Approved at  the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association Board of Directors' Meeting
March 24, 2000

The California Speech-Language-Hearing Association recognizes the unique needs of students who are English language learners. The purpose of this position statement is to address the changes in educational services to English language learners since the passage of Proposition 227, the State
Program for English language learners, passed by voters of California on June 8, 1998.

Speech-language pathologists have expressed concerns regarding speech and language assessments and intervention for students who are English language learners (ELL, formerly know as LEP or limited English proficient). This position statement addresses the effect of Proposition 227 on the provision
of speech and language services to students who are ELL, specifically the language used for assessment, instruction and intervention.  See APPENDIX for regulations involving implementation of Proposition 227.

Proposition 227 restricts the use of languages other than English for general education instruction. According to Proposition 227, all English learners shall be placed in English language classrooms unless a parental exception waiver has been granted for an alternative program. However, students requiring special education services should be assessed using tests administered in the student’s primary language. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) team develops linguistically appropriate goals, objectives, programs and services for each special education student, regardless of language proficiency (Education Code 56320 and 56344).  No provision of an IEP requires a parental exception waiver under this section. (Working Draft, CCR, Statement Program for English Learners, September 1998).

Proposition 227 affects only the language used for instruction in general education in California. Students with special needs are exempted pending discussion of identified needs and parental decision regarding the language or languages of instruction in general and special education (APPENDIX (EC 310 and 311)). Education and support for students with disabilities and special education needs are determined by the IEP team.

ELL students who have a language-learning disorder may be conversationally proficient in English, but not proficient in English at higher cognitive academic linguistic levels that are needed to comprehend curriculum information and express related ideas. Speech-language pathologists should advise parents and other IEP team members about the implications of the language used for assessment, instruction and intervention.

Assessment

The speech-language pathologist must continue to use practices that assure culturally fair and the least biased assessment of the student’s primary language, in addition to an evaluation of English language skills as appropriate. This evaluation should occur after the state-mandated language proficiency and dominance testing (e.g., Idea Language Proficiency Test (IPT), the Language Assessment Scale (LAS), etc.).

Intervention & Therapy

Intervention may be provided in the student’s primary language. The IEP team determines which language or languages will be used to facilitate the student’s communication skills for access to the core curriculum and meeting standards. The IEP team must consider the language of the educational setting and the language of speech-language intervention [IDEA 1997 Amendments, NICHY National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities News Digest, page 20 (iii), Vol. 26, (Revised Edition), June 1998].

If the IEP team decides to place an ELL student in English-language instruction, a speech-language pathologist is not limited to the language used in the classroom and may use a range of service delivery models including: consultation and collaboration, primary language intervention, multi-modal input in either or both languages, working with an interpreter and/or recognized Sheltered English methods. In providing services, it is advisable for speech-language pathologists who are not fluent in a student’s first language to work with interpreters who are fluent in the primary language and familiar with the student’s culture (CAC, Title 5, 3023 [a]).

In summary, speech-language pathologists should consider the individual needs of each student and continue to use the most culturally and  linguistically appropriate practices available to support students and families.

References

August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language minority children. Washington, D.C:
National Research Council Institute of Medicine.

Implementation of Proposition 227. What you should know. Los Angeles, CA: California Association for
Bilingual Education.

California Association for Bilingual Education (1998). Implementing Proposition 227: Answers to commonly-asked questions. Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.

California Department of Education (September 1998). Coordinated compliance review: State program for English learners, working draft.

California Education Code, Part 30, Section 56320 and 56344.

Cheng, L. (1991). Assessing Asian language performance. (2nd ed.). Oceanside,
CA: Academic Communication Associates.

DaFao, J. (December 6, 1998). School districts far apart on Prop. 227: Bilingual education still taught.
Sacramento Bee.

Langdon, H. & Cheng, L. (Eds.) (1992). Hispanic children and adults with communication disorders. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Langdon, H. & Saenz, T. (Eds.) (1996). Language assessment and intervention with multicultural students: A guide for speech-language- hearing professionals. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.

Langdon, H.W.  Working with language interpreters and translators to serve ELL students with special education needs. Sacramento: California State Department of Education.

Lynch, E. & Hanson, M. (1998). Developing cross-cultural competence. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.

Quiroz, B., Greenfield, P. & Altchech, M. (Fall 1998) Bridging cultures between home and school: The parent-teacher conference. In Connections. Los Angeles, CA:UCLA/UES.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (1995). Multicultural students with special language needs: Practical strategies for assessment and intervention. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.

Rydell, L. (1990). The least biased assessment. Cross cultural special education series. RiSE: Special Education Division. California State Department of Education.

Sanchez-Boyce, M. & Roy, M. (1996). Legal and educational considerations. In Langdon, H. & Saenz, T. (Eds.). Language assessment and intervention with multicultural students: A guide for speech-language-hearing professionals. (Pp. 39-50) Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.

Schifini, A. Sheltered instruction: The basics. November, 1991. Los Angeles County Office of Education.

Yavas, M. & Goldstein, B. (1998). Phonological assessment and treatment of bilingual speakers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7(2), 49-60.