The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and California's Proposition 227: Implications for English Language Learners With Special Needs

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Gershwin Mueller ◽  
George H. S. Singer ◽  
Elizabeth J. Grace
Author(s):  
Penelope Debs Keough

Alarming statistics presented by the United States Department of Education reveal a disproportionate number of students of minority language (English language learners) qualify for special education. As far back as 2007, the DOE recognized there was a concerted effort needed to reduce racial and ethnic disproportionality in racial and ethnic identification, placement, and disciplinary actions for minority students' representation in special education. This chapter will examine and address solutions to prevent the over identification of English language learners in special education specifically in the area of identification. As a further objective, the ramifications of this over representation will be examined, and the authors hypothesize about why the over representation occurs. Confusion over the Unz Initiative (1998, Proposition 227) may have inadvertently led to the over identification. A case study, leading to case law, concludes the chapter.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-130 ◽  
Author(s):  

Many school-aged children with handicaps are transported in school buses. A recent amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has established requirements for infants and toddlers to have access to developmental and rehabilitation facilities. This amendment, to Part H of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (enacted as part of Public Law 102-119), however, does not specify how these children are to be transported to these facilities, a responsibility that will be faced by many school systems. FMVSS 222 (School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) established safety requirements for school bus interiors, but to date it only applied to able-bodied children. However, an amendment to FMVSS 222 becomes effective in January 1994 that applies to the securement of wheelchairs and their occupants in school buses. National recommended standards for special education school buses were revised in May 1990 by the Eleventh National Standards Conference on School Transportation.1 Wheelchairs are the primary mode of transport on the school bus for many children with special needs. They have not been developed as safety restraint devices, however, and are not currently subjected to any crash-testing requirements. Research,2-5 nevertheless, has provided a basis for recommendations concerning occupant securement for a wheelchair-dependent child and a child with special needs who is transported on a school bus: 1. Any child who can assist with transfer or be "reasonably" moved from a wheelchair, stroller, or special seating device to the original manufacturer's forward-facing vehicle seat equipped with dynamically tested occupant restraints or be "reasonably" moved to a child car seat complying with FMVSS 213 requirement should be so transferred for transportation to and from school.


Author(s):  
Alison Horstman

Among Mrs. Grant’s 22 first graders, ten are English language learners, while another two are autistic and have special needs. One of the autistic students is physically and verbally aggressive. Mrs. Grant realized that the classroom had many obstacles to overcome before becoming an emotionally and physically safe place for all the students. Mrs. Grant played a video explaining the importance of classroom rules. She showed another YouTube video showing students following their classroom rules.


Author(s):  
Luz Y. Herrera ◽  
Carla España ◽  
Ofelia García

“Bilingual education” refers to the use of two languages in education for different purposes. In the United States, bilingual education has been used to educate Latinxs throughout history, especially after the passage of the Bilingual Education Act (1968) and the judicial decision of Lau v. Nichols 1974 that followed on the civil rights era. Sometimes bilingual education aims to develop both the English and the Spanish of Latinxs, but often its sole aim is to ensure that Latinxs who are new to English understand the subject matter and learn English well. Bilingual education programs for Latinxs are usually classified in three types. (1) Developmental maintenance bilingual education aims to make Latinx students bilingual and biliterate and is available regardless of language proficiency. (2) Transitional bilingual education is available only to those who are considered “English-language learners” (here referred to as “emergent bilinguals”) until they can show proficiency in English. (3) Two-way bilingual education programs (often called “dual language”) are available to a balanced number of Latinxs who are developing English and students who are English speakers, and also aim to make students bilingual and biliterate in each other’s language, under a policy of strictly separating the two languages. Developmental maintenance bilingual education programs fell into disfavor in the 1970s because of fears of Latinx linguistic and cultural autonomy. Even transitional bilingual education programs, supported by the Bilingual Education Act since 1974, were under attack. However, two-way bilingual education programs are growing slowly. While Arizona’s ban on bilingual education still stands today, both California and Massachusetts have overturned their bilingual education ban after legislative moves that reversed Proposition 227 in 2016 and Question 2 in 2017, respectively. The greater support for two-way bilingual programs has to do with the inclusion of language-majority children. For Latinx children, these programs are often the only way to develop their biliteracy, and many so-called dual language programs are really “one-way” programs, constituted solely of Latinx students at different points on the bilingual continuum. Despite their promises, dual-language bilingual education programs have a policy of separating the two languages strictly, and often they do not leverage the bilingual language practices of bilingual communities—what some call “translanguaging.” Latinxs were the focus of the bilingual education literature in the United States throughout the second half of the 20th century, and bilingual education was understood as an instrument for their educational equity. But with the emphasis on English-language acquisition under No Child Left Behind, and an increasing number of immigrants from different language groups, the focus of the bilingual education literature has changed from Latinxs to the more general focus on English-language learners. In this article, “Latinx” is used as a more inclusive, gender-neutral term to address people of Latin American and Caribbean descent.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Irina Okhremtchouk

One of the aims of K-12 supplemental programs is to maximize the potential for success of students who bring special needs into a classroom. Therefore, the intent behind a large majority of these additional resources is to support programs that are designed to address the needs of otherwise marginalized students by leveling the playing field. The purpose of this work is to shed light on how supplemental funds are potentially channeled from the source to the students for whom these funds are intended and whose needs these funds intend to serve. Specifically, this article draws attention to the dynamics associated with channeling practices of supplemental dollars for English language learners. This article concludes with a practical discussion to offer insights for navigating the typical channeling practices of these funding streams. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document