Preparing Professionals to Serve English-Language Learners with Communication Disorders.
When 7-year-old Brian arrived from Puerto Rico, I noticed that he didn't participate with the other students in my first-grade class. Most of the time he was quiet. Because I thought he was just beginning to learn English, I wasn't initially concerned. Although he was receiving English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) for 2 hours a day, he wasn't making progress in English, and I became concerned. I discussed the difficulties with his mother, and we decided to refer him for assessment. After testing, the speech-language pathologist reported that Brian had language delays and articulation errors in Spanish and that he was experiencing similar difficulties in English. In addition to continuing ESOL, speech-language services in English and Spanish were recommended. As Brian's teacher, I want to be part of the "team" to help Brian become a successful student, but I don't know what to do. I've never had a student like Brian before. (teacher interview)
As this vignette illustrates, many classroom teachers are not prepared to address the instructional needs of students from diverse language backgrounds, especially when the students are experiencing learning difficulties. Several decades ago, the student described in the vignette would have represented only a small percentage of the school-age population. Over the past two decades, the preparation of personnel to meet the instructional needs of English-language learners (ELLs) has not kept pace with the increasing ethnolinguistic diversity. Personnel shortages are particularly acute for students with special learning needs (Roseberry-McKibben & Eicholtz, 1994).
Within the next two decades, diversity in U.S. public schools is expected to increase substantially (P. R. Campbell, 1996; U.S. Census Bureau, 1993). The National Center for Education Statistics (1997) predicted an increase of 50% or more by 2010 in the numbers of Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Alaskan Native students attending public schools. During this same time period, the White, monolingual, English-speaking student population is expected to decrease by more than 10%.
The probability that teachers will have students such as Brian in their classrooms increases annually. Current statistics and future projections underscore the importance of preparing all educational professionals (e.g., teachers, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), and administrators) to meet the needs of ethnolinguistically diverse students. Although preparation in providing appropriate assessment and instruction for students with special learning needs would occur differently for distinct groups of educational professionals (e.g., general educators, special educators, bilingual teachers, English for Speakers of Other Languages [ESOL] teachers, SLPs), specific areas of preparation are relevant across disciplines (Baca, Fradd, & Collier, 1990).
Efforts to prepare personnel to meet the educational needs of students who are learning English but also have disabilities are not simple or straightforward. The move for educational reform influences the way educational services are conceptualized and provided, the skills and competencies that educational professionals are expected to demonstrate, and the paradigms that define and address students' learning needs. Although the call for reform and accountability across instructional areas is clear (Porter, 1999/2000), guidelines and procedures for increasing the number of personnel who are prepared to serve ethnolinguistic students with special needs must be developed (Quezada, Wiley, & Ramirez, 1999/2000).
Currently, schools are being challenged by the need to find bilingual and ESOL teachers who can work with ELLs. Professionals who would be responsible for dealing with the special learning requirements of these students include SLPs, special education teachers, general education teachers, ESOL teachers, and bilingual program staff members (Gopaul-McNicol Thomas-Presswood, 1998). The national shortage of bilingual, ESOL, and special education teachers and of bilingual SLPs suggests that the numbers of personnel required to serve ELLs with communication disorders simply are not adequate (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1999; Billingsley, 1993; L. R. Campbell, Brennan, & Steckol, 1992; Kayser, 1995; Wald, 1996). If expectations of educational equity and reform are to be achieved for all students, cadres of these types of professionals must be created.
With respect to the special needs of ELLs with communication disabilities, the issues involve simultaneously providing appropriate services that are responsive to the students' disabilities, cultural characteristics, and language needs (Brice, 1994; Brice & Montgomery, 1996; Cloud, 1993; Roseberry-McKibben, 1995) while meeting local, state, and federal regulations and guidelines (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1985; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] of 1990; U.S. Department of Education, 1996).
For example, the IDEA amendments of 1990 specified that students must be ensured a free, appropriate public education, determined on an individualized basis, designed to meet specific needs in the least restrictive environment, and protected through due process (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Specifically, IDEA and legislation that emanated from certain court decisions contain particular provisions designed to ensure that nondiscriminatory evaluations are conducted and that equal educational opportunities are afforded to ELLs with special needs (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Education agencies seeking federal funds for providing special education services must show evidence that they are providing all students with appropriate services, which include personnel preparation; use of procedures ensuring accurate, nonbiased, or nondiscriminatory assessment; and instruction leading to effective educational outcomes (McNeilly & Coleman, 2000; Montgomery, 1994; J. Taylor, 1992; U.S. Education Department, 1996).
The purpose of this article is to discuss both the challenges and opportunities that U.S. public schools encounter in attaining educational equity through the preparation of cadres of professionals to serve ELLs with communication disorders. Specifically, this article discusses commonalties and differences across professional preparation areas as they relate to meeting the educational needs of ELLs with communication disorders. It also discusses how cadres of professionals can be developed to enhance effective service delivery. Finally, this article discusses an agenda for expanding the professional preparation knowledge base to promote literacy and achievement for ELLs with communication disorders.
The commonalities and differences in paradigms under which professionals are prepared influence the services they provide (Wood, 1998). Although few teachers believe they are sufficiently prepared to meet the learning needs of ELLs (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999), the knowledge base and the expectations established by local school districts, states, and the federal government provide a starting point for identifying the components that should be included in a comprehensive personnel preparation program. Within the confines of this article it is not possible to provide an exhaustive review of the literature or to identify all of the commonalities and differences relevant to specific preparation programs. Our purpose here is to underscore the importance of understanding both the similarities and unique qualities of the perspectives that professionals contribute in collaborating to create appropriate programming for ELLs. In our research, we have found the following: (a) three important commonalities that present challenges that are not often discussed and (b) three differences that professional groups bring to the instructional process.
By identifying commonalities in addressing the educational needs of ELLs, those responsible for providing comprehensive professional development can encourage collaboration in conceptualizing and addressing students' learning needs. Although many commonalities exist across professional areas, we focused on three:
1. the emerging paradigm of literacy development,
2. a common knowledge base, and
3. attitudes toward language services.
Emerging Paradigm of Literacy Development. Although literacy and a focus on reading instruction have been explored over the past 25 years (Ball, 1997; Canady & Krantz, 1996; Catts, 1991, 1993; Catts & Kamhi, 1986; Van Kleeck, 1990), the results of research in the decade of the 1990s are just now reaching the schools (Butler, 1999a). The establishment in 1998 of the Reading Excellence Act, the increased recognition of an "oracy to literacy continuum" (Butler, 1999b, p. 15), and the emergence of powerful new evidence regarding language and literacy (Blachman, 1998; Catts & Kamhi, 1999; National Reading Council, 1999; Swanson, 1999) have highlighted the role of literacy in instruction throughout the nation.
The prioritization of literacy as a national goal has created a paradigm shift in terms of the instructional services professionals are expected to provide (Snow, Scarborough, & Burns, 1999; Van Kleeck, Gillam, & McFadden, 1998). Although classroom teachers have recognized the importance of literacy instruction for many years, the resurging emphasis on literacy awareness and skills encompasses all educational service providers. This growing emphasis suggests that not just new personnel, but seasoned professionals as well, may need specialized preparation to effectively meet the learning needs of ELLs (Butler, 1999b).
Although some SLPs and other professionals are well prepared and highly skilled in providing literacy instruction, many are not (Snow et al., 1999). For many years most SLPs saw themselves and their responsibilities primarily in terms of dealing with oral language (Fey, 1999; Stark, 1975, 1981). Given the growing scope and increasing areas of practice, SLPs can make a unique contribution to facilitating literacy because of the reciprocal relationships between spoken and written language (Butler, 1999b).
In spite of the challenges posed by the growing attention to literacy, this paradigm shift provides a common goal and set of expectations for defining and meeting the learning needs of ELLs (Snow et al., 1999). The expectation that all children receive appropriate literacy instruction offers compelling reasons for various professionals to identify shared knowledge bases, strategies, and skills. Inherent in such efforts is recognition of the depth of knowledge required to accurately determine and meet the literacy development needs of ELLs with communication disorders. The importance of collaboration becomes apparent in identifying assessment procedures, understanding instructional materials and resources, and using strategies and skills to promote literacy and academic achievement. A shared paradigm, such as a focus on literacy development, allows all professionals to contribute to this mission (Clair, 1998).
Identified Knowledge Base. Over the past several decades, research has begun to provide an identified professional knowledge base for working with ELLs (August & Hakuta, 1997; Cheng, 1996; Cornell, 1995; Cummins, 1992; Fradd & Lee, 1998). A special 1998 issue of the TESOL Quarterly (Freeman & Johnson, 1998a) focused on the current lack of a professional knowledge base and the importance of creating a comprehensive perspective on professional preparation that integrates the fields serving ELLs (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 1998; Bailey, Hawkins, et al., 1998; Freeman & Johnson, 1998b). In addition to highlighting the need for knowledge base development, the special issue also emphasized the importance of research in determining the most relevant and appropriate ways to prepare professionals to meet learners' needs (Burton, 1998; Clair, 1998; Freeman, 1998).
Sets of competencies have also been identified as important in preparing school personnel to work with ELLs with special needs (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1998a, 1998b; Baca et al., 1990; Battle, 1998; Kayser, 1995; Langdon & Cheng, 1992; Langdon & Saenz, 1996; Roseberry-McKibben, 1995; Yates & Ortiz, 1991), and four primary areas have been identified:
* An understanding of the process of second-language acquisition (Anderson, 1997; L. R. Campbell & Taylor, 1992; Chamot & O'Malley, 1990; Dopke, 1992a, 1992b; Flege, 1995; Goldstein, 2000; Hux, Morris-Friehe, & Sanger, 1993; Pennington, 1996)
* Skills in assessing academic and social language development (Adler, 1991; Cummins, 1984; Fradd & Larrinaga McGee, 1994; Kayser, 1998; Saenz, 1996; Stockman, 1996; Wang-Fillmore, 1991)
* Knowledge of appropriate materials and strategies for literacy and language learning (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1998b; Barrera, 1997; Cheng, 1998; DeLeon & McCarthy, 1998; Furniss & Green, 1991; Genesee, 1999; Hudelson, 1994)
* Cross-cultural communication in working with diverse students (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1985; Battle, 1998; Gutierrez-Clellen, Pena, & Quinn, 1995; Lynch & Hanson, 1992; McLean, 1981; Scarcella, 1990; O. Taylor, 1999)
The current knowledge base provides a foundation for addressing the needs of ELLs with communication disorders. The four areas just listed provide a coherent body of knowledge and skills for comprehensive cross-disciplinary personnel preparation. These topics can be addressed separately as a set of skills and competencies for specific groups or as courses and learning activities across professions.
Attitudes Toward Language Services. In discussing issues of cultural and linguistic diversity, the literature offers a caveat for all types of professionals serving diverse students: These professionals must examine their attitudes toward issues of diversity and be willing to transform any that create difficulties (Coleman & McCabe-Smith, 2000). This undertaking requires individuals to assess their own identities and recognize how these may influence students' learning opportunities (Baker, 1995; Banks, 1993; Hidalgo, 1993). Such analysis can lead to fundamental transformations in beliefs and practices (Cochran-Smith, 1995a, 1995b; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Valli, 1995).
Although research-based preparation programs encourages professionals to become aware of their own biases and to confront those biases in their professional practices, some individuals may consider these issues too challenging to address (Pate, 1992; Peterson & Barnes, 1996; Sleeter, 1993). Potential prejudices surround second language instruction (Edelsky, 1996; Krashen, 1999; Perea, 1997), and a variety of commonly held myths are associated with second language acquisition (Kayser, 1995; Krashen, 1996; Marshall, 2000). The following list offers examples of a few of the predominant prejudices and misconceptions:
* Language variations are deficiencies.
* Children learn two languages quickly and easily.
* The younger the child, the more skilled he or she will be in acquiring a second language.
* All children learn a second language in the same way or rate.
* Code-switching is evidence of a cognitive deficit (McLaughlin, 1992).
Although a thorough discussion of all of the myths and misconceptions is not possible here (see Note), eliminating these myths is essential to helping professionals understand the instructional process and the role of language in achievement. Holders of an instructional perspective believe that with appropriate opportunities, students of almost any age can acquire English or another language (V. Cook, 1995; Genesee & Nicoladis, 1995; Gutierrez-Clellen, 1998; McLaughlin, 1992). Guiterrez-Clellen (1999) conducted a comprehensive overview of the literature and made a compelling argument for a bilingual approach to therapy and instruction for ELLs with communication disorders. Research from a number of other sources also offers support for the concept of conducting interventions in the child's native language (Kayser, 1995; Kiernan & Swisher, 1990; Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992; Ovando & Collier, 1998).
Many well-meaning professionals focus on providing instruction and support services in English to the exclusion of the languages students bring to the learning process (Cheng, 1998; Edelsky, 1996; Perea, 1997). Although no one would argue against the importance of learning English, an overemphasis on it to the exclusion of other languages can limit, rather than promote students' opportunities to learn (Crawford, 1997; Pena & Valles, 1995) Such an emphasis can also be an indication of bias in recognizing students' strengths as well as their learning needs (Gutierrez-Clellen, 1999; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). From a critical sociocultural perspective, this attitude underscores the potential inequality in opportunities for and expectations of immigrants and mainstream learners. Portes and Rumbaut (1996) asserted:
The attempt to compel immigrants to shed their language is contrasted with the efforts of many native-born middle-class youth to acquire a foreign tongue in universities and other institutions of higher learning. There is irony in the comparison between the hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars put into acquiring a halting command of a foreign language and the pressure on fluent foreign-born speakers to abandon its use. These contradictory goals--English monolingualism for the immigrant masses but bilingualism or multilingualism for domestic elites--shed light on the actual underpinnings of linguistic nativism. (p. 221)
Misunderstandings and prejudices work against the implementation of effective instruction (Porter, 1990). Although potentially disturbing, analysis of such attitudes and practices can provide important insights for addressing issues of equity as well as instruction. When addressed from a research-into-practice perspective, these insights can be used to unify professionals in establishing equitable practices.
Even more important than the professional commonalities are the differences that exist. When well understood, these differences can serve as strengths in uniting professionals and encouraging sharing across disciplines. Professionals such as bilingual teachers and SLPs frequently think they know and understand the roles and responsibilities of other specialists, but a closer examination of actual practices provides a different picture (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Mitchell, 1990; Blosser, 1990; Fradd, 1992; Montgomery, 1990).
Because professionals in different fields receive preparation based on differing paradigms and programs, they may not be aware of potential areas for collaboration. An important initial step in the process of integrating services is identifying areas of expertise. Recognition of specific areas of knowledge can be useful in initiating dialogues about effective ways to organize programs, provide instruction, and integrate services (Blosser & Kratcoski, 1997; Fradd, 1992; Sands, 1993). In order to meet these challenges, professionals must become informed about practices for ELLs in their own field of expertise and in other professional areas (Gopaul-McNicol & Thomas-Presswood, 1998). Each person needs to understand other professionals' areas of expertise and potential growth.
General Education Teachers. General education teachers, for example, provide valuable information about literacy instruction in the context of mainstream education. Classroom teachers are usually aware of the state standards and the statewide assessment procedures and willingly share strategies for promoting students' performance on high-stakes, norm, and criteria-referenced tests (Gerber, 1987; Wood, 1998). Because they have the opportunity to observe many students in multiple contexts on a day-to-day basis, classroom teachers are often aware of students' behavior and learning interests (Scarcella, 1990). Although general education teachers have viewed reading and writing as the foundation blocks of instruction, the new emphasis on literacy requires that they integrate reading instruction with oral language development, a skill they may not have acquired (Jimenez & Gersten, 1999; Snow et al., 1999; Snyder & Downey, 1997). Classroom teachers may lack an understanding of ESOL and special education (Au, 1993).
ESOL Teachers. Language development specialists, such as ESOL professionals, are responsible for teaching the target language through a variety of approaches and frequently are able to recognize students' linguistic strengths and limitations. Many ESOL teachers know how to integrate language development with content area instruction while reducing linguistic task demands and maintaining a focus on content (Fradd, 1992). ESOL teachers frequently are aware of differences in academic and social language proficiency that can influence students' participation in classroom activities (Cummins, 1984; Hakuta, 1986). Many of them are also familiar with the ESOL standards and curriculum frameworks (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1997) but may lack knowledge of curricula and standards within the general education classroom context. ESOL educators often do not know about services provided in special education, and they may have greater preparation in oracy than in literacy (Au, 1993).
Bilingual Teachers. Language development specialists, such as bilingual professionals, are responsible for teaching students in some combination of their first and second languages and are frequently aware of students' strengths and limitations in their native languages as well as in English. They may also understand language acquisition within a broad framework that takes into account cross-cultural, home, school, and community variables (McGroarty, 1992). Bilingual teachers who are fluent in students' home languages are an important resource in integrating home and community support within an instructional plan (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998; Wang-Fillmore, 1991). They may be able to offer important insights about what students know and can do in their home languages. Bilingual teachers may lack preparation in moving from oracy to literacy (Edelsky, 1996) and may not be aware of the services provided in general or special education.
Special Education Teachers. Teachers and support personnel in special education provide appropriate instruction to learners with special learning needs. They are accountable for the design and delivery of a child's Individual Education Program (IEP) and are responsible for meeting state and federal guidelines regarding assessment and instruction (Wood, 1998). They often interact with general educators to provide students with instruction in the least restrictive environment. They are experienced at modifying instruction to facilitate content learning and at developing effective behavior management programs (Voltz & Elliot, 1990).
Although the spirit and letter of IDEA mandates a service delivery system that includes families as key decision makers (Bricker & Widerstrom, 1996), special education personnel may not understand the complexities of working with ELLs and their families (Bermudez & Padron, 1990; Ensle, 1992; Fields, 1993). They may require instructional assistance in integrating oral and written discourse, especially when the instruction involves using languages in addition to English (Gonzalez, Brusca-Vega, & Yawkey, 1997).
Speech-Language Pathologists. SLPs often play an important role in the assessment and determination of academic placement of ELLs with communication disorders. Frequently, it is their input that determines whether a student is diagnosed as demonstrating a language disability or language difference (Adler, 1991; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1998a; Battle, 1998; L. R. Campbell, 1996; Kayser, 1995; Langdon & Cheng, 1992; Roseberry-McKibben, 1995; O. Taylor, Payne, & Anderson, 1987; Van Keulen, Weddington, & DeBose, 1998).
Even when they lack preparation in the assessment and management of communication disorders with diverse students, SLPs are expected to identify and evaluate children with communication disorders and to plan and execute interventions based on their findings (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1998b; Coleman & Lieberman, 1995; J. Taylor, 1992). SLPs may lack an understanding of curriculum standards and their relevance for academic achievement. They may also require experience with classroom management or models of classroom-based intervention for ELLs with communicative disorders (Beck & Dennis, 1997; Coufal, 1993; Dohan & Schulz, 1998; Fradd, 1992). Within their expanding scope of practice, SLPs may not have the knowledge base to provide instruction along a continuum from oracy to literacy (Friel-Patti, 1999).
CREATING PROFESSIONAL CADRES
Educational reform initiatives have shaped policy regarding the instruction of ELLs. Advocates of inclusion through provision of instructional services in mainstream classrooms have created the expectation that ELLs and other students with special needs will be educated in the least restrictive environment (L. Cook & Friend, 1991). The Regular Education Initiative encourages educators to consider the general education classroom as the most appropriate instructional location and seeks to foster partnerships between general and special educators (Jenkins, Pious, & Jewell, 1990; Will, 1986).
In an effort to meet the unique needs of ELLs, the Educational Standards Board of ASHA (1985, 1989, 1995, 1998b) recommended a set of clinical competencies for SLPs. The establishment of these guidelines has created a basis from which to extend the professional knowledge base regarding educational services for ELLs with communication disorders. These initiatives provide both the impetus and framework for professional collaboration in working with ELLs within an optimal language-learning environment.
As the previous discussion suggests, each professional has the potential to make important contributions to the overall effectiveness of instructional programs for ELLs. Although each discipline brings strengths that can also be beneficial to professionals from the other disciplines, developing a cohesive cadre of professionals who share common goals and perspectives is by no means straightforward. One of the major obstacles to creating such a cadre is the high turnover rate of teachers, especially in urban centers and rural areas with high populations of diverse students (Abel & Stewart, 1999; Baca et al., 1990; Cooley & Yovanoff, 1996; Rosa-Lugo, Rivera, & McKeown, 1998; Stewart-Gonzales, 2000; Wald, 1996). Within this context, offering incentives and encouraging the motivation to grow professionally must be addressed.
Unfortunately, not everyone values collaboration or wants to learn or develop professionally (Behar & George, 1994). A study by Olsen (1997) of immigrants in the nation's public schools underscored this reality of troubling attitudes toward professional development. In her study of a high school referred to as "Madison," Olsen found that many teachers thought effective instruction for ELLs required no changes in the approaches or programs used with monolingual English-proficient students. Olsen explained this as follows:
Despite a state-mandated district plan written to remedy the shortage of available teachers to serve LEP [Limited English Proficient] students, few of the new hires at Madison have training or preparation to serve LEP students. Most teachers do not believe they need any additional training in order to serve the new diversity at Madison High, and most either bristle at suggestions that changes in what they do as teachers might be necessary, or simply go about their lives as teachers without giving it a thought. (p. 178)
In addition to a clear understanding of the expectations for meeting students' learning needs, professionals often need to comprehend why education reform is essential. Extrinsic motivation to learn and incentives for change--with time and opportunities for communicating--are also important ingredients, at least during the initial training-process stages (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997).
Numerous factors have been identified as essential for successful collaboration, including (a) shared common goals, (b) a belief that all members are equal participants and contributors, and (c) equal responsibility for the implementation of shared team decisions (Hudson & Fradd, 1990; Utley, 1992). Collaborators require comfortable environments where they can exchange information and develop common understandings, but such environments are not easily established or maintained without administrative incentives and support (Fradd, Barona, & Santos de Barona, 1989).
With regards to the development of collaborative structures, a variety of emerging professional development models have been described in the literature, including university-school partnerships (Clarke, Davis, Rhodes, & Baker, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 1996), teacher study groups (Clair, 1998; Francis, Hirsch, & Rowland, 1994) teacher networks and collaboratives (Lewis, 1997; Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1993), and action research (Check, 1997). The latter three models seek to provide professionals with sustained opportunities to explore, critique, and work on issues and challenges that have a direct impact on their lives and those of their students. By shaping their own professional development experiences, they can situate their work within the context of school reform. Although few of these models have been used to prepare personnel to effectively work with ELLs, even fewer have been implemented to prepare personnel to serve students with special needs who are in the process of learning English.
One essential factor to consider in adapting any available model is to determine how the model integrates preparation across professional areas. Among those researchers familiar with the current models, there is growing consensus that professional enhancement currently consists of short-term, skills-based approaches that tend to isolate professionals rather than promote meaningful interaction with colleagues (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Lieberman, 1995; Novick, 1996). As a result, many professionals are used to working and making decisions alone, with few links to or insights about the collaborative process (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995). Successful development of cadres of professionals is closely allied with the establishment of favorable environments that promote collaboration and mutual support (Secord & Wiig, 1991).
In spite of the growing need for cadres of professionals, preparation has not kept up with demand (Miller, 1995). Many educators in both general and special education programs have little or no training relating specifically to the education of ELLs (Roseberry-McKibbin & Eicholtz, 1994), and many SLPs lack sufficient or appropriate academic preparation regarding cultural and linguistic differences of ELLs (L.R. Campbell et al., 1992; L. R. Campbell & Taylor, 1992; Kayser, 1995; Stockman, 1996). Despite significant strides in the preparation of bilingual SLPs and other personnel, more than 85% of teachers believe they are not prepared to assess or instruct ELLs (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999), and a large proportion of practicing SLPs are not comfortable providing services to ELLs because they lack the required knowledge and training (Goldstein, 2000). Even those SLPs who have benefitted from that kind of exposure are seeking more knowledge about how they can apply the information in their everyday interactions with ELLs (Coleman, 2000).
The four areas of personnel preparation discussed earlier provide an important beginning for creating the knowledge base required to serve ELLs with communication disorders. Content from these four areas also offer opportunities for training across various professional groups to develop the skills and understandings necessary to promote effective communication and high levels of literacy development. Figure 1 presents an overview of the potential contributions of and learning opportunities for each group of professionals based on these four areas.
FIGURE 1. Overview of cadre development in four areas of knowledge base development.
Area 1: The Process of Second-Language Acquisition General education Contributions teachers * Insight into students' needs & performance on a daily basis * Understanding literacy instruction for typical learners Learning Opportunities * Understanding second language & literacy development * Awareness of communication disorders & language differences ESOL teachers Contributions * Knowledge of second-language acquisition process * Comparisons of students of same age, culture, & language backgrounds Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of normal language development & relevant norms * Awareness of influence of communication disorders on language learning Bilingual teachers Contributions * Knowledge of bilingualism & second-language learning * Recognition of importance of language learning & literacy development Learning Opportunities * Understanding of communication disorders in language & literacy development Special education Contributions teachers * Experience in modifying instruction to facilitate academic content Learning Opportunities * Differentiation of language differences & disabilities * Influence of communication disorder on second-language learning Speech-language Contributions pathologists * Understanding of normal & pathological language development Learning Opportunities * Understanding of similarities & differences in first & second language acquisition * Differentiation of language differences & disabilities Area 2: Skill in Academic & Social Language Assessment General education Contributions teachers * Knowledge of standardized, norm-referenced assessment * Observation & collection of meaningful data in regular contexts Learning Opportunities * Understanding of language proficiency testing * Use formal & informal methods of assessment/evaluation of ELLs ESOL teachers Contributions * Awareness of differences in academic & social language * Knowledgeable of language proficiency tests Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of assessment issues within communication disorders * Use formal & alternative methods of assessment/evaluation Bilingual teachers Contributions * Awareness of academic & social language proficiency assessment * Use tests available in the student's native language Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of assessment issues within communication disorders * Use formal & alternative methods of assessment/evaluation Special education Contributions teachers * Knowledge of student's strengths & needs * Knowledge of formal measures & informal assessment Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of the assessment of diverse students with communication disorders * Knowledge of tests for assessing language proficiency Speech-language Contributions pathologists * Use of assessment to determine communication disorder * College of language information from a variety of sources Learning Opportunities * Use of alternative measures of language, literacy & academic learning * Use of interpreters & translators in assessment Area 3: Materials & Strategies for Literacy & Academic Learning General education Contributions teachers * Knowledge of curricular frameworks & content standards * Knowledge of literacy development for typical students Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of strategies to facilitate equal access to curriculum * Knowledge of comprehensible input ESOL teachers Contributions * Knowledge of second-language learning strategies in content-area instruction * Knowledge of ESOL standards & curriculum frameworks Learning Opportunities * Adaptation of curriculum for ELLs with communication disorders * Knowledge of special education requirements in the instruction of ELLs Bilingual teachers Contributions * Use of the native language and culture in instruction * Use of instructional strategies to enhance literacy in native languages & English Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of special education requirements in the instruction of ELLs * Adaptation of curriculum for ELLs with communication disorders Special education Contributions teachers * Knowledge of individualizing instruction to facilitate academic learning * Development of effective behavior management programs Learning Opportunities * Understanding of typical second-language learning & bilingualism * Use of interpreters & translators in instruction Speech-language Contributions pathologists * Knowledge of intervention for language-related learning problems * Knowledgeable of methods to address communicative disorders Learning Opportunities * Use of interpreters & translators in instruction * Use of appropriate instructional methods & strategies for ELLs Area 4: Cross-Cultural Communication and Understanding General education Contributions teachers * Knowledge of ELLs in mainstream settings Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of cultural differences in language use * Collaboration across instructional areas ESOL teachers Contributions * Knowledge of ELLs in ESOL settings * Parent and community involvement Learning Opportunities * Collaboration across instructional areas Bilingual teachers Contributions * Use knowledge of culture & language in instruction * Communication with family and community members Learning Opportunities * Recognize indicators of communicative disorders & language proficiency * Collaboration across instructional areas Special education Contributions teachers * Knowledge of ELLs in special education settings Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of methods for working with diverse families * Collaboration across instructional areas Speech-language Contributions pathologists * Knowledge of ELLs in individual or small-group settings Learning Opportunities * Knowledge of interactional styles of diverse groups * Collaboration across instructional areas and disciplines
The diversity of the nation's school-age population is rapidly increasing and the challenge of ensuring that all students have access to appropriate opportunities for literacy and academic learning requires comprehensive educational reform and collaboration among professionals at all levels and across disciplines. Successful collaboration depends upon in the capacity of professionals to develop their own areas of expertise and their willingness to merge their skills in developing cadres to promote student achievement.
The challenge occurs in integrating the roles of the various professionals to build on their diverse and specialized expertise while integrating their perspectives concerning ELLs and their capacities to serve them (Graden & Bauer, 1992). Little is known about the preparation and functioning of cadres of professionals who effectively assess and instruct ELLs. Even less is known about meeting the needs of ELLs with communication disorders in the context of interdisciplinary service provision.
One of our purposes in writing this article was to call attention to the need for research that would form the knowledge base upon which professionals can draw to more effectively address students' learning needs. In spite of important recent developments in the field, as the special issue of the TESOL Quarterly underscored, the available research on preparing personnel to work with typical students is insufficient, and without an understanding of typical language learning and literacy development, it is difficult to differentiate disability from difference. As a result, professionals are dependent on their shared understandings of students' learning needs to make informed decisions and provide effective programs. A dual focused agenda is necessary to create this knowledge base. The first focus should be on (a) developing an expanded knowledge base concerning professionals' work with students that resulted in successful achievement and (b) determining how it can be effectively applied with culturally and linguistically diverse students. The second focus should be on determining the components professional cadres will need in order to provide appropriate assessment and instructional services to ELLs with communication disorders. As a part of this undertaking, the professional development structures and environments that encourage collaboration and promote the contributions and needs of professional groups must be identified. School districts, universities, and state departments of education that make such efforts are contributing to the process of identifying and preparing cadres with both specialized and comprehensive expertise needed to serve ELLs.
Although this article has suggested areas of exploration in both knowledge base development and personnel preparation, such endeavors themselves require cross-disciplinary collaboration. Research efforts by educational leaders to generate the knowledge basis upon which professionals can draw to more effectively address students' learning needs can also contribute to the growing body of knowledge concerning meeting the learning needs of ELLs and those who serve them. The current movement toward educational reform makes this the time to review previous accomplishments as we begin to break new ground in promoting effective learning opportunities for all students and those responsible for their education.
We would like to thank the professionals in the 10 central Florida school districts (Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia) for their thoughtful comments about the challenges in meeting the needs of ELLs with communicative disorders that led to this manuscript. We also thank Dr. Jeniffer Dutka, Dr. Kenyatta O. Rivers, and Elizabeth Rivera for their editorial comments.
The interested reader can find a more detailed discussion in Goldstein (2000), Kayser (1995, 1998), and McCaughlin (1992).
Abel, M., & Stewart, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 287-293.
Adler, S. (1991). Assessment of language proficiency of limited English proficient speakers: Implications for the speech-language specialist. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 12-18.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1985). Clinical management of communicatively handicapped minority language populations. ASHA, 27(6), 29-32.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1989). Definition: Bilingual speech-language pathologists and audiologists. ASHA, 31 (3), 93.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1995). Reading lists on multicultural populations for independent study. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1998a). Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of the schoolbased speech-language pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1998b). Provision of ESL instruction by SLPs in school settings (Position Statement, Technical Report). ASHA, 40, 24-27.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1999). Semi-annual count of the ASHA membership and affiliation, January 1-June 30, 1999. Rockville, MD: Author.
Anderson, R. T. (1997). Examining language loss in bilingual children. Newsletter of the Special Interest Division: Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 3, 2-5. (Available form the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852)
Au, K. (1993). Literacy instruction in the multicultural setting. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Baca, L., Fradd, S., & Collier, C. (1990). Progress in preparing personnel to meet the needs of handicapped limited English proficient students: Results of a survey in three highly impacted states. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 7, 5-20.
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, R, & Mitchell, S. (1990). Work design, role conflict and role ambiguity: The case of elementary and secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 415-432.
Bailey, K., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (1998). Undeniable insights: The collaborative use of three professional development practices. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 546-555.
Bailey, K., Hawkins, M., Irujo, S., Larsen-Freeman, D., Rintell, E., & Willett, I. (1998). Language teacher educators collaborative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 536-545.
Baker, C. (1995). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ball, E. B. (1997). Phonological awareness: Implications for whole language and emergent literacy programs. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(3), 14-26.
Banks, J. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions and practice. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 19, pp. 3-49). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Barrera, R. (1997, November). Insights into U. S. children's English-as-a-second language (ESL) reading. Presentation at the Annual Convention of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages, Orlando, FL.
Battle, D. (1998). Communication disorders in multicultural populations (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Beck, A., & Dennis, M. (1997). Speech-language pathologists and teachers: Perceptions of classroom-based interventions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 146-153.
Behar, L., & George, P. (1994). Teachers as change agents: Implications for how teachers use curriculum knowledge. Professional Education Research Quarterly, 16(1), 8-11.
Bermudez, A. B., & Padron, Y. N. (1990). Improving language skills for Hispanic students through home-school partnerships. Journal of Educational Issues of Language-Minority Students, 6, 33-43.
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 137-174.
Blachman, B. (1998). Phonological awareness and word recognition: Assessment and intervention. In S. Kamhi & H. Catts (Eds.), Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective (pp. 133-158). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Blosser, J. (1990). A strategic planning process for service delivery changes. In W. Secord & E. Wiig (Eds.), Best practices in school speech-language pathology (pp. 81-88). San Antonio: Psychological Corp.
Blosser, J., & Kratcoski, A. (1997). PACs: A framework for determining appropriate service delivery options. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 99-107.
Brice, A. (1994). Spanish or English for language impaired Hispanic children? In D. Ripich & N. Creaghead (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 133153). San Diego: Singular.
Brice, A., & Montgomery, J. (1996). Adolescent pragmatic skills: A comparison of Latino students in ESL and speech and language programs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 68-81.
Bricker, D., & Widerstrom, A. (1996). Preparing personnel to work with infants and young children and their families. Baltimore: Brookes.
Burton, J. (1998). A cross-case analysis of teacher involvement in TESOL research. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 419-446.
Butler, K. G. (1999a). From the editor. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), iv-v.
Butler, K. G. (1999b). From oracy to literacy: Changing clinical perceptions. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), 14-32.
Campbell, L. R. (1996). Issues in service delivery to African American children. In A. Kamhi, K. Pollock, & J. Harris (Eds.), Communication development and disorders in African American children (pp. 73-93). Baltimore: Brookes.
Campbell, L. R., Brennan, D. G., & Steckol, K. F. (1992). Preservice training to meet the needs of people from diverse cultural backgrounds. ASHA, 34, 27-32.
Campbell, L. R., & Taylor, O. L. (1992). ASHA-certified speech-language pathologists: Perceived competency levels with selected skills. The Howard Journal of Communications, 3 (3/4), 163-176.
Campbell, P. R. (1996). Population projections for states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division.
Canady, C. J., & Krantz, S. G. (1996). Reading and communication: A comparison of proficient and less proficient fourth-grade readers opinion. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 27, 231-237.
Catts, H. W. (1991). Early identification of reading disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 1-16.
Catts, H. W. (1993). The relationship between speech-language impairment and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 948958.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1986). The linguistic basis of reading disorders: Implications for the speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 329-341.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chamot, A. U. & O'Malley, J. M. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Check, J. (1997). Teacher research as powerful professional development. Harvard Education Letter, 13(3), 6-8.
Cheng, L. (1996). Enhancing communication toward optimal language learning for limited English proficient students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 347-354.
Cheng, L. (1998). Intervention strategies for CLD students with speech-language disorders. In B. Ford (Ed.), Compendium: Writings on effective practices for culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners (pp. 47-56). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 465-492.
Clarke, M., Davis, A., Rhodes, L., & Baker, E. D. (1998). Principles of collaboration in school-university partnerships. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 592-600.
Cloud, N. (1993). Language, culture and disability: Implications for instruction and teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 60-72.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1995a). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493-522.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1995b). Uncertain allies: Understanding the boundaries of race and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 541-570.
Coleman, T. J. (2000). Clinical management of communication disorders in culturally diverse children. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Coleman, T. J., & Lieberman, R. J. (1995, November). Preparing speech-language pathologists for work with diverse populations: A survey. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Anaheim, CA.
Coleman, T. J., & McCabe-Smith, L. (2000). Culturally appropriate service delivery: Some considerations. In T. J. Coleman (Ed.), Clinical management of communication disorders in culturally diverse children (pp. 1330). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Collaboration in special education: Coming of age in the 1990's. Preventing School Failure, 35(2), 24-27.
Cook, V. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(2), 93-98.
Cooley, E., & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk: Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62, 336-355.
Cornell, C. (1995). Reducing failure of LEP students in the mainstream classroom and why it is important. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 15, 123-145.
Coufal, K. (1993). Collaborative consultation for speech-language pathologists. Topics in Language Disorders, 14(1), 1-14.
Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the bilingual education act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1992). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In C. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: California State University.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking professional development. Education Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.
DeLeon, J., & McCarthy, L. (1998). A study of effective instructional practices by monolingual English-speaking and bilingual/bicultural teachers in five programs serving Hispanic preschoolers with developmental disabilities. In B. Ford (Ed.), Compendium: Writings on effective practices for culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners (pp. 57-69). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Dohan, M., & Schulz, H. (1998). The speech-language pathologist's changing role: Collaboration within the classroom. Journal of Children's Communication Development, 20, 9-18.
Dopke, S. (1992a). Approaches to first language acquisition: Evidence from dependent clause development in simultaneous bilingualism. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 137-150.
Dopke, S. (1992b). A bilingual child's struggle to comply with the "one-parent-one-language rule. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13, 467-485.
Edelsky, C. (Ed.). (1996). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and education. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Ensle, A. L. (1992). Teachers' insights: Critical elements in parental involvement of culturally and linguistically diverse parents. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(3/4), 141-143.
Faltis, C., & Hudelson, S. (1998). Bilingual education in elementary and secondary school communities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fey, M. E. (1999). Speech-language pathology and the early identification and prevention of reading disabilities. Perspectives, 25, 13-17.
Fields, B. (1993). Teacher perceptions of the school adjustment of children from single parent families--The Australian experience. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 18(2), 3-8.
Flege, J. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 233-277). Baltimore: York Press.
Fradd, S. H. (December, 1992) Collaboration in schools serving students with limited English proficiency and other special needs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Fradd, S. H., Barona, A., & Santos de Barona, M. (1989). Implementing change and monitoring progress. In S. H. Fradd & M. J. Weismantel (Eds.), Meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students: A handbook for educators (pp. 63-105). Boston: Little, Brown.
Fradd, S. H., & Larrinaga McGee, E (1994). Instructional assessment: An integrative approach to evaluating student performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1998). Development of a knowledge base for ESOL teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 761-773.
Francis, S., Hirsch, S., & Rowland, E. (1994). Improving school culture through study groups. Journal of Staff Development, 15, 36-39.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998a). Research and practice in English language teacher education [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3).
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998b). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-416.
Friel-Patti, S. (1999). Foreword. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), vi-vii.
Furniss, E., & Green, E (Eds.). (1991). The literacy agenda: Issues for the nineties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Genesee, E (Ed.). (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Center for Research on Educational Diversity and Excellence.
Genesee, E, & Nicoladis, E. (1995). Language development in bilingual preschool children. In E. Garcia, B. McLaughlin, B. Spodek, & O. Saracho (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education (pp. 18-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gerber, A. (1987). Collaboration between SLPs and educators: A continuing education process. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 11, 107-123.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69-72.
Goldstein, B. (2000). Cultural and linguistic diversity resource guide for speech-language pathologists. San Diego: Singular.
Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., & Yawkey, T. (1997). Assessment and instruction of culturally and linguistically diverse students with or at-risk of learning problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gopaul-McNicol, S., & Thomas-Presswood, T. (1998). Working with linguistically and culturally different children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Graden, J. L., & Bauer, A. M. (1992). Using a collaborative approach to support students and teachers in inclusive classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum consideration in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (pp. 85-100). Baltimore: Brookes.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. E (1998). Syntactic skills of Spanish-speaking children with low school achievement. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 207-215.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. E (1999). Language choice in intervention with bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 291302.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. E, Pena, E., & Quinn, R. (1995). Accommodating cultural differences in narrative styles. Topics in Language Disorders, 15(4), 54-67.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Hidalgo, N. M. (1993). Multicultural teacher introspection. In T. Perry & J. W. Fraser (Eds.), Freedom's plow: Teaching in the multicultural classroom (pp. 99-106). New York: Routledge.
Hudelson, S. (1994). Literacy development of second language children. In E Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 129-158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, P. V., & Fradd, S. H. (1990). Cooperative planning for learners with limited English proficiency. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2, 16-21.
Hux, K., Morris-Friehe, M., & Sanger, D. (1993). Language sampling practices: A survey of nine states. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 84-91.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (amended). (1990). Education for the Handicapped Law Report. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., & Raynes, M. (1995). Interpreting students with moderate and severe disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61, 425-439.
Jenkins, J. R., Pious, C. G., & Jewell, M. (1990). Special education and the Regular Education Initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children, 56, 479-491.
Jimenez, R. T., & Gersten, R. (1999). Lessons and dilemmas derived from the literacy instruction of two Latino/a teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 265-302.
Kayser, H. (1995). Bilingual speech-language pathology. An Hispanic focus. San Diego: Singular.
Kayser, H. (1998). Assessment and intervention resource for Hispanic children. San Diego: Singular.
Kiernan, B., & Swisher, L. (1990). The initial learning of novel English words: Two single-subject experiments with minority-language children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 707-716.
Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.
Krashen, S. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreammakers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Langdon, H., & Cheng, L. L. (Eds.). (1992). Hispanic children and adults with communication disorders: Assessment and intervention. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Langdon, H. W., & Saenz, T. I. (1996). Language assessment and intervention with multicultural students. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
Lewis, A. C. (1997). A new consensus emerges on the characteristics of good professional development. Harvard Education Letter, 13(3), 1-4.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-596.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151.
Lynch, E., & Hanson, M. (Eds.). (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence. Baltimore: Brookes.
Marshall, B. (2000, February 9). Is there a child advantage in learning a foreign language? Education Week, 19(22), 39, 41.
McGroarty, M. (1992). The social context of bilingual education. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 7-9.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every teacher needs to unlearn (National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, Educational Practice Report 5) Santa Cruz: University of California.
McLean, D. G. (1981). Bilingual special education programs: A needs study based on a survey of directions of bilingual and special education in U. S. school districts receiving Title VII ESEA funds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
McNeilly, L., & Coleman, T. (2000). Language disorders in culturally diverse populations: Interventions and strategies. In T. J. Coleman (Ed.), Clinical management of communication disorders in culturally diverse children (pp. 157-172). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Miller, E. (1995). The old model of staff development survives in a world where everything else has changes. Harvard Education Letter, 11 (1), 1-3.
Montgomery, J. (1990). Building administrative support for collaboration. In W. Secord & E. Wiig (Eds.), Best practices in school speech-language pathology (pp. 75-79). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Montgomery, J. (1994). Federal legislation affecting school settings. In R. Lubinski & C. Frattali (Eds.), Professional issues in speech-language pathology and audiology (pp. 201-217). San Diego: Singular.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). The condition of education, 1992 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Reading Council. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children's reading success. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Novick, R. (1996). Actual schools, possible practices: New directions in professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4, 1-14.
Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York: The New Press.
Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Pate, G. (1992). Reducing prejudice in society: The role of schools. In C. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural education for the 21st century (pp. 137-149). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Pena, E., & Valles, L. (1995). Language assessment and instructional programming for linguistically different learners: Proactive classroom practices. In H. Kayser (Ed.), Bilingual speech-language pathology: An Hispanic focus (pp. 129-150). San Diego: Singular.
Pennington, M. C. (1996). Cross-language effect in biliteracy. Language and Education, 10, 254-272.
Perea, J. E (Ed.). (1997). Immigrants! The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States. New York: New York University Press.
Perozzi, J., & Sanchez, M. (1992). The effect of instruction in L1 on receptive acquisition of L2 for bilingual children with language delay. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 348-352.
Peterson, P. L., & Barnes, C. (1996). Learning together: The challenge of mathematics, equity, and leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 485-491.
Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books.
Porter, R. P. (1999/2000). The benefits of English immersion. Educational Leadership, 57, 52-60.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Quezada, M. S., Wiley, T. G., & Ramirez, J. D. (1999/2000). How the reform agenda shortchanges English learners. Educational Leadership, 57, 57-61.
Reading Excellence Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277.
Rosa-Lugo, L., Rivera, E., & McKeown, S. (1998). Meeting the critical shortage of speech-language pathologists to serve the public schools--Collaborative rewards. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 232-242.
Roseberry-McKibben, C. (1995). Multicultural students with special language needs. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
Roseberry-McKibben, C., & Eicholtz, G. E. (1994). Serving limited English proficient children in schools: A national survey. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 156-164.
Saenz, T. I. (1996). An overview of second-language acquisition. In H. Langdon & T. I. Saenz (Eds.), Language assessment and intervention with multicultural students--A guide for speech-language-hearing professionals (pp. 51-59). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
Sands, R. (1993). "Can you overlap here?": A question for an interdisciplinary team. Discourse Processes, 16, 545-564.
Scarcella, R. (1990). Teaching language minority students in the multicultural classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Secord, W., & Wiig, E. (1991). Developing a collaborative language intervention program. Buffalo, NY: Educom Associates.
Sleeter, C. E. (1993). How white teachers construct race. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity and representation in education (pp. 157-171). New York: Routledge.
Snow, C. E., Scarborough, H. S., & Burns, M. S. (1999). What speech-language pathologists need to know about early reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1) 48-58.
Snyder, L. S., & Downey, D. M. (1997). Developmental differences in the relationship between oral language deficits and reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(3), 27-41.
Stark, J. (1975). Reading failure: A language-based problem. Asha, 17(12), 832-834.
Stark, J. (1981). Reading: What needs to be assessed? Topics in Language Disorders, 18(1), 87-94.
Stewart-Gonzales, L. (2000). Service delivery in rural areas. In T. J. Coleman (Ed.), Clinical management of communication disorders in culturally diverse children (pp. 129-155). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stockman, I. (1996). The promises and pitfalls of language sample analysis as an assessment tool for linguistic minority children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 355-366.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Improving instruction of students with learning disabilities: The results of three research syntheses. In Keys to successful learning: A national summit on research in learning disabilities (pp. 911). New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Taylor, J. (1992). Speech-language pathology services in the schools (2nd ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, O. (1999). Cultural issues and language acquisition. In O. Taylor & L. Leonard (Eds.), Language acquisition across North America: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 21-38). San Diego: Singular.
Taylor, O., Payne, K., & Anderson, N. (1987). Distinguishing between communication disorders and communication differences. Seminars in Speech and Language, 8, 415-427.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (1997). ESL standards for Pre-K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993). Current population reports, P25-1104, Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1993 to 2050. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Department of Education. (1996). Eighteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Reston, VA: National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education.
Utley, J. (1992, July). Professional teaming for meeting the needs of children and youth with severe disabilities. Paper presented at the Second National Symposium on Effective Communication for Children and Youth with Severe Disabilities, Washington, DC.
Valli, L. (1995). The dilemma of race: Learning to be color blind and color conscious. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 120-129.
Van Keulen, J., Weddington, G., & DeBose, C. (Eds.), (1998). Speech, language, learning, and the African American child. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Van Kleeck, A. (1990). Emergent literacy: Learning about print before learning to read. Topics in Language Disorders, 10 (Suppl. 2), 25-45.
Van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R. B., & McFadden, T. U. (1998). A study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7(3), 65-76.
Voltz, D. L., & Elliot, R. N. (1990). Resource room teacher roles in promoting interaction with regular educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 160-166.
Wald, J. (1996). Culturally and linguistically diverse professionals in special education: A demographic analysis. Reston, VA: National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, Council for Exceptional Education.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility (A Report to the Secretary). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49-60). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, M. (1998). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 181-195.
Yates, J. R., & Ortiz, A. A. (1991). Professional development needs of teachers who serve exceptional language minorities in today's schools. Teachers Education and Special Education, 14, 11-18.
Linda I. Rosa-Lugo, EdD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Communicative Disorders at the University of Central Florida. Among other areas, her research includes dialect usage and language development in second-language learners. Sandra H. Fradd, PhD, is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Miami, where is chair of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Program. As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research on Excellence and Diversity in Education funded by the U.S. Department of Education, this TESOL program was selected as a national model teacher preparation program. Address: Linda I. Rosa-Lugo, Department of Communicative Disorders, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 200, Orlando, FL 32826; e-mail: email@example.com
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Rosa-Lugo, Linda I.; Fradd, Sandra H.|
|Publication:||Communication Disorders Quarterly|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2000|
|Previous Article:||Invented Spelling: An Assessment and Intervention Protocol for Kindergarten Children.|
|Next Article:||Advancing the Discussion on Communication and Violence.|