An exploration of general education teachers’ perceptions of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students during a general education intervention (GEI) process

Abstract

Disproportionate representation of CLD students in special education has been a concern for decades which continues to the present day. Policies and practices have been implemented to address this evidence of inequitable education. Those include RtI, prereferral processes, and appropriate evaluation practices. While these have been put into place, there is still cause for concern related to referral, evaluation, and placement of CLD students in special education. A body of research is available that discusses disproportionality on the special education side, but little is available that looks into the factors that impact disproportionality from the general education side. To add to the current research focusing on the general education factors as they relate to disproportionality, the purpose of this study was to explore the data and language used by general education teachers when referring CLD students to a GEI process. The primary sources of data for this study were findings from a pilot study, observation, and semi-structured interviews with classroom teachers who have/had experience with the process and CLD students. Qualitative data gathered from these sources allowed for analysis, resulting in emergent themes. Findings, obtained through pilot study document analysis, observation field notes, and five teacher interview transcripts indicated a general lack of awareness, knowledge, and consideration on the impact of a student’s biopsychosocial history within the academic setting. Most notably, classroom teachers did not allow for contextualization of data, or student’s stories, during this intervention process, and assumptions made related to parent/family behaviors further denied consideration of family/parent perspectives. Additionally, there was an overreliance on certain types of data, and lack of individualization for CLD students during the intervention process. Whether disregard, or lack of understanding, the reduction of CLD students’ stories and academic success to non-individualized, decontextualized data impacts the instruction, interventions, and appropriateness of referrals for CLD students. Further research is needed to determine reliability of teacher perceptions found within this study, implications from teachers’ own biographies, and such may inform the recruitment and training needed to improve education for CLD students.