Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners PDF

Exceptionality A Special Education Journal ISSN: 0936-2835 (Print) 1532-7035 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20 Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners: The Need for Continued Advocacy John J. Hoover & Laurie U. deBet...

Exceptionality A Special Education Journal ISSN: 0936-2835 (Print) 1532-7035 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20 Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners: The Need for Continued Advocacy John J. Hoover & Laurie U. deBettencourt To cite this article: John J. Hoover & Laurie U. deBettencourt (2018) Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners: The Need for Continued Advocacy, Exceptionality, 26:3, 176-189, DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2017.1299530 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1299530 Published online: 24 Mar 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3308 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 6 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hexc20 1 EXCEPTIONALITY 2018, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 176–189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1299530 Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners: The Need for Continued Advocacy John J. Hoovera and Laurie U. deBettencourtb University of Colorado Boulder; bJohns Hopkins University a ABSTRACT Recent political, fiscal, and educational equity challenges require a renewed emphasis in our efforts to advocate for increased culturally and linguistically responsive education, making certain to further advance the accomplishments of the past four decades. The education of diverse exceptional learners is well established within the fields of special education and culturally and linguistically diverse education. However, drawing on several contemporary features that currently shape education in today’s schools, the authors examine the need for continued special education advocacy to ensure appropriate referral, assess- ment, and instruction of all culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional (CLDE) learners within the changing pre-K-postsecondary teaching and learning environments. Implications and recommendations for educator preparation at the pre and inservice levels are provided to guide the future development of teachers of CLDE learners. Educator preparation, instructional best practice, student outcomes, and teacher accountability continue to be significantly shaped by the influences of diversity at the intersection of disability. The special education sub-field that focuses on the teaching of culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional (CLDE) learners is at a crossroads given the (a) significant increases of numbers of diverse learners in today’s schools, (b) lack of commensurate increases in the diversity of the teacher workforce, (c) challenging funding structures for teacher preparation, and (d) continued widening of the achievement gap for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) populations, particularly in the area of literacy. Although concern for and education of CLDE learners has existed for several decades, at minimum four contemporary initiatives threaten associated inclusion and equity advances requiring continued educator advocacy at this time: (1) the increasing number of alternative licensure teacher preparation programs with minimum requirements; (2) the recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; see http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn;) with little reference to bilingual educator prepara- tion; (3) the elimination of Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) funding for educator preparation programs targeted for teaching diverse learners with mild-moderate high incidence needs; and (4) the continued high rates of special education referrals of CLD learners. These contemporary issues require a redoubling of efforts by special educators to remain vigilant in advocating for proper instruction, referral, assessment, and eligibility decision-making for culturally and linguistically diverse learners to make certain previous successes are maintained, enhanced, and further applied in instructional and assessment practices. Although these discussions may include and be appropriate for educating culturally and linguistically diverse individuals with a range of skills and abilities, our use of the term “exceptional” is limited to diverse learners with learning and behavioral disabilities excluding students who are intellectually gifted. The purpose of this article is to examine key features that continue to challenge the education of CLDE learners. A conceptual model framing diversity features is presented followed by discussion of CONTACT John J. Hoover [email protected] University of Colorado Boulder, 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. © 2017 Taylor & Francis 2  EXCEPTIONALITY 177 the critical significance of continued dialogue, understanding, and advancement of the features to best educate culturally and linguistically diverse learners, with or without disabilities, in light of contemporary political, fiscal, and educational equity challenges. Conceptual framework The diversity of our student population in our schools continues to evolve to the level that requires educator preparation programs to revisit training practices, areas of emphasis, and curriculum. Over the past few decades, the number of students representing diverse cultures and associated languages has increased significantly (Hoover, Baca, & Klingner, 2016), creating unique challenges for CLDE learners and their educators. Reviews of relevant literature and consideration of contemporary initiatives, both educational and political, suggest attention to the following six features is necessary for maintaining and advancing advocacy for CLDE learners in today’s schools (see Hoover & Erickson, 2015; Klingner & Geisler, 2016; Orosco, de Schonewise, de Onis, Klingner, & Hoover, 2016). For purposes of this article, the term advocacy refers to continuously striving “toward an educational vision that enacts social justice and educational equity for everyone” (Valle & Connor, 2011, p. 208). Valle and Connor further stated that one’s “role as a teacher advocate will contribute greatly toward building and sustaining an inclusive school environment” (p. 214). The six features in the contemporary framework illustrated in Figure 1 include student and educator demographics; referral, assessment, and disproportionate representation; ESSA and diver- sity; diverse cultural perspectives about disability; special educator federal funding; and multi-tiered system of supports and diversity. The features are not considered to be all-inclusive; rather it is believed that they reflect current knowledge and skill sets necessary to maintain and expand equitable education for all diverse students, especially those with disabilities. Of particular note is that although the six conceptual features illustrated in the figure and discussed are relevant to all culturally and linguistically diverse learners, they are especially sig- nificant to CLDE learners. Students with disabilities who represent diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds require simultaneous educational attention to both diversity and disability to be provided sufficient and appropriate opportunities to learn as summarized in Table 1, developed from several sources cited in the discussions. Figure 1. Six essential features shaping CLDE learner advocacy. 3 178 J. J. HOOVER AND L. U. DEBETTENCOURT Table 1. Conceptual issues and the education of CLDE learners. Conceptual Issue Significance to CLDE Learners Student and Educator Demographics An increase in the numbers of diverse learners in schools may lead to an increase of diverse learners with disabilities, requiring educators to obtain training specific to both cultural and linguistic diversity along with learning and behavior disabilities to best teach CLDE learners. Referral, Assessment, Disproportionate Educators of diverse learners placed for a disability must remain cognizant of the Representation possibility that some students may have been inappropriately referred and subsequently misplaced, and therefore annual and triennial IEP assessments and associated meetings represent significant points in time to remedy any misplacements and associated disproportionate representation. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) ESSA addresses educational features specific to diverse learners and students with disabilities within individual contexts; however, CLDE learners operate in both contexts simultaneously, requiring educators to possess an understanding of the interaction among diversity and disability to best meet the needs of CLDE learners within the parameters of ESSA. Diverse Cultural Perspectives and The concept of disability varies by culture, and once placed, CLDE learners require Disability educators who possess an understanding of how the learner’s family and community perceive a disability and its implications in society to best make informed individualized instructional plans and adjustments. Special Educator Federal Funding CLDE learners require educators who possess contemporary skill sets obtained through training funded in part by the Department of Education, and reductions in this funding has direct impact on diverse learners with disabilities. Multi-tiered System of Supports CLDE learners continue to be educated within the school’s MTSS framework, and for best (MTSS) results general classroom teachers, English language development specialists, and special educators must collaborate to meet the combined and integrated diversity and disability needs unique to CLDE learners. Feature 1: Student and educator demographics According to Aceves and Orosco (2014), the percent of learners in schools coming from homes that represent cultural and linguistic diversity (CLD) increased nearly 10% over the past decade. Additionally, the population of English language learners (ELLs) has doubled over the same time period (Fernandez & Inserra, 2013). Looking forward, Herrera, Perez, and Escamilla (2015) esti- mated that within the next decade approximately one in four students will be ELLs. In addition, Herrera and colleagues wrote that increases in diverse student populations are seen in both urban and rural communities. Diversity and language Although the primary language, other than English, seen in today’s schools is Spanish, over the years many other languages have become prevalent. Orosco and colleagues (2016) reviewed existing statistics and determined that currently Spanish represents the language predominately spoken by approximately 70% of the second language student population, with nearly 30% of second language learners bringing a language other than Spanish to the classroom. Additionally, the trend in distribution of languages is changing as those other than Spanish become more prevalent in different regions of the country (Orosco et al., 2016). For example, although nationally the number of students with a Spanish-speaking background represents the majority of second language learners, this reality may not be seen in specific geographic locations throughout our nation (e.g., Somali-speaking population in the upper Midwest; Mandarin Chinese– speaking population in the West, Hmong-speaking population in select southern states, etc.). Since special educator preparation reflects a workforce that is distributed across various levels (i.e., national, state, local), and prepared through several different avenues or programs (e.g., Institutions of Higher Education [IHE’s], alternative licensure programs including Teach for America and other alternative educator academies, local school system professional development programs, etc.) we must make certain that the conceptual models used to prepare educators for teaching CLDE learners incorporate educational supports and interventions associated with 4  EXCEPTIONALITY 179 multiple languages and cultures (see Hoover, Klingner, Baca, & Patton, 2008). Also important to consider is the reality that language is interconnected with culture, and just as CLD students with disabilities bring a second language to the classroom they also bring their cultural values, teachings, and heritages that directly affect teaching, learning, and assessment (Hoover & Bartletta, 2016). Diversity and disability Regarding diverse learners with disabilities, Watkins and Liu (2013) reported that although demo- graphic numbers are difficult to pinpoint, due in part to the complexities associated with combined variables of disability and limited English proficiency, approximately 8% to 9% of all students identified with a disability are ELLs. Watkins and Liu also suggested, “English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities represent an increasingly larger segment of the K-12 student population in the US” (p. 2). Karger (2013) supported this perspective reporting that the number of ELLs increased significantly over the past couple of decades, leading to more CLD learners identified for special education. Additionally, Lo (2013) documented “as our US population continues to get more diverse, the number of English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities continues to grow” (p. 30). In summary, CLD and disability features characterizing the trends in changing demographics include (a) increased representation in schools from culturally and linguistically diverse families and homes; (b) shifts in the number and prevalence of non-English languages going beyond Spanish; (c) diverse student populations increasingly living in rural communities (Hoover & Erickson 2015; Shim, 2013); (d) increased numbers of diverse learners with disabilities reflective of the increases of CLD learners in our schools; and (e) expectations that these trends will continue, leading to an even more culturally and linguistically diverse student population, with or without disabilities, over the next 20 years. Diversity and educator demographics A critical concern, and one that requires advocacy at all levels, is the lack of commensurate shifts in teacher demographics to better reflect the evolving student demographics (US Department of Education National Center for Statistics, 2016). Recent statistics reported by various researchers highlight a consistent “mono- racial” teaching workforce. For example, Aceves and Orosco (2014) wrote that in 2012 more than 80% of the teaching force was White. Herrera, Perez, and Escamilla (2015) placed this estimate at nearly 90% clearly showing a lack of diversity in the teaching workforce. In addition to a lack of diversity in ethnicity, many classroom teachers feel unprepared to work with second language learners (Tyler & Garcia, 2013), affecting their ability to adapt or adjust curricula to value students’ cultural and linguistic strengths and qualities. This in turn perpetuates the current instructional situation in many of our schools that reflects (a) lack of ethnic diversity among the teaching workforce (Aceves & Orosco, 2014), (b) diverse classrooms that often lack use of native language or delivery of proper English as a second language programming (Klingner, de Schonewise, de Onis, & Barletta, 2016), and (c) use of curricula and methods designed primarily for middle-class, English-speaking students with little regard for diverse cultural and linguistic characteristics of CLD learners (Hoover, Klingner, Baca, & Patton, 2008). Additionally, a well-prepared diverse workforce (i.e., educators capable of delivering culturally and linguistically responsive teaching), provides opportunities for general educators to make necessary data-driven instructional adjustments and interpretations from multiple assessments, and relate these to a diverse context of learning (Hoover, 2016). Therefore, these diverse student, educator, and language demographics have immediate and significant effects on delivery of general and special education services, highlighting the need for continued advocacy of CLD learners. Feature 2: Referral, assessment, and disproportionate representation Disproportionate representation of diverse learners referred to special education continues to be a central issue in the education of CLD learners: “Disproportionality is a critical and complex issue facing our nation’s education system, and special education professionals can and should play a role 5 180 J. J. HOOVER AND L. U. DEBETTENCOURT in solving this challenge” (CEC Policy Insider, 2016). Additionally, such disproportionality is inextricable linked to proper referral and assessment of diverse learners. Regarding referral procedures and diversity, continued misunderstanding of CLD learners with special education needs requires renewed attention especially in reference to referral procedures that reflect contemporary cultural and linguistic features. For example, Hoover and Erickson (2015) identified ten factors necessary to consider in order to gather appropriate data for possible referrals for special education for English learners (ELs), including (a) attention to appropriate English language development, (b) culturally and linguistically responsive multi-tiered instruction, (c) allowing use of both native and English languages in the instructional environment, and (d) observed uses of research-based instructional methods validated with second language or other diverse students. In addition, it has been shown that “general educators are often unable to distinguish students whose academic problems are an artifact of limited English proficiency from those whose difficulties are associated with disabilities” (Ortiz et al., 2011, p. 317). The overrepresentation of diverse learners in special education persists, even though decades of efforts to reduce misplacement through proper referrals have occurred (Hoover & Klingner, 2011; Hoover & Erickson, 2015; Ortiz, 2002; Ortiz et al., 2011). In reference to assessment and diversity, the limited use of culturally and linguistically responsive practices also continues to contribute to misplacement of English language and other diverse learners in special education. Specifically, Hoover and Klingner (2011) wrote “there seems to be a disconnec- tion between what is known about the need for non-biased assessment procedures and what actually happens in practice” (p. 159). When considering special education eligibility assessment for CLD learners, the topic of norming usually arises. Specifically, at minimum, three norming issues continue to frame assessment concerns for English language and other diverse learners (Basterra, Trumbull, & Solano-Flores, 2011): Issue 1. Achievement tests in English often yield inaccurate results due to ELLs’ language proficiency levels; Issue 2. Achievement tests in English for students in beginning or intermediate stages of second language acquisition often become English language tests rather than an effective means for measuring acquired content knowledge and skills; and Issue 3. Assessment of CLD learners for special education eligibility requires the use of devices and practices that go beyond those used with non-CLD learners (i.e., multiple assessments validated with diverse learners). For ELLs in the developing or emerging stages of English language acquisition, “The norms found on many nationally standardized achievement tests in English may not be relevant, since items were not normed to different levels of English acquisition” (Hoover & Erickson, 2016). Therefore, caution is suggested and advocacy necessary to reduce inappropriate or biased assessment for special education, when assessing CLD learners using achievement assessments normed with English speakers. Feature 3: Every Student Succeeds Act and diversity Although in its initial implementation stages, the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) marks the next chapter in the equitable education of CLD and CLDE learners in US schools. According to August and Haynes (2016), ESSA provides several important safeguards and proce- dures including (a) a more standardized, effective monitoring system in determining when ELs begin English language development services and when these services are no longer required; (b) disag- gregating ELs with disabilities from ELs without disabilities when reporting progress data; and (c) potential inclusion of English language proficiency as one of the academic indicators in the state accountability system. Each of these requirements is essential to properly identify, monitor, and evaluate the academic progress of ELs in various stages of second language acquisition. 6  EXCEPTIONALITY 181 Conversely, however, ESSA provides for some significant changes by transferring to the state level the decision-making regarding accountability systems and educator preparation, which previously were heavily controlled at the federal level. August and Haynes (2016) further stressed the importance of making certain that well-established federal civil and educational safeguards (e.g., appropriate language assistance services, special education assessment in most appropriate language, equal parti- cipation in classroom instruction, etc.) in accountability and educator preparation not be lost as states establish their own procedures. Also, of particular concern to educator preparation, is that while the term ‘highly qualified’ is no longer used, ESSA provides no provisions for increasing the numbers of bilingual or English as Second Language (ESL) specialists, who currently provide critical native language and second language educational supports to diverse learners (August & Haynes, 2016). Therefore, similar to what we have witnessed in the changing federal role in special educator preparation for diverse students with mild to moderate disabilities (see Feature 5), a potential declining trend in the numbers of highly specialized bilingual and ESL professionals may begin, which would directly impact the future quality of education for CLD and CLDE learners. Although an emphasis toward additional state autonomy in the preparation for and delivery of education for diverse learners is perceived by many as a positive development, placing an overemphasis on English language development and/or meeting disability needs primarily in the purview of general educators, while reducing training programs for preparing bilingual/ESL and special education specialists, may lead to less than desirable CLDE academic achievement and social-emotional growth for CLDE learners. However, the Department of Education guidance on accountability rules optimistically call for quality of education for all learners: “ESSA presents an opportunity to continue making progress towards educational equity and excellence for all” (US Department of Education, 2016, p. 1). To ensure that the features identified in the quotation are indeed incorporated into the education of CLDE learners, due diligence is necessary, highlighting the critical importance of renewed advocacy moving forward as ESSA is put into practice. Feature 4: Diverse cultural perspectives and disability The topic of diversity and disability must include consideration of cultural perspectives about (a) disability classification and how it is interpreted within the society, and (b) perceived disability behaviors and the extent to which these are culturally taught or preferred behaviors. Disability classification Historically, regarding classification of an individual with a disability, different cultures view condi- tions in different ways challenging US schools to re-examine perspectives on disability classification. For example, “conditions included in the term disability vary in different contexts, and that diagnosis of specific conditions is often subjective and culturally derived, as are judgments about the severity, impact, and appropriate response to those conditions” (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Website, 2004). Harry (1992) found that differing cultural perspectives about a disability has significant effects on ways families interact with schools about special education. More recently, Baxter and Mahoney (2014) wrote, “Different cultures have different views of disability and treat children with developmental disabilities in different ways” (p. 3). For example, some cultures view disability either as a shameful situation that is not disclosed to others resulting in reluctance to seek outside support such as a school, or as a stigma resulting in outcasting or isolating the member (Baxter & Mahoney, 2014). It is beyond the scope of this section to provide in-depth examples of how cultures view disabilities in specificity; rather our intent is to highlight that different cultures may view a disability in ways the vary from what we expect in US schools, and educators are cautioned to examine a student’s particular culture in more detail prior to and during the process of considering a CLD learner for special education. Educators should take the cultural perspectives into account during the special education referral, assessment and eligibility process (Hoover & Barletta, 2016). 7 182 J. J. HOOVER AND L. U. DEBETTENCOURT Disability behaviors Integral to disability classification and cultural perspective is the knowledge that some behaviors, often considered “problematic” in US schools, are in reality frequently the result of (a) cultural teachings or values that conflict with typical classroom expectations in US schools, or (b) adjusting to a new school or community environment that differs from home culture. Several of these examples are illustrated in Table 2. As illustrated in Table 2, various behaviors that initially appear to be problematic or disability- related may be explained from a cultural perspective. For example, some cultures may teach students that collective group success is preferred over individual accolades or accomplishments conflicting with independent desk work or assignment completion. Or, higher levels of anxiety may be Table 2. Suspected problematic behavioral indicators and cultural perspective. Exhibited Behaviors Considered Problematic Plausible Cultural Explanations Extended periods of silence May be associated with cultural teachings and values (i.e., some cultures encourage children to be quiet as a sign of respect) Confusion with locus of control Cultures may teach that some events are out of the control of individuals (i.e., external locus of control) and this should not be misinterpreted as not caring or requiring intervention Indifference to time The concept of time is often perceived differently in various cultures and may be significantly different than time emphasized in US schools (e.g., completion of tasks or the making of important decisions are more frequently based on when the individual[s] perceive that the time is right, rather than at a specific time indicated by a clock) Social withdrawal Shy or withdrawn behavior may be associated with the process of adjusting or acculturating to a new environment (e.g., US schools/classrooms) and should not be misinterpreted as an indicator of a disability as the behavior will lessen over time Acting out/aggressive behavior Some cultures may teach that assertive behavior (e.g., standing up for oneself) is desirable social behavior; inexperience with US classroom rules may also account for acting out behaviors Difficulty with independent work Some cultures value group performance over individual achievement and thus students may be unfamiliar with independent, competitive learning and prefer cooperative group learning Perceived lack of significance of While education is highly valued across cultures, sometimes other priorities in that culture school achievement may take priority (e.g., family needs, spring harvest, etc.) Poor performance on tests Formal testing to which we subject students may be unfamiliar to ELs and therefore produce anxiety or confusion with assessment expectations leading to invalid results Table 2. Behavioral Indicators and Cultural Perspective (continued) Exhibited Behaviors Plausible Cultural Explanations Low self-esteem Students from different cultures may initially experience difficulty while adjusting to new cultural expectations and/or learning a new language, temporarily negatively impacting a child’s self-concept Differences in perception of Different cultures may view everyday concepts differently than the mainstream culture (e.g., everyday items personal space, sharing of belongings, gender, meaning of color, directions) and knowledge of how cultures view these and related items is necessary to make informed decisions Increased anxiety Stress associated with adjusting to a new culture and/or learning a new language often results in increased anxiety in learners until they feel more comfortable in the new environment/with second language Difficulty observing school/ Unfamiliarity with formal schooling, classroom expectations, testing, and routines is often class expectations experienced by children new to US schools and those from different cultures; they require additional time and support to become more accustomed to US schools’ behavioral and learning expectations Learning preferences Preferred styles of learning are reflective of cultural values; styles of ELs may be different than typically emphasized in school (e.g., more wait time; cooperative rather than competitive learning; different experiential backgrounds, etc.) Instructional strategies Teaching strategies typically used in today’s classrooms may conflict with cultural views and/ or be inappropriate for student’s English language proficiency levels, erroneously leading to perceived learning or behavior problems Note. Adapted from Baca & Cervantes (2004); Collier & Hoover (1987); Cummins (1986); Hoover & Collier (1985); Hoover & Klingner (2011); Hoover et al. (2008); Klingner et al. (in press); Ortiz et al., (2011). 8  EXCEPTIONALITY 183 associated with completing mandated individualized academic tests with items unfamiliar to the student or be in conflict with cultural group norms. Similar to the discussion about disability classification, it is essential that educators examine “suspected” disability behaviors from a cultural and linguistic perspective to make certain that misplacement into special education is avoided. In summary, Choi (2013) and Orosco (2010) emphasized the significance of incorporating culturally diverse knowledge into teaching and learning, thereby increasing educator expertise in distinguish- ing perceived disability behaviors from cultural perspective or acculturating to a new environment. Feature 5: Special education federal funding The driving force behind creating effective teachers is considered by many to be in part the special education personnel preparation programs at IHEs. These programs have been supported over the years by the OSEP within the United States Department of Education. A clear relationship exists between the numbers of properly prepared classroom teachers and the level of educator preparation support provided by OSEP. The funding provided by OSEP provides training for future leaders in teacher education; reports have shown that funded project graduates have assumed positions as innovative teacher educators (see Smith, 2012). Although federal funding has played a significant part in the training of educators in the classroom, the number of special education faculty have diminished over the years. In 2001, Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, and Rosenberg conducted a study on special education faculty shortage and found that there is tremendous significance in the federal government’s role in the infrastructure of doctoral leadership preparation. Fifteen years later many believe that the federal funding shortage has had a clear negative impact on each state’s ability to provide free appropriate public education to students identified as in need of special education and their families (deBettencourt, Hoover, Rude, & Taylor, 2016). West and Hardman (2012) stated, “The 2001 study established an indisputable link between the shortage of special education faculty in universities and colleges and the pervasive shortage of special education teachers” (p. 155). Smith and Montrosse (2012) suggested that although the number of doctoral preparation programs graduating funded scholars increased between 2002 and 2012 the programs producing the graduates are projected to lose over half of their faculty due to retirement in the next few years as retirements are predicted to increase by 21% per year (p. 149). Over the past few years, the federal government has awarded fewer doctoral training programs nationally, and if this trend continues and the capacity of all special education doctoral programs shrink in the number of graduates per program, the entire educator preparation supply chain will be negatively affected. The federal role in preparing teacher educators cannot be understated. The funding provided by OSEP over the years delivered seed money that allowed for doctoral programs to “float” and their program graduates included funded and nonfunded leaders. As federal funding has diminished, the number of doctoral programs that prepare new faculty has decreased substantially with over 14 or more than 13% of all higher education special education doctoral programs closing within the past five years (D. Smith, personal communication, August 8, 2016). In addition to supporting fewer leaders in the field of special education educator preparation, the focus of the funded projects has recently moved toward the training of teachers who work primarily with students with low incidence disabilities. The federal government defined the term “low incidence disabilities” to refer to visual or hearing impairments and significant intellectual disabilities, however, beginning in fiscal year 2014, the Administration expanded the definition to also include “persistent and severe learning and behavioral problems that need the most intensive individualized supports” (see http://www2.ed.gov/ programs/osepprep/index.html). Although this revised emphasis includes CLDE learners with more severe and intensive needs, the education of most CLDE learners typically takes place in general education classrooms or resource rooms serving students with identified mild or moderate learning disabilities in reading (Hoover, Baca, & Klingner, 2016; Hoover et al., 2008). The combination of low numbers of federally supported training programs and the changes in priorities for funding of low incidence disabilities has implications for the future education of the growing population of CLDE learners with mild or moderate disabilities in our schools. 9 184 J. J. HOOVER AND L. U. DEBETTENCOURT Feature 6: MTSS and diversity The recent surge in development and implementation of multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) has specific promise for advancing the education of CLD and CLDE learners, particularly in the area of reading (Hoover et al., 2016). Among the many important features within MTSS is the significance of integrating home, community, and school factors to best educate all learners. That is, one of the reasons MTSS is potentially powerful in advancing the education of diverse learners, with or without disabilities, is the opportunity to incorporate a more ecological perspective into its delivery by emphasizing family and community engagement. Family and community engagement is seen as one of the most important features of delivering effective education to diverse learners (Hoover et al., 2016), and this key feature requires additional advocacy by educators to best provide CLDE students sufficient opportunities. An ecological perspective to viewing education (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) includes emphasis on the connections between home-community and school, thereby drawing on funds of knowledge, cultural teachings, and related child development practices that influence teaching and learning (Moll & Greenberg, 1990; Tharp et al., 2004). Tyler and Garcia (2013) wrote that learners with diverse socio- cultural and linguistic backgrounds typically enter school with world perspectives, learning styles, or patterns of communication that vary significantly from those expected of mainstream school popula- tions. In addition, they wrote “when students’ life experiences and identities are only minimally reflected in classroom discourse, instruction, and materials, students may encounter schooling prac- tices that not only create barriers to learning, but which may appear unwelcoming, thereby affecting their achievement motivation, and contributing to feelings of alienation or marginalization” (p. 34). Unfortunately, even within the contemporary structure of MTSS for many diverse learners, instruction continues to infrequently incorporate or value cultural identities, language preference, and teachings brought to school from their home and community environments. Advocating for adherence to ecological framework principles facilitates decision-making by including home/commu- nity, learner, and classroom factors and their interaction to promote student growth (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Hoover et al., 2008; Klingner et al., in press; Tharp et al., 2004). “MTSS holds promise as a way to improve learning outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students and reduce their mis- placement into special education by ensuring that they receive systematic, high quality, and appro- priate instruction” (Hoover, Barletta, & Klingner, 2016, p. 29). Specifically, schoolwide MTSS benefits from an ecologically informed perspective by improving multi-layered instruction for diverse learners in several ways including (a) effective classroom instruction incorporates role of home language and culture across the curriculum (Tharp et al., 2004); (b) family-community engagement, a basic tenant framing an ecological perspective, contributes to diverse learners’ academic and cultural foundation in teaching and learning (Santiago & Alicea, 2015); and (c) an ecological perspective provides an essential grounding for educators to best distinguish diverse qualities from disability needs as learners move across the tiers in MTSS (Hoover, Baca, & Klingner, 2016). The significance of an ecological emphasis framing educational structures for diverse learners, with and without disabilities, is best summed by Choi, Oh, Yoon, and Hong (2012), who stressed that educators must select and implement evidence-based practices that value and support culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds brought to the learning environment. In support, “Teachers who utilize CRT (culturally responsive teaching) practices value students’ cultural and linguistic resources and view this knowledge as capital to build upon rather than as a barrier to learning” (Aceves & Orosco, 2014, p. 7). Therefore, within MTSS for diverse learners, educators are encour- aged to continue in their efforts to shape the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of teaching and learning by incorporating home, community, school, family and student factors into the instruction to best meet contemporary educational challenges. In summary, when viewed collectively, these six features shape the current and future education of culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners, requiring continued advocacy to best 10  EXCEPTIONALITY 185 Table 3. Advocacy and the education of CLDE learners. Contemporary Feature Advocacy Perspective Student and Educator Demographics Special education IHE faculty and school district administration advocate for a more diverse population of PreK-Postsecondary educators and teacher trainers Referral, Assessment and School educators advocate for development and use of a culturally and linguistically Disproportionate Representation responsive referral and assessment processes to reduce disproportionality ESSA and Diversity PreK-12 educators advocate for use of highly trained bilingual/ESL and special educators to collaboratively educate culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional (CLDE) learners Diverse Cultural Perspectives and Special education IHE faculty and PreK-12 educators advocate for equity through culturally Disability responsive teaching by understanding cultural perspectives toward disability Special Education Federal Funding IHE special educators advocate for the re-establishment of funding for educator preparation for teaching CLDE learners with mild to moderate disabilities in PreK-12 educational settings MTSS and Diversity Elementary and secondary school staffs advocate for strong English language development delivered within culturally and linguistically responsive MTSS for all learners to best inform special education referral, eligibility, placement, and IEP development decisions deliver equitable special education as mandated in Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004), as well as within the new era of ESSA (2015). Diversity advocacy imperative These six educational features represent recurring issues challenging special educators at all levels (i.e., PreK-Postsecondary) as highlighted in Table 3. As shown, educator resolve for continued advocacy for CLDE learners for each feature is achieved through the following: a. expected increases in the numbers of CLD learners in the school population requires advocacy for commensurate increases in diverse educator populations; b. expected increases in referral and/or assessment requires educators to continue to advocate for more contemporary culturally and linguistically responsive referral and assessment procedures and devices, as more CLD learners enter our schools; c. specific attention is required by educators to forthcoming “interpretations for practice” being put forth by state and federal educational agencies due to the uncertainty of the impact of ESSA on the education of CLD and CLDE learners; d. increasd need for educators to value how various cultures view a disability, which may vary from or be in conflict with typical US school perspectives as the number of different representa- tive cultures continues to increase in our schools; e. continued need for educators to advocate for re-establishing the OSEP federal funding levels for special educator leadership preparation to effectively teach CLDE learners as such leadership funding has been systematically reduced leading to less prepared teachers; and f. continued need for educators to advocate for concomitant responsive instruction and special services within a comprehensive MTSS framework so that culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, especially English language development, is not replaced with special education services. These advocacy practices have specific implications for educator preparation at both the pre and inservice levels. Recommendations for special educator preparation The changing demographics, recruitment, and program delivery needs have immediate implica- tions for the preparation of future special education teachers at both preservice and inservice 11 186 J. J. HOOVER AND L. U. DEBETTENCOURT levels. Preparation programs for novice, preservice educators establishes the foundation upon which initial advocacy is realized, and inservice or professional development programs expand upon that foundation to continue advocacy efforts with implications for one’s lifelong educational career. Preservice and inservice advocacy implications Most IHE’s Schools of Education (SOEs) have acknowledged the urgency for developing culturally competent teachers, yet often in the past the decision was to add one course addressing diversity. Despite the growing ethnic and linguistic diversity in our classrooms today, SOEs continue to utilize pedagogy of decades past. To successfully move teacher education beyond the fragmented and superficial treatment of diversity that currently prevails, SOEs must articulate a vision of teaching and learning in a diverse society and use that vision to systematically guide the infusion of the study of diversity and disability throughout the preservice curriculum. Preparing the next generation of special educators must include not only the preparation of reflective data-decision makers but also educators who understand the role of culture and language in how learners think, learn, and communicate. Educators must be taught how students’ primary language and cultural backgrounds are seen as assets to learning and must be taught how to actively collaborate with students’ families and communities (Gay 2010; Nieto & Bode, 2008; Villegas & Lucase, 2002). As preservice programs design their curriculum there must be a clear focus on ELLs and their needs. For example, when learning to assess students the teacher candidate must also learn how to assess students in a linguistically responsible manner. Schools unprepared for the changing demographics of CLDE learners may experience lack of appropriate materials, supports, interventions, or related programs (Hoover et al., 2016), often leading to inappropriate referral and placement of CLD learners for special education (Hoover & Erickson, 2015; Roen, 2015). These unfortunate and unnecessary educational conditions remind all certified educators that one key component of inservice professional development is a strong advocacy presence in the education of CLDE learners and their families. Specifically, several topics situated at the intersection of diversity and disability should be continuously emphasized at the inservice level to ensure ongoing advocacy: (a) Implementation of curricular revisions that reflect models and interventions specific to the research base linking effective instruction, referral, and assessment practices for CLDE learners; (b) Strategies for meeting learning needs of students with a variety of language and cultural backgrounds; (c) Recruitment priorities and strategies to identify and hire preK-12 staffs that more accurately reflect the demographics of the changing CLDE student population; (d) Processes for examining the existing MTSS school culture to make certain it reflects a culturally and linguistically responsive atmosphere, with appropriate supports to assist in retaining a qualified diverse educator staff; (e) Self-study practices examining extent sociocultural theory remains foundational to the teach- ing and learning of CLDE students to reflect an ecological learning environment by valuing home-community-school engagement; (f) Sustainability procedures to ensure that the school workforce maintains contemporary skill sets and expertise in the areas of (1) cultural diversity, (2) second language acquisition, (3) home-community engagement, and (4) disability education; and (g) Practices and exercises to guide the self-examination of cultural perspectives, privilege, and potential biases, while simultaneously providing options for continued professional growth to becoming highly competent culturally and linguistically responsive special educators. 12  EXCEPTIONALITY 187 In summary, “to ensure the academic achievement of diverse learners in urban, rural, and suburban communities across the United States, institutions of higher education and school districts must provide a rigorous continuum of ongoing PD to support beginning and experienced teachers in their understanding and implementation of culturally responsive teaching practices” (Aceves & Orosco, 2014, p. 22). Conclusion Culturally and linguistically diverse features and qualities have been systematically shaping teaching and learning environments for over a century to the point where that which was previously referred to as “different” has transitioned to everyday accepted norms. However, research findings continue to suggest that change is slow to translate into effective and acceptable culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. Although perspective becomes more contemporary resulting from social, political, and educational initiatives, the need for special educators to advocate for high quality education for culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners remains critical, due to (a) increases in student diversity, (b) decreases in special educator federal funding for mild-moderate needs, (c) continued challenges in providing best practices to value cultural norms and teachings in curricula, and (d) limited to no emphasis on preparation of bilingual/ESL specialists in the newest education legislation of ESSA. These and similar contemporary issues require educators to adopt renewed advocacy efforts to best educate CLDE learners in twenty-first century schools. References Aceves, T. C., & Orosco, M. J. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching (Document No. IC-2). Retrieved from http:// ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/ August, D. & Haynes, E. (2016). What will ESSA mean for English learners? Retrieved from http://educationpolicy.air. org/blog/what-will-essa-mean-english-learners Baca, L., & Cervantes, H. (2004). The bilingual special education interface. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill. Basterra, M. D. R., Trumbull, E., & Solano-Flores, G. (2011). Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and cultural diversity. New York: Routledge. Baxter, C., & Mahoney, W. (Eds.). (2014). Developmental disability across cultures: Caring for kids new to Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.kidsnewtocanada.ca/mental-health/develop mental-disability Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CEC Policy Insider. (May 18, 2016). Disproportionality in special education: CEC speaks out! Retrieved from http:// www.policyinsider.org/2016/05/disproportionality-in-special-education-cec-speaks-out.html Choi, F., Oh, K., Yoon, S. M., & Hong, S. (2012). A literature review of implementing response to intervention for English language learners. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2), 1–17. Choi, Y. (2013). Teaching social studies for newcomer English language learners: Toward culturally relevant pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1), 12–18. Collier, C., & Hoover, J. J. (1987). Sociocultural considerations when referring minority children for learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(1), 39–45. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18–36. deBettencourt, L. U., Hoover, J. J., Rude, H. A., & Taylor, S. (2016). Preparing special education higher education faculty: The influences of contemporary education issues and policy recommendations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 121–133. Fernandez, N., & Inserra, A. (2013). Disproportionate classification of ESL students in US Special Education. Teaching English as a Second Language or Foreign Language, 17(2), 1–22. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families and the special education system: Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press. Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2015). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson. Hoover, J. J. (2016). Data-driven decision making: Distinguishing language acquisition and cultural behaviors from a disability. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 141–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 13 188 J. J. HOOVER AND L. U. DEBETTENCOURT Hoover, J. J., Baca, L. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2016). Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing Language Acquisition from Learning Disabilities (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hoover, J. J., & Bartletta, L. M. (2016). Special education assessment of ELs. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English learners struggle with reading?: Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 117–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hoover, J. J., & Collier, C. (1985). Referring culturally different children: Sociocultural considerations. Academic Therapy, 20(4), 503–509. Hoover, J. J., & Erickson, J. (2015). Culturally responsive special education referrals of English learners in one rural county school district: Pilot project. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 34(4), 18–28. Hoover, J. J, & Erickson, J. (2015, April). Culturally responsive special education assessment process for rural educators. Presentation to CEC Conference. St. Louis, MO. Hoover, J. J., & Klingner, J. (2011). Promoting cultural validity in the assessment of bilingual special education students. In M. Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and cultural diversity (pp. 143–167). New York: Routledge. Hoover, J. J., Klingner, J. K., Baca, L. M., Patton, J. M. (2008). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. IDEA. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2012). Karger, J. (2013). The legal obligations of education systems to serve English learners with disabilities. Impact: Feature Issue on Educating K-12 English Language Learners with Disabilities, 26(1), 6–7. Klingner, J. K., de Schonewise, E. A., de Onis, C., Barletta, L. M. (2016). Misconceptions about the second language acquisition process. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner. Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 57–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Klingner, J. K., & Geisler, D. (2016). Helping classroom reading teachers distinguish between language acquisition and learning disabilities. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 58–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Klingner, J. K., Soltero-González, L., Hoover, J. J., Eppolito, A., Smith, C., K. White, & Cano-Rodriguez, E. (in press). Systemic issues in the implementation of RTI in culturally and linguistically diverse schools. In E. C. Lopez, S. G. Nahari, & S. L. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Lo, L. (2013). Advocating for your child: Tips for families of English language learners with disabilities. Impact: Feature issue on educating K-12 English language learners with disabilities, 26(1), 28. Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). New York: Cambridge University Press. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Boston: Pearson/ Allyn & Bacon. Orosco, M. J. (2010). A sociocultural examination of response to intervention with Latino English language learners, Theory into Practice, 49, 265–272. Orosco, M. J., de Schonewise, E. A., de Onis, C., Klingner, J. K., & Hoover, J. J. (2016). Distinguishing between language acquisition and learning disabilities among English learners: Background information. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention and early intervention. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment and instruction (pp. 31–48). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C., Y., Liu, Y., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: Implications for response to intervention, Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316–333. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.628608 Roen, L. (2015). Twice challenged: Differentiating between English language acquisition and learning disabilities. University of St. Thomas: Education Doctoral Dissertations in Leadership. Paper 62. Retrieved from: http://ir. stthomas.edu/caps_ed_lead_docdiss/62 Santiago, I. C., & Alicea, Z. A., (2015). A conversation with Latino/Latina families and its implications for teacher beliefs about cultural and linguistic diversity. In L. C. de Oliveira & M. Yough (Eds.), Preparing teachers to work with English language learners in mainstream classrooms (pp. 59–74). Charlotte, NC: IAP and TESOL Press. Shim, J. M., (2013). Involving the parents of English language learners in a rural area: Focus on the dynamics of teacher-parent interactions. Rural Educator, 34(3), 18–26. Smith, D. D. (2012). Welcome to the TESE special issue about the special education faculty needs assessment project, Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 97–100. Smith, D. D., & Montrosse, B. E. (2012). Special education doctoral programs: A 10-year comparison of the suppliers of leadership personnel. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 101–113. 14  EXCEPTIONALITY 189 Smith, D. D., Pion, G., Tyler, N. C., Sindelar, P., & Rosenberg, M. (2001). The study of special education leadership personnel with particular attention to the professoriate: Leadership final report. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2004). The socially constructed nature of race, culture, and disability: Concepts of race, ethnicity, and culture. Retrieved from http://www.ncddr.org/products/researchexchange/v04n01/ concepts.html. Author. Tharp, R. G., Doherty, R. W., Echevarria, J., Estrada, P., Goldenberg, C., & Hilberg, R. S. (2004). Five standards for effective pedagogy and student outcomes (No. G1). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/products/print/occreports/g1.html Tyler, B.J., & Garcia, S. B. (2013). Meeting the educational needs of English language learners with learning disabilities. Impact: Future Issues on Educating K-12 English Language Learners with Disabilities, 26(1), 20–21. US Department of Education. (2016). Summary: Proposed Regulations on Accountability, State Plans, and Data Reporting under ESSA. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaaccountabilitynprmsum mary52016.pdf US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Number and percentage distribution of teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics: Selected years, 1987–88 through 2011–12. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.10.asp Valle, J. W., & Connor, D. J. (2011). Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive practices. New York: McGraw Hill. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. Watkins, E., & Liu, K. L. (2013). Who Are English Language Learners with Disabilities?Impact: Feature Issue on Educating K-12 English Language Learners with Disabilities, 26(1), 2. West, J. E., & Hardman, M. L. (2012). Averting current and future special education faculty shortages: Policy implications and recommendations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 154–160. 15