Advertisement

Moving Beyond Assumptions of Cultural Neutrality to Improve Accessibility and Opportunity to Learn for English Language Learners

  • Tim BoalsEmail author
  • Mariana Castro
  • Lynn Shafer Willner
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The purposes of this chapter are twofold: (a) to suggest that sociocultural framing of UDL would more effectively support ELLs and (b) to examine in greater detail what sociocultural reframing of UDL could look like in assessment activities in which ELLs are participating. Similar to the second language acquisition field that began to take a “social turn” in the 1990s, we concur with disabilities researchers who, two decades ago, proposed a similar “social turn” might be taken to more explicitly extend UDL beyond its cognitive neuroscience roots to incorporate sociocultural lenses. Remember that students’ own linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism have been and continue to be part of schooling. Instead of ignoring them or treating them as challenges, we invite educators to counter current policies and practices seeking to maintain hegemonic monocultural and monolingual approaches to learning and instead to embrace cultural and linguistic pluralism as additional opportunities to learn and natural accessibility practices.

Keywords

English language learns Achievement gap analysis Cultural neutrality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abedi, J., & Herman, J. (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 723–746.Google Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration. (2012). Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/immigration/report.aspx
  4. Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 258–260, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F. A., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K–12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
  6. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in Urban School districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L., Broderick, A., et al. (2011). [Re]claiming “inclusive education” toward cohesion in educational reform: Disability studies unravels the myth of the normal child. Teachers College Record, 113, 2122–2154.Google Scholar
  8. Baglieri, S., Valle, J., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. (2011). Disability studies and special education: The need for plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boals, T., Hakuta, K., & Blair, A. (2015). Literacy development in academic contexts for adolescent English language learners. In Molle, Sato, Boals, & Hedgsperth (Eds.), Multilingual learners and academic literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: a meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655–701.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., et al. (2005). The new demography of America's schools: Immigration and the no child left behind act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  14. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2002). Reforming education policies for English learners means better schools for all. The State Education Standard, 3(1), 30–36. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.Google Scholar
  15. Connor, D., & Valle, J. (2015). A socio-cultural reframing of science and dis/ability in education: Past problems, current concerns, and future possibilities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.Google Scholar
  17. DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, F. (2009). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted schooling: A guide for educators. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Diaz, R. M., & Klingler, C. (1991). Towards an explanatory model of the interaction between bilingualism and cognitive development. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84, 446–482.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314532695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Editorial Projects in Education. (2009). Broader horizons: The challenge of college readiness for all students. Education Week’s Diploma Count, 28(34), 1–38.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting national history. New York. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Escamilla, K. (2015). Schooling begins before adolescence: The case of manual and limited opportunities to learn. In Molle, Sato, Boals, & Hedgsperth (Eds.), Multlingual learners and academic literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Espinoza, L., & Lopes, M. (2007). Assessment considerations for young English language learners across different levels of accountability. The Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2007/08/11/assessment-considerations-for-young-english-language-learners-across-different-levels-of-accountability
  25. ESSA (2015). every student succeeds act of 2015, pub. l. no. 114-95 § 114 stat. 1177 (2015-2016).Google Scholar
  26. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. (2015–2016). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177.Google Scholar
  27. Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality: Identities of students labeled ‘long-term English language learners. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 14(2), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention implementation in assessing resistance to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 244–251). New York, NY: Springer Science Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gee, J. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Gradwell, J. M. (2006). Teaching in spite of rather than because of, the test. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across states (pp. 157–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in US high school classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Gregory, E., & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies, learning to read across generations and cultures. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Heafner, T. L., & Fitcheett, P. G. (2015). An opportunity to learn US history: What NAEP data suggest regarding the opportunity gap. The High School Journal, 98(3), 226–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Washington, D.C: CCSSO.Google Scholar
  36. Hodgkinson, H. (2008). Demographic trends and the Federal role in education. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503865 Google Scholar
  37. Kibler, A., & Valdés, G. (2016). Conceptualizing language learners: Socioinstitutional mechanisms and their consequences. The Modern Languages Journal, 100(1), 97–116.Google Scholar
  38. Klingner, J., & Artiles, A. J. (2006). Struggling to learn to read: Emergent scholarship on linguistic differences and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 386–389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  40. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 35, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lakoff, R. (2000). The language war. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & d’Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of bilingual schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(2), 141–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034983
  43. Landry, R. G. (1974). A comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent thinking tasks at the elementary school level. Modern Language Journal, 58(1/2), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Urban elementary school teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners. Science Education, 92(4), 733–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Linn, D., & Hemmer, L. (2011). English language learner disproportionality in special education: Implications for the scholar-practitioner. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 1(1), 70–80.Google Scholar
  46. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  47. Lopes-Murphy, S. (2012). Universal design for learning: Preparing secondary education teachers in training to increase academic accessibility of high school English learners. The Clearing House, 85, 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lundgren, C., Mabbot, A., & Kramer, D. (2012). Collaborative conversations: Coteaching and other collaborative practices in the EFL/ESL classroom. New York, NY: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. MacDonald, R., Boals, T., Castro, M., et al. (2015). Formative language assessment for English learners: A four step process. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  50. May, S. (2014). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 7–31). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Martin-Jones, M., & Bhatt, A. (1998). Literacies in the lives of young Gujarati speakers in Leicester. In Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 37–50).Google Scholar
  52. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  53. Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices. In M. Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics: Implications for the classroom (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph) (Vol. 11, pp. 1–11). Reston,VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  54. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144), English language learners as cited in English language learners: Fast facts. Washington, DC: Author. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96 Google Scholar
  55. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Application of common core state standards for english language learners. Washington, DC: Authors. Available: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf Google Scholar
  56. National UDL Task Force. (2011). English language learner FAQs. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/advocacy/faq_guides/ell#question1 Google Scholar
  57. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425–2094.Google Scholar
  58. Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.Google Scholar
  59. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Pace, J. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pacheco, M. (2010). English-language learners' reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 292–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Partnerships for Twenty-First Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework Google Scholar
  64. Pearson Educational Measurement. (2009). Universal design for computer-based testing guidelines. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.pearsonedmeasurement.com/cast/index.html. See also June 22, 2009 press release available at http://www.pearsoned.com/pr_2009/062209.htm
  65. PePeal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Polat, N., Zarecky-Hodge, A., & Schreiber, J. (2016). Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth- and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between rich and poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 91–115). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  68. Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16.Google Scholar
  69. Rose, D., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ruiz Soto, A., Hooker, S., & Batalova, J. (2015). States and districts with the highest number and share of English language learners. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Available: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/states-and-districts-highest-number-and-share-english-language-learners Google Scholar
  71. Russell, M., Hoffmann, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). Meeting the needs of all students: A universal design approach to computer-based testing. Innovate, 5(4). Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=676
  72. Russell, M., & Kavanaugh, M. (Eds.). (2011). Assessing students in the margins. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Abstract retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/products/Assessing-Students-in-the-Margin
  73. Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Saye, J., & The Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative. (2013). Authentic pedagogy: Its presence in social studies classrooms and relationship to student performance on state-mandated tests. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41(1), 89–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shafer Willner, L. (2014). Teacher professional development rationales and resources on how to meet the language demands of new college-and career-ready standards. San Francisco, CA: Center on Standards and Assessment Implementation. Available: http://csai-online.org/sites/default/files/resource/151/AcadLangResourcesBRIEF_ShaferWillner2014.pdf Google Scholar
  76. Shafer Willner, L., & Rivera, C. (2011). Are EL needs being defined appropriately for the next generation of computer-based tests? Article prepared for the National Clearinghouse of English language acquisition (NCELA) AccELLerate newsletter. Washington, DC: NCELA. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/17/Accellerate_3_2.pdf Google Scholar
  77. Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  78. Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tannenbaum, M., & Howie, P. (2002). The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(5), 408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Ensuring English learner students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs. Washington, DC: Author. Available: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-el-students-201501.pdf Google Scholar
  81. U.S. Department of Education/National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Improving the measurement of socioeconomic status for the National Assessment of educational progress: A theoretical foundation. Washington, DC: Author. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/researchcenter/Socioeconomic_Factors.pdf Google Scholar
  82. U.S. Department of Education/National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016). NAEP data explorer. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx Google Scholar
  83. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Webb, N. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. In Research monograph, no. 8. Washington, DC: CCSSO.Google Scholar
  85. WIDA. (2016). CAN DO descriptors: Key uses edition. In Author. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from www.wida.us/downloadlibrary.aspx Google Scholar
  86. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
  88. Wright, W. E. (2010). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.Google Scholar
  89. Yelland, G., Pollard, J., & Mercuri, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguisticsm, 14, 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zabala, J. (2014). Improving educational participation and outcomes for ALL students with universal design for learning and—for some—special education services. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). Atlanta, GA: Conference on Successfully Transitioning Away from the 2% Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/AAMAStransition/default.html
  91. Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2015). The limited English proficient population in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Available: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/limited-english-proficient-population-united-states#Age,%20Race,%20and%20Ethnicity Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Boals
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mariana Castro
    • 1
  • Lynn Shafer Willner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options