This study examined the operationalization of one of the key reforms initiated by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (U.S. Congress, 1975) and continued through the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (U.S. Congress, 2004)—namely, nondiscriminatory assessment. The original and current specifications in federal law require that tests be selected and administered so as not to be racially, culturally, or sexually discriminatory. The specific dimensions studied here pertain to the nondiscriminatory diagnosis of learning disabilities (LD) in English learners. A checklist of legal and professional guidelines for making assessments of English learners was used to evaluate 19 psychological reports made on English learners as part of the assessment process for special education eligibility in a small, urban elementary school district in California. The results of this study present a fairly compelling profile of how the writers of psychological reports—school psychologists—do not use extant legal or professional guidelines for making nondiscriminatory assessments of bilingual children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J.J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English language learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 117—136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
California Department of Education. (2004). California special education programs: A compendium of laws. Sacramento: California Department of Education, Special Education Division.
6.
Cleary, T.A., Humphreys, L.G., Kendrick, S.A., & Wesman, A. (1975). Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students . The American Psychologist, 15, 15— 40.
7.
Colvin, S.S. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium (IV). Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 136—139.
8.
Diana v. California Board of Education, No. C-70-37, U.S. Dist. Northern California. (1970).
9.
Dornic, S. (1977). Information processing and bilingualism. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Department of Psychology .
10.
Dornic, S. (1978a). Noise and language dominance. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Department of Psychology .
11.
Dornic, S. (1978b). The bilingual's performance: Language dominance, stress, and individual differences. In D. Gerver & H. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language and interpretation and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Dornic, S. (1979). Information processing in bilinguals: Some selected issues. Psychological Research, 40, 329—348.
13.
Eels, K., Davis, A., Havighurst, R.J., Her-rick, V.E., & Tyler, R. (1951). Intelligence and cultural differences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Figueroa, R.A. (1990). Assessment of linguistic minority group children . In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Vol 1. Intelligence and achievement (pp.671—696). New York: Guilford .
15.
Figueroa, R.A. (2005). Dificultades o desabilidades de aprendizaje? [Learning difficulties or learning disabilities?]Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 163—167.
16.
Figueroa, R.A., & Garcia, E. (1994). Issues in testing students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. MulticulturalEducation , 2, 10—23.
17.
Garth, T.R. (1923). A comparison of the intelligence of Mexican and full blood Indian children. Psychological Review, 30, 388—401.
18.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain andLanguage, 36, 3—15.
19.
Heber, R. (1961). A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation (2nd Edition). American Journal on Mental Deficiency [Monograph Supplement64].
20.
Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W.H., & Messick, S. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
Heubert, J.P., & Hauser, R.M. (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
Jensen, A.R., & Inouye, A.R. (1980). Level I and Level II abilities in Asian, White, and Black children. Intelligence, 4, 41—49.
23.
Jose P. v. Ambach, No.C-270 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
24.
Klingner, J.K., & Harry, B. (in press). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and staffings. Teachers College Record.
25.
Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972), aff'd, 502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974); 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979); appeal docketed, No. 80-4027 (9th Cir. 1980).
26.
Manuel, H.T. (1935). Spanish and English editions of the Stanford-Binet in relation to the abilities of Mexican children (University of Texas Bulletin No. 3532). Austin: University of Texas.
27.
Mehan, H., Hertweck, H., & Meihls, J.L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
Mercer, J.R. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
Mercer, J.R. (1979). The system of multicultural pluralistic assessment: Technical manual. New York: Psychological Corp.
30.
National Association of School Psychologists. ( 2003). Portraits of the children [Videotape]. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
Orwin, R.G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139—162). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
P.A.S.E.(Parents in Action on Special Education) v. Hannon, No. 74 C 3586 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
33.
Pellegrino, J. W., Jones, L. R., & Mitchell, K. J. (Eds.). (1999). Grading the nation's report card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
President's Commission on Mental Retardation. (1969). M.R.: 69. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
Sandoval, J. (1979). The WISC-R and internal evidence of test bias with minority groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 47, 919—927.
36.
Sanchez-Boyce, M. (2000 ). The use of interpreters in special education assessments. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Davis.
37.
Skrtic, R. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148—186
38.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1990). Best practices in school psychology III. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
39.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1995). Best practices in school psychology II . Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
40.
Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., & Smith, S.J. (2004). Exceptional children (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall .
41.
U.S. Congress. (1974). Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
U. S. Congress. (2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43.
Valdes, G., & Figueroa, R.A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
44.
Woodrow, H. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium (XI). Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 207—210.
