“can children with developmental disabilities learn more than one language?” current research,...

“Can children with developmental disabilities learn more than one

language?”Current research, policy issues, and best

practices for serving children who are learning English as a second language in

Early Childhood Special EducationLillian Duran, M.A.

[email protected]

The Answer

YES!Evidence suggests that children with Language Impairments and other developmental disabilities can learn two languages to their ability level.

(Hakansson, Salameh, & Nettelbladt, 2003)

Diversity in Learners

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

International Examples

• Over ½ of the world’s population is bilingual (deHouwer, 1995)

• Many other countries have instituted and researched bilingual education including: Canada, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, Mexico and China (Krashen, 1999)

Research on young simultaneous bilinguals

• Young (middle class) bilingual children who acquire two languages from birth reach linguistic milestones at the same age as their monolingual peers.

(Genessee, 2001; Holowka et al., 2002; Petitto, 2001)

• Young bilinguals demonstrate interlocutor sensitivity indicating that they are aware of which language to use with different people (Maneva & Genessee, 2002; Petitto et al., 2001)

Research on young simultaneous bilinguals

• An abundance of translation equivalents have been documented in young bilingual children demonstrating that young children recognize that they need different words for the same concept in different contexts. (Genessee, 2001; Holowka et al., 2002; Petitto, 2001)

• Code-mixing that follows grammatical rules is not evidence of language confusion, but has been found to be directly proportional to the rate of language mixing in the child’s environment.e.g. “Spanglish”

(Lanza, 1992; Petitto et al., 2001)

Simultaneous vs. Sequential Bilingualism

Simultaneous: Two languages acquired from birth

Sequential: No consensus in the field, ideas range from the introduction of the second language at the age of one month to 3 years.

(deHouwer, 1990; MacLaughlin, 1984)

Additive vs. Subtractive Bilingualism

• Additive: “Situations where both languages are supported and languages develop in parallel.” (Diaz & Klingler, 1999)

• Subtractive: “Situations characterized by a gradual loss of the first language as a result of increasing mastery and use of the second language.” (Diaz & Klingler, 1999)

Why should we worry about maintaining a child’s native

language?• Doesn’t every child need to learn

English to be successful in school?• Isn’t better for ELL children to learn

English as quickly as possible?• If we don’t use English as the only

medium of instruction providing the most input in English as possible early on aren’t we doing the children a disservice by not preparing them for school?

Critical factors to consider for young bilinguals

• Level of development of the first language

• Family’s SES/level of education• Minority language status in society (ie

motivation and attitudes of the language learner about English and their native language)

• Level and variation of input to the child in each of their languages

• Child’s ability level and how it impacts language development in general

Reframing the QuestionThe Question is not

whether or not all children in the United States need to learn English…

Of course they do!

The Question is how do we best teach young English language learners English and produce the best long term academic outcomes?

Investigating the Answer

A plethora of research currently exists that documents the advantages of Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE) over Transitional Bilingual and English-only programs.

(Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Christian, 1996; Cummins, 1979 + many more)

Evidence that instruction in L1 leads to better academic

achievement in English (L2)In a recent National Study of School Effectiveness

for Language Minority Students Thomas and Collier (2002) concluded:

“ Enrichment 90-10 and 50-50 developmental bilingual education programs (programs that teach content through a child’s native language) are the only programs we have found to date that assist students to fully reach the 50th percentile in both L1 and L2 in all subjects and to maintain that level of high achievement, or reach even higher levels through the end of schooling. The fewest dropouts come from these programs.” (pg. 313)

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

Thomas and Collier (2002) continue:

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


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


Lastly in a recent Meta-Analysis of Program Effectiveness Research on English Language Learners

Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass (2005) conclude:“Empirical evidence considered here indicates that

bilingual education is more beneficial for ELL students than all-English approaches. It seems clear from the current study and from previous meta-analyses (Greene, 1998; Willig, 1985) that bilingual education is superior to English-only approaches in increasing measures of students’ academic achievement in English and the native language.” (pg. 590)

Preschool studies

• Rodriguez, Diaz, Duran and Espinosa (1995) and Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa and Rodriguez (1999) investigated the language development of Spanish-speaking preschoolers from low-income families in CA.

• They compared a group of students attending a high quality 50/50 bilingual preschool classroom with a control group who stayed home with Spanish-speaking care providers.

Preschool studies

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

Preschool Studies• In 1980 the Carpentería School District in California began a

longitudinal study to compare the outcomes of four specific groups,(1) Spanish-speaking children who attended English-focused community preschool programs, (2) English-speaking children who attended an entitlement preschool program and (3) English-speaking children who did not participate in an entitlement program because they were primarily middle class and (4) Spanish-speaking children who attended a full immersion Spanish program.

• Children were followed from Kindergarten to Junior High school and three sources of data were analyzed to quantify progress and achievement (1) school report cards, (2) school competency assessment data including referrals to special education, attendance, grade retention and suspensions, and (3) standardized assessment data.

Preschool StudiesResults indicated that the English-only non-entitlement

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

Applying this evidence to ECSE

• Although this body of research comes from studies on the general education Pre-K-6 population there are some findings we can cautiously apply to ECSE practice.

• Currently there is no body of research specifically addressing best practice with ELL students in ECSE settings. This is a huge gap in the literature!

Cautious applications to ECSE given the current state of the

researchGiven that research on young simultaneous

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

Other reasons to support a child’s native language

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


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


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


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

Specific suggestions for intervention for ELL students with Language

Impairment (Kohnert & Derr, 2004)

• For the child who is bilingual, intervention in both languages yields the most progress and honors the fact that the child needs both languages to develop and to communicate effectively in all of his/her environments.

• For the child who knows no English therapy is best provided in their native language. The question is: Is the goal to teach English or develop the child’s overall language skills?

• In both of these scenarios it may mean the use of an interpreter and working through the family.

Screening and Assessment“The knowledge,

sensitivity, and care of the person giving an instrument and interpreting the result is ultimately more important than the specific tool that is used. Technical adequacy does not assure an unbiased assessment.”

(Unbiased Assessment Manual, Minnesota Department of Education)

Screening and Assessment

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

MN State and Federal Guidelines

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

• If the parents are concerned with their child’s development, the child’s skills should be evaluated.


• Tests that are translated should not be scored. Scores from a standardized test that is given in a nonstandardized manner (i.e., translating it into another language) should not be reported.

• If it is thought that lack of exposure to certain materials or tasks may be the cause of the child’s underperformance, a test-teach-retest approach may be useful to rule out lack of exposure with certain skills.


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


• Special Education assessment must be done in the child’s primary language or languages.

• Communication to the parents and due process forms must be in the parent’s primary language, either written or orally translated.

• No single procedure should be used to determine eligibility.

• Testing materials and procedures should be used that are not racially or culturally discriminatory.

Evaluation PlanThe team should answer the following questions:I. How will the family be involved?II. Where and how will observations in the child’s natural

settings be conducted?III. How will the team determine the child’s language level

in both their native language and English? IV. How will the team locate an interpreter?V. What assessment tools will be used? What other data

sources will be used?VI. Overall will the evaluation plan provide enough

information gathered from multiple data sources in a culturally sensitive manner, over several sessions and across the child’s natural settings for the team to make an informed and unbiased decision regarding the child’s need for special education services?

Implications for administrators and policy-makers

1. Recruit, hire and retain more bilingual staff!

2. Use cultural liasons in addition to interpreters

3. Provide research-based training for ECSE staff including specialists

4. Provide research-based training for administrators and policy-makers in your own community

Implications for administrators and policy-makers: Try

something new!• Design and implement inclusive bilingual preschool classrooms in your community

• Involve your local higher ed faculty in ECSE teacher preparation so that they can better prepare future teachers.

• Be creative and open to new ideas. Visit places in the country that have strong bilingual Early Childhood Programs… network, read, use the internet, seek funding

In my own community

• Beginning a Bilingual Preschool Classroom in Sleepy Eye, MN in collaboration with ECSE, ECFE, Head Start and the Public School District

• Rural town population 3,000• Elementary school population 40%

Latino• Primarily children from families who

are Mexican migrant farm workers who have decided to stay in MN

What I have found

• Community partners in Early Childhood are willing and just waiting for someone with energy to initiate a project to serve young ELL students

• There is a significant amount of grant money available for bilingual programming serving immigrant children from low income families

• Give yourself two years to plan, fund, staff and implement the program

Language Rights as Civil Rights

• Lau v. Nichols 1974“recognized language rights as civil rights and the relationship of equal educational opportunities to the language of education”

• Dyrcia S. et al. v. Board of Education of N.Y. (1979)judgement issued calling for the provision of appropriate bilingual programs for all children with both high and low incidence disabilities.

• Nieto (1992)“equity rather than equality” equity includes equal educational opportunities ---the need for “equality of outcomes”, for a broad range of students

No Child Left Behind

• In 1968 the “Bilingual Education Act” passed indicating federal government support for bilingual education and it initiated federal funding for these programs.

• The passage of NCLB in 2001 repealed “The Bilingual Education Act” and replaced it with “The English Acquisition Act” dramatically altering the focus of federal support and funding for the education of ELL students.

What are your next steps in your community to better serve young

English Language Learners?1. What are your personal

philosophies regarding this issue and how do they influence your work?

2. What information impacted you from today’s presentation?

3. What do you want to do or what can you do in your community?

4. Who can help?

“can children with developmental disabilities learn more than one language?” current research,...

Documents