English-Only as a Magic Pill? Dispelling the Myths About Disability and Dual-Language Bilingual Education (Poster 4)

• In Event: Case Studies of Critically Conscious Practice in Dual-Language Bilingual Education Schools, Classrooms, and Communities

Abstract

The objectives of this presentation are to clarify the misperceptions at the intersection of disability and bilingualism and provide teacher professional development activities and resources. An inaccurate understanding of bilingualism, based on a monolingual paradigm, causes educators, families, and students to accept deficit-based rhetoric about the potential of dually-identified students (active bilingual learners/users of English [ABLE] with disabilities) and get swept up in a pervasive push towards English-only instruction for students currently enrolled in dual-language bilingual education (DLBE) (Author, 2018; Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2016; Paradis, 2016). The development of teacher and student critical consciousness is needed to address the historical narratives of bilingualism and disability in schools and to raise the awareness of the structural oppression that keeps dually-identified students from reaping the social, emotional, and educational benefits of life-long bilingualism (Broughton, 2019).

Using perspectives from the field of bilingual special education (specifically bilingual speech language pathology - Author & Co-author, 2019; Peña, 2016) and the shared theoretical framework, across this session, of critical consciousness in dual-language bilingual education, I present a Critical Consciousness Decision-Making (CCDM) model, meant to guide DLBE educators and special education service providers in making critical, bilingual, and appropriate decisions (Broughton et al., 2022). In the preparation phase of the model, educators are asked to “reflect” upon their own language ideologies, “review” holistic information collected on a student, and “recognize” contextual factors that are influencing the student’s access to the most appropriate education. In the practice phase of the model, educators are tasked with “planning for service delivery,” “partnering with families and communities,” and acting on “practice and advocacy” for the student.

Methods and modes of inquiry include first, providing a more holistic view of bilingualism (García & Otheguy, 2020), not based on a monolingual paradigm. I draw from the literature in bilingual special education, translanguaging, and dynamic assessment in bilingual speech language pathology (Peña & Bedore, 2017) in order to address and dispel four common myths that drive inaccurate misperceptions around the ability of ABLE students (Author et al., 2022) with disabilities to develop life-long bilingualism (NASEM, 2017). Then, through a vignette of a group of DLBE and a multidisciplinary, special education team, I provide a story of how educators can work together, using the CCDM model to make the best decisions for an ABLE student with a disability. Finally, examples of evidence-based, best practices that allow for translanguaging in content-based story retells and dynamic assessment are shared (Broughton et al., 2022).

This work is needed, if deficit-based narratives about low expectations for dually-identified students are to be counteracted. More critically conscious decisions made for DLBE students may also address the disproportionality of these students in Special Education and will ensure that their educational journeys are appropriate at all stages of their schooling.

Author

• Steve Daniel Przymus, Texas Christian University
  Presenting Author