DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 360 136 RC 019 255

TITLE Special Education in Early Childhood. A BurningIssues Series Report.

INSTITUTION National Preschool Coordination Project, San Diego,CA.; San Diego County Office of Education, CA.

SPONS AGENCY California State Dept. of Education, Sacramento.Office of Migrant Education.

PUB DATE 93

NOTE 51p.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Coordination; Educational Policy; *Federal Programs;*Identification; Labeling (of Persons); LimitedEnglish Speaking; *Migrant Children; MigrantEducation; Parent Attitudes; Parent Participation;*Preschool Education; Puerto Ricans; *SpecialEducation

ABSTRACTThe National Preschool Coordination Project's (NPCP)

Interstate Coordination Committee identified problems in finding andproviding special education services for preschool migrant children.They propose training for parents and migrant staff and coordinationamong agencies to improve services. The NPCP Subcommittee on Special

Education identified the following needs: (1) improved identification

of migrant students with special needs; (2) more effective placement

of migrant students needing special education; (3) training of

service providers; (4) appropriate practices in the delivery ofservices; (5) consistency in services; and (6) coordination amongservice providers. An essay written for parents in Spanish andEnglish, titled "Ninos Diferentes/Different Children," encouragesparents to seek services for their children and become involved ineducation. Also included are reprints of the following articles: (1)"Practices and Policies in the Education of Migrant Students inSpecial Education" (Richard A. Figueroa); (2) "The Impact of Policies

for Handicapped Children on Future Early Education Policy" (James J.Gallagher); (3) "Referring Language Minority Students to SpecialEducation" (Paula Olson); and (4) "Making Sense of Disability:Low-Income, Puerto Rican Parents' Theories of the Problem" (BethHarry). The bibliography lists articles, ERIC resources, books andperiodicals, and organizations and services. (KS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

a,LA

O!Pe. f

O

Special Educationin

Early Childhood

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES)

INFORMATIONCENTE ER

"; document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or Organizationoriginating it

1' Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this O0Cu.meet do not necessarily represent official

OE RI position or policy

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

a 0

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-

A Burning Issues Series Reportfrom the

National Preschool Coordination Project

An Migrant Education Interstate Coordination Grant

1993

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

NATIONAL PRESCHOOL COORDINATION PROJECT

Project Director: Susan C. MorseSecretary: Patricia L. Burke

1527 West Lewis StreetSan Diego, California 92103

619/497.2116

administered by

The Office of Migrant EducationCalifornia State Department of Education

721 Capitol MallSacramento, California 95814

Thomas Lugo, Manager

in cooperation with

Migrant Education Region IXSonia Duffo6, Director

San Diego County Office of Education6401 Linda Vista Road

San Diego, California 92111-7399County Superintendent of Schools

"Section 1203 (A) (i) of Chapter 1 of Title I, of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1965, as amended."

(A Migrant Education Interstate/Intrastate Coordination Program)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Special Educationill

Early Childhood

A Burning Issues Series Reportfrom the

National Preschool Coordination Projectdeveloped with assistance from the Interstate Coordination

Committee and the Special Education Subcommittee.Thanks to: Sylvia Castro

Mary CarrLaura CurryBob Backe

An Migrant Education Interstate Coordination Grant

1993

Table of Contents

I. Preface

II. Young Children with Special Needs, Interstate CoordinationCommittee Report

III. Existing Conditions and the Ideal

IV. Issues and Problems, Subcommittee NotesImproved IdentificationMore Effective PlacementTrainingAppropriate PracticesConsistent Services / MobilityCoordination

V. Further ActionRecommendations, Means,What Can Migrant Educators Do?

VI. For Parents/ Para Padres

VII. ResourcesArticlesBibliographyOrganizations and Services

2:t)

I. Preface

Migrant children are under-identified for special education services.Special education services are of extremely high quality nationally,providing well-trained educators who explore a variety of approaches toidentify effective ways to help children with special needs. Specialeducation laws ask that children be provided the least restrictive learningenvironment. Whenever possible children will be included in the regularclassrooms and will participate in all school programs (mainstreaming).

They are accustomed to using a variety of learning approaches tomeet children's needs, and they individualize their instruction. They alsorecognize that a child with some limitations, may be extremely capable inother areas. These perspectives have made special educators a wonderfulresource to migrant educators. We encourage migrant staff to becomefamiliar with special education services, as well as the resources theyoffer. Coordination will help migrant students with special needs, andcommunication will improve the knowledge and skills of us all.

The federal education law that provides for services tostudents with special needs is Special Education law PL:99-457.This law has various sections.Those pertaining to early childhoodeducation include section H the Birth to Three section which outlines theindividual family service plan, and services for very young children. Thislaw provides no funds for implementation at this time, but does provideplanning money to states.

The same Federal Law: 99-457, part B pertaining to the Educationof the Handicapped (EHA) serves children 3 to 5 years of age. Althoughthere is provision in the law for services, there is no funding, so servicesmust be negotiated with school districts who may have limited resources.

II. Young Children with Special Needs

The National Preschool Coordination Project's Interstate CoordinationCommittee identified Special Education as a "burning issue" in earlychildhood education. This is a summary of their report.

Many of the special education needs that we see in early childhoodeducation can be addressed and resolved if they are identified early. Forthis reason, finding and providing appropriate services is very important.Some problems are:- Parents may not be aware of their rights to special services-Families may be reluctant to recognize the child's special needs' The assessment process may take so long the child never receives servicesbefore migrating again'Many programs operate during the school year and are unavailableduring migrant residency'Some programs base their funding on December attendance and thusreceive no funding for later arrivals.Few programs have a staff with expertise in the appropriate culture andlanguage, early childhood education, and special education.

Some solutions to these problems may be:To provide trainin'z to parents and staff on:

1) Identification of children with special needs.2) The rights of special needs children,3) Services available to special needs children,4) Methods to assist these children.

To increase coordination and communication:1) Use MSRTS and other means to share information amongMigrant programs about preschool aged special needs children.2) Coordinate among agencies to identify gaps in service andprovide the most appropriate programs.

Whenever Migrant educators coordinate with Special Educators, everyoneprofits - especially the children.

4

III. Existing Conditions & The Ideal

Minority cultures underrepresented

Different systems serving kidsDescription of ECE services:negotiationFamily Care (home)Preschool Programs: community based,1/2 day, State Child Care & Preschools,Child care centers, Migrant Education,Migrant (402)/ DSHS

Special Education seen as stigma, failure,remedial

Underidentification of children forSpecial Education services

Lack of knowledgeable staff

5

Individualizedprograms

Coordination,communication,among agencies

Asset model, builds onstrengths

Appropriateidentification andplacement

staff training andrecruitment

IV. Needs, Issues and Problems

Notes from the Meeting of the NPCP Subcommittee on Special EducationPortland, Oregon, September 3, 1992

The following issues and problems were identified by the participants:Bob Backe, California Mary Carr, WashingtonSilvia Castro, Texas Laura Curry, OregonSusan Morse, NPCP

1. THERE IS A NEED FOR IMPROVED IDENTIFICATIONOF MIGRANT STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS:Including:'Appropriate identification and referral of preschool migrant children'Improvement in the identification of children with special needs.'Effective screening of children for special needs.'Coordination with health services to provide screening, or to include

special education screening with scheduled health screening.DATA:Data on enrollment from MSRTS indicates that the enrollment ofpreschoolers represents one third to a half of the numbers of childrenidentified at higher grade levels. Special education students at all levelsrepresent approximately 3% of the total migrant student population. In thegeneral population students needing special education represent from 8%to 12% of the population. Students are identified as special education onthe MSRTS only based on the provision of contact data, so there may bestudents identified for special education services who have not had contactdata entered on the MSRTS. In contrast all preschoolers if identified willbe listed on MSRTS. The total number of special education preschoolerswas not determined, requiring a more time consuming data search, butwas stated to be "negligible" by MSRTS personnel.children are presently identified. However, it is known that in some areasmigrant students may be over-identified as in need of special education,either through mistaken assessment of language skills, cultural and behavioraldifferences or in order to make them eligible for early childhood educationservices where none other are accessible. Generally minority cultures areunderrepresented in ECE special education placement.

6

2. THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE EFFE=PLACEMENT OF MIGRANT STUDENTS NEEDING SPECIALEDUCATION SERVICES:'Appropriate placement of children upon initial enrollment should includechronological age-appropriate placement.Diminish overidentification and underidentification of migrant studentsfor special education services.

Some special education categories may be over-used or inappropriatelyused because population is vulnerable to misidentification, as a result ofcultural or language differences, (see Lily Wong Fillmore, article,Meeting the Challege, Visions, Vol II, issue 1 ).EXAMPLE:

A disproportionate number of preschoolers needing special educationservices in Head Start programs are identified as learning disabled or speechlanguage impaired, or language/social-emotional delayed. It is unknownwhether more children with these needs are served in these programs becausethey can be mainstreamed more effectively than children with other needs, orwhether there is overidentification of children as needing special educationservices when, in fact, their language differences are merely a function ofhaving a home language other than English.

3. TRAININGFour areas of training of service providers:

1. Awareness:- Improved awareness of Special Education Early Childhood Educationservices and indepth training is needed for administrators, serviceproviders, Migrant educators, and parents.

2. Skills:Staff training is needed for the Identification of special needs childrenStaff training is needed to improve service to special needs children:

3. Knowledge baseAwareness of categories of special needs and how to recognize them,awareness of special education services available, awareness of laws,awareness of human development, family systems and culturalpractices,and need to access materials that are appropriate, innovative andinexpensive.

7 ,

5.Attitudes/DisagiitionsNeed training in cross cultural tolerance and anti-bias program

developmentMinority cultures are underrepresented as service providers. Recruit and

train more persons from minority cultures as service providers.

4. THERE IS A NEED FOR APPROPRIATE PRACTICES INTHE DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO PRESCHOOL SPECIALEDUCATION CHILDREN

Developmentally, Culturally and LinguisticallyAppropriate Practices for Young Children- Goals:

least restrictive environment/ child centered environment/ home languageinstruction/ mixed age grouping/ family involvement/ developmentally andculturally appropriate practices/ scheduling of services to meet child andfamily needs

First Language ServicesSpecial Education guidelines which require that children be provided withthe least restrictive environment can apply to the provision of instructionin the home language, as well as separate classes or assignment tomainstream classes.

Family Based ProgramsPrograms must provide for cultural and family sensitivity. A familycentered model which is focused at enabling rather than disabling parentsof students with special needs.

a. Cultural ContextProblem: Lack of acknowledgement of the family, village, andcommunity support system which helps the child and family.

Often service providers are unaware that the social fabric of thesociety (or culture) in which the child is raised offers many supports.Attempts to interview may actually weaken or eliminate the supportsystem leaving the family stranded or dependent on those that intervened.The child will be a member of the family long after the termination of theintervention of the school system. We must be sure to assist in supportingand building cultural and societal supports.

b. Acceptance of Services:

8

Cultural and family differences are reflected in some parent behaviors.For example: migrant families may feel less likely to accept services fortheir children. They may feel more personal responsibility for the childand wish to protect them. They also may be more accepting of theconditions, and may exhibit more tolerance of the differences their childmanifests. For this reason they may not seek special education services.

In other cases, families will attempt to hide the child's conditionfeeling that they problem manifests their own failures. These families needhelp to understand the conditions and to have an accurate understanding ofthe ways in which services could help the child.

Migrant educators need to assure that Special Educators have anunderstanding of culturally, linguistically and developmentally appropriateprogram and curriculum philosophy and design.

5. MOBILITY: THERE IS A NEED TO EMPHASIZE THEIMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENT ySERVICES FOR CHILDRENNEEDING SPECIAL EDUCATION ESPECIALLY IN THEFORMATIVE YEARS.

- Children particularly in need of ongoing and consistent services arethose with:

neurological impairmentsorthopedic impairmentssensory impairments, andtechnology dependent children.

It is critical that there be no interruption in services.Solutions:

- consistent services (continuity)- paperwork/ record keeping, effective use of MSRTS- awareness of MSRTS by Sp. Ed. program staff

9

6. THERE IS A NEED FOR COORDINATION AMONGSERVICE PROVIDERS FOR PRESCHOOL STUDENTSNEEDING SPECIAL SERVICES:

Differences in definition of migrant has resulted in gaps of service aswell as overlaps.

Different systems serve these children. The systems are in conflict/not in

coordination.Differences in program schedules, calendars, and regulations have

compounded the problem of providing service to the child in need.School districts, operating under PL-law 99-457 serve children ages 3-5,

Head Start serves 3 or 4 year olds and is mandated to provide services to apercentage of children with special needs.

Coordination of transportation among services is needed: specialeducation services are usually half day, leaving child with transportationproblems and without child care for half a day.

Coordination with medical services might net more referrals for SpecialEducation

Coordination with employers to increase awareness and generatesupportive policies to enable access of children to services.

Transportation may be needed to provide access to services.Effective record keeping (MSRTS) is needed to prevent interruption of

services. The 30 day waiting period can be avoided when records areavailable. Ideas: MSRTS alert, fax follow-up.

Clarification of services and funding among district, social serviceagencies and Migrant Education.

V . Further Action

RECOMMENDATIONS

Advocacy: The principal role of Migrant Education in Special Education

early childhood education should be as a supplementary service providing

referral, coordination, advocacy and assistance in providing services tohelp link available programs with children.Data: The preschool children identified as in need of special services onthe MSRTS is minimal. Investigation of what kinds of information can be

put on and is helpful to service providers is needed.

10

I.)

Increased training in the process of providing Special Education servicesto preschoolersMore information on Special Education is needed for migrant educators inthe areas of:(A) Identification of need for special services(B) Assessment that is culturally and language appropriate

1) Initial assessment (formal/informal)2) screening

(C) Referral, Placement and Services1)Individualized Education Plan (IEP) contract

or Individual Family Service Plan2) Appropriate placement - avoiding over or

underrepresentation3) Designing Services

Districts' Special Education services, Migrant Head Start, child careprograms, Even Start program and all other available service agenciesshould work together in solving the problem of providing services tospecial needs children.

Areas of Coordinationtransportation for screening services

- resources/ materials- transportation to and from programs

interagency coordination

11 .

Additional Recommendations:Thanks to Maria Este la Garcia of the Central Stream ProgramCoordination Center for these additional recommendations:

Need to have a strong and effective outreach program so that studentscan be identified and served.

Identify children through public awareness meetings, public medicalservices, private medical services, public education enrollment cards, orother members of their families. Also families that need these servicesmay he identified through employers of the parents. Other members of thecommunity might also assist to identify these children.

Need to coordinate efforts between agencies as tmaximize serviceswithout dupoicating efforts.

Need to secure practices that are academically or educationallyappropriate yet incorporating the understanding and value of diversecultures.

Need for services to be rendered with the least constraints and acontinuity of the process of service even if the family moves. This shouldbe done by establishing methods of sending records to the new servicearea.

Services should be provided in the schools and through programsthat provide assistance in the homes.

Need to promote the attitude among parents and service providers thatcome in contact with the handicapped child that "die best services" aremerited by these children.

MEANS to achieve recommendations:Interstate coordination projects, as well as states or districtsmay be able to use the following means to further address theproblems affecting young migrant children with specialneeds.Some means to address issues identified:Forums Brochures for parents Training (packets)

Research on: migrant special ed families (case studies)MSRTS data over/underplacement culture and family

Reports/ Burning Issues

12

National Migrant Conference forum or sessions on Special Education(in coordination with Head Start)

Meetings - Coordination Collaboration among agenciesAwareness information:

newsletters,article in Memo about this meeting,Burning Issues report on Special Education

What Can Migrant Educators Do at the Local J__.evel?

°Provide identification of migrant preschoolers and referral of those whomay have special needs"Access training for migrant staff and migrant families throughcoordination with other agencies-Provide funds for transportation/ home based services-Provide parent education and family support'Provide translators and liaisons-Advocacy-Assure access to families'Assure quality services'Coordinate/ network'Assure appropriate placement'Provide greater awareness regarding migrant children to otherorganizations

13

VI. Para Padres/ For Parents

NINOS DIFERENTES

Todos nosotros somos diferentes unos de otros. Y eso esmaravilloso. A todos nosotros nos va bien por muy diferentes queseamos, pero para algunos de nosotros que somos muy diferentesdel resto, es otro cuento.

Algunos se pueden burlar de un nino de cuatro altos porque estorpe. Otros pueden llamar tonto o estupido a un nino que es lento.Y a aquel nino que es lento para hablar muchas veces se le ignora.

Uds.como padres son los primeros en darse cuenta de que sunino no esta creciendo o aprendiendo tan rapidamente o de lamisma forma en que otros ninos lo hacen. Su reaccion a esto escritic°. Ud. talves desea proteger a su nino y opte por esconderlo desus familiares o amistades. Pueda que se diga a si mismo, "Oh, ya sele pasara." En el fondo desea que su nino no sea tan diferente.

El primer paso para ayudar a este nino es que Ud. acepte laposibilidad de que el o ella sea poco coman.(exceptional meanssuperior) zQue puede hacer al respecto? El primer paso que puededar es averiguar que clase de ayuda hay para la educacion de sunino. Llame al distrito escolar en donde Ud. vive y hagales saberque Ud. tiene un nino que posiblemente requiere educaciOriespecial.y que cree le ayudaria empezar su educaci6n lo antesposible. Los distritos pueden ayudarle ya que se requiere de ellosque ofrezcan educaciOn para ninos con necesidades especiales. Hayciertos programas que se ofrecen para recien nacidos hasta tresarios de edad, y de tres arios hasta el pre-kindergarten

Una vez que su nino sea inscrito en un programa, trate depasar el mayor tiempo posible en la sala de clase. Conozca a lamaestra y a los otros padres. Trate de que la maestra se conviertaen su amiga. Demuestrele lo mucho que Ud. se interesa y preocupapor aprender. Observe a su alrededor; preste atencion a como secomportan los otros ninos. 2,Que diferencias hay? LEs elcomportamiento de su nino parecido al comportamiento del resto?

14

Hale le a la maestra si Ud. cree que su nino no pertenece a esegrupo. Puede que haya otro mas apropiado a las necesidades de sunino en la misma escuela.

Mantengase involucrado. Ud. es ahora tanto el padre como eldefensor de su nino. Para obtener el mejor servicio es necesario queUd. sea ambos. Con esta accion Ud. ha dado un paso gigante paraque su nino sea ayudado. Las diferencias que limitan a su nino serailminimizadas (disminuidas) y a aquellas personas que ayudan a quesu nino tenga exito serail maximinizadas (aumentadas).

Escrito por Roberto Backe, traducido por Patricia Burke---Visions,II, issue 3.

15

Different Children

We are all, all of us, different from one another. And that's great.Things go along pretty well for most of us "different" people, but forsome who are very different, it is a very different story.

A clumsy four year old may be labeled a dummy, or sissy by otherchildren. The child who is slow of speech may be ignored.

As mothers and fathers, you are the first to sense and then to knowthat your child is very different from his or her family and friends.What you do with that knowledge is critical. You may want toprotect your child and hide her or him from others. You may say toyourself, "Oh, he'll grow out of it." You don't want your child to bedifferent.

Have you heard the saying "sink or swim?" Pretty tough, isn't it?You don't want to put your child into a situation where those are theonly choices. After you accept your child for what s/he is and you acton your love and acceptance, you seek the best. You want your littleone to be helped, to have choices and a chance to succeed not to beheld back, not to be pushed too fast or too far. You may want forher/him to have the choice of physical therapy, a special leg brace,speech training, testing, or to be with other children who are not asdifferent as s/he is for part of the day. A medical doctor's help andadvice might be necessary. You want those choices. The law of theland is that every child gets a free and well-suited education in theleast limiting surroundings.

Accepting the possibility that your child might be exceptional is thefirst step to help him or her. What can you do about it? You can getyour child educational assistance as soon as possible. Call theschool district where you live and let them know you have a childthat may have special needs, and that you think would benefit froman early start. School districts can help. They are required toprovide assistance for children with special needs, newborn to threeyears old, and programs for children who are three, to pre-kindergarten age.

Once your child is enrolled, try to spend as much time in theclassroom as possible. Get to know the teacher and the otherparents. Make a friend of the teacher. Let her or him know howmuch you care. Look around; be aware of how the other children

16

behave. Check out the differences. How does your boy or girl fit it?Talk to the teacher if you don't think your child belongs in thatparticular group. There may be a more suitable one next door Atthe same time don't be too quick to judge by looks alone. A lot of kidslook very different. This does not mean that they can't play,communicate, be a good friend, read, help around the house, or goto a birthday party. You want your child to have choices. You havethe right to change your mind and make new choices, too.

Stay involved. You are now both parent and advocate for yourchild. To get the best, it is necessary to be both. You have taken thekind of action that will make certain your child, as different as he orshe may be, will be helped. Differences that limit your child will beminimized and those that help the child succeed will be maximized.Your child is not a label, a category, a name on a form. Your child isa person full of wonder and promise no matter how different.Only with your help will they be able to realize their potential, theirpromise. Stay with them. You will both grow, together.

-by Robert Backe

17

Family Services Plan

Special Education programs have developed a new servicemodel that migrant educators may want to borrow.

The Individual Family Service Plan is a process for planningand providing services to special needs children. The family and aFamily Resources Coordinator team together to identify the needsof the child and the concerns and priorities of the family.

The resources needed to address these needs are identified.The learn can outline goals and objectives and a plan for futureservices. This informs and empowers the parent and promotescontinuity in services.

Services may include school programs, child caredenrichment, health, and family services. The provider recognizesthat services will not be effective if they do not address the concernsof the parents and elicit their participation.

The same family-centered model may be appropriate formigrant families. Interventions such as academic assistance, teachertraining, advocacy, access to services, identifying child care needs,parenting, and the fostering of home-school communication can bedeveloped as a natural outgrowth of communication with thefamily.

This approach could simultaneously simplify and enrich ourservices.

From Visions Volume I, Issue 4.--Thanks to Mary Carr, Washington State ICC member forinformation on the Family Service Model.

18

Resourcesfor

Special Education Services to Young Children

Articles: i'The following are included in this publication)

Practices and Policies in the Education of Migrant Students inSpecial Education, Richard Figueroa, U.C. Santa Cruz.

The Impact of Policies for Handicapped Children on Future EarlyEducation Policy, James J. Gallagher, Phi Delta Kappan

Referring Language Minority Students to Special Education, PaulaOlson, Forum, NCBE.

M kin n - I f Di . . 11 L w n P sRi nP r nTheories of the Problem, Beth Harry, Exceptional Children.

The Sensuous Aide, Bob Backe, Sp. Ed./School Climate Consultant

2w

PRACTICES AND POLICIESIN

THE EDUCATION OF MIGRANT STUDENTSIN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Richard A. FigueroaCalifornia Research Institute on Special Education and Cultural

Diversity

University of California at Santa Cruz

The knowledge base about Migrant children in specialeducation is quite small albeit disturbing. Policy documents writtensince 1979 have repeatedly echoed the problems surrounding poorinteragency communication and record transfer, poor compliancewith extant special education law when it comes meeting the needsof Migrant exceptional pupils, lack of awareness about handicappedconditions affecting Migrant students.

The professional articles on these pupils, since the early 1980's tendto be highly critical of special education. These articles are reform-minded in suggesting what can be done to change the educationalstatus of Migrant children in special education.

The empirical studies on the Migrant pupil who is handicapped arefew. Some attempt to address the question of prevalence rates withlimited data. Others focus on the issues of health status and itspossible correlates to exceptionalities. the smallest number includeempirical data which suggest that severely handicapped Migrantchildren are not being served in accordance with federal statutes.

In a report commissioned by the National Commission on MigrantEducation, and partially funded by the California Office on MigrantEducation (Tom Lugo, Director), Figueroa (1991) conducted a studyof current practices and policies in five regions of the country(Western and Easter streams). Four data sources were included:administrators, teachers, parents and pupil records. Data protocolswere developed from the policy documents on Migrant students inspecial education published since the early 1980's.

r)

Results from this study concur with those in the available literatureon Migrant students in special education. There is an insufficientamount of knowledge about the handicapped Migrant child . her/hisneeds, her/his status in the current special education delivery system,and current/projected prevalence rates across the country. Theunique linguistic, social and educational characteristics of the cultureof migrancy are not addressed or accommodated by the currentspecial education system. Virtually all the available studies, this oneincluded, indicate that such accommodations are important in orderto provide Migrant handicapped pupils with an appropriate specialeducation program. Current federal law needs to be examined andamended to address the unique needs of exceptional Migrantchildren, particularly in the areas of: child-find procedures, collectionof prevalence data, assessment procedures, a uniform individualizedEducation Program format for interstate Migrant children,continuity of curricular and instructional program componentsacross states, parents participation and training, arid evaluations onthe effectiveness of special education for Migrant pupils. Seriousconsideration should be given to the creation of a National MigrantSpecial Education Program. Interstate differences in specialeducation laws, regulations and local school district delivery systemsare impediments in the education of Migrant pupils who need specialeducation. There is some indication that receiving sites may behaving considerable difficulty in educating handicapped Migrantchildren.

Finally, this study underscores one point: the national reform effortsin special education have failed to address the needs of Migranthandicapped children.

Figueroa, R.A. (1991). The Education of Handicapped MigrantStudents: A Preliminary Study of Current Practices and Policies,University of California at Davis. To be submitted to the AMAE(Association of Mexican American Educators) Journal. Spring 1993.

The impact of Policies forHandicapped Children onFuture Early Education Policy

If Mr. Gallagher's predictionsare correct, early care andeducation programs for allyoung children will involvefamilies to a greater extent,will be more multidisciplinaryin character, and will makeuse of a variety of staffingpatterns three features ofexisting programs for youngchildren with special needs.

BY JAMES J. GALLAGHER

UBL1C influence on ele-mentary and secondaryeducation in Americahas traditionally beenexercised at the localand state levels: through

school board actions, budget reviews,certification standards, and the like. Onlyin the past three decades has the federalgovernment exerted significant influence

on the education community.'That influence has come largely

through legislation directed at childrenwith special needs: handicapped childrenor the children of low-income families.These children with special needs werechosen as the initial focus of federallegislation for two main reasons. First,the severity of their problems generated

JAMES J. GALLAGHER IS Kenan Profes-sor of Education at the University of NorthCarolina. Chapel Hill, and director of theCarolina Institute far Child and Family Poli-cy. From 1967 to 1970 he served as the firstdirector of the Bureau of Education for theHandicapped in the U.S. Office of Education.

illectrurinm b Kuv Salem

sympathy and made a positive responsefrom legislators more likely. Second, byfocusing on small subgroups of children,the legislators advocating these proposalscould avoid huge expenditures that mightfrighten both the public and those mem-bers of Congress not totally committedto the purposes of the legislation. Thecongressional supporters hoped that ob-taining limited legislative authority forspecial groups would eventually lead toa broader federal commitment to educa-

tion. 2

lJ

The strategy worked. The magnitudeof the problems that children with spe-cial needs and their families faced in theeducation system of the 1960s tended toovercome the traditional resistance tofederal involvement in education policy.For example, much of the landmark Ele-

mentary and Secondary Education Act(P.L. 89-10) of 1965 focused on eco-nomically disadvantaged students, whileprevious forays into federal legislationhad been made on behalf of handicappedchildren.)

OCTOBER 1989 121

ELT' LiFir 0 7,7E;x3- 0 0 Dry

*FEED FOR F.ARLY CAREND EDUCATIONThe American education system and

the American public have recently beenshowing increased interest in droppingthe age for entering the public schoolsand in providing greater support forchild-care programs. Two factors mayexplain this development. First, the num-ber of women in the work force has ris-en dramatically. In the 1930s fewer than15% of women worked outside the home:more than 50% of women now work out-side the home, including almost half ofall mothers with children under age I

The movement of mothers of young

Legislation for the education of the hand-icapped is a case in point. The earlier fed-eral legislative initiatives for handicappedchildren were limited to expanding theresources available to special educa-tors. Funding was increased for research,preparation of personnel, demonstrationprograms. dissemination, and the like.6When increased funds alone did notseem to achieve the desired goals, poli-cy makers began to use legislation tocreate structural reform, and they re-quired changes in educational settingsand procedures as a condition for the al-location of future resources.

Legislators' growing involvement

hanges in services to handicapped children haveserved as a legislative wedge for theprovision of services to all children.

eventual

dren into the work force has been oneof the most dramatic social changes inAmerican society. and it has raised thefundamental question, Who will care forthe children?

The second factor stimulating publicconcern about early care and educationis the growing realization that manyyoung children from disadvantaged orculturally different families are not de-velopmentally ready for school at thetraditional age. They need specific skillsand experiences in order to reduce thelikelihood that many of them will fail inschool and that the state will face great-er costs later on.

Increases in the numbers of workingmothers and of developmentally delayedchildren are compelling motivators forpolicy makers. As educational programsfor all children under age 5 are devel-oped, prior experience with legislationon behalf of children with special needsmight be expected to play a major rolein shaping and influencing these new pro-grams.

REFORM LEGISLATION

One unexpected consequence of the in-creased public interest in education has

been a more thorough public analysis ofthe manner in which education is con-ducted. In many cases this careful scru-tiny has led to public dissatisfaction.s

122 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

perhaps even interference in educationpolicy making is not without irony, forthe goals of legislators often coincidewith the express wishes of many educa-tional leaders. For example, educatorshave been saying for years that handi-capped children should be better integrat-ed into public school programs, thatmany professional disciplines (e.g., psy-chology, health, social work, education)should cooperate in delivering servicesto children, and that testing programsshould consider the cultural backgrounds

`It's no use! They're getting smallerand more fuel efficient every year!'

tl

of the children being tested. These re-peatedly proposed changes in educationalpractice have proved hard to institute, fora variety of reasons. Legislators finallytook it upon themselves to mandate suchchanges, many of which will now affectpreschool programs being initiated in thestates.

At the state and federal levels, changesin services to handicapped children hasctraditionally served as a legislative wedgefor the eventual provision of services tk,all children. For example, funds for edu-cational research at the federal level wereoriginally allocated to investigations pertaining specifically to the education ofmentally retarded children. This researchwas then broadened to include all handi-capped children and, eventually, all chil-dren in public education.'

LEGISLATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Legislation for the handicapped hasalso introduced the public to educationpolicies that it might at first have founddifficult to accept as applying to all chil-dren. The most dramatic example is thelandmark Education for All HandicappedChildren Act (P.L. 94-142), which hasinfluenced all of American educationIt is likely that its companion piece.the Education of the Handicapped ActAmendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-457), willdo the same for services to all young chil-dren.

P.L. 94-142 introduced six key prin-ciples, all of which have had an impacton American education.

1. Zero reject. All children with handi-caps must be provided a free and ap.propriate public education. Local systemsdo not have the option of choosing wheth-er or not to provide needed services.

2. Nondiscriminatory evaluation. Eachstudent must receive a complete and individual evaluation before being placedin a special education program, and testsmust be appropriate to the child's cultural background.

3. Least restrictive environment. Asmuch as possible, handicapped childrenmust be educated with children who ark

not handicapped.4. Due process. Legal due process

procedures insure the fairness of educetional decisions and the accountability wboth professionals and parents in makingthose decisions.

5. Individualized education. An Ind'vidualized education program (IEP) musbe written for every handicapped chili

El E 2)-17, F87 0 FE rff UZI IAfri

who is receiving special education. TheIEP should describe the child's currentperformance, the educational goals forthe child, and the manner in which ser-vices will be delivered to enable the childto reach those goals.

6. Parental participation. Parents areincluded in the development of the IEPand are guaranteed access to their chil-dren's educational records.%

The law governing handicapped pre-school children (ages 3 to 5) provides aninteresting example of the way legislativeprecedents can work. That law now re-quires that an IEP be provided for eachchild, extending the idea beyond thepopulation originally targeted by P.L.94-142.

A recent congressional initiative thathas gone relatively unnoticed except byspecial educators is the Education of theHandicapped Act Amendments of 1986(P.L. 99-457). This legislation is themost recent in a series of laws focusingon different aspects of educating handi-capped children.9 One of the provisionsof P.L. 99-457 (Part H) deals with agroup that had been previously over-looked: handicapped children from birthto age 3.

P.L. 99-457 (Part H) completes a longcycle of legislative efforts to provide afree and appropriate education for allhandicapped children. This new legisla-tion for infants and toddlers is also thelatest step in an effort spanning morethan two decades to focus attention onearly childhood, a commitment that be-gan with the Handicapped Children's Ear-ly Education Assistance Act (P.L. 90-538) in 1968. That law provided smallsums of money to support demonstrationmodels of early childhood programmingfor handicapped children.

This legislative cornucopia for childrenwith handicapping conditions should be

of interest to everyone concerned aboutchildren. Much of this legislation isgroundbreaking: it establishes precedentsfor relationships among federal, state,and local education agencies. In addition,the most recent pieces of legislation ex-tend beyond the provision of additionalprofessional resources and attemptspecifically and deliberately to effectreforms that will have an impact on alleducators and all professionals who workwith children and families.'0

The stated purposes of P.L. 99-457are:

to enhance the development of hand-icapped infants and toddlers and to min-

imize the risk of developmencal delays;to reduce educational costs by mini-

mizing the need for special education andrelated services after handicapped infantsand toddlers reach school age;

to minimize the likelihood of institu-tionalizing the handicapped and to max-imize their potential for independent liv-ing; and

to enhance the capacity of familiesto meet the special needs of their handi-capped infants and toddlers.

In many respects P.L. 99-457 is morespecifically directed at reform than anyprevious legislation. The new law re-quires each state to develop and imple-ment a statewide "comprehensive, coor-dinated, multidisciplinary, interagencyprogram of early intervention ser-vices. """ Public acceptance of this legis-lation was sought by appeals to broadthemes: helping the child and the fami-ly, saving money through early interven-tion that reduces future costs, and de-veloping the full potential of each child.Similar themes can easily be imagined asrationales for programs for all youngchildren.

HANDICAPPED INFANTS AND TODDLERS

The new legislation establishes prece-dents for providing comprehensive ser-vices to handicapped infants and toddlersand to their families. The major reformsincluded in P.L. 99-457 (Part 1-1) are:

1. Multidisciplinary approach. P.L.

99-457 requires that professionals orga-nize multidisciplinary and multi-agencyprograms for young handicapped chil:dren and their families. Special educatorshave long seen the advantages of usingteams of professionals pediatricians,nurses, occupational therapists, physicaltherapists, speech/language pathologists,psychologists, and social workers towork with handicapped children and theirfamilies, but such teams have rarely ex-isted in practice. The law now mandatessuch multidisciplinary cooperation. TheIndividual Family Service Plan (alsomandated for each child) will be requiredto contain evidence of this multidiscipli-nary approach.

Clearly, a young child who has cere-bral palsy, a mild hearing loss, a delayin language development, and an inabil-ity to respond well to adults will needhelp from many sources. Working alone,the special educator, the psychologist, thepediatrician, or the physical therapistcannot provide the necessary program ofcoordinated treatment for such a child.

It should be equally clear that a mix ofdisciplines is needed to serve young chil-dren who are not handicapped. Social andhealth services have often been seen asdesirable programs in the public schools,but not as partners in the educational pro-gram. At the preschool level, particular-ly for children from culturally differentand economically disadvantaged families,some type of interdisciplinary teamworkamong professionals would seem war-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

He left this morning for preschool."

OCTOBER 1989 123

0 R. o, o Et] [fl

tion, and the influence will surely con-tinue to grow.'4

3. Personnel preparation. There is achronic shortage of adequately trainedpersonnel to provide multidisciplinaryservices for handicapped preschoolers.0This shortage can be circumvented bydesigning new ways of delivering ser-vices, whereby highly trained profession-als supervise the work of other person-nel rather than deliver the services them-selves.

There are many variations on thesepersonnel patterns, but they all seem topoint the way to alternative models ofservice delivery for nonhandicapped pre-

ranted. Jeanette Valentine and EdwardZig ler note that the Head Start programis mandated to provide "education, healthscreening and referral, mental health ser-vices, social services, nutrition, and par-ent involvernent."1: To meet that man-date, public schools would need to in-clude multidisciplinary teams that servethe special needs of the preschool popu-lation.

2. Family empowerment. Programs forhandicapped children have long targetedparents and families for services' teach-ing parents more effective parenting tech-niques, engaging them an the instructionof their own children, helping them be-

ore working mothers and more developmentallydelayed children from poor families are forcingnew public policy on early care and education.

come more effective public advocates.',P.L. 99-457 makes a major effort to in-clude the family in planning for handi-capped infants or toddlers. The notion ofprotecting the rights of parents is relative-ly new to general educators, many ofwhom have viewed the public schoolsas their exclusive domain, with parentslimited to a visit on "parents' day." How-ever, the emphasis on family empower-ment in programs for handicapped chil-dren and in programs such as Head Starthas already filtered into general educa-

`Congratulations. I hear you're beenaccepted by Learning Fields NurserySchool."

/24 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

schoolers as well. It may not be possibleto find sufficient numbers of certifiedpreschool teachers to provide service toyoung children. However, alternativestaffing models and personnel prepara-tion models can help stretch the limit-ed numbers of fully qualified preschoolteachers.

PRESCHOOL EDUCATIONFOR THE HANDICAPPED

Title II of P.L. 99-457 mandates fullservice to all handicapped children be-tween the ages of 3 and 5 by the 1990-91 school year. In fiscal year 1989 thefederal government provided $200 mil-lion to aid the states in meeting this re-qui remem. A state that does not meet thedeadline will lose its share of the $200million and other discretionary funds thathave been provided through the U.S. De-partment of Education's Office of Special

Education Programs.,,It appears inevitable that financial sup-

port from the government produces rulesand regulations that increasingly shape

and control the expenditure of that mori,ey. Federal support for early care andeducation is likely to follow that pattern;for good or ill, federal guidelines andregulations will accompany these pro-grams

As the number of mothers of youngchildren entering the work force in-

U

=EHcreases and as the number of childrenwith developmental deficiencies fromeconomically disadvantaged families alsoincreases, some type of public policy onearly care and education seems inevita-ble. The provisions for such a policy willprobably be shaped in part by existingprograms for preschoolers with specialneeds. This would mean that programsfor all young children will involve fami-lies to a greater extent, will be more mul-tidisciplinary in character, and will makeuse of a variety of staffing patterns allfeatures of existing programs for youngchildren with special needs.

1. Edwin Martin, "Lessons from ImplementingP.L. 94.142," in James Gallagher, Pascal Trohani.and Richard Clifford, eds.. Policy implementationand P.L. 99-457 Planning for Young Children withSpecial Needs (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1989).pp. 19-32.2. Gilbert Steiner. The Futility of Family Polo(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 198113. Samuel A. Kirk and James Gallagher. Edwining Exceptional Children (Boston: Houghton Milllin, 1989).4. Bernice Weissbourd. "A Brief History of Family Support Programs," in Sharon L. Kagan. Douglas R. Powell, Bernice Weissbourd, and Edwar,Zigler, eds., America's Family Support ProgramPerspectives and Prospects (New Haven, ConnYale University Press, 1987), p. 46.5. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Eduiotional Reform (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1983).6. Edwin Martin. "A National Commitment to th,

Rights of the Individual," Exceptional Children, vol43, 1976, pp. 132.35.7. Kirk and Gallagher, op. cit.8. Alan Abeson and Jane Zettel, "The End of th,Quiet Revolution: The Education for All Handlcapped Children Act of 1975," Exceptional Chi;dren, vol. 44, 1975, pp. 114.30.9. Pascal Trohanis, "Preparing for Change: Th.Implementation of Public Law 99 -457," in June Jot

dan et al., eds., Early Childhood Special Educ,.

lion: Birth to Three (Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1988), pp. 229-40.10. James Gallagher, "The Implementation of Si'cial Policy: A Policy Analysis Challenge.' in Gai

lagher, Trohanis, and Clifford, pp. 199-215.11. Trohanis, op. cii.12. Jeanette Valentine and Edward Zigler,Start: A Case Study in the Development of Soci...

Policy for Children and Families,' in Edward Zigler, Sharon Lynn Kagan, and Edgar Klugman. eds

Children, Families, and Government: P,'rsprctn,on American Social Policy (New York. Cambric!):University Press, 1983), p. 268

13 James Gallagher and Peter Vietze. eds.. Fao

ilies of Handicapped Persons (Baltimore Paul 11

Brookes. 1986).14. Robert Mononey, Shared Responsibility Fah

ilies and Social Policy (New York Aldine. 1986

IS Eva Thorp and Jeanette McCollum. "Definethe Infancy Specialization in Early Chadhcxxl Sp,

cial Education," in Jordan et al.. pp 147-62

16. Gallagher, Trohanis, and Clifford, p. 13 P

tr.$ 711 Yin: tt:etilkADLL

Inc George os- r!g!!:

& the Center ior Apoi,ed s. :s

1118 22nd Street NW

Washington DC 20037

800/321.NCBE

The Title VII Special

Populations Program

OVERVIEW

As part of its mission to provideequal educational opportunity forlimited English proficient iLEP)students, the Office of BilingualEducation and Minority Languag-es Affairs (OBEMLA i operates theSpecial Populations Program. Theprogram provides funding to eligi-ble parties for activities that arepreparatory or supplementary toprograms such as those assisted

under the Act. Special populationsprojects may establish, operate.and improve preschool. gifted andtalented, or special education pro-grams for LEP children.

The Special Populations Pro-gram currently serves 8.663 stu-dents enrolled in 49 education

projects nationwide an annual

operating budget of more than 57million. Special Populations Pro-gram projects are funded for nomore than three years. During Fis-cal Year 91.45 projects werefunded: 27 served LEP preschoolstudents, 15 served LEP gifted andtalented students. and three sup-

ported special education servicesfor LEP students.

In response to an identified na-tional need. Secretary of EducationLamar A le..inder announced a,:ompetui .t,!.priority duringYear 92 I or pi eschool programs

stn me LEP students. 1 his priorityresponse to changing demo-

graphics and the high number ofpreschool project application!. tothe Special Populations Programsubmitted in recent years. By em-phasizing preschool projects. theSpecial Populations Program ishelping local school districts intheir efforts to achieve the firstNational Education Goal: "bythe year 2(1(10. all children inAmerica s ill sta:t :.ehool readyto learn.-

Funding through OBEMLA'sSpecial Populations Program isopen to local education agencies

institutions of higher edu-cation t IHEsi. and private non-profit organizations.

The primary locus of each

project funded through the SpecialPopulations Program is to assist

LEP students to heLome proficient

in English.

:

continued on poge 2

Referring Language

Minority Students to

Special Education

Paula ()him. Fulda t C own\ Pivhluu

Si Iwol%.1.11-winci

Specialists assume that appro.'-mately the same proportion of very(bright individuals, cognitively lim-lited individuals, individuals with!language disorders, etc.. will befound in any population. Statisti-cally, about 12 percent of the lan-guage minority population in the

, United States may require specialeducation. In some school dis-

tricts, language minority studentsare over-represented in special ed-

ucation. while in other districts.and in certain categories of specialeducation, there is an under-

representation of language minori-

ty students with disabilities. Whilespecial education is not the only

`,option available to language minor-ity learners with special needs, it is

i perative that they be identified

continued on page 5

I

; I IP

`

Title VII programs, from page I

Currently, Special PopulationsProgram projects enroll studentsfrom the following native lan-guage groups: Arapaho, Armenian.Cambodian, Chamorro, Cherokee,Chinese, Choctaw, Creek. Crow,Farsi, Haitian-Creole. Inupiaq, Kh-mer, Korean, Laotian, Marshall-ese, Mien, Polish, Punjabe, Roma-nian, Russian, Samoan, SiberianInupiaq, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai.Trukese, Ukrainian, Vietnamese,and Zuni.

Special education and giftedand talented programs that arefunded through OBEMLA's Spe-cial Populations Program serveLEP students at grade levels frompreschool through 12th grade.They are founded on acceptedpractices and meet the standardsestablished through relevant feder-al regulation.

Preschool projects funded underthe Special Populations Programcan be developmental bilingual ed-ucation (DBE), transitional bilin-gual education (TBE). or ESL in-structional programs, among oth-ers. They include developmentallyappropriate activities for three tofour year old students, with an em-phasis on early motor, language.and cognitive development asintegral components of theirstructure.

The parent components focuson developing parents' parenting

skills and understanding of thechild development process, and in-creasing their involvement in edu-cation through home learning ac-

tivities.

THE SPECIAL POPULATIONS

PROGRAM: PROJECT PROFILES

Project PREP (Preschool Readi-ness for Educational Progress),Buena Park, CaliforniaContact: E. Elaine Hutchins

714/228-3188

Project PREP is an early inter-vention preschool program estab-lished to meet the needs of nativeSpanish speaking LEP studentswho lack opportunities for ade-quate language and concept devel-opment prior to formal schooling.

Project PREP is designed to:

provide a bilingual early child-hood learning environmentwhere LEP children will bestimulated to develop the motor,sensorial, language, affective,and intellectual skills needed foracademic success in elementaryschool

,

1

assist at-risk LEP children in ac-quiring English language profi-ciency prior to the developmentof literacy and academic skillsrequired for scho

prepare bilingual teachers tomeet the challenges of teachingLEP students; and

equip the LEA with the neces-sary resources to meet the needs

of LEP preschool children on a___s_optinuing basis.

Project EL SOL (Exceptional!

Learners Speakers of OtherLanguages), Miami, FloridaContact: Gwendolyn J. Kidne,

305/995-1704 .):"

Project EL SOL is a special ed-ucation project designed to servehandicapped LEP students in pre-school and in grades K-5. ThroughESOL-based group and individual-ized instruction in language devel-

opment, reading, mathematics, so-cial/self help skills, social studies,science, health, and computer liter-acy, project EL SOL strives to in-crease handicapped students' En-glish communicative and cognitiveskills. Students served are nativeHaitian-Creole or Spanish speakers.

Project EL SOL is designed to:

provide LEP pre-kinder artenand eleriren ary handicapped stu-dents with an individualized ed-ucalion.prog rraa(IgP) which

/vill allow them to acquire corn-municative and cognitive En-glish language skills;

support the s u en s mainte-nance of their home languages \to ensure the maintenance ofpreviously acquired communica-tion and cognitive skills;

train parents to support the edu-cational process, increase theirunderstanding of the school sys-tem, and familiarize them with

available community resources.

prepare instructional personnelin the areas necessary to meetthe unique needs of LEP pre-kindergarten and elementaryhandicapped students; and

train teachers in ESOL strate-\\,,gees, multicultural awareness, \ ;academic theory and methodolo-gy, oral language development, 1

parent training skills, and theuse of home language to pro-mote the acquisition of English.'

_. _ .. _Qd For more information on the

Special Populations Program, orfor a complete listing of fundedprojects contact: Barbara Wells,Special Populations Program,OBEMLA, 400 Maryland Avenue,SW, Switzer Building, Room5627, Washington, DC 20202;202/732-1840.

2MAY 1992

Referring Students, from page I

and given access to the full rangeof special education and relatedservices to meet their needs.

THE PREREFERRAL PROCESS

The prereferral process seeks toeliminate unnecessary and inap-propriate referrals to special edu-cation. Most inappropriate refer-rals can be avoided by implement.ing a prereferral interventionprocess through which teachers arehelped to remediate the problemsthe child is experiencing in thecontext of the classroom. One pre-referral method uses Teacher As-sistance Teams (TATS) groupsof teachers selected by their peersto facilitate prereferral problem-solving. The TAT and the referringteacher meet to discuss the prob-lems the student is having, think ofpossible solutions, and develop aplan of action to be implementedby the teacher. Ultimately, theTAT decides whether the studentshould be referred to special edu-cation (Garcia & Ortiz, 19881.

ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL

To ensure access to special pro-

grams, yet not use special education

as a dumping ground for LEP stu-

dents, it is imperative that LEP stu-

dents be tested thoroughly. Appro-

priate formal and informal assess-

ment procedures should be used to

determine the student's level of

functioning and possible handicap-

ping condition. Current research on

language development and second

language acquisition should be taken

into account, including research on

neurolinguistics, cc nitive develop.

ment, bilingualism, and psychologi.

cal functioning, as well as researchon resettlement and cultural and

emotional adjustment.

The ESL teacher. bilingual edu-

cation teacher. and classroom teach-

ers who work regularly with the

learner will have the most important

school-based observations and inputin the assessment process. This, cou-

pled 1s oh input from parents. be-

comes the foundation for the assess-

ment process.

ASSESSMENT: OVER-IDENTIFICATION

VS UNDER-IDENTIFICATION

Public Law 94-142 states thatchildren v. ith disabilities in theUnited States are guaranteed the

right to a free. appropriate publiceducation. to an irdis idualized edu-cation program t IEP) that includesspecial education and related ser-

ices that meet their specific needs.to due process (assuring that stu-dents with disabilities are properlyassessed. classified, and placed in

appropriate programs). to educationin the least restrim e environment.to tests that arc not culturally dis-criminatory. and to multi-dimen-sional assessment. The LEP childwith a disability has a right to thesame special education services as

other children with disabilities.

The assessment and placement

process is not a simple task. Legal

requirements can cause difficulties

for districts or schools seeking to im-

plement procedures for assessing

LEP children "Fear of litigation byschool districts can lead to the un-

der-identification ot minority pupilsin special education. Data collected

by the Calitoinia State Departmentof Education (CSDE) pupil countxerifies the trend of shifting from

over-identiticat ton of minorities in

special education to under-identifica-

tion- (Vasquet-Chairez, 1988).

CONCLUSION

Students who have disordersthat interfere with the teaching and

learning process should be referredto special education programs thatwill allow them to develop theskills nr cessary for full participa-tion in society. However, it is vitalto distinguish students who are ex-periencing difficulties in schoolbecause of limited English skillsfrom students who have disabili-ties. Inappropriate referral to spe-cial education can be stigmatizingand costly and can inhibit LEPstudents from achieving their fullacademic potential. IN

REFERENCES He FURTHER EADING

Garcia. S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (1988).Preventing inappropriate referralsof language minority students to

special educatum. Focus, no. 5.

Silver Spring, Maryland: NationalClearinghouse for Bilingual Educa-tion.

Hamayan, E. & Damico, J. (1990).

Limiting bias in the assessment of

bilingual students. Austin, Texas:Pro-Ed.

Vasquez-Chairez, M. (1988). Bilin-gual and special education: Proce-dural manual for program admin-istrators. Crosscultural Special Ed-ucation Series. vol. I . Sacramento,

California: California State Depart-ment of Education.

Willig, A. & Greenberg, H.. ed.

(1986). Bilinguali;:nt and learningdisabilities: Polio and practice ,torteachers and administrators. New

York, New York: American Li-brary Publishing Company.

E.lf elpled/OM1nithortty Ati«lents Ape( tal edit«itton:ERIC Digest. March /99/. To tirdeicopy of the DoteAt, rejer in -In theNCBE Database" on page 7.

;4.

NCBE FORUM 5

31 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Exceptional Children, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 27-40.01992 The Council for Exceptional Children.

Making Sense of Disability:Low-Income, Puerto Rican Parents'

Theories of the ProblemBETH HARRY

University of Maryland

ABSTRACT: This article reports findings from an ethnographic study of the views of 12 low-incomePuerto Rican parents whose children were classified as learning disabled or mildly mentallyre ;arded. Different cultural meanings of disability and normalcy led parents to reject the notion ofdisability and focus on the impact of family identity. language confusion. and detrimentaleducational practices on children's school performance. Parents' views were in line with currentarguments against labeling and English-only instruction.

O In the face of the rapidly increasing culturaldiversity of the United States, the special educa-tion system is faced with the challenge of ex-plaining its services and practices to people whomay hold radically different types of cultural un-derstanding, assumptions, and expectationsregarding education. Current demographicprojections for the 21st century (Hodgkinson,1985) have underscored the urgency of findingradical solutions for the evident mismatch be-tween school systems and many of those theyserve.

This article is concerned with one aspect ofthis mismatchthe potential impact on parentsof cross-cultural misunderstanding. The mandatefor the participation of parents in the placementprocess should serve as a protection to studentswho might be inappropriately placed in specialeducation programs and should provide assis-tance to educators in the decision-making pro-cess. However, unless professionals workingwi:!, culturally different parents can find effec-tive means of ensuring a shared understanding ofthe meaning of special education placement, theintent of the law will be seriously undermined.

Using the findings of an ethnographic study oflow-income Puerto Rican parents' views, this ar-ticle demonstrates both the impact of cross-cul-tural misunderstanding and the tremendous po-tential of parents as effective collaborators in theeducation process. The concerns of the parentscentered on conflicting interpretations of the con-cept of disability and on parents' provision of al-ternative explanations for their children's learn-ing difficulties. Cultural differences not-withstanding, the parents' explanations of theirchildren's difficulties were very much in linewith some of the major debates current in thefield, that is, arguments concerning labeling aswell as the debate on appropriate assessment andinstruction of cultural and linguistic minority stu-dents.

PARENTS' VIEWS OF LABELING

Official definitions of mild '7:enrol retardationemphasize that the concept does not include theexpectation of biologically based, permanent,and comprehensive incompetence. Nevertheless,the term continues to evoke such an impression,partly because the same term is used for individ-

Exceptional Children 27

;.4

t.

a

1

uals with much more severe intellectual limita-tions (Reschly. 1987), and partly because theterm disability inevitably suggests a deficitwithin the individual.

A small but consistent body of literature onparents' reactions to labeling reflects this con-cern. Parents have been shown to be more ac-cepting of terms such as brain injured (Busch,1961), learning disabled, and slow learner(Wolfensberger & Kurtz, 1974) than of retarda-tion-related labels. The greater social desirabilityof the term learning disabled generally reflectsthe notion of an impairment that is specific ratherthan global in nature and therefore less stigmatiz-ing to the image of the .child as a whole person.Parents' preference for this type of descriptionwas observed by Smith, Osborne, Crim, and Rhu(1986). These researchers compared the defini-tions of learning disability given by 129 parentsand 137 school personnel and found that parentstended to describe their children's difficulties interms of physical disorders and attention span.The authors interpreted this tendency as a protec-tive device on the part of parents to "neutralize"the social stigma attached to broader interpreta-tions. On the other hand, Pollack (1985) pointedto potential negative effects if parents cling tosuch definitions to escape facing children's realneeds. In case studies of upper-middle-class pro-fessional families. Pollack found that parents ac-tively sought the "learning disabled" label, inwhat seemed to be an effort to deflect responsi-bility for negative familial dynamics underlyingthe child's difficulties.

Meanwhile, it is also likely that parents mightbe influenced by terminology they perceive to benegative. For example, Coleman (1984) foundthat mothers of children labeled learning disabledestimated their children's self-concept to belower than the ratings actually given by the chil-dren themselves, perhaps because of the mothers'knowledge of social judgments. In addition,Kaufman (1982) found that mothers rated video-taped children more negatively when they wereinformed that the children were labeled mentallyretarded rather than developmentally delayed.

It is important to distinguish between parents'reactions to the labels per se, and their estima-tions of their children's capabilities. Wolfensber-ger and Kurtz (1974) found that although parents'estimations of children's mental age and func-tioning agreed with those of professionals, theytended to reject retardation-related labels. Thus,parents' disagreement over any particular label

28

t)

does not necessarily mean that they do not recog-nize their children's difficulties, but rather thatthey interpret and name them differently.

These findings are in keeping with common-sense expectations of parents' need to protecttheir children and families from stigma. Further,it is in keeping with Goffman's (1963) well-known consideration of stigma, in which he ob-serves that labeled persons themselves may en-gage in actions designed to camouflage theirdifference so as to "pass" for normal. This theorywas applied by Edgerton (1967) to his findingsthat previously institutionalized persons labeledmentally retarded rejected the label and ex-pended considerable energy in disguising theirdeviance. Edgerton referred to this self-defensivemechanism as a "cloak of competence." His fol-low-up study 10 years later. however, found thatthis concern was no longer central in the lives ofthese persons; he concluded that this related totheir increased distance from the stigma of the in-stitution. More recently, Zetlin and Turner (1984)identified different types of self-perceptionsamong such persons, which included both "ac-ceptors" and "deniers" of the label, and arguedthat one significant source of such reactions wasthe way parents had explained their children'slimitations to them.

It is important to understand the meaning ofthe concept of "passing." A standard that hasbeen established by society for the identificationof deviance does not represent objective realityor "truth," but simply a social agreement as to thedefinition of deviance. Indeed, labeling theory, as

set forth by theorists such as Lofland (1969) andBecker (1963), emphasizes that definitions of de-viance are social constructions negotiated bythose with official power to label. Bogdan andTaylor's (1982) life histories of persons labeledmentally retarded have demonstrated that suchpersons' self-identifications may differ sharplyfrom the way society has identified them. Bogdanand Taylor pointed out that these individuals' re-jection of society's label simply reveals the exis-tence of differing perspectives, thus underscoringthe socially negotiated nature of the labeling pro-cess. In other words, because a person engages indenial, one cannot assume that the denier is in-herently wrong, and the official labeler is right,since the application of the label is but a socialdecision reflecting a societal value. To attempt to"pass" is simply to assert one's self-definitionover the definition imposed by society.

September 1992

+.4.-*....

Parental rejection of labels for their childrenunderscores the highly differentiated response ofindividuals to their loved ones, whom they see asindividuals with behaviors that may be recogniz-ably different, but which do not necessarilyrender the whole individual "deviant" and there-fore warrant a deviant classification. Thus, whenprofessionals say that parents do not accept a

child's classification, it should not be assumedthat the professional is right and the parentwrong, but rather that both are using different cri-teria for describing the child. It would be moreappropriate to describe the parent as disagreeingwith the label than as failing to accept it.

Most studies of parents' views of labelingwere either conducted with white populations, orelse did not specify differences in responses be-tween racially different groups. Studies of non-white parents' views of the mental retardationlabel per se are few, the best known beingMercer's (1972) report of interviews with Blackand Hispanic parents who explicitly rejected theappropriateness of the label for their children.These parents felt that the special educationclasses into which the children were placed of-fered no remediation to their learning difficulties.Marion (1980) has also reported that Black par-ents have expressed resentment at the dispropor-tionate classification and special educationplacement of their children.

Although the impact of the "mild mental re-tardation" label is important for all students andtheir families, the decades-long controversy hasbeen fueled by the overrepresentation of minoritystudents in special education programs (Dunn,1968; Mercer, 1973). This continuing concernhas more recently focused on the pressing needfor more appropriate and effective methods of as-sessment and instruction for cultural and linguis-tic minority students (Duran, 1989; Figueroa,1989; Ortiz & Polyzoi, 1986). The intensity of thedebate reflects the elusive nature of the search fora dividing line between special and regular edu-cation, while the arbitrariness of the designation"disability" for many students with mild learningdisorders illustrates that the concept is more a re-flection of social values than of objective reality.For many minority students, underachievementis the point at which regular and special educationmeet, with many students from what has beencalled the "mental withdrawalgrade reten-tiondrop-out syndrome" (Stein, 1986), cross-ing the border from "normalcy" to "disability,"

Exceptional Children

HISPANIC PARENTS AND SPECIALEDUCATION

Since Mercer's (1972) study of parents' opinions,which was conducted before the passage of Pub-lic Law 94-142, literature focusing on Hispanicparents has centered on their knowledge of andparticipation in the education process. Documen-tation so far indicates that parents place greatvalue on education and express faith in theschools, but that their knowledge of what actuallygoes on in schools in the United States may beminimal (Condon, Peters, & Sueiro-Ross, 1979;Delgado-Gaitan, 1987). Studies focusing on spe-cial education show a similar pattern, indicatingthat there is often no parallel in the families' homecountries (Figler, 1981; Lynch & Stein, 1987) andthat cultural meanings attached to concepts ofdisability may be very different from those in theUnited States (Condon et al., 1979; Correa, 1989;Figler, 1981). Further, a recent ethnographicstudy by Bennett (1988) concluded that the dis-course of parent-professional interactions is sostructured as to render parents effectively power-less as partners in their children's educational ca-reers.

The present study offers an additional dimen-sion to the literature on Hispanic families' inter-action with special education by seeking parents'actual definitions of disability, as well as their re-actions to the experience of their children's clas-sification and placement in special education pro-grams. Further, the study shows that such parentscan be very perceptive about their children's dif-ficulties and, therefore, have a great deal to con-tribute to an effective parent-professional part-nership.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The findings reported in this article are part of alarger data set from an ethnographic study of low-income, Puerto Rican-American parents' viewsof special education (Harry, 1992). The primaryaim of the study was to examine the role of cul-ture in parents' interpretations of their children'sspecial education placement. A secondary aimwas to examine the extent and quality of theparents' interaction with the special educationsystem. as well as factors that facilitate or ob-struct their participation. This article addressesonly the findings related to the first of these aims.

Participants were 12 Puerto Rican-Americanfamilies residing in a low-income, largely Hispa-

29

r

nic community, in a medium-sized city in thenortheast. In three families, both fathers andmothers were participants, while in the othernine, only mothers and one grandmother partici-pated. Spanish was the language of the homes;only one mother, who was born on the mainland,was a native speaker of English. The families hadlived between 2 and 12 years on the mainlan.:and I 1 families were currently receiving welfarebenefits. Only two of the mothers had completedhigh school, most having left school between thefourth and ninth grades, while few of the fathershad gone beyond the fifth grade.

Although the sample number was small, these12 families represented 17 children in special ed-ucation programs, which amounted to 35% of the48 Puerto Rican students enrolled in special ed-ucation programs in the school district. All butone of these 48 were classified as having milddisabilities, while among the sample children 6were classified as mentally retarded and 11 aslearning disabled.

The parents were contacted by two Hispanicsocial workers affiliated with a neighborhoodvoluntary agency. This approach was importantbecause it allowed the researcher to be presentedas an independent agent, not affiliated with or ac-countable to the school system and therefore in abetter position to gain parents' honest opinions ofthe system. Selection of the families was basedon personal judgments by the social workers con-cerning which families they felt would be mostaccessible and most willing to participate. Fami-lies were not chosen because of any prior knowl-edge regarding the parents' experiences with theschool system. The researcher was introduced tothe parents by the social workers and subse-quently proceeded independently of them.

Over a period of 9 months, information wascollected through repeated unstructured inter-views, conducted in the ethnographic tradition(Spradley, 1979; Bogdan & Biklen, 1982), withrecurring feedback from researcher to partici-pants to ensure accuracy and correct interpreta-tion. At least three taped interviews were heldwith each family. The interviews were conductedby the researcher in participants' homes in Span-ish or a mixture of Spanish and English, as appro-priate; further, additional informal interviewswere held with most parents. A second method ofdata collection was participant observation, con-ducted primarily in the style of "observer as par-ticipant" (McCall & Simmons, 1969). These in-cluded seven meetings between parents and

30

school personnel, as well as a variety of familyand community activities. Triangulation of datawas achieved by examination of students' schooldocuments and by interviews with 12 district pro-fessionals involved in special education policy orservice delivery to Spanish-speaking families.

The findings of this study are based on theviews of a small group of parents from a particu-lar background, that is, Puerto Rican families oflow income and relatively little formal education,who might be described as being in the earlystages of acculturation to the culture of the U.S.mainland. Their voices cannot be expected to berepresentative of all culturally different parents,or even of all Hispanic parents. However, thoughthe study cannot claim to be generalizable toother populations, the in-depth, recursive natureof the interview and observation methodologyensures that an accurate picture of parents' viewshas been obtained. In other words, one of themain strengths of this methodology lies in itsclaim to validitythe notion that what it claimsto demonstrate is in fact what has been studied,and therefore that one might expect similar find-ings with a similar population under similar cir-cumstances.

Patton (1980) has offered a thoughtful discus-sion of the relevance of generalizability to qual-itative data and concludes that the strength of themethod lies in the provision of perspective and ofwell-grounded information that can lead to ac-tion. In the case of this study, the clarity ofparticipants' perspectives demonstrates the prin-ciple of cultural relativity, which goes beyond theparticular views of a given group and which canserve as a guide for professionals working withany significantly different cultural group.

FINDINGS

This article focuses on two central findings: first,important ways in which the meaning of disabil-ity differed along cultural lines for these familiesand, second, that the parents held their own the-ories explaining their children's difficulties. Withregard to the issue of culturally based meaningsof disability, the data showed two particulartrends:

1. The parameters of "normalcy" in terms ofchildren's developments were much widerthan those used by the educational system.

2. Different designations for disability led toparents' confusion of terms like handicapped

I ..1..

September 1992

and retarded with more extreme forms of de-viance.

This section outlines, first, the meaning of thelabels and, second, parents' theories of theirchildren's problems.

The Meaning of the Labels

Francisca, a woman of 55. had years of experi-ence with the special education system. Herdaughter, Angelica, had been placed in a programfor children labeled "educable mentally re-tarded" when she was between the ages of 8 and13. At the time of the study, she had returned tothe regular class. but Francisca's granddaughter,Rosita, was currently in special education, clas-sified as "mildly mentally retarded." The follow.ing is Francisca's account of her daughter's initialreferral to special education. This story is repre-sentative of the way in which many families de-scribed the initial referral of a child for specialeducation services. For many it was a moment ofcrisis, marking the onset of a period of confusionand distress.

When the children were small I always used togo and collect them from school. One day, whenmy youngest daughter was in the second grade.I went to get her and as I was walking alongSpruce Street the child came running toward mescreaming. I was very frightened and thoughtthat something terrible had happened. When shegot close to me she grabbed me and threwherself on me and shrieked, "Mammi!" I said."My God! What has happened to you?" And shesaid to me, "The teacher told me that I must notcome to her class anymore, that she is not goingto struggle with me anymore because I amcrazy!"

So I went to the school and I told them the childis not crazy but they started sending me theseletters and I took them to the Latin AmericanAssociation and asked someone what they saidand they told me it said the child is retarded.They put her in the special class although I toldthem at the meeting that no person who isretarded, who does not have a good mind, cando the hard school work she does. I told them tostop sending these letters because the child seesthem, she knows English and she reads them andshe gets very upset and says, "I am not goingback to the school unless they stop saying I amcrazy because 1 am not crazy."

Now they are saying the same thing about mygranddaughter, but she has nothing wrong withher mind either. She behaves well and she

Exceptbnal Children

speaks clearly in both Spanish and English.Why do they say she is retarded? .. .

They say that the word "handicap" means a lotof things, it doesn't just mean that a person iscrazy. But for us, Puerto Ricans, we stillunderstand this word as "crazy." For me, aperson who is handicapped is a person who isnot of sound mind or has problems in speech orsome problem of the hands or legs. But mychildren have nothing like that, thanks to Godand the Virgin! (Francisca) .

Most parents were initially as incredulous asFrancisca at the assignment of the label "mentallyretarded." Coming from a background wheredaily affairs can be managed by a healthy body,common sense, and elementary academic skills,parents explained that the label "retarded" or"handicapped" would be applied only to some-one whose competence is severely impaired orwho is considered mentally deranged. Thus, thelabeling of Francisca's daughter and grand-daughter seemed a contradiction in terms: Howcould a person who is retarded read and becomeincensed by the very letter that describes her asretarded? How could a 6 1/2-year-old who speaksboth English and Spanish be retarded?

In addition to different parameters for normaldevelopment, the word "retardado" was tied tothe general category of me-iital illness--a tremen-dously stigmatized form of social deviance. Thusthe term would only be used to denote behaviorand a functional level seriously different from thenorm. One mother, Ana, speaking in terms verysimilar to those of Francisca, made a clear dis-tinction between "retarded" and "handicapped":

For me, retarded is crazy; in Spanish that's"retardado." For me, the word "handicap"means a person who is incapacitated, likementally, or missing a leg, or who is blind ordeaf, who cannot work and cannot do anything. . . a person who is invalid, useless. . But forAmericans, it is a different thingfor them,"handicap" is everybody! (Ana)

For parents to accept the use of the word re-tarded they had to start by differentiating it fromthe word loco /crazy, and most parents who madethis transition substituted the word slow. How-ever, to reach this level of agreement with theschool, parents would still need to see the childas significantly different from theirown expecta-tions. This became confusing for parents whoseown level of education was at the third or fourthgrade and who had a child already in the fifth or

31

sixth, or who was bilingual while the parentfound English difficult to learn. One mother, Car-men. exclaimed angrily that the work her daugh-ter was doing was sometimes so hard that "nei-ther her father nor I can do it!"

The term learning disabled did not evoke thesame confusion for parents, but neither did theyaccept it as an appropriate description of theirchildren's difficulties. They readily understoodthe intent of the term, and did not find it offensivesince it acknowledged the overall developmentalcompetence of the children. However, with onlyone exception, the notion of a deficit intrinsic tothe child was rejected by the parents; in otherwords, they did not interpret the difficulty as a"disability." Their explanations are described inthe next section.

Parents' Theories

Parents' interpretations of their children's diffi-culties varied in specific ways; but from all theinterviews there emerged three distinct themes:the importance of family identity in the interpre-tation of a child's developmental patterns; thedetrimental effects of second-language acquisi-tion on school learning; and the detrimental ef-fects of educational practices such as frequentchanges in placement, out-of-neighborhoodplacement, an unchallenging curriculum, and in-flexible reading instruction.

Family Identity. The strong familism of Hispaniccultures is well documented (Condon et al.,1979). With reference to Puerto Rican people inparticular, Canino (1980) has described the typi-cal family as tending to show an "enmeshed"rather than a "disengaged" structure. In this pat-tern, there is a strong emphasis on the family'sidentity as a group rather than as a collection ofindividuals, which, Canino says, may lead to fea-tures such as, "prolonged mother-child interac-tion," overlapping of nuclear and extendedfamily roles, and a perception of illness as a prob-lem that resides within the family rather thansolely within the individual.

This concept of the family became a crucialfactor in some parents' interpretations of theirchildren's being described as "handicapped." Forexample, some parents said they felt that theirfamilies had been disgraced because the socialhistories written about the children gave the im-pression that the children's difficulties resultedfrom immorality in the family. In addition to

32

these families' traditional association of "retarda-tion" with mental illness, disability thus took onan extra stigma, that of being tied to bad familycharacter.

Parents' comments also demonstrated that al-though a strong concept of group identity makesthe whole group vulnerable, there is a resiliencecreated by these same assumptions. That is, inas-much as the individual may bring shame to thegroup, so may aspects of the groups's identityserve to protect the individual. Thus, all parentsspoke of their children's strengths andweaknesses in terms of family characteristics.

There is a certain acceptability in a child's dif-ficulties "coming from the father," or being "justlike his aunt." Some mothers modified the term"retarded" and other rejected it outright; but ineither case they described the children in termsof marked family traits not considered to be out-side the range of normal behavior. Thus, they feltthat the school's labeling process did not recog-nize the child's individuality and family identity.Francisca, for example, explained both herdaughter's and hergranddaughter's difficulties atschool in terms of the school's preference formore expressive types of personality. Her chil-dren, she said, were very quiet, both by heredityand because of the family's life style:

As I told them at the school, the only problemmy child has is that she is very quiet. She doesnot talk much. But this quietness comes fromthe family because the father of these childrenis very silent. If you speak to him he speaks, ifyou greet him he greets you, if not, nothing! ...So this is by heredity; the child has no problemin speech nor is she retarded or anything....

And my granddaughtershe is very timid, youknow. I brought her up here and she does notplay with other children outside, only at school.At home I only let her go outside if she goes withthe family, but alone, no. (Francisca)

In a similar vein, another mother, Ramona, ac-knowledged that her 10-year-old daughter wasprogressing more slowly than most children inacademic work, but did not agree that this meantshe was mentally retarded. Rather, she describedher daughter as very unsure of herself because ofextreme shyness, similar to that of her "father'sfamily" and of Ramona herself. Ana, whose 9-year -old, Gina, was also classified as "mentallyretarded," agreed that her daughter needed a spe-cial class because she was slow in learning andher behavior was very erratic. Ana understood

September 1992

what "Americans" mean by "retarded" but con-sidered it irrelevant: Gina, she said. is simply"like her father." He never did learn to read andwrite and has a quick temper. He has always beenlike that, and she feared that Gina would be too:

I think she won't change because she is the samething as my husband. He is always "con coraje"(quick to anger). You tell him something. hetalks to you back. He can't stay quiet. He spoilsGinahe says, "I love her because she is justlike me!" (Ana)

Learning Disability: "A causa del idioma/Be-cause of the language." Parents of children inboth learning disability and mental retardationclassifications tended to place their children'sdifficulties in the context of family identity. Be-yond this, however, parents also placed a greatdeal of responsibility for children's difficultieson the school. Here a noticeable pattern emergedregarding the disability label. Parents of childrenlabeled learning disabled focused on the commontheme of "confusion" resulting from the changefrom Spanish to English, and one parent specif-ically charged the method of teaching reading asthe source of her daughter's difficulties. Parentsof children labeled mentally retarded, however.focused on other detrimental educational prac-tices.

Because Spanish was the primary language inall homes in the study, even those children bornin the United States learned Spanish as their firstlanguage. Thus, English became a requirementonly upon entrance into school, which, for most,was between kindergarten and the third grade.These children were placed directly into regulareducation English-speaking classes with varyingamounts of "pull-out" for the "English as a Sec-ond Language" (ESL) program. Those labeledmentally retarded were identified within a year ortwo, and those labeled learning disabled were re-ferred to special education between the secondand sixth grades. All of the latter group had re-peated one or, in several cases, two grades beforebeing referred.

Parents said that the children had been "doingfine" in prekindergarten and kindergarten andthat their problems began when the child enteredthe elementary grades. Of those children who hadstarted school in Puerto Rico, most of the parentssaid that the child had no problem in school there.Only two children, who had behavior problems.had been considered for special education place-ment in Puerto Rico.

Exceptional Children

Some parents interpreted the second-languagedifficulties in school as a reflection of teachers'intolerance and unreasonable expectation.Josefina, for example, whose 14-year-old son hadbeen in a special education class since the fourthgrade, pointed to an undue focus on students' ac-cents, a point which has also been made by re-searchers Moll and Diaz (1987). To quoteJosefina:

It is all because of the languagenothing more!At first my son did not know English, but he hadto learn to read it and write it. Then when helearned it. his pronunciation was not perfect likean American because he must have a PuertoRican accent, but they wanted him to know itcorrectly. When I went to the meeting they saidthat the child is at a high level in math but thereading.. .. So I told them that I suppose thata chi Id from Puerto Rico could not learn Englishso quicklyhe can learn to read it but not soperfectly as an American! (Josefina)

Another mother, Delia, illustrated the impact ofthe language problem by drawing a comparisonbetween her older children, who began school inPuerto Rico and were doing "all right" until theyentered the first and second grades in the UnitedStates, and her youngest child, who was born inthe United States and went to prekindergartenhere. She said that at the end of the semester therewas a family joke when the little girl came homefrom her kindergarten class with a certificate forgood reading; the older children laughed, butwere really embarrassed because they were be-hind in reading. Della concluded that the differ-ence was that "the little girl started here in thepre-k. not like the others starting in Puerto Ricoand then coming to this country to meet with anew language."

Although parents were adamant regarding therole of language confusion, it was evident thatthey did not have a clear idea of exactly how thisworked in school. Parents used the terms ESL andbilingual interchangeably and expressed the be-lief that this program was the source of thechildren's confusion. However, none of the chil-dren in the study were old enough to have beenin the district's bilingual program, which hadbeen discontinued about 8 years before the studybegan.

Another aspect of the comment that "bilingualor ESL" classes confused children is that this be-lief presented a dilemma for most of the parents:They felt that a choice had to be made betweenEnglish and Spanish, and all were adamant that

33

they would choose English for their children. Yetthey thought it a shame that the children were notlearning to read and write in Spanish, and mighteven forget the language after a while. For fami-lies who thought they might like to return toPuerto Rico, this was particularly worrying. Oth-ers simply felt that the ability to speak two lan-guages should be an advantage.

Teaching of Reading. The teaching of readingbecame the focus of one mother' s concern, Dora,whose daughter, Maria, was labeled learning dis-abled, was pursuing an understanding of themethodology used to teach reading and had con-cluded that inflexible use of a direct-instruction,phonic method, along with repeated grade reten-tion, had compounded her daughter's language-induced difficulties. Dora did not consider herdaughter as learning disabled, because, she said:

When I started teaching her to read inkindergarten, I taught her to read the wholeword and she was learning, but the way they areteaching her now is confusing her. All childrenare not the same, and she is not learning by thismethod. For one thing, it is only phonetics; andshe became confused when she started schooland had to learn the difference between theletters ABC, and the sounds you have to say inEnglish. (Dora)

Both Dora's account and her daughter'sschool records showed that although Maria hadpassed the first reading level at the end of the sec-ond grade, in repeating the grade she had, some-how, been put back to the same level. Toward theend of her repeating year, Maria's report indi-cated that she still had not mastered this readinglevel. Her mother was incredulous:

It is a very hard thing to understand! It isimpossible that Maria could stay a whole yearon the sane reading level, especially when shehad passed it the year before! (Dora)

Placement and Curriculum in the Special Class.Although parents of children labeled mentally re-tarded generally agreed that their children wereslow in development, they argued that two as-pects of special education programming had ex-acerbated their children's difficulties and, inAna's words, had done the children "a lot ofharm." The detrimental practices identified were,first, frequent changes of school and, second, aninfantile and repetitive curriculum in the specialclass.

34

The frequent changes of placement reflectedthe school district's pattern of moving childrenlabeled mentally retarded to whatever was con-sidered the most appropriate self-contained pro-gram. This was devastating for some children andfor their parents, who, for the most part, spentmost of their time in their own neighborhood andgenerally considered the city at large dangerousand alien. Rita's daughter, Marta for example,had been moved to five different schools betweenages 6 and 9, and had finally been placed in aschool where the district said she would remainuntil age 12. Similarly, Francisca's granddaugh-ter, Angelica, had been placed in three diffe:entschools between the ages of 5 and 7, and Fru-cisca had recently refused to allow her to bemoved to a fourth. Ana' s daughter, Gina, had ex-perienced four school changes by the age of 9.The parents were angry about the moves andabout the children's being placed in schools out-side of the neighborhood.

These parents were also angry about the na-ture of the curriculum in special classes, whichthey all said taught only kindergarten activitiessuch as painting and coloring. In Francisca'swords:

They give her a little paper with animals and shehas to mark if it is a cow or a dog, and thingslike that! I sec her as much more alert than thatand she could learn to count and write.... Allday long she is wasting time, because they arenot teaching her anything. If she needs to learnto paint I could teach her at home! (Francisca)

Ana had encountered the same problem whenher son had been placed in special educationsome years before in another city. Upon relocat-ing, she found her own way of solving the prob-lem:

When I moved down here I was tired of Josestaying down in the special class. He was alwaysin kindergarten; they never let him pass to thefirst grade because they say he doesn't know thework. But how can Jose know something if youdon't tell him how to do it? All they did waspainting and some little stuffevery day thesame thing So when I came here I told them Ilost the school papers and I put him in regularfirst grade. He failed one year, but the next yearhe passed.... He never failed since then, andhe gets As and Bs in the regular class becausehe is very intelligent. (Ana)

September 1992

rTr,1..r,""error::

Parents' Views of Children's Progress

Despite disagreement with the school's interpre-tations of the meaning of their children's difficul-ties, parents' satisfaction with the effectiveness ofspecial education varied. As indicated previously,the exigencies of special class placement weregenerally seen as a deterrent to children's prog-ress for those labeled mentally retarded. On theother hand, some parents of children labeledlearning disabled felt that the resource room pro-gram was helping their child. Margarita andDelia, for example, who both explained theirchildren's problems in terms of second-language"confusion," said that the children were progress-ing better as a result of the special attention. Ines,the only mother who said she had come to theUnited States because of her son's learning diffi-culties, felt that the school was doing its best andshe was getting the services she came for. Others,however, such as Dora and Josefina, were skep-tical, believing that a combination of intoleranceand inappropriate methods continued to hold thechildren back.

Yet it is important to note that the parents didnot object to special assistance as such. On thecontrary, they all said that small-group instruc-tion should be the main benefit of special educa-tion. Even parents who considered the curricu-lum or the teaching methods inappropriate alsofelt that the child "would not make it" in a largeclass. In sum. parents mostly agreed that the chil-dren were having difficulty and were willing toaccept appropriate and effective help from spe-cial education, but varied in their assessment ofthe actual success of these programs.

DISCUSSION

This study of parents' views makes two crucialpoints for professionals in special education:first, it illustrates the argument that conceptionsof disability are socially constructed (Bogdan &Knoll, 1988) and that, in the words of IrvingGoffman, "The normal and the stigmatized arenot persons but rather perspectives" (Goffman,1963, p. 138). Second, the study shows a clusterof folk theories that are very much in line withcertain current arguments in the field of specialeducation.

Parents' Theories as Cultural Perspectives

The perspectives of these 12 Puerto Rican fami-lies should sharpen educators' awareness of the

Exceptional Children

potential for cross-cultural misunderstanding in-herent in the culturally specific classification sys-tem used by special education. As professionals,we need to be reminded that any deviance classi-fication is based on the values and expectationsof a society in a particular era. Indeed, it is likelythat, in a more rural and less technological Amer-ica. mainstream conceptions of disability mayhave been considerably different.

The language of the law (the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act), however, and themedical model it espouses, reflect none of thisambiguity. Indeed, the process of reification, bywhich a theoretical construct is treated as objec-tive reality (Bowers, 1984), is evident in the con-ception of disability inherent in special educationtheory and practice--the belief that a child's fail-ure to master certain skills is indicative of an ob-jectively identifiable intrinsic deficit. The limita-tions of the assessment process are recognized bythe law in its call for measures to ensure unbiasedassessment, yet the subjective nature of the pro-cess is inescapable and becomes most evidentwith students from culturally diverse back-grounds.

The interpretation of parents' disagreement asa reflection of cultural difference may be chal-lenged in a number of ways. First, it is appropriateto ask whether these parents' views differ signif-icantly from those of mainstream American par-ents; second, whether parents are simply engag-ing in a process of denial to protect theirchildren's and their families' identities; third,whether parents' disagreement simply representsa difference in nomenclaturein this case, a mis-taken translation of the term retarded to meancrazy.

Wolfensberger (1983) described the processof stigmatizing in terms of the negative valuingof a characteristic, the subsequent attribution ofthat characteristic as the defining feature of an in-dividual, and, hence, the ultimate devaluing ofthe whole individual. Similarly, Goffman (1963)spoke of this process as the "spoiling" or "dis-gracing- of individual identity. As was indicatedby the earlier review of literature, parents' desireto protect their families from such stigma couldexplain the commonly observed preference formilder, more specific, rather than global labels.The literature also showed that parents disagreedwith professionals mostly at the level of namingthe problem, not at the level of describingchildren's performance or behavior. In this re-gard, the parents in this study showed a pattern

4 11

35

similar to what is known about mainstream par-ents, in that they rejected the labels while ac-knowledging that their children have difficulties.The reasons for their rejection of these labels,however, were complex.

First, like the mainstream parents in the liter-ature, they found the label "mental retardation"too stigmatizing. This was exacerbated by thefact that the traditional Spanish used by thesefamilies does not have a word for retarded, butrather identifies mental disability with mental re-tardation, under the vernacular term loco (crazi.).It is not simply a matter of mistranslation, but areflection of an absence of distinction betweenmental illness and intellectual impairment. thelatter being considered an impairment only at themore extreme end of the spectrum.

The avoidance of stigma, however, is not theonly reason that parents may reject a label. Theparents in this study genuinely disagreed that def-icits in mastering academic skills were tanta-mount to a handicap, as was made clear byFrancisca' s incredulity that a child who can readand who can speak two languages could be con-sidered retarded. The use of academic learning asa criterion for normalcy is clearly related to dif-fering societal norms.

Beyond the issues of stigma and varying soci-etal norms, there is also the question of assump-tions about etiology in mild disabilities. The con-cept of disability, by definition, suggests someimpairment intrinsic to the individual. Mainstreamparents have argued for more restricted, less globalinterpretations of children's difficulties, but havenot rejected the notion of disability as such. In-deed, it is well known that parents have been apowerful force in the recognition of the exis-tence of learning disabilities. In this study, par-ents of children labeled mentally retarded,when they accepted their children's delay as anintrinsic characteristic, tended to accept it asfalling within tile normal framework of thefamily's identity, and did not define it as a dis-ability. Parents of children labeled learning dis-abled, on the other hand, explicitly rejected thenotion of within-child etiology, identifying thesource as extrinsic to the child. This is in keepingwith the previously mentioned work of Mercer(1972) and of Marion (1980) with Black andHispanic parents.

Thus, the views of culturally different parentsmay differ in some important ways from those ofmainstream parents. This study shows how in-tense can be the stigmatizing effects on families

36

whose cultural base is different, whose knowl-edge of the school system is minimal, and whoalready feel powerless and alienated. Correa(1989) made the point that acculturation mustbe a two way, "reciprocal" process, with pro-fessionals in education becoming sensitized tothe values and norms of the cultures from whichtheir students come. First, however, profession-als must become aware of their own values, andof the fact that most human values are not univer-sal but are generated by the needs of each culture.Such awareness is not too much to ask: It isthrough the eyes of the school that a child offic-ially comes to be defined as a success or a failure;the school system must, therefore, accept the tre-mendous responsibility that accompanies suchpower.

Folk Theories and Professional Arguments

The ability of these parents to identifyweaknesses in the education system exemplifiesthe validity of the law's intention to include par-ents in the decision-making process, yet it is no-table that the discourse between parents andprofessionals provided no forum for parents' the-ories to be heard. Indeed, as has been observedelsewhere (Harry, 1992), such discourse is struc-tured so as to exclude and delegitimate views thatfall outside the framework of the law's concep-tion of disability.

Marion (1980), in discussing the subordinaterole often accorded minority parents, stated thatprofessionals often withhold information on theassumption that such parents are too unsophisti-cated to benefit from much professional informa-tion. Similarly, Sullivan (1980) charged profes-sionals with assuming that low-income parentswill accept any evaluation of their children. Thisstudy illustrates the perceptiveness of a group oflow-income parents who spoke neither the literalnor the metaphorical language of the school. Thestudy offers a small but effective Challenge to therecent charge of Dunn (1988) that Hispanicparents' lack of interest is partly responsible forthe poor performance of their children. The the-ories of these parents reflect ongoing debates cur-rent among professionals in the fielddebates onlabeling, on appropriate instruction for bilingualstudents, and on the efficacy of special classplacement.

Labeling. Arguments against the current classi-fication system are no less than 20 years old

T o, war-gig mr

September 1992

. 1 . ',XV.

(Dunn. 1968; Mercer, 1973) and have continuedto gain momentum (Gardner. 1982; Reynolds &Lakin. 1987) with regard to both the mild mentalretardation construct and learning disabilities.One recommendation for change has been a callfor new designations, such as "educational hand-icap" (Reschly, 1987), or "educationally de-layed" (Polloway & Smith. 1987), reflecting thefact that students' difficulties are largely relatedto academic learning. Indeed. Reschly's argu-ment that students classified as mildly retardedare "inappropriately stigmatized by implicit use ofthe same continuum for all levels of mental retar-dation" (Reschly, p. 37) is identical to that of theparents in this study. Goodman (1989), in a studyof third-graders' perceptions of the term mentallyretarded, has recently demonstrated that thislabel is a "poor diagnostic term .. . embedded inerroneous thinking" (p. 327) and has called fornew terminology or classification criteria.

More radical, however, are challenges thatcall for rejection of categorical eligibility criteriabased on the concept of within-child deficits.Such arguments call for a system of service thatwould reflect the programmatic needs of studentsor that rely on curriculum-based approaches anddimensional rather than categorical diagn4,sis(Gerber & Semmel, 1984; Reynolds & Lakin,1987).

These arguments are even more urgent whenapplied to students from racially and culturallydiverse backgrounds. It is not enough to say thatmany people misunderstand disability classifica-tions and that it is therefore simply a matter ofnomenclature. It is now widely acknowledgedthat our assessment system is severely limited inits ability to identify the true nature of students'learning difficulties, especially when thesestudents' cultural experiences predispose them tolinguistic, cognitive, and behavioral styles thatmay differ in important ways from what is con-sidered normative on most assessment instru-ments (Cummins, 1984; Figueroa, 1989). Partic-ularly relevant to the views of parents in thisstudy is the observation that the "learning disabil-ity" label is often applied to children whose dif-ficulties are really a reflection of normal second-language development (Ortiz & Polyzoi, 1986).

This study supports the argument that it is timefor us to abandon our reliance on a model whosemain effect is to locate the source of failure in thechild. The concept of disability in the case of un-derachieving children is simply inadequate and

Exceptional Children

..

inappropriate in the context of the tremendous di-versity of American schools.

Instruction and Efficacy. Research on instruc-tion and efficacy in special education also paral-lels the interpretations of parents in this study.Cummins (1979, 1984) has argued convincinglythat children may demonstrate adequate basic in-terpersonal competence in a second languagewhile their level of cognitive academic languageproficiency may be inadequate to the task of lit-eracy or psychological assessment in the secondlanguage. Indeed, the literature on this topic over-whelmingly concurs that to move children to sec-ond-language literacy too soon is to set them upfor failure in both languages. thus preparing themfor low-status roles in the host society, as well asalienation from their native culture (Cordasco,1976; Lewis, 1980; Ovando & Collier, 1985;Spener, 1988; Stein, 1986).

A crucial outcome of the premature introduc-tion of children to instruction in the second lan-guage is grade retention, a feature frequently ob-served among bilingual students, with a commonpattern of "overage" students (Walker, 1987).Among the families in this study, it was not un-common to find children as much as 3 years olderthan the usual age for their grade, and it was therare child who had not repeated at least one gradelevel.

Besides language of instruction, research is in-creasingly focusing on the need for culturallysensitive instructional approaches. In contrast tothe direct instruction. phonic-based approachused with Dora's daughter in this study, are moreholistic, meaning-based approaches recom-mended currently for students from different cul-tures (Au, 1981; Ruiz, 1989). Indeed, Figueroa,Fradd, and Correa (1989), in summarizing thefindings on assessment and instructional ser-vices, call for a paradigm shift from"decontextualized, acultural and asocial" inter-ventions, toward conditions of high context, bothin assessment and instructional approaches.Along with this shift, other researchers recom-mend targeting curricula toward the "upper rangeof bilingual children's academic, linguistic, andsocial skills" (Ruiz, p. 130), and viewing the cul-ture from which students come as a resourcerather than a deficit (Moll & Diaz, 1987). Likethe parents in this study, professionals in the fieldof special education are calling for effective,challenging, and culturally appropriate pro-grams.

37

1

The Role of Parents in Empowerment

In his proposed framework for the empowermentof minority students, Cummins (1989) has useda sociohistorical perspective to analyze the un-derachievement of students from what JohnOgbu (1978) has called "caste-like minorities."Cummins argued that only through holistic inter-ventions. incorporating cultural/linguistic, com-munity, pedagogical, and assessment needs, willminority students be empowered to achieve totheir potential. The input of parents is essential inthis process.

Most of the parents in this study said that theirchildren were fine until they started school. Thisshould not be relegated to the status of parent/folklore: It is, increasingly, the comment of carefulscholars who have focused their attention on stu-dents from low-status minority groups. HenryTrueba (1989) has put the case succinctly:

These disabilities are an attribute of schools.Children's seeming "unpreparedness" formainstream schooling is only a measure of therigidity and ignorance of our school system,which creates handicap out of social and culturaldifferences. (p. 70)

This study shows that the power of parentsmay be seriously undermined by culturally dif-ferent ways of understanding. Yet it also showsthat poor parents, with little formal education,and a different language and culture, may,through their own analysis of their children's dif-ficulties, have a significant contribution to maketo current debates in the field of special educa-tion. This can only underscore Cummins' (1989)call for a collaborative versus an exclusionary ap-proach to defining the roles of families. Studentsfrom widely differing cultural backgrounds al-ready comprise the bulk of the population in cer-tain school systems; in the coming century theywill no longer be in the minority nationwide Iftheir parents' voices cannot be listened to, vastnumbers of students will be caught between ir-reconcilable worlds of home and school.

Two years after the completion of this study,a limited follow-up revealed that parents' opin-ions of their children's performance had notchanged. In the words of one mother, Dora,whose apparently very bright 6-year-old wasabout to fail kindergarten:

Algo esta pasando en la enstfianza, porquc lachiquilla es muy normal, y despuEs de un ado,no pudo aprender a leer ni una palabra! Yo lo

38

:1

siento, pero, es imposiblc que yo crea una cocaasi! Y siempre la mayoria de los nifios Hispanosticnen problemas en la lectura. Eso yo nocomprendo!

(Something is going wrong in the teaching,because the little girl is very normal, and afterone year, she has not been able to learn to readeven one word! I am sorry, but it is impossibleto believe such a thing! And the majority ofHispanic children continue to have problems inreading. I do not understand it!) (Dora)

REFERENCES

Au, K. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children:Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In H. T.Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.). Culture andthe bilingual classroom (pp. 139-154 ). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.

Barsch, R. H. (1961). Explanations offered by parentsand siblings of brain-damaged children. ExceptionalChildren, 17, 286-291.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Studies in the sociology of devi-ance. New York: Free Press.

Bennett, A. T. (1988). Gateways to powerlessness: In-corporating Hispanic deaf children and families intoformal schooling. Disability, Handicap & Society, 3(2), 119-151.

Bogdan, B., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative researchfor education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bogdan, R., & Knoll, J. (1988). The sociology of dis-ability. In E. L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Excep-tional children and youth: An introduction (3rd ed.,pp. 449-478). Denver, CO: Love.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1982). Inside out: Twofirst-person accounts of what it means to be labeled"mentally retarded." Toronto: University of TorontoPress.

Bowers, C. A. (1984). The promise of theory.. Educa-tion and the politics of cultural change. New York:Longman.

Canino, I. A., & Canino, G. (1980). Impact of stress onthe Puerto Rican family: Treatment considerations.American Journal of Orthopsychiatiy, 50(3). 535-541.

Coleman, J. M. (1984). Mothers' predictions of theself-concept of their normal or learning-disabledchildren. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 (4),214-217.

Condon, E. C.. Peters, J. Y., & Sueiro-Ross, C. (1979).Special education and the Hispanic child: Cultural per-spectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Teachers' Corp. Mid-Atlantic Network.

Cordasco, F. (1976). Bilingual schooling in the UnitedStates. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Correa, V. 1. (1989). Involving culturally differentfamilies in the educational process. In S. H. Fradd &M. J. Weismantel (Eds.), Meeting the needs of cul-turally and linguistically different students (pp. 130-144). Boston: College-Hill.

,,7 (.7"

September 1992

Cummins. J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence andthe educational development of bilingual children.Review of Educational Research. 49 (2), 222-251.

Cummins. J. (1984). Bilingualism and special educa-tion: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego.CA: College-Hill Press.

Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bi-lingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56,111-120.

Delgado-Gaitan. C. (1987). Parent perceptions ofschool: Supportive environments for children. In H.T. Tnieba, (Ed.). Success or failure? Learning andthe language minority student (pp. 131-155). NewYork: Newbury House.

Dunn. L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildlyretarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Chil-dren. 35, 5-22.

Dunn. L. M. (1988). Bilingual Hispanic children onthe U.S. mainland: A review of research on their cog-nitive, linguistic, and scholastic development. Hono-lulu: Dunn Educational Services.

Duran. R. P. (1989). Assessment and instruction of at-risk Hispanic students. Exceptional Children. 56,154-159.

Edgerton, R. (1967). The cloak of competence: Stigmain the lives of the mentally retarded. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Figler, C. S. (1981). Puerto Rican families with andwithout handicapped children. Paper presented at theCouncil for Exceptional Children Conference on theExceptional Bilingual Child, New Orleans. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service, ED 204 876)

Figueroa. R. A. (1989). Psychological testing of lin-guistic-minority students: Knowledge gaps and reg-ulations. Exceptional Children. 56. 145-153.

Figueroa, R. A., Fradd, S. H.. & Correa. V. I. (1989).Bilingual special education and this special issue. Ex.ceptional Children. 56. 174-178.

Gardner, W. 1. (1982). Why do we persist? Educationand Treatment of Children. 5(4), 360-362.

Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. 1. (1984). Teacher asimperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral pro-cess. Educational Psychologist. 19(3), 137-148.

Goffman, E. ( 1963). Stigma: Notes on the managementof spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Goodman. J. F. (1989). Does retardation mean dumb?Children's perceptions of the nature, cause, andcourse of mental retardation. Journal of Special Ed-ucation, 23(3), 313-327.

Harry, B. (1992). Culturally diverse families and thespecial education system. New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Hodgkinson. L. (1985). All one system: Demographicsof education. Washington. DC: Institute for Educa-tional Leadership.

Kauffman. A. L. (1982). Mothers's perceptions of thedevelopmentally delayed label. Dissertation Ab-stracts International. 43(6) 2017B.

Exceptional Children

Lewis, E. G. (1980). Bilingualism and bilingual educa-tion. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Lona nd, J. (1969). Deviance and identity. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lynch. E. W., & Stein. R. C. (1987). Parent participa-tion by ethnicity: A comparison of Hispanic, Black andAnglo families. Exceptional Children, 54, 105-111.

Marion. R. (1980). Communicating with parents ofculturally diverse exceptional children. ExceptionalChildren. 46. 616-623.

McCall. G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (Eds.). (1969). Issuesin participant observation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mercer, J. R. (1972). Sociocultural factors in the edu-cational evaluation of Black and Chicano children.Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference ofCivil Rights Educators and Students. National Edu-cation Association. Washington, DC. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 062 462)

Mercer. J. R. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Moll, L. C.. & Diaz, S. (1987). Change as the goal ofeducational research. Anthropology and EducationQuarterly, 18, 300-311.

Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: TheAmerican system in cross-cultural perspective. SanFrancisco: Academic Press.

Ortiz, A. A., & Polyzoi. E. (Eds.). (1986). Character-istics of limited English proficient Hispanic studentsin programs for the learning disabled: Implicationsfor policy, practice and research. Part 1. Report Sum-mary. Austin: University of Texas. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 267578)

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Polack, J. M. (1985). Pitfalls in the psychoeducationalassessment of adolescents with learning and schooladjustment problems. Adolescence, 20(78), 479-493.

Polloway, E. A.. & Smith, J. D. (1987). Current statusof the mild mental retardation construct: Identifica-tion, placement, and programs. In M. C. Wang, R. C.Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of spe-cial education: Research and practice. Vol. 1:Learner characteristics and adaptive education (pp.7-22). New York: Pergamon Press.

Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. (1985). Bilingual andESL classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reschly, D. J. (1987). Minority overrepresentation:Legal issues, research findings, and reform trends. InM. C. Wang, R. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.).Handbook f special education: Research and prac-tice. Vol. I: Learner characteristics and adaptive ed-ucation (pp. 23 -42). New York: Pergamon Press.

Reynolds. M. C.. & Lakin, C. K. (1987). Non- categor-ical special education: Models for research and prac-tice. In M. C. Wang, R. C. Reynolds, & J. J. Walberg(Eds.), Handbook of special education: Researchand practice. Vol. 2: Mildly handicapped conditions(pp. 331-356). New York: Pergamon Press.

AVAiLABLE

39

1

Ruiz. N. (1989). An optimal learning environment forRosemary. Exceptional Children. 56(2), 130-144.

Smith, R. W., Osborne, L. T., Crim, a, & Rhu, A. H.(19861. Labeling theory as appiied to learning dis-abilities: Findings and policy suggestions. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 19(4), 195-202.

Spener, D. (1988). Transitional bilingual educationand the socialization of immigrants. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 58, 133-152.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stein, C. B. (1986). Sink or swim: The politics of bilin-gual education. New York: Praeger.

Sullivan. 0. T. (1980). Meeting the needs of lo. .in-come families with handicapped children. Washing-ton, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 201 091)

Trueba, H. T. ( 1989). Raising silent voices. New York:Newbury House.

Walker, C. L. (1987). Hispanic achievement: Oldviews and new perspectives. In H. T. Trueba (Ed.),Success or failure? (pp. 15-32). Cambridge, MA:Newbury House.

Wolfensberger, W., & Kurtz. R. A. (1974). Use of re-tardation-related diagnostic and descriptive labels byparents of retarded children. Journal of Special Edu-cation. 8(2), 131-142.

Wolfensberger, W.. & Thomas. S. (1983). Programanalysis of service system's implementation of normalization goals. ( PASSING) (2nd ed.). Toronto: Na-tional Institute on Mental Retardation.

Z,etlin, A. G., & Turner, J. L. (1984). Self- perspectiveson being handicapped: Stigma and adjustment. In R.B. Edgerton (Ed.). Lives in process: Mildly retardedadults in a large city. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation on Mental Deficiency.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BETH HARRY (CEC MD Federation) isAssistant Professor in the Department of SpecialEducation at the University of Maryland, CollegePark.

Note: All interviews were originally done inSpanish. Direct quotes were translated into En-glish for this article.

Manuscript received February 1990; revisionaccepted March 1991.

Bibliography:

Articles

Helen Warren Ross. "Integrating Infants with Disabilities? Can'Ordinary' Caregivers Do It?", Young Children, March 1992. pp 65-71.

Bartolia, J.S. (1990) On defining and learning disability: Exploring theecology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(10), 628-631.

Bernal, E. (1983) Trends in Bilingual special education. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 6(4), 424-431.

Cegelka, P.T., Lewis, R., Rodriguez, A.M., and Pacheco, R. (1986)Educational Services to Handicapped Students with Limited EnglishProficiency: A California Statewide Study. Reston, Va.: Council forExceptional Children, ERIC Document.

Child Care Providers Guide. "Considering Caring for a Child withSpecial Needs?" Child Action, Inc. Sacramento, CA 95817

Cummins, J. (1989) "A theoretical framework for Bilingual SpecialEducation." Exceptional Children, 56(2), 111-119.

Flores, B., Rueda, R., and Porter, B. "Examining assumptions andinstructional practices related to the acquisition of literacy with bilingualspecial education students." In Bilingualism and Learning Disabilities:Policy and Practice for Teachers and Administrato74. Editors, Ann C.Willig and Hinda F. Greenberg.

Fradd, S. and Hallman, C.L. (1983) "Implications of psychological andeducational research for assessment and instruction of culturally andlinguistically different students." Learning Disability Quarterly 6(4), 468-478.

Fradd, Sandra H, and Wilen, Diane K. Using Interpreters and Translatorsto Meet the Needs of Handicapped Language Minority Students andTheir Families. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, U.S.Department of Education. Summer, 1990.

Meheady, L., Towne, R., Algozzine, B. Mercer, J., and Ysseldyke, J. (1983)Minority overrepresentation: A case for alternative practice prior toreferral. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(4), 448-456.

2

Ortiz, A.A. (1984) Choosing the language of instruction for the exceptionalbilingual child. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16(3), 208-212.

Testimony to National Commission on Migrant Educationby Gloria Mufiiz (Oregon)by Richard Figueroa (L IC. Davis)

"Letter from a Non-Anglo Mother to an Anglo Teacher". Powell RiverNews of British Columbia, Canada.

Gallagher, James J. "Impact of Policies for Handicapped Children on FutureEarly Education Policy." Phi Delta Kappan. October 1989. pp 121-124.

McGonigel, Mary J., Johnson, Beverley H. and Kaufman, Roxanne K. "AFamily-Centered Process for the Individualized Family Service Plan."Journal of Early Intervention, 1991. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 46-56.

Campbell, Philippa H. "Evaluation and Assessment in Early Intervention forInfants and Toddlers." Journal of Early Intervention, 1991. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 36-45.

Goldberg, Paula F. "Cultural Competence in Screening and Assessment:Implications for Services to Young Children with Special Needs Ages Birththrough Five." National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. Officeof Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Hanson, Marci J., Lynch, Eleanor W. and Wayman, Karen I. "Honoringthe Cultural Diversity of Families When Gathering Data." Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education.

Hanson, Marci J., Lynch, Eleanor W. and Wayman, Karen I. "Home-BasedEarly Childhood Services: Cultural Sensitivity in a Family SystemsApproach." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education.

Lynch, E.W. and Stein, R.C. (1987). "Parent Participation by Ethnicity: AComparison of Hispanic, Black, and Anglo Families." ExceptionalChildren, 54(2), 105-111.

3

ERIC Resources

ERIC/CRESS : Resource centers for educators which provide educationaldocuments on microfiche. The ERIC data base can be accessed directly,and through County Office of Education libraries. All National PreschoolCoordination Project products are available through the ERIC data base.

"Advocacy for Access and Equity Is 'Special Education' for Migrants" (B.Martinage)

"Assessing the Language Skills of Limited English Proficient (LEP) MigrantHandicapped Students" (C. Coballes-Vega and S.J. Salend)

Buchan, Barbara. Improving Literacy Skills and Self-Image within the Day CareTeacher Training Program through an Emphasis on Cultural Heritage.

"Career Education for Migrant Handicapped Youth" (M.H. Taylor and I.M. Pitts)

Collier, Catherine, Ed.; And Others. BLIENO-MUSEP: Bilingual SpecialEducation Annotated Bibliography.

de la Brosse, Beatrice. A Multicultural /Bilingual Mainstreaming DayCare Program for Young Children with Mild to Moderate Disabilities.

Deignan, Margaret C.; Ryan, Kathleen E. Annotated Bibliography ofBilingual Teaching Materials Applicable to the Special LearningNeeds of Spanish-Dominant Special Education Pupils.

Educational Programs That Work. Far West Lab. for EducationalResearch and Development, San Francisco, Calif.

Evans,. Joyce. Model Preschool Programs for Handicapped BilingualChildren. Southwest Educational Development Lab. Austin, Texas.

Evans, Joyce. Survey of Tests Administered to Preschool Children in TexasSouthwest Educational Development Lab., Austin, Texas.

Hanna, Cornelia B. and Levermann, D. First Chance Outreach; Del RioFirst Chance Early Childhood Program. Bureau of Education forthe Handicapped, Washington, D.C.

4

Hardwick, Hilary, and Travis, Mike. Issues in Serving Young SpecialNeeds Children in Bilingual-Bicultural Settings.

Hicks, Joy. Serving Preschool Handicapped Children of Various Cultures:An Annotated Bibliography.

Pierce-Jones, John; and others. Proceedings of a Meeting of the HeadStart Planning Committee with the Staff of the Child DevelopmentEvaluation-Research Center. Texas University, Austin, ChildDevelopment Evaluation and Research Center.

"Preschool Education for Children of Migrant Workers"Annotated Bibliographies, Council for Cultural Cooperation,Strasbourg, France.

Reetz, Linda, Comp.: Cerny, May, Comp. Cross-Cultural Bibliographyfor Rural Special Educators.

Sennett, Kenneth H. Second Year Validation Studies of the BrocktonBattery: A Special Needs Assessment for Linguistic MinorityStudents. (The Tests of Reading Readiness and the Scales ofAdaptive Behavior).

Silberman, Rosanne K. and Correa, Vivian I. Survival Words and Phrasesfor Professionals Who Work with Students Who Are Bilingual andSeverely/Multiply Handicapped, and with Their Families.

The Forum, New York State Federation of Chapters of the Council forExceptional Children.

"The Migrant Parent-Tutorial-Project Benefits Migrant HandicappedPreschool Children" (P.A. Ward)

Tucker, Suzanne M. Mexican American Special Education. Fact Sheet.

5

Books and Periodicals

Administrators Policy Handbook for Preschool Mainstreaming, Barbara JSmith, Ph.D., and Deborah F. Rose, MSW. Research Institute onPreschool Mainstreaming, Early Childhood Intervention Program,Allpherny-Singer Research Institute, 320 East North Avenue, PittsburghPA 15212.

"To Be The Best That We Can Be. A Self-Study Guide for Early ChildhoodSpecial Education Programs and Staff." Joan Gaetz, Sherry Fakkema andJanet Lynn. September, 1987.

Bilingualism and Learning Disabilities, Willing, Ann C. and Greenberg,Hinda F. (Ed.) American Library Publishing, Co., 1986

Organizations and Services

Resource Access Projects (RAPs) Serve Head Start ProgramsRegional centers for training and technical assistance on SpecialNeeds to Head Start Programs

Institute on Special Education and Language Minority andCulturally Diverse Children, a component of the Center for SecondLanguage Learning and Cultural Diversity, University of Californiaat Santa Cruz.

Resource Access Project. Portland State University, P.O. Box 1491,Portland OR 97207. (503) 464-4815.

6

ERIC Clearinghouses

Elementary and Early Childhood EducationUniversity of IllinoisCollege of Education805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana IL 61801-4897Telephone: (217) 333-1386Fax: (217) 244-4572

Handicapped and Gifted ChildrenCouncil for Exceptional Children1920 Association DriveReston VA 22091-1589Telephone: (703) 264-9474Fax: (703) 264-9494

Rural Education and Small SchoolsAppalachia Educational Laboratory1031 Quarrier StreetP.O. BOX 1348Charleston WV 25325-1348Telephone: (800) 624-9120 (outside WV)

(800) 344-6646 (inside WV)(304) 347-0400 (Charleston area)

Fax (304) 347-0487

Tests, Measurement and EvaluationAmerican Institutes for ResearchWashington Research Center3333 K Street NWWashington DC 20007-3893Telephone: (202) 342-5060Fax: (202) 342-5033

5