Acculturation - overview

     Ac·cul·tur·a·tion [uh-kuhl-chuh-rey-shuhn]  

      noun1.the process of adopting the cultural traits or social patterns of  an   other group.

          Most children follow a cyclical pattern of emotions when moving to the United States from a foreign country 

         otherwise known as acculturation. Adjustment is an on-going process

   

      Four Stages of Adjustment

    Honeymoon Stage

¢  Student is fascinated with everything that is new and different to them

¢  Students in this stage may be eager to please, cooperative and be very interested in what their peers and teachers have to say

¢  Students in this stage are delightful to work with

¢  Possible emotions include: exhilaration, anticipation & excitement

       Hostility stage/Culture shock

¢  Following their initial excitement, students may become frustrated and confused with their new surroundings and weary of the fact that they will be expected to speak and listen to English everyday

¢  Possible emotions: frustration, anger, anxiety, fear, depression

         Integration/Acceptance Stage

¢  Students begin feeling comfortable with their surroundings

¢  Possible emotions: relaxation, a feeling of relief, understanding of expectations

        Home Stage

¢  Students feel at home and function in their new country

¢   This stage is defined by successful adjustment to the norms and standards of their new environment.

¢  Possible emotions: comfort, happiness & a feeling of belonging

Acculturation. (n.d.). Dictionary.com. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from dictionary.reference.com/browse/acculturation

English as a Second Language (ESL) » Stages of Acculturation. (n.d.). English as a Second Language (ESL) - GERMANTOWN HIGH SCHOOL. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://ghsesl.edublogs.org/for-classroom-teachers/stages-of-acculturation/ 

The Cultural Bias of Intelligence Tests and its Effects on Special Education Placement

     Standardized testing is probably the most important aspect of a school-aged child’s life, in the United States. Based on the results, students are placed in programs, assigned to remediation, special education services, or gifted programs. Unfortunately, for culturally and linguistically diverse students, most standardized test questions used in the United States today are biased toward, white, middle-class students, using background information and references to American life, references that cannot be easily understood by students of diverse cultures. Poor scores on these assessments may cause a student to be incorrectly classified as a special education student when, common, in fact, the student is very bright—only unable to correctly answer questions based on American culture, rather than their background, which is very different.

      Today, schools in the United States, are more racially and culturally diverse than ever before. As of 2005, almost 50% of students in the U.S. could be classified as “culturally different” (Ford, 2010, p.51). According to a 2010 report published by the Institute of Education Sciences, in the coming years, the Hispanic population is predicted to grow at a faster rate than most other groups in the United States (Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011, p. 5). In addition, the growth rate of Caucasians is expected to be slower than all other races.

         In the years to come, classrooms in the United States will only continue to grow more diverse. Unfortunately, culturally diverse students have much less school success than the dominant population (p.50). One major problem with the ever changing cultural climate of classrooms in the United States is that culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students typically score lower than Caucasians on educational assessments. While the culture of students continues to change, teachers and assessment tools in the United States are not. Around 85% of educators are female and the majority of teachers as a whole—83%—are white (Ford, 2010, p.51).  In addition, the tests used to assess children for special education and gifted education programs are created for white, middle class students. The cultural atmosphere of the United States is changing dramatically, while intelligence tests and other high-stakes assessment practices focus primarily on Caucasian students.

      Many times, in order to answer certain questions correctly, an individual must have specific culturally based information or knowledge. Unfortunately, many bilingual students do not have this specific cultural information, making it hard to answer questions on tests (Baca & Cervantes, 1989, p.165). Culturally and linguistically diverse students are at a great disadvantage when it comes to traditional assessments, because those assessments are extremely biased against students that are culturally and linguistically diverse or from varying economic groups (p.165). Also, students that are limited English proficient are often misplaced when it comes to special education services (p.165). There is an over representation of Hispanic students in the learning disabled population. Educators seem to have trouble determining whether student’s problems stem from underlying disabilities, or simply his or her lack of English proficiency (p.165). Also, the characteristics of acculturation can be confused with signs of a disability (p.165).

     There are four types of bias related to the differential performance between and among members of cultural groups (Whiting & Ford). The first is bias in construct validity—this type of bias exists when a test is shown to measure different hypothetical constructs for members of one group than another (Whiting et al.). The second type of bias is bias in content validity—this type of bias exists when an item or subscale is more difficult for members of one group than members of another, even though the ability level of both groups is generally equal. Three examples of content bias are: items asking for information that minority persons have not had an equal opportunity to learn, when the scoring of an item is inappropriate because the maker of the test decided on only one correct answer, and when minorities are penalized for giving an answer that would have been correct in their own culture (Whiting et al.). The third type of bias is in item selection—item selection bias occurs when the items and tasks selected are based on experiences and language of the dominant group, much like content validity, however, this bias is more concerned with the appropriateness of individual test items. The fourth kind of bias is predictive or criterion-related validity—criterion-related validity occurs when the answer to items and tasks require prior cultural knowledge of the dominant group (Whiting et al).

       Intelligence tests contain examples of all four typed of bias. Unfortunately, IQ tests are thought of, by many people who are not familiar with the purpose and limitations of testing, as a test of innate ability (Ford, 2004, p.v). Therefore, when certain groups of people score lower than others, people unfamiliar with intelligence tests may consider those groups to be inferior genetically or have lesser intelligence due to heredity (p.v). This school of thought ignores many factors that affect the results of intelligence tests, including the environment, level and quality of education, and opportunity to learn (p.v).

     Another school of thought purports that intelligence tests measure unlearned abilities, therefore, if a person scores low on an intelligence test, they are assumed to have inferior cognitive ability and potential (Ford, 2004, p.v). This belief is common among people who are not trained in testing and assessment, people who believe “intelligence is fixed, innate and unchangeable”, and people who believe that intelligence tests are “comprehensive, exact, and precise measures of intelligence (p.v). Fagan (2000) hypothesized that the lack of intelligence tests that are fair across different cultural groups originates from a theoretical bias to associate the IQ score with intelligence rather than with knowledge (Fagan, 2008, p.vi).

          There is no consensus in education regarding why diverse students score lower on intelligence tests than white students (Ford, 2004, p. vii). There are two major debates surrounding the performance of minority students (Ford, 2004, p.vi). One group of scholars believes that the low intelligence test performance of minorities is due to the cultural deprivation and economic disadvantage experienced by minorities (p.vi). They believe that culturally diverse students are inferior to the norm (p.vi). On the other side of the debate, scholars believe that minority students are different culturally, but not disadvantaged. These scholars believe that culture impacts test performance, but, do not see low scores as evidence of inferiority (p.vi).

     Examiners that assess culturally and linguistically diverse children are often uncertain about which tests provide the most reliable, valid and unbiased results (Edwards, 2006, p.246). Historical data shows a significant discrepancy in the intelligence test performance of different cultural groups (p.246). Edwards (2006) reveals “on average, when adjusted for differences in socio-economic status, individuals of Asian descent scored higher than those of European descent, individuals of African descent scored lower than those of European descent, and individuals of Hispanic descent scored somewhere in between the latter two groups on tests of intelligence”(p.246).

     Because of the great debate of cultural bias in standardized tests in the 1970s, test developers have tried to decrease or eliminate cultural bias in assessments (Ford, 2004, p.vi). Some scholars argue that there is no longer test bias due to the changes made by test developers (p.vi). Others contend that tests can never be free of cultural bias because they are developed by people and they reflect the test developers culture or cultures (p.vi). Absolute fairness of tests is impossible to attain because tests are not perfectly reliable or valid in any particular context (p.vi).

      Currently, most intelligence test makers do not release the statistics about the difference in performance by various ethnic groups (Edwards, 2006, p.246). In doing this, the test developers are attempting to avoid controversy about the differences between ethnic groups, and appear socially sensitive (p.246). The lack of data provided by these developers makes it hard for educators, and other test users, to make informed and fair decisions about which test would be the most effective for a given student (p.246). The data that is available suggests that the results of biased intelligence tests lead to a disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education programs (p.247). Limiting or avoiding this overrepresentation would require data about which intelligence tests are most representative of minority group scores, by fairly and reliably assessing them (p.247).

     In 1998, Jensen reported that his meta-analysis showed an average IQ” range of 10-20 points between ethnic groups on different IQ tests” (Edwards, 2006, p.247). Different tests vary in their discrepancy between ethnic groups, one test may have an average difference of 10, while another difference may be closer to 20 (p.247). If test producers provide data about their IQ discrepancies it will help test users to make informed decisions regarding which intelligence test will provide the most accurate results. The outcome of these fair and reliable results would most likely lessen the disproportionate representation of minority groups in special education programs (p.247).

   Wasserman and Becker (2000) reviewed studies on the WISC-III, Stanford-Binet IV, and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability that used samples corresponding to key demographic variables. They found that the mean discrepancy, in favor of whites, between standard scores for matched samples of African American and Caucasian groups were as follows: WISC-III=11.0; Stanford-Binet IV=8.1; and Woodcock- Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability=11.7. These considerable average score differences imply that when these tests are used to refer students to gifted programs that fewer culturally and linguistically diverse children may be identified as meeting the criteria for giftedness (Ford, 2004, p.8).

     High stakes testing is widespread in the United States; Lamb (1993) observed that test scores in student files create the basis for high stakes decisions (Ford, 2004, p.5). Hilliard (1991), Korchin (1980), Olmedo (1981), and others argue that standardized tests have added to the continuation of barriers that diverse groups are faced with politically, socially and economically (Ford, 2004, p. 5). Donna Ford (2004) in her paper “Intelligence Testing and Cultural Diversity: Concerns, Cautions, and Considerations” notes that “when tests are used for selecting and screening, the potential for denying diverse groups access to educational opportunities, such as gifted education programs, due to bias is great” (Ford, 2004, p.5). Many scholars believe that intelligence tests contain cultural bias that is in favor of middle class Caucasian groups because they assess knowledge and content normed for White, middle class students and use language and situations that are often unfamiliar to culturally and linguistically diverse students (p.6).

     The debates and arguments regarding intelligence and intelligence testing are common in education, more specifically, special education and gifted education programs. These programs rely heavily on assessments, like intelligence tests, to make decisions regarding the placement of students in one of the programs and what services they require to help them be successful (Ford, 2004, p.2).

     Oliver Edwards (2006) writes, in his article “Special education disproportionality and the influence of intelligence test selection” in the Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability that, “for a test to have equitable effects, examiners need to interpret them not only in light of their statistical properties, but also in light of the consequences of test score use (Edwards, 2006, p.247). Biased intelligence test scores can be detrimental to minority students. The interpretation of these scores is a double edged sword affecting entrance into gifted education programs and special education programs alike. Low test scores can prevent minority students from being identified as gifted and entering gifted education programs (Ford, 2004, p.vi). Depending on the student, low scores can result in the student being identified as learning disabled, mentally retarded etc., this label will likely follow this student for the duration of his or her education (p.vi).

     Being mistakenly assigned to special education services has many consequences, present and future. There is a stigma that goes along with the label “special education student”. This stigma can follow them throughout their lives, influencing how teachers and classmates treat them and may give them a poor self-image and affect their self esteem (Gay, 2002, p.615). 

     Intelligence tests reveal information regarding the test takers educational attainment, social judgment, reasoning and comprehension. Because the scores of intelligence tests are considered to accurately reveal differences in these four areas and are used to make important educational decisions, it is important to turn to research regarding the cultural accuracy of each test to help guide decision on the use of each intelligence test (Edwards, 2006, p.247). The intelligence test that is most likely to decrease the overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students from special education programs is the test that results in a smaller average score variation between different ethnic groups.

      Disproportionality in special education is not a new problem. Despite efforts of teachers, school districts, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, minorities, unfortunately, are still overrepresented in special education and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. Educators and other test users must place an importance on picking intelligence tests that have the lowest discrepancy between cultural groups so that the scores from culturally and linguistically diverse students are accurate and fairly reflect that students needs regarding special education and gifted education programs. Educators must never assume that everyone shares the same opportunities and experiences—intelligence tests are rooted in this belief.

     Overall, assessments used in schools can be made more culturally fair and valid in the following ways: by administering tests in the primary language of the person taking the exam, have interpreters translate test questions, review tests and eliminate questions that groups perform very differently on, eliminate items that may be offensive to certain groups, keep in mind the background of the person who took the test when examining their answers, never assume that everyone shares the same opportunities and experiences, never base decisions about a person on one test score, instead collect multiple sources of data, and when a whole group scores low on a test, consider that the test may be the problem.

      I believe that intelligence cannot be tested independently of the culture that gives rise to the test. I believe that many tests are geared toward a certain group of people or cultures and there is a bias to them. Depending on what each student’s strengths are and what he has been exposed to, he may score a lot higher on the test than a person of a different background. I think that students need to be evaluated for gifted and special education programs based on the results of multiple assessments, rather than solely relying on an intelligence test that may or may not yield different results for different cultural groups. I also believe that there needs to be a value put on teacher input for considerations in these programs. A student’s teacher is a great source of information about a student’s individual strengths and weaknesses.

     In addition I think that it would be advantageous, not only to use multiple assessment measures, but to reevaluate students in special education programs multiple times throughout the year to see if they still require special education services or to see if there may have been an error in original testing. The culturally linguistically diverse students, in particular, must be reevaluated to determine whether or not they have been placed correctly. Some diverse students may not have tested into the gifted and talented program at their school that should have been; others may not require special education services but are being given them. Human and assessment error is an unfortunate part of life, it is an educators responsibility to make sure that if an error has occurred that it be rectified.

     I agree that cultural bias may be lessened in intelligence tests but cannot be fully removed. The test will always reflect the culture of the person that created the test. Ford and Gilman (n.d), for example, state that even with the best intentions to create tests that have little to no bias, “human error, stereotypes and prejudice undermine test administrations, interpretation, and use” (Ford & Gilman, n.d). Culturally diverse students are, more often than not, are affected by this bias.

    In the future, I hope that test developers realize that withholding the statistical information related to the mean scores of different cultural groups does more harm than good. I understand that the developers are trying to be socially conscious, however, that data could possibly be used to spark future research related to test bias so that, hopefully, in the future, less culturally and linguistically diverse students are incorrectly placed in a certain program, or do not have a chance to participate in a program due to faulty test scores. The release of this data can also be used to help test users choose an assessment that has be proven to produce scores with less discrepancies between difference cultural groups.

References

Baca, L., & Cervantes, H. T. (1989). The bilingual special education interface (2nd ed.). Columbus, Oh.: Merrill.

Edwards, O. (2006). Special Education Disproportionality and the Influence of Intelligence Test Selection. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(4), 246-248. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from the Ebscohost database.

Fagan, J. (n.d.). A valid, culture-fair test of intelligence. Headquarters, department of the Army. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/TR_1225.pdf

Ford, D. (2010). Culturally Responsive Classrooms: Affirming Culturally Different Gifted Students. Gifted Child Today, 33, 50-53. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from the Ebscohost database.

Ford, D. (2004). Intelligence testing and cultural diversity: Concerns, cautions, and considerations. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 1, 1-71. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from the Educational Resources Information Center database.

Ford, D., & Whiting, G. (n.d.). Cultural Bias in Testing | Education.com. Education.com | An Education & Child Development Site for Parents | Parenting & Educational Resource. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cultural-bias-in-testing/

Lopez, R. (1997). The practical impact of current research and issues in intelligence test interpretation and use for multicultural populations. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 249-254. Retrieved April 22, 2012, from Ebscohost

Gay, Geneva . "Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: setting the stage." Qualitative Studies in Education 15.5 (2002): 613-629. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/. Web. 6 March 2012.’

Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Gibb, A., Rausch, K., Cuadrado, J., et al. (2008). Achieving Equity In Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges. Council for Exceptional Children, 74, 264-288. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from the Educational Resources Information Center database.

Autism and Its Implications in Education

Autism History & Prevalence

      Autistic Disorder, otherwise known as Autism, is one of three developmental disabilities making up the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Autistic Disorder is the most commonly known type of ASD, the others are Asperger Syndrome and Pervasive Development Disorder- Not Otherwise Specified (NDD-NOS) (Autism Spectrum Disorder Fact Sheet, CDC, 2012). In an interview with Dianne Hardisty, Temple Grandin, one of the most famous autistic women, said:

There is a spectrum. At one end are severely disabled children, who have contributing medical problems, such as epilepsy. At the other end are the quirky, nerdy, brilliant ones who go on to invent the light bulb or computer systems. The Silicon Valley is filled with these people. There are uneven skills. You build on them (Hardisty, 2011). 

      Autism is a complex brain disorder that affects many areas of child development.     Early intervention in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder is very important. Thirty-eight percent of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder have an intellectual disability, an IQ test score less than or equal to 70 or have had a doctor or psychologist document intellectual disability on his/her record (ADDM, 2012, p.6).

      In the mid 1990s the prevalence rate of Autism was 1 in 3,000 children. New reports from the Center for Disease Control report that currently 1 out of every 88 children in the United States has an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADDM, 2012, p.1). The prevalence of this spectrum of disorders makes it the fastest growing developmental disability in the United States (Sansosti, 2009, p.170). Boys are impacted significantly more often than girls; according to the “Community Report” from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network 2012, funded by the Center for Disease Control, male children are five times more likely to have Autism than females (ADDM, 2012, p.6). One in every fifty-four boys is identified as having an Autism Spectrum Disorder versus the one in every two-hundred and fifty two girls who are identified (p.6).  The number of children identified with Autism Spectrum Disorders varies greatly from state to state ranging from 1 in 210 in Alabama to 1 in 47 children in Utah (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).

     Between 1993 and 2006, the number of children receiving services for Autism increased 1,342%, according to the U.S Department of Education (Sansosti, 2009, p.170).

Research Based Instructional Practices

    According to Cosmas U. Nwokeafor (2009), a professor at Bowie State University, in his paper “Conundrum of Autism: A Review of Its Causes and Significant Impact on the Education of a School Age Child”, children with Autism lack a few basic skills that are necessary for learning (Nwokeafor, 2009, p.9). Nwokeafor states that children with Autism lack imitation skills and joint attention skills, both of which are essential to the learning process (p.9). For this reason, educating children with Autism poses challenges to schools, educators and parents. Some children with Autism have above average intelligence while others have below average intelligence, therefore not all instructional practices work for all autistic children.

    There is currently no cure for Autism, however, research has shown that early diagnosis along with intensive early intervention can significantly improve the social and academic skills of children with Autism (Nwokeafor, 2009, p. 2). In addition, stimulating children with Autism may cause new neural connections to form. There are many different types of early intervention, this is because every child with Autism is different and responds differently to each type of intervention. Unfortunately, not all children respond to early intervention.     

    Intensive Speech therapy is a very common early intervention strategy because there is a very small window of opportunity for a child to learn language; many autistic children are nonverbal and others can develop language early on and then lose it. Some other forms of intervention are: social skills training, a form of group therapy with other children; cognitive behavioral therapy, a form of therapy that helps children to manage their emotions; medications for other conditions such as anxiety and depression; occupational and physical therapy to help children with poor motor coordination; and parent training and support which teaches parents behavioral techniques that can be implemented at home.

     For many adults with Autism, their lives would be completely different had their parents not found them early intervention services. Some may never have learned to use language at all. Others may have never made lasting relationships with others, due to their poor social skills and behavioral problems. For example, former pro-football quarterback Dan Marino has an autistic son; the family found early intervention services that worked for him and he went from being completely non-verbal to being mainstreamed in many of his classes in school. When he speaks, you would never know that he was ever diagnosed with Autism as a child.

      Another intervention, Social Stories, is often used to teach social behavior to children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Social Stories are personalized short stories to help children with Autism interpret and understand challenging or confusing social situations (Sansosti, 2009, p.171). The objective of Social Stories is to demonstrate social situations in which a child with Autism may have a hard time recognizing relevant social cues or expected behaviors and to comprehend the consequences of various actions (p.171). This intervention helps autistic children to understand socially appropriate ways to deal with common situations that they are likely to find themselves in at some point in the future.

IDEA

      To be diagnosed with Autism, a child must have documented features in three areas: impairments in social interaction, stereotypical behavior and onset before age three (Vaughn et al, 2007, p.145). The child must have six or more of the following: impairments in social interactions such as poor eye contact, lack of responsiveness, or inability to form relationships, echolalia or repeating exactly what has been heard, robotic speech, use of gibberish or made up words. The child must also exhibit stereotypical behavior such as body rocking, hand flapping, finger movements, or fascination with objects or their parts. These characteristics must have begun before age three.  The child must not meet the criteria for Rett syndrome or child disintegrative disorder (p.145).

      The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997) defines Autism as:

A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects a child’s performance. Other characteristics often associated with Autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. The term does not apply if a child’s educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has a serious emotional disturbance (Vaughn et al, 2007, 146).

Characteristics of Autism

     Autism is a complex disorder. Every child with Autism is different - the symptoms and severity of one autistic child may be very different than those of another. They may have mental retardation or savant characteristics (Vaughn et al., 2007, 145).  In the case of mildly affected children, Autism may go undetected; Autism may also be hard to detect if it is overshadowed by other handicaps (Nwokeafor, 2009, p.4). Some of the early signs of Autism include rarely making eye contact and being non-verbal, for example not crying or babbling as a baby, and the majority of autistic children have a delay in understanding and using language. Typically, children with Autism are characterized by three distinct behaviors: difficulties with social interaction, problems with verbal and non-verbal communication and repetitive behaviors or narrow interests (p.5).

     Social characteristics of a child with Autism include little to no eye contacts, autistic leading, in which the autistic child takes the hand of an adult or peer and puts it onto, or in the direction of, something they want, and unawareness of social situations. Many children with Autism exhibit very little verbal communication, and some don’t communicate verbally at all. They also use repetitive language, are echolalic, immediately repeating the words or sounds of another person, or use robotic speech. Children with Autism have inflexible routines and motor repetitions such as finger flapping and body rocking.

Possible Causes of Autism

     No one has all the answers when it comes to Autism; this is probably why the symbol for Autism awareness is a puzzle piece, because we are still trying to fit the pieces together. Most scientists studying Autism Spectrum Disorders believe that there is more than on cause of Autism (ADDM, 2012, p.38). Research shows that: both genetic and non-genetic factors play a role; children who have a sibling or parent with an ASD or are born to older parents are at a higher risk; ASDs occur more often among children with certain genetic disorders or chromosomal conditions; 10% of children with ASDs have also been identified as having Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, or another genetic or chromosomal disorder; the prescription drugs valproic acid and thalidomide, when taken during pregnancy, have been linked to ASDs; also,, children born with low birth weight or born prematurely are at a greater risk (p.38).

     Some people believe that an exposure to pesticides can cause Autism. Many people believe that the mercury in childhood vaccines can cause Autism; however, if vaccines were in fact, the cause, the incidence of Autism should have declined after 1999, when the dangerous ingredients were taken out of vaccines. Some doctors believe that diet can help to improve Autism by detoxifying the body of metals; there is no evidence, however, to prove that this detoxification works.

      Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., the former Director of the Autism Research Institute in San Diego, California, believes that “Autism is not a disease with a specific cause, but rather a syndrome with a combination of abnormal behavioral characteristics (Alternative Therapies, p.540). Metabolic disorders have been linked to some cases of Autism. Defects in the breakdown of peptides, or simple proteins, during digestion, have been found in autistic children through an increased level of urinary peptides (p.540). 

       Another possible cause of Autism is fetal alcohol syndrome, as found by a Canadian study. The study found that one in fifty-four children with fetal alcohol syndrome also had Autism (Alternative Therapies, p.540). Other studies have linked brain stem defects, such as significantly decreased brain stem size, to Autism (p.540).

     Maybe the most controversial idea for the cause of Autism has been infant vaccines. Both parents of autistic children and some scientists believe that the mercury in the preservative, thimerosal, used in many childhood vaccines in the United States is the cause of Autism (Gorski, 2007, p.23). Many people made the connection between infant vaccines and Autism because characteristics of Autism typically present themselves between age one and three, the same time period in which children receive the majority of their vaccines (p.24). Many people, such as David Gorski (2007), the author of “Mercury in Vaccines as a Cause of Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs): A failed hypothesis” believe that the correlation between the time at which the characteristics of autism present themselves and the age at which children receive vaccines is merely coincidental.

     Many activists insist that the preservative thimerosal, containing mercury, is the cause of most cases of Autism, however, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service, as a precaution, recommended that the preservative containing mercury be immediately removed from infant vaccines (Gorski, 2007, p.24). Therefore, by March, 2001, all vaccines recommended for infants were available with little to no thimerosal. The last batch of vaccines containing thimerosal expired in 2002 and, since the expiration, no childhood vaccine, besides the flu vaccine, contained more than trace amounts of the preservative (p.24).

    Through their Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), the Center for Disease Control is actively searching for the possible causes of Autism Spectrum Disorders. This is the largest study in the United States seeking to identify risk factors for ASDs (ADDM, 2012, p.38).

     No one knows why the incidence of Autism has increased so drastically in the last few years; however, there is reason to believe that increased awareness of Autism and its characteristics have increased the number of children being diagnosed, rather than the rate at which children are developing the disorder (Gorski, 2007, p.24).

Challenges and Advantages of Inclusion

      There has been an increased tendency to place students with Autism in general education classrooms, if at all possible (Sansosti, 2009, p.170). According to Rita Jordan (2008), author of “Autism spectrum disorders: a challenge and a model for inclusion in education”, education in it of itself can be a successful treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders, especially when taught by high-quality teachers (Jordan, 2008, p.11). She emphasizes the fact that education envelops so many things that are not always thought of – it is the way children are “taught the values, understanding, knowledge and skills that will enable their full participation in their community” (p.11).

      Inclusion helps autistic children to develop better social skills through interacting with their peers. Autistic children can gain from collaboration and teamwork with their peers in a mainstream classroom (Jordan, 2008, p.12). Some autistic children are severely intellectually disabled which would make inclusion very difficult and be a disservice to the child, however with specialist support in the classroom such as a special education in-class support teacher or a paraprofessional, the student can benefit from inclusion in the general education classroom. Specialist support in the classroom can make education of an autistic child possible in a non-segregated setting (p.12).

References

Asperger Syndrome Fact Sheet: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). (n.d.). National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Retrieved April 2, 2012, from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm

Gorski, D. (2007). Mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs): A failed hypothesis. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 11, 23-27. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from the EBSCOhost database.

Sansosti, F. (2009). Teaching Social Behavior to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders Using Social Stories: Implications for School-Based Practice. Best of JSLP-ABA- Consolidated Volume 4, 2009, 4, 170-177. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from the Articles Plus database.

Smith, M. (n.d.). Autism Symptoms & Early Signs: What to Look for in Babies, Toddlers & Children. Helpguide helps you help yourself to better mental and emotional health. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/autism_signs_symptoms.htm#early

Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

My Philosophy of Assessment

I believe that assessment is an ongoing process, by which, mainstream classroom teachers, special educators, and school psychologists can gather information that will help them to make better decisions about individual students or student populations. Formal and informal assessments are used by educators in order to evaluate student progress and or behavior for placement and eligibility purposes as well as to help plan lessons. Special educators may use assessments to determine the eligibility of students for special education services or to help make decisions to adapt students’ Individualized Education Plans according to the needs identified in the assessment process.

Many assessments have a direct relationship to content standards, which make them an extremely useful tool for educators. For example, a teacher of ELL students can use the results of the W-APT assessment to gage each student’s proficiency in each of the five English Language Proficiency Content Standards. Using the results, the teacher can tailor her lessons to be sure the needs of each individual student will be met. A pull-out teacher, or ESL resource room teacher, knowing the degree of proficiency of each student in five areas will be able to use his/her time with each student to work with them toward proficiency in each area. Assessments like the W-APT directly relate to teachers and help them to better serve their students.

In special education, assessment is an invaluable tool to help serve students with special needs more appropriately. Achievement tests like the Woodcock Johnson can be used to help educators place children into classes in which the learning will take place at a pace that is right for them. If a child has a very low IQ, that child may be placed in a self- contained classroom, in which his or her peers learn at the same, or a similar, rate.

Many types of assessments are used by teachers, and/or school systems, to gather information that can be used to make decisions about each student’s education. Pre-assessment is a useful tool to determine what students know before beginning a lesson, topic or subject. This will help instructors recognize the best way to scaffold or present new information.

Formal assessments are data driven assessments that are based on statistics. These assessments include norm-referenced tests and criterion referenced tests. Formal assessments can be given to students to test their performance against other children in their age group and grade level. They may also be given to identify a student’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to his peers.

Informal assessments include a teacher’s records of her students’ performance, observations, check lists, and rating scales. These records are ongoing and can direct teacher instruction. Some informal assessments may be in the form of regular classroom activities such as class work, journals, essays, play-based assessment or student participation.

Formative assessments are ongoing assessments such as classroom observations. These are used by teachers to improve instructional strategies in the classroom. This type of assessment may also include periodic quizzes and performance tasks. Summative assessments, on the other hand, are used to evaluate the effectiveness of different academic programs. They can be used to determine whether or not students have mastered specific skills or grasped certain concepts.

I believe that the most important assessments for individual classroom teachers include pre-assessments, which help teachers decide what prior knowledge students have already grasped, what they have questions about relating to the future topic of instruction, and what the general gaps in knowledge are among the students. The results of pre-assessments help teachers to cater their lessons to their specific classes.

While assessment is a necessary tool for education, I think that the cultural bias that can be found in many assessments can do a disservice to certain members of the school-age population. I believe that the results may be skewed, depending upon the stage of the acculturation process a student is in. If the student is in the second stage of acculturation, for example, the student may be angry and not want to take the assessment in general. Also, if a CLD student knows that placement will be determined based on his or her results, he or she may feel very apprehensive about the assessment. A student’s level of excitement, or apathy toward school and assessments can most likely impact the results significantly. I think that a teacher’s knowledge of a student, and her ongoing informal assessments of that student are very valuable in the realm of culturally diverse students.

I definitely believe that intelligence cannot be tested independently of the culture that gives rise to an assessment. I believe that all assessments are geared toward a certain group of people or culture and there is a bias to them. The simplest things can throw a child off and make it hard for them to understand a question on an assessment. For example, if a student were to try to answer a question talking about “hop scotch” and did not grow up in the United States, he or she may not even understand that “hop scotch” is a game commonly played by children. Cultural differences as small as the games children play growing up can have a huge impact on the degree to which they can understand certain questions, stories or situations.

Cultural differences or not, however, I do think assessments should be used for ELL learners upon entering a school to assess how proficient the student is in English and what, if any, supports should be put in place to help that child. Observing an English language learner in the classroom would not be enough to adequately assess that child’s performance or level of English proficiency. This will also help educators to understand whether or not any difficulties in school should be seen as having to do with their lack of proficiency in English or if there may be a greater problem that would require testing for special education eligibility.

The difficulty in assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students has been noted by Jim Cummins in his work on second language instruction. Cummins noted that there are two different types of second language acquisition, basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Herrera, 2011, p. 53). BICS are surface language skills, such as listening and speaking, which are rapidly acquired. Many children develop the fluency of a native speaker within two years of being immersed in English (p.53). CALP, on the other hand, is much harder to achieve, taking between five and seven years to master. CALP is essential to fully succeed in school.

I agree with Cummins. When learning a language, it is much easier to form superficial fluency in the language than it is to speak, read and write about subject area content. Cummins’s work in this area teaches teachers to take a closer look when assessing ELL students. Mere observations may be misleading. Teachers must use formal assessments to measure English language learners’ academic language proficiency.

In mainstream classes, general education teachers may use assessments to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms. Knowing each child’s strengths and weaknesses enable teachers to target lessons and activities toward students’ needs. If a teacher discovers through assessment that one student in her classroom is a predominantly visual learner she may use more visuals in the classroom rather than making the students strictly take notes. If the same teacher discovers that another student is a strong tactile learner, she may implement more hands on activities.

Howard Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences argues that students learn in their own ways (Howard Gardner, n.d.). He believes that students learn best when they are in classes with teachers who utilize different methods of teaching and provide students with various opportunities to show what they have learned. I feel that there is a direct relationship between Gardner’s theory and differentiated instruction.

While I see the need and reasoning for formal assessment, I believe that a teacher’s ability to perform ongoing informal assessments of her students is an invaluable tool. I believe that assessment is a necessary tool for placement purposes, whether for special education or for an ELL student, however, I think that informal assessments, such as observations by teachers in the classroom, may shed more light on certain behaviors.

Reference

Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and education . (n.d.). contents @ the informal education homepage. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

Herrera, S. G. (2011). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods: differentiated instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

The language learning theories of Professor J. Cummins. (n.d.). A guide to learning English. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/cummin.htm

Examination of the Disproportionate Rate of Minorities in Special Education

The assessment and placement of minority students and culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education, in the United States, has been a major topic of controversy since 1968 (Rhodes, Ochoa & Ortiz, 15). In 1968, Lloyd Dunn published, “Special Education for the Mildly Retarded—Is Much of It Justifiable?” in the September issue of Exceptional Children. Dunn presented one of the first discussions of the disproportionate representation of minorities in classes containing children with mental retardation and intellectual disabilities (Gentry, 2009, p.7).
Public Law 94-142 otherwise known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 required that students must be assessed in their native language, when possible, and without bias. The revisions made to this law put forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and 1997 continued to push for these rights (Rhodes et.al., 2005, p.15). Despite these efforts, however, the existence of disproportionate representation in special education is still a growing problem. In the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, Congress required states to:
(a) report, annually, the extent of minority representation by disability category; (b) determine if significant disproportionality exists, and (c) if observed, review and revise policies, practices, and procedures in identification or placement to ensure that minority children are not inappropriately identified or served in more restrictive settings (Rhodes et.al., 2005, p.17).
Under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, the evaluation process for students who may be eligible for special education services must not be discriminatory. All tests must be given in, and reports written in, the native language (Pierangelo & Guiliani, 2009, p.23). That means that tests must be given in the student’s native language, and reports sent home must be written in the student’s parent’s native language.
Special education, when provided properly to those who need it, can be very effective; however, it can be detrimental to a student that has been misidentified as having a disability. According to Ruben Gentry (2009), disproportionality can be defined as “the representation of a group in a category that exceeds expectations for that group, or differs substantially from the representation of others in that category” (p. 5).
In Ruben Gentry’s paper “Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in Special Education—How Bad?”, he states that African Americans are overrepresented in overall special education service, as well as intellectual disability and emotional disturbance (Gentry, 2009, p.6). American Indian and Alaska Native students, however, are overrepresented in learning disabilities. Furthermore, African American students are suspended more often than other students and have higher rates of office referrals, corporal punishment and school expulsion p.7). Overall, higher proportions of males and students of color are part of special education programs (Gay, 2002, p.613).
Some of the possible causes of the disproportionate representation include: “test bias, socio-demographic factors, unequal opportunity in general education, teacher ethnicity, and special education eligibility” (Gentry, 2009, p.6). Some professionals believe that overrepresentation is caused in part by family and community issues, school pressure such as high stakes assessments and mandated curriculum, classroom management and instruction, intrinsic characteristics of the students, and teacher perception and attitudes (p.8). Others believe that educators misinterpret the behavior of minority students as behavior problems that may simply be cultural differences (p.9).
Furthermore, the qualifications for special education services vary from state to state. This may be one reason why the occurrence or degree of severity of overrepresentation varies from state to state. Some states use a discrepancy method in order for a student to be eligible for service or qualify a student as LD; each state’s definition of significant discrepancy, however, varies (Rhodes et.al., 2005, p.23).
Unfortunately a student’s spoken language has not been greatly considered in research on disproportionality in special education. Currently, there is no research that examines the influence of language and ethnicity on special education placement (Rhodes et.al., 2005, p.19). The question still remains unanswered: whether or not special education representation varies depending upon an ethnically diverse student’s proficiency in English. The little information that has been collected on this topic does not distinguish between different languages, rather it lumps all language subgroups together (p.19).
Socioeconomic status is also linked to school success. Children of poor socioeconomic status are more likely to have poor educational outcomes. There is a higher chance of poverty for students of minorities. Poverty lends itself to many factors that increase a child’s risk of problems in school—for families and women of low social economic status, prenatal care may be too costly. Furthermore, low socio-economic status significantly lessens the options a family has regarding childcare. For example, for a family that is upper middle class, childcare is not a very big issue, there are many options to choose from, including daycare, nannies, or even a parent staying home full time to be with their child. All of these options include generally healthy environments filled with stimulation for a growing baby’s/child’s brain.
According to an article by Clancy Blair and Keith Scott entitled, “Proportion of LD Placements Associated with Low Socioeconomic Status”, many factors influence a child’s risk of developing a learning disability. These factors include the amount of his mother’s education, whether or not his mother was married at the time of his birth, the trimester in which prenatal care was initiated, and his weight at the time of his birth (Blair & Scott). In their research, linking birth and school record data in Florida, they found that learning disabilities were most likely to occur in students whose birth records showed: a maternal education of less than 12 years, the mother was not married at time of child’s birth, prenatal care did not start until after the first trimester of pregnancy, or the child was born with a low birth weight (Blair & Scott). Blair and Scott found that if any of these conditions existed, children were between 1.2 and 3.4 times more likely to have a learning disability placement by their early teenage years (Blair & Scott). Minorities have a greater chance of identifying with one or more of these risk factors.
Immigrant children are affected by many social-emotional factors that non-immigrant children are not faced with. Concerning education, every nation and group of people look differently toward, and put a difference emphasis on, education and formal schooling. In Mexico, at age ten children may have a different understanding of math and geography than a ten year old American child may have. When coming to the United States, an immigrant child may have faced a period with no schooling at all; whether that period is long or short, it can still affect the student adversely. Some countries teach students both their native language and English, others do not. All of these factors can affect an immigrant child’s achievement in school. Immigrant children may often feel overwhelmed with the demands of American schools because the workload may be far more demanding than schools in their native country.
Parents of minority students must also be considered. Many immigrant parents may be less involved in their children’s school because of language barriers. Not all schools can afford translators at school events, but, it may help increase involvement to have translators present. Schools can try to increase parental involvement by implementing some of the following: the use of translators for all school functions, a separate “back to school night” for parents new to the school, especially for those who need translation services, parent buddies—parents who are very active in the school may volunteer to be “buddies” of those parents who are new to the school, and multicultural nights which would bring families together and help parents and students achieve a better understanding of other people in their communities. The new services will encourage immigrant and culturally and linguistically diverse families to get involved and make them feel like they, and their culture, are important.
Many students are placed in special education classes because teachers misinterpret cultural differences as characteristics of learning disabilities. Teachers have a propensity to identify European and Asian-Americans as having higher intelligence and academic abilities, and see them as being less disruptive in classes, as opposed to African, Native and Latino Americans (Gay, 2002, p.615). According to Geneva Gay (2002), in her article “Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: setting the stage”, the way in which African Americans move and interject motion, implement emotional energy into their thinking, communicate and relate socially may be misinterpreted as “hyperactivity, attention deficit, irritability, attention-seeking, disruption, and being quarrelsome” (p.616). In addition, latino students are more culturally socialized in cooperative groups and are, therefore, reluctant to engage in individual activities, which can be seen as a lack of motivation (p.616).
Asian-American students who are disengaged and do not want to participate in conversations and activities with peers and instructors may be considered to have a social disability because their actions may be perceived as being unfriendly, withdrawn, reclusive, insecure and self-conscious (Gay, 2002, p.617). Furthermore, Native American students are often taught through demonstration, therefore they learn best by observing, so, in certain classroom situations they may be seen as lacking interest or motivation and having other characteristics of learning disabilities (p.17).
In addition, when students are of low economic status they sometime have dialects that mainstream society perceives as being characteristic of linguistic deficits. This stigma may go so far as to have people thinking that these students have less intellectual ability, because of their speech style. Some people believe that the way someone speaks is indicative of his intelligence (Gay, 2002, p.617).
Being mistakenly assigned to special education services has many consequences, present and future. There is a stigma that goes along with the label “special education student”. This stigma can follow them throughout their lives, influencing how teachers and classmates treat them and may give them a poor self-image and affect their self esteem (Gay, 2002, p.615).
One recommendation is that classroom teachers implement culturally responsive teaching. Teachers would be able to acknowledge and better understand the influence that race, culture and ethnicity has on instruction and learning. They could integrate cultural experiences, perspectives, traits and contributions of different ethnicities into their lessons and use them as tools for teaching diverse students (Gay, 2002, p.619). Teachers learning about their students’ backgrounds, cultures and upbringings will help them to understand which behaviors are normal and which require taking a closer look. If a teacher truly understands the behavior of different cultures—that certain students are culturally prone to acting hyper while others are more apt to be withdrawn— she will be able to better serve her students because she will recognize the true warning signs of disabilities.
Culturally responsive teaching and the achievement of students of color are directly related. When one increases so does the other. Therefore, if culturally responsive teaching increases, academic performance, social adjustment, school satisfaction, student confidence and self-concept all increase (Gay, 2002, p.627). If teachers implement this style of teaching and become more culturally aware, the misplacement of minorities in special education will decrease significantly.
Along with culturally responsive teaching, implementing differentiated instruction would help students and teachers alike. Differentiated instruction would allow students to display their strengths which would give teachers a better idea of each student’s progress. Teachers would be able to assess students through observation. Because the learning styles of groups of people vary across cultures, differentiated instruction will help the minorities in class learn in their own way and demonstrate what they have learned more effectively.
Disproportionality in special education is not a new problem. Despite efforts of teachers, school districts, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, minorities, unfortunately, are still overrepresented in special education and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. Teachers need to be made aware of cultural differences so that overrepresentation does not continue.

Intellectual Disability: Support Found Online

I googled the term “intellectual disability” and the first thing website that came up was the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). This organization’s website is very informative. Various pages found on the website include: the definition of intellectual disability, the various causes of intellectual disability, the signs of intellectual disability, how intellectual disabilities are diagnosed, the definition under IDEA, resources for babies and toddlers with intellectual disabilities, and educational considerations. According to NICHCY, an intellectual disability is used “when a person has certain limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating, taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will cause a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child” (NICHCY, 2012).
The next website that I am brought to when searching “intellectual disability” is the Center for Disease Control PDF Intellectual Disability Fact Sheet. This PDF provides a definition of intellectual disability, some signs of intellectual disability, as well as a section titled, “what can I do if I think my child may have intellectual disability?” This fact sheet is available in both English and Spanish.
The third website that I am brought to is the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), this site contains the same type of information as the National Dissemination center for Children with Disabilities and the Center for Disease Control. Both NICHCY and AAIDD contain sections containing publications. These publications include journals and newsletters. The AAIDD website also includes a virtual bookstore so that people can purchase informational books on intellectual disabilities.
I am happy that if someone is concerned about their child having an intellectual disability or is simply trying to research this condition, he or she will be brought to helpful, informational websites that will serve them well, rather than sites that may be disheartening with inaccurate information.

Definition of Intellectual Disability AAIDD. (n.d.). AAIDD. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from http://www.aaidd.org/content_100.cfm?navID=21

Intellectual Disability Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Center for Disease Control. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/parents