A National Survey of the Educational Planning and Language Instruction Practices for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities Who are English Language Learners

Abstract

This article examines findings from a national survey of a sample of special educators who serve students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English language learners (ELLs). The survey requested information related to respondent assessment and instructional practices, second language resource availability, satisfaction, and language decision procedures for ELL students. Results indicated many of the respondents assessed and instructed their students in English, lacked ELL training, experienced resource shortages, and did not include parents in the language of instruction decision. Additional findings revealed that teacher satisfaction was predicted by the availability of second language resources, and the administration appeared to have a significant influence on the inclusion/exclusion of parents in the language decision process. The implications of these findings are presented.

Communicative Competence for Individuals who require Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A New Definition for a New Era of Communication?

“…During the past 25 years, the fi eld of AAC has witnessed signifi cant increases in the numbers of people with complex communication who receive or might benefi t from AAC services; furthermore, the population receiving AAC services is increasingly diverse in terms of age, disability, language, culture, and race/ ethnicity (Beukelman, 2012;Light & McNaughton, 2012a;Mueller, Singer, & Carranza, 2006;Soto & Yu, 2014). In addition to the increased prevalence of individuals with complex communication needs, there have also been signifi cant improvements in preservice and inservice training in AAC over the past 25 years (e.g., Costigan & Light, 2010;Ratcliff, Koul, & Lloyd, 2008), resulting in greater professional awareness and acceptance of AAC intervention generally.…”

A Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Framework for Improving Academic and Postsecondary Outcomes of Students with Moderate or Severe Intellectual Disability

“…Determining what is appropriate for CLD students with moderate or severe ID is difficult given the little guidance that does exist (Mueller et al, 2006). Denying appropriate services and properly implementing best practices for academics and functional performance can not only impact current school performance but also can have ramifications extending to post school outcomes.…”

“…If school systems still struggle in determining how to serve CLD students with high incidence disabilities then the question must be asked: How do we best serve CLD students with low incidence disabilities (i.e., moderate or severe ID)? CLD students with moderate or severe ID have faced many of the same issues as their nondisabled CLD peers (e.g., academic difficulties, postsecondary transition opportunities, language barriers); however, due to the nature of their disability, access to the general curriculum, appropriate services (e.g., translators), appropriate materials, and meaningful collaboration between families and educators may be more problematic (Kim & Morningstar, 2005;Mueller, Milian, & Lopez, 2009;Mueller, Singer, & Carranza, 2006;Spooner, Rivera, Browder, Baker, & Salas, 2009). What is equally worrisome is the lack of proper training faced by educators of CLD students with moderate or severe ID.…”

“…What is equally worrisome is the lack of proper training faced by educators of CLD students with moderate or severe ID. Mueller et al (2006) noted that educational guidelines for students within this population, simply put, were uncharted. In a national survey that included a combination of 375 special educators, related service professionals, and inclusion specialists, Mueller et al (2006) evaluated respondents' beliefs on several facets of educating CLD students with moderate or severe ID.…”

“…Mueller et al (2006) noted that educational guidelines for students within this population, simply put, were uncharted. In a national survey that included a combination of 375 special educators, related service professionals, and inclusion specialists, Mueller et al (2006) evaluated respondents' beliefs on several facets of educating CLD students with moderate or severe ID. More specifically, the researchers examined respondents' beliefs on second language acquisition, language of instructional practices, resources available, instructional satisfaction, and thoughts on parental participation in determining language of instruction.…”