Can children with developmental disabilities learn more than one language

1
Can children with developmental disabilities
learn more than one language?

• Current research, policy issues, and best
  practices for serving children who are learning
  English as a second language in Early Childhood
  Special Education
• Lillian Duran, M.A.
• dura0061_at_umn.edu

2
The Answer

• YES!
• Evidence suggests that children with Language
  Impairments and other developmental disabilities
  can learn two languages to their ability level.
• (Hakansson, Salameh, Nettelbladt, 2003)

3
Diversity in Learners

• A childs ability to learn any language is
  constrained by their cognitive level and/or level
  of language impairment. However, research (and
  practical evidence) has shown that humans can
  learn more than one language and that learning
  two languages is not inherently more difficult
  than learning one language. Bilingual children
  have also demonstrated consistent advantages in
  both verbal and non-verbal cognitive tasks and
  metalinguistic abilities (Diaz Klingler, 1991).

4
International Examples

• Over ½ of the worlds population is bilingual
  (deHouwer, 1995)
• Many other countries have instituted and
  researched bilingual education including Canada,
  Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, Australia,
  Mexico and China (Krashen, 1999)

5
Research on young simultaneous bilinguals

• Young (middle class) bilingual children who
  acquire two languages from birth reach linguistic
  milestones at the same age as their monolingual
  peers.
• (Genessee, 2001 Holowka et al., 2002 Petitto,
  2001)
• Young bilinguals demonstrate interlocutor
  sensitivity indicating that they are aware of
  which language to use with different people
  (Maneva Genessee, 2002 Petitto et al., 2001)

6
Research on young simultaneous bilinguals

• An abundance of translation equivalents have been
  documented in young bilingual children
  demonstrating that young children recognize that
  they need different words for the same concept in
  different contexts. (Genessee, 2001 Holowka et
  al., 2002 Petitto, 2001)
• Code-mixing that follows grammatical rules is not
  evidence of language confusion, but has been
  found to be directly proportional to the rate of
  language mixing in the childs environment.
• e.g. Spanglish
• (Lanza, 1992 Petitto et al., 2001)

7
Simultaneous vs. Sequential Bilingualism

• Simultaneous Two languages acquired from birth
• Sequential No consensus in the field, ideas
  range from the introduction of the second
  language at the age of one month to 3 years.
• (deHouwer, 1990 MacLaughlin, 1984)

8
Additive vs. Subtractive Bilingualism

• Additive Situations where both languages are
  supported and languages develop in parallel.
  (Diaz Klingler, 1999)
• Subtractive Situations characterized by a
  gradual loss of the first language as a result of
  increasing mastery and use of the second
  language. (Diaz Klingler, 1999)

9
Why should we worry about maintaining a childs
native language?

• Doesnt every child need to learn English to be
  successful in school?
• Isnt better for ELL children to learn English as
  quickly as possible?
• If we dont use English as the only medium of
  instruction providing the most input in English
  as possible early on arent we doing the children
  a disservice by not preparing them for school?

10
Critical factors to consider for young bilinguals

• Level of development of the first language
• Familys SES/level of education
• Minority language status in society (ie
  motivation and attitudes of the language learner
  about English and their native language)
• Level and variation of input to the child in each
  of their languages
• Childs ability level and how it impacts language
  development in general

11
Reframing the Question

• The Question is not whether or not all children
  in the United States need to learn English
• Of course they do!
• The Question is how do we best teach young
  English language learners English and produce the
  best long term academic outcomes?

12
Investigating the Answer

• A plethora of research currently exists that
  documents the advantages of Developmental
  Bilingual Education (DBE) over Transitional
  Bilingual and English-only programs.
• (Rolstad, Mahoney, Glass, 2005 Thomas
  Collier, 2002 Christian, 1996 Cummins, 1979
  many more)

13
Evidence that instruction in L1 leads to better
academic achievement in English (L2)

• In a recent National Study of School
  Effectiveness for Language Minority Students
  Thomas and Collier (2002) concluded
• Enrichment 90-10 and 50-50 developmental
  bilingual education programs (programs that teach
  content through a childs native language) are
  the only programs we have found to date that
  assist students to fully reach the 50th
  percentile in both L1 and L2 in all subjects and
  to maintain that level of high achievement, or
  reach even higher levels through the end of
  schooling. The fewest dropouts come from these
  programs. (pg. 313)

14
Evidence that instruction in L1 leads to better
academic achievement in English

• Thomas and Collier (2002) continue
• In this study and all other research studies
  following ELLs long term, the minimum length of
  time it takes to reach grade-level performance in
  a second language is 4 years. Only ELLs who have
  had 4 years of schooling in their native language
  reach L2 grade level performance. (pg. 314)

15
Evidence that instruction in L1 leads to better
academic achievement in English

• The strongest predictor of L2 student
  achievement is the amount of formal schooling in
  L1. The more L1 grade-level schooling, the higher
  the L2 achievement. (Thomas Collier, 2002, pg.
  314)

16
Evidence that instruction in L1 leads to better
academic achievement in English

• Lastly in a recent Meta-Analysis of Program
  Effectiveness Research on English Language
  Learners
• Rolstad, Mahoney, Glass (2005) conclude
• Empirical evidence considered here indicates
  that bilingual education is more beneficial for
  ELL students than all-English approaches. It
  seems clear from the current study and from
  previous meta-analyses (Greene, 1998 Willig,
  1985) that bilingual education is superior to
  English-only approaches in increasing measures of
  students academic achievement in English and the
  native language. (pg. 590)

17
Preschool studies

• Rodriguez, Diaz, Duran and Espinosa (1995) and
  Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa and Rodriguez (1999)
  investigated the language development of
  Spanish-speaking preschoolers from low-income
  families in CA.
• They compared a group of students attending a
  high quality 50/50 bilingual preschool classroom
  with a control group who stayed home with
  Spanish-speaking care providers.

18
Preschool studies

• Rodriguez et al. (1995) and Winsler et al.
  (1999) found that Spanish language development
  was similar in the two groups, but that the group
  that attended the bilingual preschool had the
  advantage of significant English language
  development.

19
Preschool Studies

• In 1980 the Carpentería School District in
  California began a longitudinal study to compare
  the outcomes of four specific groups,(1)
  Spanish-speaking children who attended
  English-focused community preschool programs, (2)
  English-speaking children who attended an
  entitlement preschool program and (3)
  English-speaking children who did not participate
  in an entitlement program because they were
  primarily middle class and (4) Spanish-speaking
  children who attended a full immersion Spanish
  program.
• Children were followed from Kindergarten to
  Junior High school and three sources of data were
  analyzed to quantify progress and achievement (1)
  school report cards, (2) school competency
  assessment data including referrals to special
  education, attendance, grade retention and
  suspensions, and (3) standardized assessment
  data.

20
Preschool Studies

• Results indicated that the English-only
  non-entitlement (middle class) group outperformed
  all other groups significantly indicating the
  strong effects of SES on school achievement
  regardless of the language or cultural
  backgrounds of the students. However, when
  comparing the Carpentería Spanish-only preschool
  students to the other two groups they showed
  significantly higher scores on achievement tests
  at Kindergarten entrance than both the
  English-speaking children who attended
  entitlement programs or the language-minority
  preschoolers who attended English-only community
  programs. Overtime these effects continued and in
  fifth grade on the District Proficiency Test, 80
  of the Carpentería Preschool group passed
  compared to 30 of the language-minority
  comparison preschool group who attended other
  English-focused community preschool programs
  (Campos, 1985).

21
Applying this evidence to ECSE

• Although this body of research comes from studies
  on the general education Pre-K-6 population there
  are some findings we can cautiously apply to ECSE
  practice.
• Currently there is no body of research
  specifically addressing best practice with ELL
  students in ECSE settings. This is a huge gap in
  the literature!

22
Cautious applications to ECSE given the current
state of the research

• Given that research on young simultaneous
  bilinguals indicates that being bilingual does
  not inherently cause language delay, the
  preliminary evidence supporting bilingual
  preschool practice, and the amount of evidence
  suggesting that supporting native language
  enhances long term academic outcomes it stands to
  reason that in ECSE we should move toward
  bilingual practice versus an English-only
  approach which has little to no sound empirical
  evidence.

23
Other reasons to support a childs native language

• In early childhood a childs native language is
  still in the process of development. In ECSE we
  are often working on basic communication in the
  family context and it only makes sense to provide
  support in the language the child will need in
  their natural setting.

24
Other reasons to support a childs native language

• The child must be able to communicate with
  his/her family and community so that he/she does
  not become socially isolated. Maintaining strong
  native language skills will allow parents to
  communicate affection, discipline and teach
  cultural values (Wong-Fillmore, 1991).

25
Other reasons to support a childs native language

• The child will be surrounded with English
  speakers and will quickly recognize English as
  the language with higher status and power in this
  society. The greatest likelihood is actually that
  immigrant children will discontinue using their
  native language (Portes Hao, 1998).

26
Other reasons to support a childs native language

• Given the global economy and increasing diversity
  in our country there is actually a great demand
  for fully proficient bilinguals. Why should we
  not support this capacity in native speakers?
  (Portes Hao, 1998 Valdes, 1997)

27
Specific suggestions for intervention for ELL
students with Language Impairment (Kohnert
Derr, 2004)

• For the child who is bilingual, intervention in
  both languages yields the most progress and
  honors the fact that the child needs both
  languages to develop and to communicate
  effectively in all of his/her environments.
• For the child who knows no English therapy is
  best provided in their native language. The
  question is Is the goal to teach English or
  develop the childs overall language skills?
• In both of these scenarios it may mean the use of
  an interpreter and working through the family.

28
Screening and Assessment

• The knowledge, sensitivity, and care of the
  person giving an instrument and interpreting the
  result is ultimately more important than the
  specific tool that is used. Technical adequacy
  does not assure an unbiased assessment.
• (Unbiased Assessment Manual, Minnesota Department
  of Education)

29
Screening and Assessment

• Standardized screening instruments that have been
  normed on a culturally and linguistically diverse
  population are difficult to find or non-
  existent. It is therefore up to us to use
  professional judgement and utilize the tools we
  have in an appropriate manner. The scores that
  are derived from a childs performance on a
  standardized instrument can serve as a guideline,
  but not as a determining factor in referral for
  assessment and eligibility determination.

30
MN State and Federal Guidelines

• Whenever possible the child should be seen at
  home at least once where both the parents and the
  child will be more comfortable. It is also
  important to see a child over a period of time
  and in different settings if appropriate i.e.
  home, child care and preschool to help determine
  if a child is truly disabled.
• If the parents are concerned with their childs
  development, the childs skills should be
  evaluated.

31
MN State and Federal Guidelines

• Tests that are translated should not be scored.
  Scores from a standardized test that is given in
  a nonstandardized manner (i.e., translating it
  into another language) should not be reported.
• If it is thought that lack of exposure to certain
  materials or tasks may be the cause of the
  childs underperformance, a test-teach-retest
  approach may be useful to rule out lack of
  exposure with certain skills.

32
MN State and Federal Guidelines

• A decision-making model should be employed to
  determine eligibility if standard scores are not
  reported and the evaluation report should provide
  information about which data sources had the
  greatest relative importance for the eligibility
  decision. These data sources can include
  teacher comments, previous testing, observational
  data, ecological assessments, parent report and
  other developmental data.

33
MN State and Federal Guidelines

• Special Education assessment must be done in the
  childs primary language or languages.
• Communication to the parents and due process
  forms must be in the parents primary language,
  either written or orally translated.
• No single procedure should be used to determine
  eligibility.
• Testing materials and procedures should be used
  that are not racially or culturally
  discriminatory.

34
Evaluation Plan

• The team should answer the following questions
• How will the family be involved?
• Where and how will observations in the childs
  natural settings be conducted?
• How will the team determine the childs language
  level in both their native language and English?
• How will the team locate an interpreter?
• What assessment tools will be used? What other
  data sources will be used?
• Overall will the evaluation plan provide enough
  information gathered from multiple data sources
  in a culturally sensitive manner, over several
  sessions and across the childs natural settings
  for the team to make an informed and unbiased
  decision regarding the childs need for special
  education services?

35
Implications for administrators and policy-makers

• 1. Recruit, hire and retain more bilingual staff!
• 2. Use cultural liasons in addition to
  interpreters
• 3. Provide research-based training for ECSE staff
  including specialists
• 4. Provide research-based training for
  administrators and policy-makers in your own
  community

36
Implications for administrators and
policy-makers Try something new!

• Design and implement inclusive bilingual
  preschool classrooms in your community
• Involve your local higher ed faculty in ECSE
  teacher preparation so that they can better
  prepare future teachers.
• Be creative and open to new ideas. Visit places
  in the country that have strong bilingual Early
  Childhood Programs network, read, use the
  internet, seek funding

37
In my own community

• Beginning a Bilingual Preschool Classroom in
  Sleepy Eye, MN in collaboration with ECSE, ECFE,
  Head Start and the Public School District
• Rural town population 3,000
• Elementary school population 40 Latino
• Primarily children from families who are Mexican
  migrant farm workers who have decided to stay in
  MN

38
What I have found

• Community partners in Early Childhood are willing
  and just waiting for someone with energy to
  initiate a project to serve young ELL students
• There is a significant amount of grant money
  available for bilingual programming serving
  immigrant children from low income families
• Give yourself two years to plan, fund, staff and
  implement the program

39
Language Rights as Civil Rights

• Lau v. Nichols 1974
• recognized language rights as civil rights and
  the relationship of equal educational
  opportunities to the language of education
• Dyrcia S. et al. v. Board of Education of N.Y.
  (1979)
• judgement issued calling for the provision of
  appropriate bilingual programs for all children
  with both high and low incidence disabilities.
• Nieto (1992)
• equity rather than equality
• equity includes equal educational opportunities
  ---the need for equality of outcomes, for a
  broad range of students

40
No Child Left Behind

• In 1968 the Bilingual Education Act passed
  indicating federal government support for
  bilingual education and it initiated federal
  funding for these programs.
• The passage of NCLB in 2001 repealed The
  Bilingual Education Act and replaced it with
  The English Acquisition Act dramatically
  altering the focus of federal support and funding
  for the education of ELL students.

41
What are your next steps in your community to
better serve young English Language Learners?

• What are your personal philosophies regarding
  this issue and how do they influence your work?
• What information impacted you from todays
  presentation?
• What do you want to do or what can you do in your
  community?
• Who can help?