator) English teacher and Student Success Team coordinator, elementary 65 minutes Teacher 3 15 3 (teacher in middle school) Science teacher 45 minutes Teacher 4 17 3 (elementary teacher) Multiple subject 50 minutes Teacher 5 22 3 (middle school) Science teacher 45 minutes Teacher 6 18 5 (elementary) Multiple subject The main themes that emerged from the interviews were as follows: First, all six teachers were aware that there were specific processes and criteria that need to be followed prior to the referral of any student into the special education program; Second, most of the teachers interviewed indicated knowledge that language was not part of the criteria for recommending students for qualifying into receiving special education services; and third, all six teachers interviewed stipulated that they were conscious of their roles and responsibilities during the pre- referral and referral procedures of the special education program. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 57 Findings: Research Question One In this study, the first research question was: how do elementary, general education teachers discuss their understanding of the special education referral process? Findings revealed two major themes that ran across most, if not all six teachers’ responses: First, all six teachers had varying levels of awareness of the specific criteria and processes to be followed during the referral process of a student for qualification to receive special education services. However, despite all six teachers having some awareness of the procedures and guidelines on the referral process to the special education program, the discrepancies on their level of awareness and its implications on their practice may be responsible for the inconsistencies when they make student referrals. Second, five out of six teachers also stated during the interviews that English being a second language should not be part of the criteria during such referrals. The significance of this indicated that awareness of language, as being part of the 13 categories for qualification to the special education program is well known as discussed in chapter 2. Furthermore, it maybe construed as a general knowledge amongst general education teachers doing referrals of emergent bilingual students for qualification to the special education program. There was, however, a significant difference between the three elementary English teachers and the three middle school teachers in terms of their depth of understanding of the referral process involving emergent bilingual students. Consequently, while most teachers understood that language should not be part of the referral process, their responses reflected the lack of consistency in the application of the criteria for qualification when student referrals were made to the special education program. Theme 1: Teacher awareness of the special education referral process. The first common observation in reviewing teachers’ responses during the interviews was that all six EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 58 teachers have an awareness and varying levels of knowledge that there are specific criteria of student characteristics that they need to look out for during the referral process towards qualification of students into the special education program. Teacher 1. For this participant, he stated that his understanding of the pre-referral system is that it is a process that should “catch” a student before he or she enters the special education program. In the middle school where he teaches, they convene a student success team or SST, which was comprised of all the student’s teachers in the core subjects of math, science, social science and English and at least one member of the administrative team. He presented a critique of the system right away by stating his observation that the practice was not effective because in his experience, student success teams only met twice a year for a specific student. He stated, “the negative part of the meeting (SST) is the follow up to it…services to students never really develop or put in place (within the school year) because it takes too long to implement” (Teacher1, interview, 10/30/2017). He suggested that there was a need for immediate follow up meetings so teachers could actually implement the alternative teaching strategies right away and provide the necessary services needed by the student. If students’ difficulties in learning are not addressed in a timely manner, either by helping equip the teachers with strategies to facilitate their learning or by providing the time for them to collaborate towards its resolution, then it further compounds the opportunity gap that these students experience (Darling Hammond, 2007, Milner 2010 & 2012). As a result of this opportunity gap, a consequent achievement gap with same age peers is foreseeable in the future (Gabel, Curcic, Powell & Albee, 2009; Shifrere, et. al., 2011; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2006). He added that in his experience, if he noticed that a particular student was having some “learning” issues, he would verify that observation by documenting instances or events when the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 59 student cannot seem to follow instructions or cannot seem to absorb what was being taught or discussed in class. Teacher 1’s response is reflective of Connell’s (1994) argument about public education. He stated that although public education is supposedly a universal benefit in this country, every institution, including the teacher, held “powerful mechanisms of privilege and exclusions” (Connell, 1994). When Teacher 1 opted to closely observe and document the learning challenges of his students instead of pushing them out of the classroom towards a referral to the special education program, he exercised a more equitable path for his students. During the interview, teacher 1 indicated that he himself came through this district’s school system. He said he was also an emergent bilingual student and that he came from a first generation migrant family. He also shared that although most of his teachers seem to have given up on him, one teacher inspired him to pull through and master the English language, and from there, he was able to access the other curricula in the other core subjects (Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017). His cultural and language connection with the same population of students probably provided the emergent bilingual students in his class a more culturally relevant pedagogy that presented alternatives to an otherwise inequitable system (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart, 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teacher 1’s response and critique with regards the lack of timeliness in the implementation of strategies was due to the infrequent meetings for a specific student case. In addition, he indicated that he did not know much about how a referral process was properly done by saying, “about the process itself, I don’t know much about how it gets started” (Teacher1, interview, 10/30/2017). While this statement appeared to reflect his understanding and awareness of the whole referral process towards student qualification to the special education program, previous responses indicated that he could discern student characteristics that would merit a pre- referral process. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 60 He also indicated the huge gap between two meetings in a school year and the absence of translating the student needs for intervention plans into timely action to support the students and prevent an actual referral from proceeding into the special education program. This discontinuity of the process between the time that a teacher identified a student’s challenges and the lack of timely implementation of needed intervention potentially could negatively impact the students’ academic success and progression (Carter & Welner, 2013). This presented an opportunity gap in terms of lost time for the student to be provided with the necessary supports to enable the student to access the curriculum, especially in the core subject areas needed to graduate from high school (Milner, 2010 & 2012; Stuart-Wells & Serna, 1996). Teacher 2. This participant was very knowledgeable about her school’s process of identification and pre-referral system for students. She stated in her response: We use the Discrepancy Model, where we look for a certain gap with differentiation and delineation between the student’s potential to produce individually or in groups…the district is also moving towards the multitude platform of support, although some schools have been doing that already. (Teacher2, interview, 10/27/2017) The Discrepancy Model that she described is a way to capture and compare a student’s scores on different types of tests. It compares the test results of a child’s intellectual ability or measurement of his Intelligence Quotient or IQ with how much progress he’s making in school (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden & Bentum, 2008). Her reference to the “multitude platform of support” refers to the more recent “Response to Intervention” or RTI approach (Buffum, Mattos & Webber, 2009). RTI looks at all students’ reading; writing and math skills early in the school year and not just focus on a child’s IQ. After which educators provide targeted support to those who are struggling. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 61 Teacher 2 did not just indicate that she was aware of the system but also defined and described the model being implemented in her school and in the district with specific details. What is noteworthy was her citation of the use of the Discrepancy Model by her school site and the district. The Discrepancy Model has long been criticized because of its use of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as a benchmark for determining whether a student has a learning disability or not (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden & Bentum, 2008). This school site and the district in particular still use the Woodcock Johnson version IV (WJIV) to establish a student’s IQ. As discussed in chapter 2, WJIV was designed for native English speakers only. Studies have indicated that WJIV is culturally insensitive and discriminatory against emergent bilingual students (Coutinho & Oswald, 2015; Skiba et. al., 2008). As such, using the IQ as a benchmark via the WJIV as a tool will most likely qualify emergent bilingual students and compound the disproportionality issue. From all the information provided during Teacher 2’s interview, it seemed that her school site had a more systematic and structured approach towards the pre-referral and the referral process of the special education program. However, their usage of culturally insensitive and discriminatory benchmark tools such as the Woodcock Johnson IV in qualifying emergent bilingual students into the special education program perpetuated the inequitable outcomes for Latinx students (Flores, 2005). Hence, even when Teacher 2 displayed a good grasp of the pre- referral and the referral process, her compliance with the usage of the questionable benchmark tools also provided insight that the processes and systems instituted in their school site were inequitable and biased. During the interview, not once did Teacher 2 indicate awareness that the current system in her school site was perpetuating inequity through the use of the culturally and language biased benchmark tools. She did not mention that he school site accepted alternative ways of assessing student’s aptitude other than the Woodcock Johnson IV and other traditional EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 62 benchmark tools originally designed for native English speakers (Coutinho & Oswald, 2015; Skiba et. al., 2008). This was problematic because this might have contributed to the huge number of emergent bilingual students in the special education program of the school site. In 2013, the ratio was almost 1 to every 4 students (WASC Report, 2014). If educators do not question a flawed system, then the future of emergent bilingual students in school sites such as this not only predicate the low graduation rate as they progress to middle and high school but also limit their students’ future even after graduation from high school. It was earlier established in previous chapters that qualification in the special education program also limit a student’s exposure to a more rigorous curriculum, and thus, even after graduation, a limited trajectory towards better economic opportunities (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Teacher 3. The third teacher participant immediately identified the SST or the Student Success team as a pre-referral intervention in her middle school as a step prior to a student being recommended for special education services. She also indicated awareness of the legal statutes of pre-referral intervention period required by federal laws and additional guidelines by the state. She said: Once (a referral) has been made, there are a number of days; I believe that’s twenty days that a meeting of general education teachers and members of the special education department needs to be held. The first meeting gets everything rolling. (Teacher3, interview, 10/30/2017) This teacher participant sounded optimistic that once the meeting ensued, ideally, services were supposed to start immediately. Although it was true that meetings could be the start of a much-needed intervention or support service for a student, it should be noted that the meetings alone do not ensure appropriate action that would benefit the student in a timely EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 63 manner. This was somewhat similar to Teacher 1’s complaint that the meetings do not happen in a timely manner. For example, interventions were not implemented immediately to aid the student through his/her learning challenges. This was again tantamount to lost time and opportunity for the students to gain momentum and be enabled to participate in the rigor of the general education curriculum (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart, 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teacher 3 also indicated awareness that at the K-6 level, the process was “a little bit more involved” (Teacher3, interview, 10/30/2017). She also indicated that with her, she automatically adapted multi-layered strategies before she would even refer a student to the SST. She stated, “Every student learns differently…I am adaptable, I meet kids where they’re at…I modify my assignments, my deadlines are flexible…for as long as a student is improving where they started from” (Teacher3, interview, 10/30/2017). When asked if she had participated in SSTs in her school she said that she had participated in a few. She also stated that most of the student cases that she had participated in ended up not going to the special education department for services. She did say that she participated in more referrals to the special education department when she was teaching at the K-6 levels and when she was just a new teacher. Teacher 3’s candidness in admitting that she participated in more referrals when she was at the K-6 level was a normal occurrence in special education referrals since studies show that most emergent bilingual students start falling behind between grades 3 to 5 (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar and Higareda, 2005). The contributory factor of being a new teacher made her do more referrals to the special education department was a revealing statement, possibly indicating her misunderstanding of emergent bilinguals. As discussed in chapter 2, emergent bilingual students are often concentrated in school districts that have the least resources to maintain and retain experienced teachers (Milner 2010, 2012). This presents an opportunity gap for emergent EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 64 bilingual students and contributes to achievement gaps between emergent bilinguals students and students coming from the dominant culture (Carter & Welner, 2013; Milner 2010, 2012). Teacher 3 commented that as she gained more experience, the more she focused on the learning needs of her students, the more she became successful in the classroom (Milner, 2010 & 2012). Teacher 4. Teacher 4 shared that the district had partnered with a website called, “Partnering for Student Success”, a database that was used by most California public schools at the time of the study. Its main goal was to facilitate the transfer of files of students in the K-6 public school system, especially those with learning difficulties, medical condition or those having Individualized Education Plan or IEP. Teacher 4 was aware of this because although she participated in the study based on her experiences as an elementary school teacher, she had also been promoted as a reading specialist and coordinator. She said that this had helped tremendously with not just the transfer of students but also with the transfer of mandated services for students who need them. At the same time, this website and its database had helped identify students already in the system to access the right type of intervention. This was another tool used by educators like Teacher 4 to prevent the misidentification of emergent bilingual students into the special education program. This database had potential to be effective in ensuring that services follow the students wherever they go. The only caveat in using databases such as this, was it was being used to marginalize, segregate or limit the opportunities for students already identified as having a learning disability (Blanchett, Klingner & Harry, 2009; Ferri & Connor, 2005; Fierros & Conroy , 2002; Sullivan, 2008). This participant also provided details of the numerous steps before a student was even considered for referral to the special education program. She stressed that the case study team comprised of the student and all of the student’s teachers, staff support personnel, parents and administrators who come in direct contact with the student. She said, “you obviously come in EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 65 contact with the parents if the intervention strategies are not working…we have up to 50 meetings with a teacher and their concerns (when a student is not showing progress)...” (Teacher4 interview, 10/31/2017). She also identified the use of Positive Behavior Intervention Services (PBIS), Right to Intervention (RTI), and independent parent-teacher- student meetings even before the pre-referral system was initiated. She did say that once all the options were exhausted, and the case study team determined that the student should proceed to the referral process, they have to have a Plan of Action or POA within six weeks of that determination. With teacher 4 and her school site, pre-referral steps appear to be the norm and this works in favor of emergent bilingual students. It was noticeable that most of the teachers I encountered during the visit and interview were bilingual English-Spanish as I often overheard them address the students in English and in Spanish. Teacher 4 was also concluding a meeting when I got to the school site and the two other teachers in the SST meeting she just concluded were also conversing in Spanish. Like Teacher 1, Teacher 4 evidently was able to engage the students in their first language as well as converse with them in English. This seem to put the students at ease knowing that their teacher understood their first language and knew where they were coming from. This language and cultural connection would definitely help emergent bilingual students to access the curriculum better and be more academically successful (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart, 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teacher 4 stated that, “(the SST team members) we offer suggestions to scaffold not just the students who are struggling but also the new teachers…” (Teacher4 interview, 10/31/2017). Teacher 4’s understanding and experience in scaffolding both students and new teachers, coupled with the collaborative environment in the school facilitate getting the necessary support for emergent bilingual students so they can fully access the curriculum and prevent their misplacement in the special education program. Teacher 4’s responses highlight the importance EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 66 of an educator practice that works for her constituents regardless of possible limitations and opportunity gaps because of systemic institutional barriers (Bensimmon, 2005; Darling- Hammond, 2007) Teacher 5. This participant, a middle school Science teacher, also identified the different processes and systems in place in his school, and in the district. Although he was not familiar with specific terminologies, like teacher 2 and teacher 4, such as the term used for SSTs, or K-6 study team, he indicated that he had participated in both the pre-referral process and the actual act of endorsing the referral of students into the special education program. He was emphatic though, that he only did referrals during his first few years as a teacher when he could not resolve issues inside the classroom. He shared the same sentiment as Teacher 3, that as a new teacher, he admittedly did more frequent referrals to the special education program. He stated, “when I was a new teacher, I would not empathize with students…. every time you have a problem in class, and a student does not get it, I refer them to the Special Education department or to administrators…” (Teacher5, interview, 11/01/2017). He also said that he had learned a lot since then. He said that in recent years, he had participated in trainings sponsored by the Special Education Department and learned new strategies in keeping students in the regular curriculum instead of “sending them off” to the special education program. His self-analysis of the differences in his early practices as an educator and his reflections and adjustments to how he taught when interviewed was consistent with how Milner (2010, 2012) contextualized the education dilemma on how to educate emergent bilingual students. Milner argued that instead of focusing on the achievement gaps between groups of students such as the emergent bilingual students, educators and policy makers should focus on providing equal access to critical resources such as seasoned or experienced educators (2010, 2012). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 67 Teacher 5 was one of school year 2017-2018’s 12 finalists for the California Teacher of the Year Award. He taught Robotics and Science to middle school students and had put his school site and the school district on the map for national recognition in the field of robotics and in science fair participation. When asked what factors influenced him to do a referral to the special education program, he said: If I see that a student is not achieving (his learning goals), there is an impediment to his learning…it can be academic or processing issues, social, emotional, behavioral or physical…I realized that now. When I was a beginning teacher, I was just letting them (administrators) handle it. As I matured as a teacher, I realized there is a lot that can be managed at the classroom level. (Teacher5, interview, 11/01/2017) This is noteworthy as it references the importance of experienced teachers’ placement in high needs area such as this school district in closing opportunity gaps between emergent bilingual students and students from the dominant culture (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gabel, Curcic, Powell, Khader & Albee, 2009; Shifrer et. al.; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2006). He shared during the interview that some of the behavior problems exhibited by emergent bilingual students could have been caused by frustrations because of the language barrier. He said: When a kid misbehaves…some teachers fail to recognize or empathize the real reason for student misbehavior…there’s a stimuli that lead (students) to act this way and sometimes, especially in this district, it’s the language. (Teacher5, interview, 11/01/2017) EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 68 As Teacher 5 stated, the disconnect between teachers who were either new to the profession or those who could not culturally or linguistically identify with their students often mistake their non-participation or lack of response in the classroom as being defiant or as having a behavior problem (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008; Skiba, Poloni- Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz & Chung; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). When this situation emerges because of cultural differences between students and teachers, it results in teaching practices that do not support the needs of emergent bilingual students, as the case is with 97% of the student population in the school district (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008). During the interview, Teacher 5 noted repeatedly that after so many years, he realized his shortcomings as a new teacher. At the same time, he also mentioned that reflecting on his experiences with the challenges of dealing with students with learning challenges had made him adapt to how students learn, instead of rigidly going by the established curriculum. He said: If the teaching strategy does not match the learning style of the learner, then there’s a mismatch…if they cannot learn the way we teach, how about trying to teach the way they learn? (Teacher5, interview, 11/01/2017) This participant’s responses to the interview questions were the most candid in their transparency about his development as an educator. He recalled and shared what had transpired in the past. Although he did admit to “getting rid” of trouble students who usually misbehave in class during his first years of teaching, he had learned through years of experience that learning issues and behavior issues should not be reasons for referral to the special education program. His last statements with regards teachers responding to how students learn, and his recent successes in mentoring reflected in the lack of referrals coming from his classroom to the special education program. These were evidences of a change in his perspective on which students EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 69 should be qualified for special education services. His statements during this part of the interview presented a clearer view of how experienced teachers mature in both their roles as mentors and how much more engaged they can be with their students’ well-being. This emphasized why it is critical to maintain and sustain the presence of highly qualified and experienced teachers in low performing school districts often populated by the most at risk students such as emergent bilingual students (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gabel, Curcic, Powell, Khader & Albee, 2009; Shifrer et. al.; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2006). Teacher 6. This participant, like the two other elementary English teachers, indicated that she was knowledgeable of, and was a part of the practices of pre-referral intervention teams in her school. She also volunteered new information such as the presence of K-2 reading specialists in all K-6 schools in the district that was just initiated by the Special Education Director during the school year 2017-2018. She stated that the K-2 reading specialist spent 30 minutes per student identified by K-6 study teams and was considered the “last stop” before the referral process to the special education department was started. When asked about guidelines set by the special education department with regards referral qualifications requirement, this participant said that “I’m not aware…when gen ed teachers refer, they feel that somebody else should take care of their problem students…” (Teacher6, interview, 11/03/2017). This statement encapsulated the essence of what research question one was trying to capture: how do elementary, general education teachers discuss their understanding of the special education referral process? While most of the teachers displayed awareness of the pre-referral and the referral process, Teacher 6 was candid and honest about what she perceived and what she discern as other teachers’ sentiments about the referral process. Her statement indicated that “problem students” should be somebody else’s responsibility. This deficit view of “problem students” that fail to progress in the intervention program was reflective of most school districts’ initiative EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 70 towards emergent bilingual students who fail to “normally” progress in the reading curriculum (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Valencia, 1997) Teacher 6 validated the other participants’ beliefs that general education teachers forward their problem students to either the administrators or the Special Education Department. She said that there was a need for the Special Education Department administrators to regularly train general education teachers on what to look for in trying to qualify students for special education services. She said: We (need) trainings for general education teachers about the referral process and how to provide intervention appropriately and in a timely manner inside the classroom…how to service students before they are referred to sped…how to do RTI (Response to Intervention) would be nice. (Teacher 6 interview, 11/03/2018) The call for trainings and recommendation for a closer collaboration between general education teachers who do the referrals and the special education department reflect the disconnect between federal policies such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its conflicted interpretation into actual guidelines for the current school system failed to establish not just enough funding but also inadequate support systems for implementing the law (Hale, 2015; Shifrer, 2015). Although Teacher 6 was knowledgeable about the processes in reading intervention programs in her school, unlike Teachers 2 and 4, who were also English teachers, she had not attended trainings that focus on referral processes for students who may be qualified for special education services. She said, “I am part of the SST team but I have no training on what I should do…I want proven methods that work, in a formal training” (Teacher6, interview, 11/03/2017). This was similar to what Teacher 1 and Teacher 5 have stated with regards the need for a more EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 71 systematized formal training specifically for core subject teachers in middle school and high school level. Teachers 2 and 4 were elementary school teachers, who indicated they were trained in coordination with the Special Education Department and were familiar with the 13 categories of disabilities that may qualify a student for services. Teacher 6 was aware that there were reading specialists that help with students. However, she was not aware of any formal training offered to all elementary teachers that was sponsored by the Special Education Department. She felt this was something that should be incorporated in professional development sessions to equip the elementary school teachers with the necessary skills in differentiating student characteristics that may be part of the 13 categories of special education or if student difficulties or challenges may be that of being an emergent bilingual (Teacher6 Interview, 11/03/2017). This is relevant to note as it supported the argument of why we need to maintain, develop and enhance the skills of teachers in low performing school districts in communities with the most vulnerable student population, such as emergent bilingual students (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gabel, Curcic, Powell, Khader & Albee, 2009; Shifrer et. al.; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2006). In analyzing responses to the first research question, it seemed that the six teacher participants have varying levels of exposure to trainings that deal directly with the referral system provided by the Special Education Department over the past five years. While some of their suggestions for more trainings may be valid, inconsistencies with the implementation of the referral and the pre-referral processes were apparent. The implications of this inconsistency were discussed in Chapter 5. Theme 2: Perceptions of English as a Second Language. The significance of this theme indicate that awareness of language as not being part of the 13 categories for qualification to the special education program was well known; it may possibly be construed as a general EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 72 knowledge amongst general education teachers doing referrals of emergent bilingual students for qualification to the special education program. There was, however, a significant difference between the three elementary English teachers and the three middle school teachers in terms of their depth of understanding of the referral process involving emergent bilingual students. While they all understood that language should not be part of the referral process, their responses still reflected somewhat of a lack of consistency in the application of the criteria for qualification when student referrals were done to the special education program. Despite all six teachers having some awareness of the procedures and guidelines on the referral process to the special education program, there were discrepancies on their level of awareness and practice that may be responsible for the inconsistencies when they make student referrals. Teacher 1. When considering a referral, Teacher 1 shared that the first intervention or action that he would initiate on his own was to make sure that the lack of absorption of content or lack of participation in class was not because of the language barrier. In response to the first interview question one, Teacher 1 said, “if I started noticing a student having some issues…with learning…I make sure it does not have anything to do with language (barrier)” (Teacher1, personal communication, 10/30/2017). Teacher 1 displayed awareness of the possible disconnect between the belief system set by the current educational system, the teachers’ knowledge base and skillsets, and the actual needs of his school district’s student population of 97% emergent bilingual students. He pointed out his perception that it negatively impacted the delivery of much needed intervention that could have prevented student referral or qualification to the special education program. Based on his perceptions, the education system and practices at his school site did not do enough to ensure students can access the curriculum as it is delivered in English. During the interview, he stated: EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 73 As educators, we need to be conscious…especially with the demographics we’re working with…when some members of administration and other teachers talk about this, they make it seem almost as if most of our kids are special ed…it’s the belief system…students are incorrectly diagnosed as special ed. (Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017) He was aware that perhaps there maybe an endemic bias that may have possibly caused an opportunity gap to emergent bilingual students due to their cultural and linguistic differences from the predominant culture and language (Carter & Welner, 2013; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008; Milner, 2010 & 2012). Teacher 2. Teacher 2 was a veteran English teacher before she was promoted as SST Coordinator in School Site B. She stated that she was part of the multi-disciplinary team of teachers convened by the Special Education Director three years ago that assessed and planned for the changes in the student referral process. The re-designed process started a year before this study in elementary school sites. This may have contributed to her in-depth knowledge of what had transpired in the district and the changes in procedural practices towards identification and qualification of students into the special education program. She stressed during the interview that: I’ve always looked at disproportionality, one of those being a disproportional number of English language learners that maybe ineligible for services because of the language issue…we are attempting to bolster teacher’s understanding of what would be a language impact versus those who are just having some sort of academic achievement disability. (Teacher2, interview, 10/27/2017) This teacher participant was fully aware of the disproportionality issues that had impacted emergent bilingual students towards their misidentification for special education services. This EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 74 teacher’s showed that some teachers in the district were cognizant of the issue of possible misplacement of emergent bilingual students in the special education program. Moreover, they were working towards changes not just in the system of the referral system towards placement in special education but also advocacy work among their peers towards reinforcing teacher awareness of the issue of disproportionality and misidentification of emergent bilingual students in special education (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010). Teacher 3. Teacher 3 was also a veteran teacher and had both a single subject credential and a multiple subject credential. Of the six teachers interviewed, she was one of the more vocal and upfront about her “mistakes” during her early years of teaching of doing multiple referrals to the special education department every school year. When asked what changed between her K-6 level days and being a middle school math teacher, she indicated that the combination of trainings provided by the district, her own experiences in documenting her observations, and self-reflection on how effectively she delivered her lessons. She answered all of these factors changed the way she taught. She perceived her realizations as a positive impact on her relationship with her students and how they responded to her in return (Teacher3, interview, 10/30/2017). She realized that her frequent referrals to the special education department were brought about by inexperience and lack of discernment between a behavioral issue, a language issue or a learning disability issue. She said: After so many years of teaching, I realized that I really need to know their (student’s) strengths and their weaknesses…to get to know my students…then you get to know whether the issues were behavioral or language. (Teacher3, interview, 10/30/2017) Teacher 3’s realization and own reflective practice as she became a more experienced educator helped her situate emergent bilingual students’ learning needs versus misidentifying EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 75 their learning difficulties and challenges. She gave examples such as misbehaving as a defense mechanism and for teenagers; it’s a “survival mechanism” for fear of showing weakness and inability to fit in. Inexperienced teachers can attribute this situation or less trained teachers as a behavior issue instead of a coping mechanism for emergent bilinguals to hide their challenges (Garcia Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008; Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010). Teacher 4. This participant shared a similar perception that students should not be referred for special education services if they were emergent bilinguals. During the interview, she expounded in detail about her knowledge of the intricacies and importance of the K-study group as the equivalent of the SST utilized in middle school as a pre-referral intervention strategy. She explained during the interview that: When a teacher is having a difficult time with a child, and they feel they need support from other teachers, they initiate presentation of findings through reading logs or journals as part of the fact finding and collation of data about a specific student’s aptitude in reading, writing and other fundamental skills to bank and monitor student progress or lack of at very specific intervals of time. (Teacher4, interview, 10/31/2017) The compiled data, she iterated, were shared by the student’s primary teacher to the rest of the members of the K-study team. The data served as the basis for identifying strategies to further help the student-overcome difficulties or challenges in learning. She also stated that the meetings were more frequent at the K-3 to help teachers address basic skills challenges before the students move on to higher-grade levels. All these pre-referral intervention activities were geared towards ensuring that the students’ learning needs were being addressed prior to an actual referral for qualification to the special education program. Preventive measures like these were designed to help stem the tide of having disproportionate numbers of emergent bilingual students EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 76 placed in the special education program (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Cheng & Lee, 2009; Flores, 2005). She mentioned that there were extreme cases of long term English Language Learners who had been in a formal school setting for five years with no or very little progress. She said she had known of cases wherein these students eventually were referred to the special education program. She said: We have a lot of long term ELLS (English Language Learners)…we have to be careful…it brings up the red flag in the system because of the length of the case and if the child is not making any progress…we have to be very careful. (Teacher4, interview, 10/31/2017) Although Teacher 4 did not directly respond to the question on submitting referrals herself, she indicated awareness of her school site adding to the problem of disproportionality of emergent bilingual students in the special education program. This awareness was probably brought about by her experiences as an elementary school teacher, and as an insider to the emergent bilingual community. She was born and raised in this school district and had once been classified as an emergent bilingual student. This cultural and linguistic consciousness may have given her an immediate connection and possible empathy of what emergent bilingual students were experiencing and the pitfalls of being misidentified and qualified into the special education program (Flores, 2005). Teacher 4 appeared to be very knowledgeable of the process of pre-referrals and the nuances involved in the process. She had been a long time English teacher and at the time of the study had recently been promoted as a Student Success Coordinator. However, although she had access to statistics and files, she was very careful in responding to certain questions during the interview and had put emphasis on the phrase, “we have to be very careful” in reference to the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 77 qualification of long-term emergent bilingual students into the special education program. She did not directly answer the question on whether she had done referrals herself, and instead, shared details of the pre-referral processes and the steps that her team (and school) had undergone to prevent emergent bilingual students from falling into the cracks and get referred or qualified into the special education program. Teacher 4’s efforts had the potential of preventing emerging bilingual students from direct referral to the special education program. Her efforts could possibly prevent what Artiles, et. al. (2002, 2010) emphasized through a series of articles that discuss the over-identification of minority students who are mostly emergent bilingual students from being disproportionately identified and placed in the special education program. Teacher 5. Teacher 5 did not mention anything attributed to language as a possible issue in the misidentification of emergent bilingual students to the special education program. Throughout the interview, he emphasized teacher’s experience in class management and the varying causes of misbehavior in class as the primary reasons why he and other general education teachers make referrals to the special education department. Teacher 5 stated, “when teachers have a problem with a student, then (they will say), you are better off in a special ed class…I think behavior problems are the most that teachers face as a challenge in the classroom…” (Teacher 5 interview, 11/01/2017). Teacher 5 did not specify what types of behavior problems he or the others teachers encountered. But he did attribute the behavior issues in the classroom as a possible classroom management issue brought about by “mostly new teachers and some veteran teachers who mostly do not want to take responsibility” (Teacher 5 interview, 11/01/2017). This would be expounded on and further explained in the interview analysis in research question 2. Teacher 6. As mentioned in Theme 1, Teacher 6 stated that there were multiple layers of preventive actions and pre-referral initiatives before a student was referred to the special EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 78 education program. She stated that the additional layer of intervention was part of the district’s strategy of preventing language-based referrals to the special education program. She said: Our reading program has benefitted a lot of students who have “holes” in their learning…not just those who are going to the special education program. Our reading program focused on skills that they need to acquire in grades 1,2 and 3…if there’s no learning disability identified, and they show progress, they exit in 1 or 2 years. (Teacher6, interview, 11/03/2017) Just like Teacher 4’s school site, Teacher 6’s school site had instituted preventive measures to compound the misidentification of emergent bilingual students into the special education program and contribute to the disproportionality issue (Artiles, et. al., 2002, 2010). Teacher 6 also differentiated her school from other schools in that they immediately identified students who did not progress after 3 to 6 months and place them in a more “intensive” reading intervention process. They were “tracked” and all progress, or lack thereof, was documented per student. She said that the administrators in her school relied on documentation of teachers to promote the student, graduate the student from reading intervention into the mainstream or start the pre-referral system to the special education program. When asked about key characteristics or behaviors teachers look for in the referral of students to possible special education services, she said, “behavior and inattentiveness, lack of basic phonemic skills, producing gibberish sounds and in writing, putting letters together that is not phonetic…that’s a big, big sign” (Teacher6, interview, 11/03/2017). In this participants’ school, there were three classes of 24 students in an intensive reading intervention program out of the average 1,000- student population. Teacher 6 said that half of these students “normally” exit in 6 months. Those that were left behind in the classes were even more closely observed and “tracked” for possible qualification to the special education program. This tracking of emergent bilingual students EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 79 manifested into an even more problematic system because it had already been previously established that the benchmark data gathering tools such as the Woodcock Johnson IV was designed for native English speakers. Once used for already struggling emergent bilingual students, they would all qualify into the special education program (Chu, 2011; Countinho & Oswald, 2015; Skiba et. al, 2008; Woolley, 2010). Teacher 6’s school site had multi-layered intervention and support system for struggling readers, who were almost always emergent bilingual students. Their efforts were critical in preventing the misidentification of emergent bilingual students into the special education program (Artiles, et. al., 2002, 2010). In summary, there were two major findings for the first research question. First, all six teachers interviewed displayed awareness of the specific criteria and processes that need to be observed during the special education referral process. However, despite their knowledge of the referral process, the divergence in their levels of understanding of the referral process and its implications on their practice may be culpable for ensuing discrepancies when they make student referrals. Second, five out of six teachers declared that English being a second language should not be a reason for doing referrals to the special education program. Their answers to the interview questions mirrored the lack of consistency in applying criteria for qualifying students for services in the special education program. Teachers 1, 3 and 5 were all middle school teachers. Teachers 2,4 and 6 were all elementary school teachers, two of which were promoted as English Language Development Coordinators during the period of data collection. Although all six teachers stated that there was a need for changes in the pre-referral and referral process in qualifying emergent bilingual students into the program, the elementary school teachers provided more detailed knowledge on how and possibly why emergent bilingual students were qualified into the special education EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 80 program. Knowingly, or unknowingly, they pointed out the flaws in the referral system using words such as “tracked all progress through the ELD program…”, and “should normally exit from ELD from six months to a maximum of 2 years” (Teacher4 interview, 10/31/2017 & Teacher6 interview, 11/03/2017). The elementary school teachers were more cognizant of the fact that emergent bilingual students develop English as a second language at different pacing because there were other contributing factors. However, the teachers also acknowledged that there is a time frame and schedule that they have to follow according to each school calendar. The time frame provided for emergent bilinguals to learn English may be another point of discussion in another study. Finally, all six teachers emphasized the need for training for all teachers and continuing professional development for veteran teachers. Findings: Research Question 2 In this study, the second research question was: what are general education teacher’s perceptions about their role in referring students to the special education program? Findings revealed a major theme that ran across most, if not all six teachers’ responses. The teachers stated during the interviews that they are responsible for the pre-identification of students’ difficulties in absorbing the curriculum or what one teacher termed as “holes” in their learning. This indicated awareness amongst teachers that it is part of their role or responsibility to monitor their students’ learning, and in doing so, to know their strengths and weaknesses. This awareness of their responsibility of truly knowing their students was aligned to studies revealing that it is only when teachers design their curriculum and lessons around their students’ needs can culturally relevant pedagogies happen (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). This is critical to note because this school district’s student population of 97% Latinx students also have a high recent migrant population of 40% (WASC Report from various EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 81 schools in the district, 2015-2017). As the literature in Chapter 2 established, when teachers use their accumulated experiences in the classroom and combine it with the cultural heritage of the community it serves as a basic foundation for designing the curriculum, and also adapts “curricular justice” (Connell, 1993). Connell stated that, “curricular justice concerns the organization of knowledge and through it the social relations being produced through education” (1993, 28). Educators should work from the framework that learning strategies and curriculum design could not be isolated from the reality of its students. Only then can relevant public education begin. All six teachers shared their awareness that they play a critical role and have multiple responsibilities in the referral process. In addition, the teachers also recognized that there was a need to be analytical of student characteristics displayed in the course of classroom instruction if it merited a pre-referral for special education services. For most of the teachers, analyses were driven and evidenced by documentation of specific events that happened before, during, and after class instruction as described in the interviews. Nevertheless, despite all six teachers having some knowledge of their responsibilities with regards the referral process to the special education program, the disparity in their years of teaching experience showed a difference in the amount of student referrals they make to the special education program. Furthermore, teachers identified knowledge of their role in pre-identifying symptoms of student’s difficulties in absorbing the curriculum. Part of that role is identification of student’s symptomatic traits that may be the cause of the student’s inability to engage inside the classroom. With these teachers’ perceived roles in the referral process, we discuss their individual cognizance of their duties or charge. Teacher 1. For this teacher who had 17 years of teaching experience in this district, he indicated that he tried to differentiate the different challenges that impacted students from EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 82 accessing the curriculum (Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017). Teacher 1 recognized that it was an important part of the teacher’s role and responsibility to make sure that they know their students and their needs. He stated that, “I think as teachers, we need to be (conscious) especially with the demographics that we’re working with…we need to be very cognizant of what the issues we are actually facing, what our students are actually facing…what are their limitations (or weaknesses)…”(Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017). He further stressed that this is especially true to the student population in the school district being 97% Latinx. He expressed concerns with regards cases of students who had been referred to special education because of behavior issues possibly brought about by language barring communication lines between teachers and students. He stated, “It seems that some teachers recommend special ed for some students because of behavior issues but it doesn’t really deal with aptitude of content…they even try to refer students who are having issues with the English Language…I usually speak up because I feel that’s when we’re placing students in the wrong program…”(Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017). This statement from Teacher 1 exemplified what research studies have indicated, that the lack of or absence of academic opportunity and rigor in curriculum is a pressing issue for emergent bilingual youths (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Connel, 1994; Nieto, 1994). Furthermore, when emergent bilingual students are misdiagnosed by teachers and placed in the wrong education track or program, they face various forms of opportunity gaps (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Darling- Hammond, 2007), and eventually lead to cyclical economic dislocation (Bensimmon, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Milner, 2010 & 2012; Orfield, 2014). For his part, Teacher 1 was not able to recall the last time that he had referred a student for testing to qualify in the special education program. He did state that he had participated in multiple pre-referrals Student Success Teams meetings or SSTs wherein all core subject teachers of the same student meet with teaching intervention specialists and/or reading specialists EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 83 including a member of the site administration to map out strategies in order to help the student overcome learning challenges or difficulties (Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017). When prompted for further clarification, Teacher 1 stated that he came from the same background as his students – he was an emergent bilingual student and graduated from one of the high schools in the school district. He also shared that the reason why he was personally vested with the outcome or success of his students is because of his own negative experiences with teachers who do not share his cultural background and language. He stated that: I probably missed a lot of opportunities because I struggled as an English learner. I felt that some of my teachers are prone to disqualifying me from the honors or AP program because they felt I am not up to the rigor and challenges. Teacher1 interview, 10/30/2017 In sharing his experiences, Teacher 1 indicated that he was very aware of what his students were going through. He wanted to be very careful in qualifying them in the wrong program or pushing them away from a more rigorous program that was college preparatory or college bound. Teacher 1’s statements were further manifestations of how deficit views of emergent bilingual students can be marginalized by tracking them into less rigorous programs such as the special education program or non-college preparatory programs. So here, we see another example of opportunity gaps experienced by emergent bilingual students (Stanton- Salazar, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2007). Teacher 2. Like Teacher1, Teacher 2 stated her observation that during the last five years, the highest number of referral requests for special education had shifted from purely academic to behavioral across her school site. She stated that because of the high percentage of emergent bilingual students in the school district, students are not able to immediately access the curriculum. She indicated that when students cannot access the curriculum or comprehend what EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 84 is happening inside the classroom, they might seek attention by misbehaving. She further stated that newer teachers often couldn’t “read” this situation and perceive this for purposeful misbehaving. She indicated that this is especially true when students fail to heed instructions immediately. She further stated that newer teachers more often resort to pushing the student out to the discipline office or towards the special education department rather than deal with it because they are still learning the ropes of class management (Teacher2 interview, 10/27/2018). As can be gleaned from Teacher 2’s statements, newer teachers were inexperienced and are under pressure to show school site administrators that they could manage a class and that they deserve to be tenured. These pressures were also brought about by policy changes and legislation that has worked against educators who are in the front line of public education. Some of these legislations also encouraged tracking of emergent bilingual students. One such legislation was the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that placed so much pressure on teachers for their students to perform well on standardized testing. For more than a decade, school districts budget appropriations hinged on the results of the results of these standardized tests. (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hopstock & Stephenson, 2003; Smeeding, Erikson & Jantii, 2011) Teacher 2 also indicated that she was more cautious in doing referrals as an experienced teacher of more than 10 years. She said, “ I’ve always looked at disproportionality, one of which is those of being a disproportional number of English language learners that may have been deemed eligible for special education services inaccurately (diagnosed or placed) because of the language issue” (Teacher2 interview, 10/27/2018). She stated that although most teachers were aware that there are guidelines to the pre-qualification or pre-referral of students into the special education program, teachers, especially newer teachers were inundated with responsibilities. Hence, they have a tendency to “pass on” students who could not access the curriculum, either EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 85 because of a perceived disability or because of behavior that may or may not be related to language issues. Teacher 2’s statements illustrate her concerns about the disproportionality of emergent bilingual students in special education. This has been studied and proven by both qualitative and longitudinal studies (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; CDE, 2015; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008; NCES, 2012). Teacher 3. Teacher 3 stated that teachers had several roles and responsibilities to fulfill aside from class management, planning and delivering lessons. She stated that it should be the teacher’s responsibility to identify student’s weaknesses in following instructions and in engaging with the lessons, saying that: It’s going back to teachers really knowing their students. I really take the time to get to know their strengths and weaknesses…you need to be able to tell where students are at (in terms of what they know) – it’s more diagnostic more than anything else…you can tell right away if the kids are lower than grade level…I also find out if it’s a behavioral issue or a language issue or a cognitive difficulty Teacher 3 interview, 10/30/2017 From there, she stated that teachers should practice interventions in the classroom whenever necessary and do pre-referral alternatives to keep the students in the general education setting. She said, “I do practice interventions…every student learns differently…I meet kids where they’re at…I do modify my assignments…my deadlines are flexible…I use multi- platforms of learning…” (Teacher3 interview, 10/30/2017). Teacher 3 identified use of the Universal Design for Learning or UDL strategy of teaching wherein educators to adjust curricula by utilizing multiple means of presenting new information to students (use of multimedia) and at the same time allow students to show their understanding of concepts and ideas in alternative ways (Boyer, 2016; Rose & Meyers, 2000; Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014). EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 86 She also stated that the district provided trainings on Response to Intervention or RTIs and she expressed her beliefs that RTI provided multiple ways for students to show their understanding of the lesson. She said, “We’ve gone to some trainings sponsored by the Special Education Department…I think the acronym is RTI…I’ve gone to the ones offered here in school…”(Teacher3 interview, 10/30/2017). Furthermore, she said that, “teachers should be flexible and be adaptable to students’ needs” (Teacher3 interview, 10/30/2017). Her statement indicated acknowledgement of the fact that students learn differently and that all teachers should be aware that as educators, it is their responsibility to adapt to students challenges and to build on their strengths. Several studies revealed that providing alternatives in the education of emergent bilingual students have proven to be an effective means of these students’ access to the curriculum (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Connel, 1994; Nieto, 1994). She said that, “it is the teacher’s responsibility to find out the actual cause of misbehavior; to look out for the cause and not dwell on the symptom…” (Teacher3 interview, 10/30/2017). This statement pointed out her perception of the multi-faceted roles of a teacher, as it may be paramount in the decision making process whether to do a referral or not. If this was widely practiced, it might prevent unnecessary referrals of students, specifically emergent bilingual students to the special education program (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008). In summary, Teacher 3 indicated that the four “extra responsibilities” or roles of the teachers such as: the identification of student’s weaknesses in learning; the ability to be flexible enough to adapt to students’ needs; the ability to root out the cause of misbehavior (by knowing students well); and to allow students to manifest their learning through alternative means, when done on a timely manner, could prevent the referral of any student towards special education. She emphasized that when teachers do not take the time to know what their students need, and how they could engage all students, regardless of English language fluency, then there could be EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 87 an “overload” of referrals to the special education program. Teacher 3’s take on the extent of teachers’ role and responsibilities in the pre-referral and referral process towards special education aligns with research studies that have indicated that when teachers fail to understand where their students were coming from, it leads to a deficit perspective of students’ capabilities or potential and more often is blamed on the students’ cultural ethnicity and native language (Bensimmon, 2005; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008;). At the same time, other studies revealed that if educators like Teacher 3 recognize the significance of their other roles and incorporate the language and cultural nuances of where their students were coming from in their lesson planning and curriculum design, then it has the possibility of providing emergent bilingual students a more culturally relevant pedagogy (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart, 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teacher 4. Like Teacher 3, Teacher 4 expressed the perception that teachers had multiple roles and responsibilities during the pre-referral and referral process towards qualifying a student to the special education program. Teacher 4 stated that a substantial part of a teacher’s responsibility was to provide evidence during pre-referral and referral meetings through documentation of observations such as maintaining intervention logs indicative of time, event or activity and specifying a detailed account of student progress or lack of progress. She said, “As a teacher, you gather information…if you have some concerns about a child. You obviously contact the parent and if you feel the strategies are not working…then you do this (documentation)” (Teacher4 interview, 10/31/2017). This statement from Teacher 4 indicate her awareness that part of a teacher’s role or responsibility as an educator was the pre-identification of students’ difficulties in absorbing the curriculum and the documentation of the instances or events for evidentiary purposes during pre-referral and referral process. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 88 She stated that this was true with teachers’ participation in SSTs and referral meetings. She said, “when a teacher is having a difficult time with a child, or if they feel they need some special support or strategies, what they do is they compile their information through reading logs or journals…” (Teacher4 interview, 10/31/2017). She stated that the documentation was part of evidence gathering in preparation for a parents’ meeting or to substantiate a request for a referral for further testing prior to qualification to the special education program. Teacher 4 said that this role or responsibility was a “preventive measure” to filter students from going straight to the special education qualification process. She said that if teachers were required to document instances of observation of a possible disability, and they were expected to provide strategy or intervention logs, teachers were less likely to make referrals to the special education program. She stated: We pretty much have a teacher trial for strategies (to help struggling students) and if they don’t work, we have a follow-up…During the follow up, and we find that the student still have other needs, then we refer them to the SST (Student Study Team). In the SST meeting, that’s when the psychologists, the parents, assistant principal and teachers show up and determine whether the primary teacher has appropriate documentation (evidences) to support a referral to sped or not…This is done before any referral for assessment for sped qualification is made. (Teacher4 interview, 10/31/2017) Teacher 4’s response and analysis of the teacher’s role about documentation requirements during pre-referral and referral meetings indicate a positive note towards the prevention of language-based referrals to the special education program. Teacher 5. This teacher participant said that it was the responsibility of the teachers to recognize and (try) to resolve issues within the classroom prior to making referrals to the special EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 89 education department. He said, “first is precognition…I recognize that the student has a disability, be it academic, social, emotional, behavioral or physical disability that could hinder or impede the learning of a student…” (Teacher5 interview, 11/01/2017). Although Teacher 5 recognized this, he also stated earlier on during his responses to research question 2 that “precognition” and the ability to differentiate between academic, behavioral and language problems only came with years of teaching experience and a change in teaching perspective. He added, “more than half of the time, it is not an IEP or SPED issue, but it’s a class management issue…” (Teacher5 interview, 11/01/2017). This reflected what previous studies have pointed out with regards the importance of hiring and retention of well trained and experienced teachers in a high needs school district (Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Howard, 2010; Milner, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). If school districts with a high population of emergent bilinguals keep losing skilled and experienced teachers, it compounds the disproportionality issues of having emergent bilingual students in special education (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz & Chung, 2005). He also iterated that it was the role of the teacher to initiate collaboration with the other teachers of students who were having problems in the classroom. He said, “I collaborate with other teachers…with this particular class and with particular students…I try to engage and see what other things we have done so far (early interventions) … (Teacher5 interview, 11/01/2017). This statement indicated that in Teacher 5’s experiences through the years, he recognized the need for cooperation between and amongst teachers to improve student engagement in the classroom (Carter & Welner, 2013; Milner, 2010 & 2012; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz & Chung, 2005). Corollary to teacher 5’s statement on the teacher’s role of collaboration and pre-cognition of student’s disabilities or issues in the classroom, he perceived that teachers should also be EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 90 flexible in their teaching strategies. He said, “If the teaching strategy does not match (with the student/s)…if they cannot learn how we teach, how about trying to teach the way they learn?” (Teacher5 interview, 11/01/2017). Furthermore, he suggested that each teacher should be driven by assessment results. He said that assessment driven instruction establish a benchmark that provided teachers with the insight on how each of their students are doing. From there, he shared that teachers could design lessons in such a way that they would provide a “constructivist” framework of teaching. This would be beneficial specifically for the high percentage of emergent bilingual student population in the school district (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008; Milner, 2010 & 2012). Additionally, Teacher 5 utilized child-centered pedagogy by building on what the child brings to the classroom through constructivist approaches as manifested in his statement (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart, 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teacher 5 stated that it was the teacher’s responsibility to maintain open communication lines, not just with the student but also with the parents and the bigger learning community during the pre-referral and referral process. He said, “We should have a very open communication line with all stakeholders, most especially parents and other teachers…” (Teacher5 interview, 11/01/2017). Most studies that focused on the importance of bringing students’ family and community cultural heritage and language into the equation of emergent bilingual students’ learning and formal education provides as a “stabilizer” and recognition of what they bring to student’s self-identification well-being (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008). Teacher 6. This teacher participant’s response was very similar to that of Teacher 4 in that they both perceived that teachers needed to be aware of why their students’ were struggling. She stated, “A teacher should be conscious or aware of the “holes in student learning for all EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 91 students, and not just those who are going to the special ed referral process…” (Teacher6 interview, 11/03/2017). Teacher 6 seemed to be referring to the foundational skill sets that students should have acquired in the early years of their education (Grades 1, 2 and 3) but might not have done so, specifically in the area of reading (Teacher6 interview, 11/03/2017). In Teacher 6’s school site, this was what administrators and reading specialists focused on with assistance from the Special Education Department. As previously indicated by the other 2 elementary school teachers (Teacher 2 & Teacher 4), this intensive reading intervention program just started a couple of years ago. This role, as identified by Teacher 6, delved into a teacher trait that most experienced teachers already possess such as automaticity of purposely knowing their students and to know them well. She said: Teachers should know when their students are struggling…and also let other teachers know about specific student problems or challenges…because if they know their students, they can share it and there might be a common approach to this specific student’s challenges…then there’s a higher probability of an intervention’s success… Teacher6 interview, 11/01/2017 This knowing meant paying closer attention to details that they bring to the classroom, their strengths and their weaknesses; their engagement, or inattentiveness; what makes them get involved in an activity or lesson; and building on what they already know, building from their area of strengths. (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008; Milner, 2010 & 2012). Teacher 6 also identified documentation of strategies and interventions provided to students as one of the primary roles of teachers in the pre-referral process. She said, “We should track their progress (or lack of). Then if they’re not progressing, then there’s something else wrong…” (Teacher6 interview, 11/03/2017). The rooting out of “what’s wrong” or the causes of EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 92 their lack of progress also buttress the other teachers’ statements to critically analyze what was keeping the students from learning, instead of passing it on to other teachers, such as the special education teachers (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Garcia, Kleifgen & Falchi, 2008; Milner, 2010 & 2012). Teacher 2, Teacher 4 and Teacher 6 were all elementary teachers. They indicated that the school district enforced new policy changes in the pre-referral and referral process in the school year 2012-2014 with then new Special Education Director. With the additional requirement of teacher’s documentation of student difficulties in accessing the curriculum, and the onset of the student study teams or SSTs in each elementary school site in the district, teachers might be more cautious towards the misidentification of emergent bilingual students towards their qualification in the special education program. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 93 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations Review of the Study With the current disproportionality of emergent bilinguals qualified in the special education program, there is a need to further look into the referral system being practiced in K- 12 schools. This study was conducted to examine the context of how general education teachers perceive the referral process of emergent bilingual students for special education purposes. This chapter presents an overview of this study, first with a restatement of the problem, and then purpose of the study, the two research questions and the overarching findings. The last section outlines recommendations for future research related to my study. Statement of the Problem This paper focused on the source of the disproportionality of emergent bilinguals’ misidentification in the special education program (De Matthews, Edwards & Nelson, 2014; Zhang et. al. 2014; Sullivan, 2011; Shifrer & Callahan, 2015). It was established that this problem was important to address because the misplacement of emergent bilingual students in special education limits their options after graduation from high school, thereby locking them in a cyclical pattern of school failure and limiting their economic advancement (Artiles, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2013). Purpose of the study The purpose of the study is to establish teachers’ understanding of the referral process in qualifying a student for special education services. The objective is to investigate teachers’ own recollection of their decision making process to refer emergent bilingual students for placement in the special education program. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 94 Research Questions Two research questions guided the entire study: 1. How do elementary, general education teachers discuss their understanding of the special education referral process? 2. What are general education teacher’s perceptions about their role in referring emergent bilingual students to the special education program? Major Findings The main themes that surfaced during the course of the analysis of the data results indicated that: First, while there is a level of awareness of the referral process amongst all six educators interviewed, their individual levels of that knowledge vary considerably and this might have impacted the frequency of their referrals of emergent bilingual students into the special education program; second, while all six teachers indicated awareness that language should not be a part of the reasons for a referral, most of them admitted sending out students (towards the discipline office or towards the education specialists when they were new and inexperienced teachers; third, all six teachers also indicated cognizance of their roles during the pre-referral and referral processes of the special education program. All general education teachers’ interviewed indicated cognizance of the special education referral process, and of their roles during the referral process. Teachers 1, 3 and 5 are middle school teachers and teachers 2,4 and 6 responded as elementary school teachers. There were differences between the level of awareness between the 3 middle school teachers and the 3 elementary school teachers. All six of them acknowledged some of the characteristics that they need to look out for in qualifying students from pre-referral into the actual testing and assessment to qualify students to receive special education services. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 95 There were some differences into how they perceive the referral processes. Teacher 1 in particular, showed concern over the lack of timely interventions that might prevent emergent bilingual students from qualifying for special education services. He pointed out that he himself was a product of the district where he teaches now and if not for several teachers who helped him navigate himself out of the category of being an English Learner, he probably would have been qualified into the special education program as well. He recognized the same pattern happening to his students when he presented several critiques to the current pre-referral system. His cultural and language affinity with his students helped them be exposed to a more equitable educational path (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart , 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). He suggested that follow-up interventions, and revisions in teaching strategies needed to be implemented in a timely manner in order to be effective. This is essential considering that if the learning challenges of emergent bilingual students are not addressed in an opportune fashion, it further exacerbates the opportunity gaps already faced by emergent bilingual students (Darling Hammond, 2007; Milner, 2010 & 2012). This may also stunt the students’ positive academic trajectory and progression (Carter & Welner, 2013). Teachers 3 and 5 both acknowledged that awareness of the processes involved during the referral process comes with years of teaching experience and maturity as an educator. Their statements provide further evidence that high needs student population in a school district, such as theirs, needed a more equitable resource base with which to hire and retain highly qualified and experienced teachers (Milner, 2010 & 2012). Their responses during the interview acknowledged flaws in the process both from their own experiences when they were beginning teachers and how they see the referral system as it is currently practiced. Both teachers indicated pros and cons of the current system in place and how positive changes were taking place in some school sites, in particular their own. They attribute their awareness of the referral system because EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 96 of the presence of the assistant principal in their site who used to be a coordinator of the special education department at the district level. Furthermore, Teacher 3 issued statements that collaborative opportunities currently in place at her school site has the possibility of influencing her co-teachers towards a more culturally additive schooling perspective towards emergent bilingual students (Connell, 1994; Griner & Stewart , 2012; Nieto, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teachers 2,4 and 6 were all elementary school teachers and have been involved in reading intervention programs in the school district. They provided very detailed knowledge of the pre-referral process called the Student Success Teams or SSTs. While each of them indicated specific “specialty knowledge” of the different interventions as practiced in their school sites, they all indicated usage of a database system based on a student’s score via the Discrepancy Model. The Discrepancy Model, as discussed in detail in chapter 4 is a culturally insensitive benchmark tool much like the Woodcock Johnson IV. Both were originally designed for native English speakers only as discussed in chapter 2, and have been traditionally discriminatory towards emergent bilingual students (Coutinho & Oswald, 2015; Skiba et. al., 2008). All three elementary school teachers also shared that their respective school sites practice the Right to Intervention or RTI approaches and Positive Behavior Intervention or PBIS. These pre-referral strategies are positive ways of preventing the qualification of emergent bilingual students into the special education program. However, they need to advocate for the changes in the benchmark gathering tools currently used in the school district as it negates any positive outcome of the pre- referral strategies currently employed. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 97 Implications and Recommendations of the Study This study was necessary to undertake because there was a need to illuminate and thresh out possible factors that are directly influencing the disproportionality of emergent bilingual students in special education. The results of the study might guide future policy changes or improvement in the areas of teacher and administrator trainings in understanding equitable approaches to referring students to special education. In particular, general teachers orientation and training with regards the 13 categories of special education (see Chapter 2) with more emphasis on language as a non-criteria for qualification into the special education program. Data from the study showed that previous trainings for both general education and special education teachers, including para-educators on inclusive practices were beneficial in limiting referrals. Additionally, there should also be a separate education specialists training on pre- existing federal, state and district wide policies with regards the prevention of qualifying emergent bilingual students into the special education program. Finally, a training of school administrators at all levels, federal, state, county and district should be trained in the management and preventive measures on how to avoid aggregating current disproportionality issues of emergent bilingual students in the special education program. Although this study only looked into the referral process as the first step towards the special education program, results of the study indicated that the actual qualifying process may also need to be reviewed closer. This is the stage of the referral that actually impacted the disproportionality of emergent bilinguals and minoritized students into the special education program as discussed in Chapter 2 (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Hopstock & Stephenson, 2003; Smeeding et. al., 2011; Zhang, Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2002). There were several recommendations that emerged from the data. First, teachers 1, 2, 4 and 5 all agree that there was a need for clearer guidelines for general education teachers on the EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 98 13 categories of special education. They were asking for a regular and periodic training/re- training of teachers, both veterans and new teachers alike to establish a standard across all school sites on the practices of pre-referral and referral processes. Second, teachers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 indicated that there was a pressing need for more focused modifications/accommodations based on each individual student’s needs. Third, all six teachers indicated that there could be better collaboration between the Special Education Department and the general education teachers, administration (school site and district level), and other stakeholders such as the parents, support staff (psychologists, para-educators, discipline staff) in providing a more “inclusive” environment for emergent bilingual students and students with special challenges alike. Fourth, most of the teachers also called for uniformity of practices across all school sites in the district. Future research A similar study might be done to include special education teachers and administrators at the school site and at the district level. It is necessary to identify and establish a benchmark on the existing knowledge and perspectives of special education teachers and administrators on the current student referral practices in qualifying them towards the special education program. A hybrid study of both qualitative and quantitative study can bolster the impact or results of this study towards possible resolution or prevention of disproportionality issues of emergent bilingual students in special education. Studies cited in Chapter 2 hinted to the actual placement process at the core of the disproportional placement of emergent bilinguals and minoritized students into the special education program. This can be further investigated by reviewing the history of existing documentation of emergent bilingual students already placed in special education. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 99 Personal Connection I am currently an education specialist in a school district in Southern California. What motivated me to pursue this study is a series of events that still haunts me to this day. The most impactful event was during the first two weeks of school in 2014. I was working as a caseload manager of 36 students with IEP and I also work as an inclusion specialist in a senior English class. Four of my caseload students were part of that class of seniors. The core subject teacher asked the entire class to get a copy of their graduation status record from their respective counselors as an assignment the previous day. Most of the students were able to get one from their counselors. As the teacher reviewed the A through G requirements for California state universities and the University of California system, I saw the grim realization from all four of my caseload students, male and female alike, that they were not qualified to even apply for any of the state universities. Two of the students have a grade point average of 3.5 or higher, which ordinarily should be more than enough to qualify them to at least apply for any college or university campus. However, what disqualified them was that on the average, they had 40 units of core subjects in the areas of math, English, Social Science and Science, earned from a Special Day Class or SDC. These 40 units were not considered A through G compliant. Both female students had tears in their eyes while the two boys had different reactions. One of the boys had his head bowed down and showed dis-interest and disengagement for the rest of the activity while the other one feigned interest in college altogether. I knew for a fact that all four students in my caseload had plans for college. I also knew that their only chance to go to college was through some type of scholarship or financial aid. All four students come from farmworker families. Three of them were from first generation migrant families. All four of them were initially classified as English learners. The two students with a grade point average of 3.5 were reclassified as “English proficient” during their sophomore EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 100 years. Unfortunately, their previous caseload carrier placed them in SDC settings during their freshmen year instead of putting them in general education placement with inclusion support. A lot of things could have helped these students towards a more economically viable career path after high school graduation. Instead, the varying choices that their teachers and support staff (counselors and psychologists) have made for them, from their case carrier, to the teachers who have referred them to qualify for special education services, instead of placing them in English Language Development classes as emergent bilingual students. There might have been other factors and variables at work during their early years of K-12 education. However, as an educator myself, and as an education specialist, I know that there are changes and variables that we can control and change to make the educational and career path of emergent bilinguals, such as these four students, more equitable and culturally relevant. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 101 References Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English Language Learners With Special Education Needs. Center for Applied Linguistics. National Library of Education (ED/OERI), Washington, DC. DOI: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482995 Artiles, A.J., & Klingner, J.K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English Language Learners with special needs: Theoretical, population, and technical issues (Introduction to Special Issue). Teachers College Record, 108, 2187-2194. Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E.B., Trent, S., Osher, D. & Otiz, A. (2010).Justifying and Explaining Disproportionality , 1968-2008: A Critique of Underlying Views of Culture. Council for Exceptional Children, 76(3). 279-295. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-3000. Autor, D.H. (2014). Skills, Education, and the Rise of Earnings Inequality among the “other 99 Percent.” Science, 344, 843, May 23, 2014. Bensimmon, E.M. Closing the Achievement Gap in Higher Education: An Organizational Learning Perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 131, Fall 2005, pp. 99- 109. Blanchett, W.J., Klingner, J.K. and Harry, B. (2009). The Intersection of Race, Culture, language and Disability: Implications for Urban Education. Urban Education 44(389). Doi:10.1177/0042085909338686 Boyer, A. (2016). The Differences Between Early Childhood Outcomes in the State of Missouri and use of Universal Design for Learning in early Childhood Special Education Programs. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 102 Buffum, A., Mattos, M. & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid Response to Intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when students don’t learn, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Calaff, K.P. (2008). Supportive Schooling: Practices That Support Culturally and Lingyistically Diverse Students’ Preparation for College. NASSP Bulletin 92(2). 95-110 California Department of Education (2009). from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp California Department of Education (2017). Special Education Reference. Retrieved from: https://caser.specialedreference.com/ Carter, P. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford University Press. Carter, P.L. & Welner, K.G. (2013). Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance. Oxford University Press. Cheng, C. & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance among multiracial individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 51-58. Chu, Szu-Yin. (2011). Teacher perceptions of their efficacy for special education referral of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Report). Education, 132(1), 3-14. Conchas, Gilberto Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability of Latino school engagement.(Immigration and Education). Harvard Educational Review,71(3), 475-504. Connell, R.W. (1994). Poverty and Education. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2). 125-149. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 103 Connor, D., & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: Disability studies asks “how much diversity can you take?” In S. Steinberg (Ed), Diversity and multiculturalism: a reader. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Connor, D. J. (2009). Breaking containment – the power of narrative knowing: countering silences within traditional special education research. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(5), 449–470. Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2004). Disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: Measuring the problem. Practitioner Brief Series: National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. Crockett, J. & Kauffman, J. (1999). The Least Restrictive Environment : Its Origins and Interpretations in Special Education. The LEA Series on Special Education and Disability. Mahwah, N.J. : Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The Flat World and Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. Educational Researcher, Vol. 36(6), 318-334. DeMatthews, D.E., Edwards, D.B. & Nelson, T.E. (2014). Identification Problems: US special education eligibility for English language learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 68. 27-34. Duncan-Andrade, J. (2007). Gangstas, Wankstas, and Ridas: defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 20(6), 617-638. Dweck, C. (2010). Mind-sets and Equitable Education. Principal Leadership. 26-29. Educational Data Partnership (2015). http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 104 Esteban-Guitart, M., Moll, L.C. (2014). Funds of Identity: A new concept based on the Funds of Knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31 - 48 Etscheidt, S. (2012). “Truly Disabled?”: An Analysis of LD Eligibility Issues Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. University of Northern Iowa. Ferri, E. G. & Connor, D. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability and (re)segregated education. Teachers College Record, 107, 453-474. Fierros, E.G. & Conroy, J.W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education. In D. Losen & G. Orfield (eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39-70). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Education Press. Fitchett, P.G., Starker, T.V. & Salyers, B. (2012). Examining Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy in a Pre-Service Social Studies Education Course. Urban Education, 47(3), 585-611. http://doi.org/101177/0042085912436568 Flores, B. (2005). The Intellectual Presence of the Deficit View of Spanish-Speaking Children in the Educational Literature During the 20 th Century. Latino Education: An Agenda for community action research. Mahwah, N.J. 75-98. Gabel, S.L, Curcic, S., Powell, J.J.W, Khader, K. & Albee, L. (2009). Migration and ethnic group disproportionality in special education: an exploratory study. Disability & Society 24(5). 625-639. Garcia, O., Kleifgen J.A. & Falchi, L. (2008). From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals. Equity Matters: Research Review No. 1. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1-59. Garcia, S.B. & Guerra, P.L. (2004). Deconstructing Deficit Thinking. Working with Educators to Create More Equitable Learning Environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2). 15- 168. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 105 Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A. (1988). Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of Language Minority Students to Special Education. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education. NCBE New Focus, n5 Garcia, O., Woodley, H.H., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2012). Latino Emergent Bilingual Youth in High Schools: Transcaring Strategies for Academic Success. Urban Education 48(6). 798-827. Griner, A.C. & Stewart, M.L. (2012). Addressing the Achievement Gap and Disproportionality Through the Use of Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585-620. http://doi.org/10.1177/004208591245847 Guiberson, M. (2010). Hispanic Representation in Special Education: Patterns and Implications. Preventing School failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3). 167-176. Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N, (2004). What Americans Want from Public Schools. In The American Dream and the Public Schools (pp. 1-27). Hale, C. (2015). Urban special education policy and the lived experience of stigma in a high school science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education 10:1071-1088 DOI 10.1007/s11422-013-9548-x Hopstock, P.J. & Stephenson, T.G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities: Special Topic Report #1: Native languages of LEP students. Arlington, V.A: Development Associates. DOI: http://www.ncela.us/files/rcd/BE021196/native_languages1.pdf Howard, T. G. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in america's classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Judicial Council of California, Center for Families, Children & the Courts (2016). Accessed 05/29/2017: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SPED.pdf EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 106 King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal Design for Learning: Technology and Pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly. Vol. 32, Fall 2009. Klein, Alysson. (2015). No Child Left Behind Act: An Overview. Education Weekly. DOI: http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition- summary.html Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education?. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66-71. Krashen, S. D. & Terell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: language Acquisition in the Classroom. San Francisco, CA, The Alemany Press. Pp. 191. Kroger, R. (1999). The failure of Brown v. Board of Education: a Texas-sized problem of resegregated districts and achieving unitary status. Baylor Law Review. Volume: 51, #2, p. 373 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education debt: Understanding Achievement in US Schools. Educational Researcher; Oct. 2006; 35(7); Pro Quest Education Journals. 3-12 Lopez, M.M. & Mendoza, M.A. (2013). We Need to “Catch Them Before They Fall”: Response to Intervention and Elementary Emergent Bilinguals. Multicultural Perspectives Journal, Vol. 15, Issue 4. Los Angeles Unified School District Division of Special Education (2007). Special Education Policies and Procedures Manual. Accessed 05/18/2017: https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/362/ppm_6_21_05.p df Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3 rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 107 McLesky, J., Landers, E. Williamson, P. & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are We Moving Toward Educating Students With Disabilities in Less Restrictive Settings? The Journal of Special Education. 46(3) 131-140 Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal Design for Individual Differences. Educational Leadership, 58(30. 39-43. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing. Milner, R.H. (2010). Start Where You Are, But Don’t Stay There: Understanding Diversity, Opportunity gaps, and Teaching in Today’s Classrooms. Harvard Education Press, Masachusetts, pp. 13-44 Milner, R.H. (2013). Analyzing Poverty, learning and teaching through a critical race theory lens. Review of Research in Education. 37(1), 1-53. Milner IV, H.R. (2015). Rac(e)ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and Classrooms. Harvard Education Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 9-112. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., & Neff, D. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141. National Center for Statistics (2002). The Condition of Education 2002. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002025.pdf Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review, 12/1994, Volume 64, Issue 4. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 108 Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188. Orfield, G. (2014). Tenth annual Brown lecture in education research: A new civil rights agenda for American education. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 273-292. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications. Pinilla, Lina M. (2016). Noguera, P. A., Pierce, J. C. y Ahram, R. (Eds.). (2016). Race, equity, and education : Sixty years from Brown: Nueva York: Springer. 297 páginas. ISBN 978- 3-319- 23771-8. Revista Internacional De Educación Para La Justicia Social (RIEJS), 5, 228-229. Ream, R.K. & Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2007). The Mobility/Social Capital Dynamic: Understanding Mexican American Families and Students. In Paik, Walberg, Paik, Susan J, & Walberg, Herbert J. (Eds.), Narrowing the achievement gap : Strategies for educating Latino, Black and Asian students. New York ; Berlin: Springer. Roberts, E.L., Ju, Song & Zhang, D. (2014). Review of Practices That Promote Self-Advocacy for Students With Disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Vol. 26(4). 209-220. Santa Ana, Otto (2004).Tongue-Tied: The Lives of Multilingual Children in Public Education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Oxford, UK. Pp. 87-105 Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students Labeled with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 54(4) 462- 480 EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 109 Shifrer, D. (2015). Stigma and stratification limiting the math course progression of adoloscents labeled with a learning disability. Learning and Instruction. 42(2016) 47-57 Shifrer, D. Muller, C. & Callahan, R. (2011). Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socio-economic Status, and Language. Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(3) 246-257. Hammill Institute on Disabilities. Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A.B., Feggins-Azziz, L. & Chung, C. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in Special Education? The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130-44. Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter S., Gibb, A., Raush, M. K., Cuadrado, J. & Chung CG. Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges. Indiana University. doi: 10.1177/001440290807400301Exceptional Children April 2008 vol. 74no. 3 264-288 Smeeding, T., Erikson, R. & Jäntti, M. (2011). Persistence, Privilege, and Parenting: The Comparative Study of Intergenerational Mobility. Russell Sage Foundation. DOI: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/reader.action?docID=11169243&ppg=40 Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Reconstructing schools for multicultural education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 141-148. Spinelli, C. (2008). Addressing the Issue of Cultural and Linguistic Diversity and Assessment: Informal Evaluation Measures for English Language Learners. Reading and Writing Quarterly 24(1). 101-118. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67 (1) 1-40. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 110 Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001) Globalization, Immigration, and Education: The Research Agenda. Harvard Educational Review 71(3). 345-366. Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of English Language Learners. Council for Exceptional Children, 77(3). 317-334. Sullivan, A. L., Artiles, A. J., & Hernandez-Saca, D. I. (2014). Addressing Special Education Inequity through Systemic Change: Contributions of Ecologically Based Organizational Consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, (ahead-of-print), 1-19. Sullivan, A., Kozleski, E.B. & Smith, A. (2008). Understanding the current context of minority disproportionality in special education: Federal response, state activities, and implications for technical assistance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, N.Y. Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities (2013). Accessed 05/29/2017: http://www.projectidealonline.org/The Leadership Conference in Civil and Human Rights (2017). Brown v. Board of Education History and Background. DOI: http://www.civilrights.org/education/brown/??referrer=https://www.google.com/ The Nation’s Report card (2015). 2015 Math and Reading Assessments: National Results Overview. Doi: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=4 United States Courts Educational Resources. Mendez v. Westminster, 1948. DOI: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/background- mendez-v-westminster-re-enactment US Department of Education (2002). National Center for Education Statistics. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 111 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017 (NCES 2017-144),Public School Expenditures. United States Government Accountability Office (2013). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act : standards needed to improve identification of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education : report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Health, labor and Pensions. Wagner, M. & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from High School to Work or College: How Special Education Students Fare: The Future of Children, Vol. 6, No. 1, 103-120. Walker, P. G. (2015). Supporting Struggling Learners: How High School Principals' Understanding of Response to Intervention and Special Education Eligibility Influences their Approach to Addressing Student Learning Needs. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press. Wells, Amy Stuart, & Serna, Irene. (1996). The Politics of Culture: Understanding Local Political Resistance to Detracking in Racially Mixed Schools. Harvard Educational Review,66(1), 93-118. Wiley, A.L., Brigham, F.J., Kauffman, J.M. & Bogan, J.E. (2013). Disproportionate Poverty, Conservatism, and the Disproportionate Identification of Minority Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4). 29-50. Woolley, G. (2010). Issues in the Identification and Ongoing Assessment of ESL Students with Reading Difficulties for Reading Intervention. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(1). 81-98. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 112 Valencia, R.R., Menchaca, M. & Donato, R. (2002) Segregation, desegregation, and integration of Chicano students: old and new realities. In Valencia, R. (Ed). Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Routledge/Falmer. Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003 Zhang, D. Katsiyannis, A. Ju, S. & Roberts, E. (2014). Minority Representation in Special Education: 5 Year Trends. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23. 118-127. Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002). Teacher and Parent Practice on Fostering Self- Determination of High School Students with Mild Disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25(2), 157-169. DOI: 10.1177/088572880202500205 Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, 111-156. EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 113 Appendix A Interview questions: I would like to ask you some questions about your knowledge and experiences with regard the referral process in the special education program. 1. What do you know about the special education program referral process? 2. Does your school practice pre-referral interventions? If yes: Have you participated in a pre-referral team meeting (such as a student having behavior issues and the matter has been referred to the discipline office)? 3. Do you know of any pre-referral team meeting (administrators and teachers) that has worked to prevent student referral to the special education program? If yes: can you elaborate or explain? 4. What are some factors that might influence you to begin a referral, either a pre-referral process or an actual referral? Probing: What do you feel is the most critical thing in the referral process? 5. What might be the key characteristics or behaviors that most teachers are looking for when students are referred for possible special education services? Follow up: Why do you think these are the issues that teachers use? 6. Can you elaborate or provide more details on the specific characteristics or behavior that you mentioned? For example, from your experience? 7. Are there guidelines set by the district office with regards referral qualifications for special education services? If yes: can you elaborate? 8. Are you aware if there has been trainings or orientations provided by the special education department (either district or site) to clarify the steps to pre-referral intervention strategies and the actual referral process? If yes: Have you participated in any? Probing, if necessary: What do you remember of the pre-referral and referral processes? 9. How would you describe the relationship of the special education department with the general education teachers/your department? Follow up: What type of assistance would you like from the special education department that you are currently not receiving? EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 114 Probing, if necessary: How might the assistance and formalization of a relationship assist in helping you and other teachers think about referrals? 10. Is there anything else that you can share with regards your experiences with the pre-referral or referral process that you can share? EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 115 Appendix B Electronic mails: Correspondence from 09/18/2017 through 10/27/2017 Request for assistance for interviews Clark, Angelina S. Reply all| Mon 9/18/2017, 5:46 PM Gonzalez, Alejandro A. Sent Items This message was sent with high importance. Hello Alex. As you know, I am finishing my doctoral degree from USC in Educational Leadership and Teacher Preparation. I am finished with all my classes and I am in the process of conducting interviews for my data-gathering phase. Is it possible to get your assistance in selecting 3-4 teachers from our middle schools and elementary schools for (1) 30 minute interview (per teacher) after school? I am currently scheduling interviews on the qualification of English Language Learners or emergent bilingual students in Special Education. I need to interview at least (3) middle school core subject teachers (non-special ed) and (3) elementary school teachers. The gist of the questionnaire is the teacher's notion of student characteristics that leads them to do referrals for special education assessment. All respondent information will of course be confidential. I will be able to share the results of the study with you and the entire Special Education department as soon as I have successfully defended the findings, analysis and conclusions by February - March 2018. I hope you consider this request. In service of All our students, Mrs. Angelina Clark Special Ed Inclusion Teacher (History and English) DMHS Office: Rm H2-127 Local 5533 EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 116 Appendix C Electronic mail: Correspondence from 10/2017 through 11/2017 Re: Request for assistance for interviews Gonzalez, Alejandro A. Reply all| Fri 10/27/2017, 1:22 PM Clark, Angelina S. Inbox You replied on 10/27/2017 1:32 PM. Action Items Hello Mrs. Clark, Mikomi Salaam is saying that she will be able to get the two middle school general education teachers for you. She wants to be able to send them your contact information. What contact information did you want for me to provide to them? Thanks, Alex Alejandro Gonzalez Director Special Education Coachella Valley Unified School District (760) 848-1131 phone (760) 399-1310 fax Special Education Department Mission & Vision: “ To ensure that ALL students meet our district goals of College, Career readiness and Citizenship through establishing INCLUSIVE special education practices that promote advocacy through the leveraging of relationships and build capacity through collaboration and consensus building.” EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 117 From: "Clark, Angelina S." <angelina.clark@cvusd.us> Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 8:35 AM To: "Gonzalez, Alejandro A." <alex.gonzalez@cvusd.us> Subject: Re: Request for assistance for interviews Hello Alex. Thank you for your assistance in getting potential respondents for my dissertation interviews. Are they all from John Kelly? Can I interview them next week? My deadline is fast approaching - 2nd week of November to finish all interviews. I can go after school or even to their houses, or Starbucks for coffee and snacks. All teachers for interview need to be from general ed, if possible, in core subjects. I also need middle school teachers. I still need at least two middle school gen. ed teachers. I was able to interview one teacher from Bobby Duke a week ago. Again, my sincerest appreciation for your assistance regarding this request. In service of All our students, Mrs. Angelina Clark Special Ed Inclusion Teacher (History and English) DMHS Office: Rm H2-127 Local 5533 From: Gonzalez, Alejandro A. Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 6:58:31 AM To: Clark, Angelina S. Subject: Re: Request for assistance for interviews Hello Mrs. Clark, I reached out to three elementary teachers. Do you have to have Middle school also? Can the middle school teachers be special education teachers? Thanks, Alex EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 118 Appendix D Electronic Mail: Correspondences made during follow up of for interviews FW: Request for assistance for interviews GA Gonzalez, Alejandro A. 1 Reply all| Fri 10/27/2017, 1:04 PM Clark, Angelina S. Inbox You replied on 10/27/2017 1:14 PM. You like this FYI! You can also call Mrs. Chapa general education teacher at Cesar Chavez as well. Alejandro Gonzalez Director Special Education Coachella Valley Unified School District (760) 848-1131 phone (760) 399-1310 fax Special Education Department Mission & Vision: “ To ensure that ALL students meet our district goals of College, Career readiness and Citizenship through establishing INCLUSIVE special education practices that promote advocacy through the leveraging of relationships and build capacity through collaboration and consensus building.” From: "Chapa, Elizabeth L." <elupian@cvusd.us> Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 12:37 PM To: "Gonzalez, Alejandro A." <alex.gonzalez@cvusd.us> Subject: Re: Request for assistance for interviews Either is fine. My phone number is 760-625-5446. On Oct 27, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Gonzalez, Alejandro A. <alex.gonzalez@cvusd.us> wrote: Thanks. Did you want her to call you or meet in person? Alejandro Gonzalez Director Special Education Coachella Valley Unified School District EMERGENT BILINGUALS AND THE REFERRAL PROCESS 119 (760) 848-1131 phone (760) 399-1310 fax Special Education Department Mission & Vision: “ To ensure that ALL students meet our district goals of College, Career readiness and Citizenship through establishing INCLUSIVE special education practices that promote advocacy through the leveraging of relationships and build capacity through collaboration and consensus building.”
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
There is currently a disproportionate amount of emergent bilinguals qualified in the special education program in the PK-12 public school system. This study examined the context of how general education teachers perceived the referral process of emergent bilingual students for special education purposes and how they viewed the role that they played. The purpose of the study was to establish a teachers’ own understanding and recollection of their decision-making processes during the referral process in qualifying a student for special education services. ❧ Qualitative methods were used in this study of K-8 general education teachers. The sites were purposefully chosen for accessibility and willingness of participants to be interviewed. ❧ There were three main themes that emerged from the interviews: first, all six teachers were aware that there were criteria that need to be followed prior to the referral of any student into the special education program
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
Leading instructional shifts in emergent bilingual education: a principal's role
PDF
Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation
PDF
The role of student study team members in the special education referral process for English Learners
PDF
A case study of the roles of principals in dual language immersion programs
PDF
Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners
PDF
The role of teachers in academic discussion
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
PDF
Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study
PDF
Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners
PDF
English language development materials in Texas: a study of effectiveness and selection
PDF
Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment
PDF
Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis
PDF
A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program
PDF
Disruptive innovation and cultural capital in virtual school counseling
PDF
A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
Asset Metadata
Creator
Clark, Angelina Sotera Sanchez
(author)
Core Title
The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/27/2019
Defense Date
11/08/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
disproportionality in special education,disproportionality of English learners in special education,emergent bilinguals in special education,English as a second language in special education,OAI-PMH Harvest,race in special education,referral,referral process,second language factor in special education,Special Education,special education referral process,stereotyping in special education
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Carbone, Paula M. (
committee chair
), Craig, Erin (
committee member
), Crawford, Jennifer (
committee member
)
Creator Email
angelina.2018.clark@gmail.com,angelisc@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-127742
Unique identifier
UC11675638
Identifier
etd-ClarkAngel-7116.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-127742 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ClarkAngel-7116.pdf
Dmrecord
127742
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Clark, Angelina Sotera Sanchez
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
disproportionality in special education
disproportionality of English learners in special education
emergent bilinguals in special education
English as a second language in special education
race in special education
referral
referral process
second language factor in special education
special education referral process
stereotyping in special education