Pre-referral is a highly advocated as well as an effective procedure wherein a committee of professionals hopefully having been trained in second language learning, get together to discuss the aspects of the child’s functioning BEFORE a special education referral is officially made. This is called a pre-referral committee. An understanding of whether there may be interference from L1 to L2 is helpful and can be accomplished in such a setting. I myself have participated on many pre-referral committees and have modeled how this approach can be utilized. Committees need to consider if the second language learning process in essence is what is being identified as problematic..that is, are the characteristics of second language acquisition being misunderstood for symptoms of a language disorder? In order for this to occur, the understanding of any interference from the first language to the second needs to be documented. It has been reported to me that in general, the use of Pre-referral committees in various school districts has helped to reduce the amount of children referred to special education in over 80 percent of cases. The formation of the pre-referral committee should be carefully planned and strive to include those members of a child study team with training and background in second language acquisition. Access to information regarding features of the different languages represented in the community should be available. I have found that the extent to which staff have training in second language development is the extent to which the pre referral committee is efficient at weeding out children with linguistic differences from potentially truly language disordered children. To truly avoid needless referrals to special education, it is optimal for all members on a team to have access to this information regarding second language acquisition and differential diagnosis of difference versus disorder. This is where the most efficacy in avoiding needless referrals to special education could potentially occur and is why prereferral is a powerful tool when used appropriately. It needs to include a component wherein parental interview is relied upon and the appropriate significance is placed upon it. Too often I have heard of situations wherein not enough emphasis is placed upon the role of parental input within a prereferral setting. Parents of second language children are in a good position to provide information about second language acquisition and the quality of native language as well. This information does bear much relevance to the second language learning aspect of the child. Without parental input, the accuracy of the information needed in a pre-referral setting is potentially compromised. In many of my experiences parental input has made the difference between a characteristic of language being viewed as a possible sign of disorder versus a linguistic difference.
Some of these examples include situations wherein a parental model of English being less than ideal may be impacting a student’s speech and language patterns. Very often when this occurs I have seen children be directly referred to special education and be “blamed” with picking up and integrating inferior production models of English. When a rapport is established and interviewing techniques are used appropriately with parents the chances of gleaning accurate information helpful in separating early possible disorder from difference markedly increase. Parents additionally often supply information about the aspects or features of the home language that may be helpful in diagnostic endeavors. (Again, the more training one has in second language acquisition the more success one will have in diagnostic procedures) this will help in the application of the features approach in differential diagnosis as has been said earlier in this document. This is because this background professional knowledge is quite important to begin to appreciate the importance of features of a first language of a second language child.
When a child possesses low language literacy in the first language, its impact should still be considered through the application of the linguistic features approach insofar as that child’s linguistic profile often will differ from that of the monolingual child. Remember, once a child is exposed receptively to a second language for all intensive purposes his or her linguistic profile is different from a monolingual child who has only heard and processed and learned to use one language. I have worked with professionals who have thought that due to low literacy in the first language that there is no or less of a need to examine its impact upon second language acquisition. Actually, low first language literacy can give rise to an arrested language development condition which in turn may impact Second Language Literacy and Learning but not be a disorder in it of itself. Within a pre-referral situation, it is therefore especially imperative that a child whose first language literacy is limited be looked at carefully. Arrested language development is associated with a stunted or underdeveloped L1 which as a result impacts second language learning opportunities which can result in a lower than expected L2. The evaluation of a child who is a second language learner should include an evaluation of the primary language (e.g., Spanish, French, Farsi) as well as English. However, the discovery that a child is deficient in both languages does not necessarily mean that the child is not a normal language learner. Language loss or arrested language development need to be excluded as a possible diagnosis before the determination of a language disorder can be affirmed. The dialect and other variations of the language used in the child's home may be different from the standard language used in the assessment. Furthermore, the learning of a second language before competency in the first language is fully developed may result in arrested development or loss of proficiency in the primary language. This negative effect on the primary language occurs most often if the native language is devalued.
A child I will call Pierre was referred to special education due to concern of possible language delays. His first language was French and reportedly due to a developmental delay as a preschooler possessed a lower than expected level of literacy in his first language. In the pre-referral phase, information about language background and use was surveyed. The developmental delay occurred secondarily to ear infections. He was receiving speech and language treatment in French that began at age 3 and a half and now he was 5 years old. Thus, it was determined that an evaluation in French was needed and in English as well. It was reported by the parents who served as reliable informants that there was likely little to no English due to the child’s recent arrival to the U.S. Possible evaluation for ESL was recommended as well. If the information concerning the first language was not adequately probed and explored, this recommendation for possible ESL services might not have occurred. Features of Pierre’s first language will become increasingly important to consider as his therapy continues to augment his French language skill sets which will according to Cummins and the common underlying proficiency theory positively impact the second language skill set. In this case, the above mentioned did occur and with both ESL and speech therapy provided in French primarily skill sets improved immensely. After Pierre’s French was just about at age level, the English language was introduced and second language acquisition was a positive experience for him over time. Comprehensible input is essential for second language learners to receive while in the process of learning a second language. Again, it is important to remember that receptive bilingualism is a unique phenomena associated with it unique characteristics which distinguish itself from monolingualism.
This example should illustrate the utility of the linguistic features approach even when there is low first language literacy existing in a child. The important point is that the first language system must be considered in a pre-referral situation or in a properly conducted second language analysis even when the literacy level is discerned to be low. Arrested language development or a low L1 and low L2 may result from low literacy development and unless ethnographic factors like language background and use are explored, the possibility of misdiagnosing this for a language disorder is very real. An example is a child of 9 years with whom I worked for several years presented with very low literacy in French Haitian Creole. He did understand it but had no ability to use it. His language was arrested but he was hearing the language at home but with limited linguistic input from parents who themselves had a history of language learning disabilities. As a result, the features of the language needed to be taken into consideration. He showed evidence of not following the phonological rules of English due to the influence of French Haitian Creole even though at the time of evaluation the first language at least expressively had been lost. He pronounced as an example the words PULL and POOL the same since French only has one sound for both words wherein English there is a different vowel sound for these 2 words. Still, the features of a child’s first language may present themselves in the second language as in this example. Specifically, consonants are not difficult for French speakers as these are a commonality between English and French. However, many of the vowels present difficulties. Again, it is important to note that arrested language development is not a language disorder. In my experience, these two are often confused and arrested language development may be identified as a disorder.
Ideally, a pre-referral committee should include the parent as well as the classroom teacher and other professionals working with the child or concerned with progress. These can include: a speech and language pathologist, psychologist and reading specialist or a classroom teacher. Again, when these professionals have received adequate formal training in second language acquisition and bilingualism, the effectiveness of the pre-referral tool and process tends to increase. Another aspect of training efforts need to be on increasing the validity of the information elicited from parents relating to a child and family’s ethnography. This can best be accomplished by utilizing a member of a similar dialectical community to interpret for the parent so the parent can feel comfortable and a reasonable rapport can be established with the examiner. Once this is accomplished, the likelihood of obtaining accurate information regarding language and cognitive function of the child increases much. And then, in turn, the likelihood of unnecessary, inappropriate referrals to special education should decrease. This is what I am finding to be the case in districts where I am setting up specialized pre-referral services where these important factors of second language acquisition, ethnography, and home language aspects are assigned much weight in understanding the dynamics of the situation.
It again needs to be emphasized that the features of the first language and the second language learning characteristic of interference are important to understand as well as control for when analyzing second language learners’ linguistic skill sets. Interference from one language to another is often confused with a symptom of a language disorder. To this end, the linguistic features approach and the analysis of the features remain an integral part of any comprehensive second language analysis. This type of analysis has the potential to significantly reduce the number of students referred for special education referrals. Understanding the features of different languages inevitably leads to increased cultural sensitivity as well. Where there is enhanced cultural sensitivity, there likely will be found increased cultural competence. This has the potential to save money for districts as well as increase the educational outcomes in this population. Traditionally, not enough emphasis has been placed upon the first language system and its impact upon the second language acquisition process. The linguistic features approach does allow for such an analysis and thus deserves careful consideration of its place when looking at and trying to understand the performance of second language learners.
