School psychology and limited-English-proficient (LEP) children: New competencies

Journal of School Psychology, Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed

Vol. 22, pp. in the USA.

131-143,

1984 01984

The Journal

0022~4405/84/$03.CWO of School Psychology, Inc.

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY AND LIMITED-ENGLISH-PROFICIENT (LEP) CHILDREN: NEW COMPETENCIES RICHARD

A. FIGUEROA, JONATHAN and BARBARA MERINO University

of California

SANDOVAL,

at Davis

Summary: Children with limited-English-proficiency (LEP) and special education needs will be more numerous in the public schools of certain states. This article presents a set of competencies that are relevant to the practice of school psychology with LEP special pupils. Although the focus is on Hispanic children, the competencies apply to bilingual special education in general. They cover the following areas: second-language proficiency of the psychologist, cross-cultural awareness, assessment, knowledge of language development, skill in working with interpreters, and knowledge of bilingual education curriculum. School psychology does not seem to acknowledge the challenge posed by the limited-English-proficient (LEP) populations in the United States (e.g., Ysseldyke & Weinberg, 1981). In 1976, the estimated number of persons with non-English backgrounds totaled approximately 28 million (Waggoner, 1978). In California, the impact of this statistic on the public schools translates to some 377,000 LEP pupils, 76% of which are Spanish-speaking. This does not take into account the uncounted, the undocumented, or the misplaced children who are termed bilingual, but who lack sufficient academic competence in English to profit significantly from instruction in English. Assuming that lo%-12% of this very large LEP school population require some form of special education, how are they to be helped by school psychologists? The purpose of this paper is to describe some of the competencies that may be needed by school psychologists to assist LEP children. Although the focus will be on the Hispanic LEP population, almost all of the competencies, we feel, generalize to other language groups.

LAWS

& REGULATIONS

Since the early 196Os, data have strongly suggested that LEP children have often been placed in special education, not so much because of a handicap as because of LEP status (Diana v. California State Board of Education, 1970; Palomares, 1966; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1974). Data for 1979 in states where the population is more than 10% Hispanic also indicate that on a straight percentage basis, these pupils may continue to be overrepresented in classes for the mentally handicapped, and underrepresented in classes for the learning handicapped and gifted (Brown, Rosen, & Hill, 1980). Similar conclusions have been reached using more complex indices of over- and underrepresentation (Finn, 1982). Judicial and lawmaking bodies have noted this and have acted. 131

Journal

132

of School

Psychology

In the Diana v. California State Board of Education case, a small group of MexicanAmerican children sued the state for improperly placing them in classes for the retarded. Among the complaints filed by the plaintiffs was the allegation that the children, all Spanish speakers, were tested in the wrong language and that aspects of their culture were not taken into account in the testing process. The Diana out-of-court settlement stipulated that children could be tested in English and in their own language. In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Chinesespeaking children in the San Francisco School District were not getting an equal educational opportunity merely by being provided the same instruction, textbooks, facilities, and peer interaction as other children. Lau stipulates that where language differences preclude understanding what is happening in class, and where many children of one language group are involved (over 1,800 in Lau), some form of different educational treatment is called for. There is considerable controversy as to whether this means that bilingual education should be provided to satisfy Lau (Grossman, 1982). The Office of Civil Rights is currently operating under a 1970 memorandum (Pottinger, 1970) that outlines the conditions and procedures for educating language minority children (personal communication with K. Lee Bethel, Office of Civil Rights, San Francisco, June 14, 1982). With regard to assessment, the Pottinger Memorandum stipulates that school districts must not assign national origin-minority group students to classes for the mentally retarded on the basis of criteria which essentially measure or evaluate English language skills; nor may school districts deny national origin-minority group children access to college preparatory courses on a basis directly related to the failure of the school system to inculcate English language skills. Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin-minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational dead-end or permanent track. The impact of these legal and regulatory decisions has been strongly felt in testing. For example, PL 94-142 mentions that testing “materials or procedures shall be provided and administered in the child’s native language or mode of communication, unless it c/ear/y (emphasis added) is not feasible to do so” (Sec. 612~). Many states have this provision in their state regulations, but only a few extend the Lau mandate of linguistically appropriate instruction to special education Individual Educational Plans. Among the seven states with the largest special education programs (New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and California), only California requires “linguistically appropriate goals, objectives, programs and services” in the Individual Educational Plan (IEP) of LEP children (California Administrative Code Title V

Regulations-

Special Education).

Amidst all this, school psychology has not really addressed, in explicit terms, the impact of all these provisions on professional practices. Occasionally the literature has focused on the needs of the LEP students (Oakland, Bernal, Holley, Natalicio, Teos, & Richard, 1980; Phye & Reschly, 1979), but relatively little has been said about the competencies required of those confronted with the special education referral of a LEP pupil. California has recently (September 1982) passed a law in this regard. SB 386 charges

Figueroa,

Sandoval,

133

and Merino

the educational credentialing authorities in California with the obligation to “develop rules, regulations, standards, and training programs for a certificate of bilingual, crosscultural competence” to all certified school personnel, special education personnel, and those who do assessments for special education programs who can show that they are competent to “serve limited-English-proficient pupils.” During the next year, public hearings will be held to determine the exact nature of these competencies. The competencies discussed in this article, in all likelihood, will form the basis for most of the discussions involving school psychology. The broad parameters under each area were developed by six consultants’ for California’s credentialing commission. They are presented here in a more elaborated form. Their impact, we feel, extends quite beyond California to a national consideration of what constitutes appropriate bilingual, cross-cultural assessment and what prepares a school psychologist for helping to generate linguistically appropriate IEPs. COMPETENCIES Six areas of competencies are considered important in the psychological assessment of LEP Hispanic children. These are: second-language proficiency of the psychologist, awareness of cross-cultural differences, knowledge of assessment techniques used with LEP Hispanic pupils, knowledge of first- and second-language development, and ability to work with interpreters. Second Language Proficiency of the Psychologist School psychologists who work with LEP Hispanic pupils would have to demonstrate second-language proficiency in speaking, listening, and reading standard and dialect features. This would include at a minimum those skills deemed absolutely necessary for test administration: for speaking, the ability to describe the testing procedure and summarize results to parents, and the ability to explain and correctly execute the testing with a child in his or her primary language; for listening, the skill to correctly understand and transcribe a subject’s test responses; for reading, the ability to read and score test responses correctly on a protocol and to convey test instructions accurately in the pupil’s language. There are some arguments for not requiring the school psychologist to become competent in any one language. For example, how can school psychologists learn all of the languages they might be required to know? One poll indicated that over 100 different languages were spoken by children in the Los Angeles School District. Should a psychologist learn to speak Albanian before assessing a child from this country? Obviously, there are limits to what can be required. It is worth noting also that in the Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision, Justice Blacknum made it clear that special treatment is justified where language differences affect many children. In Lau the plaintiffs numbered over 1,800. Assuming that this and other such arguments have some validity, one solution is to designate two levels of personnel, one level that is competent in a specific language and a second level of personnel that does not have specific language skills but has ‘Richard Figueroa, Dwight Goodwin, and Barbara

Thomas.

Barbara

Merino,

Jonathan

Sandoval,

Lee Sheldon,

Journal

134

of School

Psychology

achieved a number of other competencies. For example, these might include: (a) knowledge of the literature of Hispanic culture in the United States (Martinez, 1977; Ramirez, 1983; Ramirez & Castefieda, 1974); (b) ability to train and work with interpreters, skill in integrating language proficiency data in writing child study reports, knowledge of testing and professional issues related to Hispanic pupils (DeBlassie, 1980; Olmedo, 1981); (c) knowledge of the various possible methods for facilitating second-language acquisition in children without sacrificing academic achievement (Andersson & Boyer, 1978); and (d) ability to coordinate special education services with those provided for nonhandicapped LEP pupils. Whenever possible, however, a person with specific language competencies should provide the assessment. The second level alternative is particularly attractive because in the near future a shortage of language proficient psychologists will exist, and to require monolingual psychologists to become highly competent in a second language will be difficult. Further, many Spanish-speaking psychologists resent being given a workload of only Spanish-speaking children. They often wish to work with a broader clientele.

Cross-Cultural A wareness Cross-cultural awareness in and of itself is an important set of skills for school psychologists to develop. Most training programs include a component of this sort to help school psychologists learn to work with various subpopulations in the United States. Nevertheless, some additional competencies may be designated for those working with different bilingual populations. Some competencies thought to be important relate to variations in language minority groups in motivational styles (Kagan, 1977); attitudes about learning a second language and maintaining the first one; expectations related to exceptionality (Edgerton & Karno, 1972; Morin, 1970); family structures and roles (Fantini & Cardenas, 1980); and socialization patterns (Werner, 1979). However, intellectual knowledge about these cultural variables, no matter how necessary, may not be sufficient. There may well be an experiential aspect to all this that necessitates some form of immersion into the other culture by the psychologist. The need to apply cross-cultural knowledge in psychodiagnostic assessment may require this. As Anastasi (1976) has noted: what the clinician does in assessing a client may be regarded as a special case of person cognition, or interpersonal perception. . . In this process, the observer often relies upon assumed similarity to himself. . . . Errors may thus arise when clinicians make diagnostic or prognostic inferences about a client whose cultural background, education, or socioeconomic level differs markedly from their own. (p. 483)

Assessment The following assessment competencies are considered critical in the area of assessment of limited-English proficient children: 1. The psychologist should be able to use appropriate instruments and procedures to assess language proficiency and first- and second-language abilities. Numerous instruments are available to assess language proficiency in limited-English-speaking children. However, these instruments vary sharply in the area of language assessed, in the techniques used for assessment, in the comparability of the instruments across

Figueroa,

Sandoval,

and Merino

135

languages, and in the quality and amount of the psychometric data collected on the instruments (Merino & Spencer, 1980). School psychologists must be intelligent users, able to judge the appropriateness of the instrument selected on the basis of linguistic, psychometric, and cultural criteria. They will find that tests vary to a high degree on the parameters of the language being tested. The Bilingual Syntax Measure, (Burt, Dulay, RcHernandez-Chavez, 1975) for example, measures syntax only; the DOS Amigos (Critchlow, 1974), the lexicon; the MEDA (Mason, Smith, & Hinshaw, 1976), articulation. Psychologists must be aware that in each of these areas of language, development occurs at a dramatically different pace and that even within syntax, for example, semantically equivalent features may not have the same developmental difficulty in the child’s first language that they do in English. Further, school psychologists must be aware of language acquisition research in both English and the target language in order to judge whether the test adequately samples features appropriate to the age and language of the examinee. It must be noted that available tests use a variety of techniques which place a wide range of demands on the examiner. Some tests are highly focused. A very detailed script is provided to the examiner and scoring protocols give very little latitude in deciding which response is correct, e.g., the Language Assessment Battery (Board of Education of the City of New York, 1976). However, other tests use much more openended techniques. The demands on the examiner, both in terms of administration and scoring, are very different, e.g., the Basic Inventory of Natural Language (Herbert, 1980). 2. The psychologist should demonstrate knowledge of the principles to follow in selecting a measure designed for use with children from the target populations, including, but not limited to, consideration of reliability, validity, norms, standards for administration, interpretation of outcomes, and sources of cultural bias. Techniques and content that are inappropriate to the target populations when applying the foregoing criteria should be identified. Literature related to this competency has appeared during the last few years (e.g., Pletcher, Locks, Reynolds, & Sisson, 1978). Typically, this is in the form of test reviews. The appropriateness of the most commonly used psychometric instruments with regard to various populations is presented in some detail. However, consulting these reviews may lead to problems. First, few tests now are available in Spanish that meet minimum psychometric criteria of reliability and validity. Second, more recent standard texts on testing (e.g., Sattler, 1982) offer little additional guidelines with respect to LEP testing. And third, one is left with few positive courses of action. Hopefully this will be a temporary phenomenon. The Direction General de Education Especial in Mexico City has normed and standardized the WISC-R, the Bender, and the Adaptive Behavior Inventory for Children (ABIC) in Spanish. Similar efforts are under way with the Kaufman Achievement Battery for Children and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary (personal communication with Dra. Margarita Gomez-Palacio, Direction General de Education Especial, Mexico City, Spring 1982). Likewise, the Spanish version of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery has been published (Woodcock, 1982). 3. Knowledge of limitations of assessment due to examiner role, testing situation, content, dialect varieties of the target language, use of interpretation, and socialemotional factors should be demonstrated. Labov, Cohen, Robins, and Lewis (1968) and others (e.g., Mishra, 1980; Thomas, Hertzig, Dryman, & Fernandez, 1971) have demonstrated quite dramatically the ef-

136

Journal

of School

Psychology

feet that an examiner can have on the quantity and quality of verbal output if he or she shares the examinee’s ethnicity and is skillful in establishing rapport. Similarly, the degree of familiarity the examinee has with testing itself, and the degree to which the testing situation provokes anxiety, can also effect the examinee’s performance. Also, the examiner must be able to judge those errors that seem to be performance errors (Corder, 1967) caused by anxiety or fatigue that do not reflect the competence of the examinee. Many tests used in special education assessment assume that children have had a near-equal exposure to the content of the test (Mercer, 1979). For LEP children, this assumption may not hold. It may be necessary to test the assumption itself with individual children by gauging the degree of acculturation the child has had to U.S. society (Mercer, 1979). The use of interpreters is a growing professional practice in school psychology. At present, it is almost totally devoid of research concerning the impact of this procedure on validity. Extra care in the training and use of interpreters, and strict if not overadherence to due process are essential in this context. Also, the possible limitations imposed by socioemotional factors in the assessment process should be understood. To do this, knowledge about cultural differences is critical. This has seldom been systematically investigated though some excellent, relevant work exists. Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrero, and Swartz (1975), for example, after testing 400 Anglo and 400 Mexican children over a period of several years, found that substantial behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and perceptual differences could be empirically documented between both groups. Though these data offer varying levels of application to Hispanic groups in the United States, they serve to sensitize clinical judgment in any diagnostic, interpretative work with Hispanic LEP children. Just as with cross-cultural knowledge, however, an intellectual understanding of Anglo-Hispanic differences may not be enough. Certain unique experiences often characterize Hispanic at-risk pupils referred for psychological assessment (Fabrega, 1969; Figueroa, 1978). The socioemotional impact of these has to be affectively appreciated by the clinician to adequately understand and control for them. How this is done may well require a form of experiential learning on the part of the psychologist. Whether this will mean a total immersion similar to that undertaken by Coles (1977) or a supervised set of experiences in Hispanic homes remains an open question. The important, pragmatic objective for the clinician is the acquired ability to know when unique sociocultural factors obviate or invalidate an instrument or a procedure. One of the principal obstacles to accurate assessment (in the primary language) among language minorities is the influence dialect may have on the examinees’ performance. Dialects share many surface characteristics with the earlier stages of developing language (Slobin, 1975), which easily can lead to misdiagnosis. They can pose serious difficulties for the psychologist in understanding the full meaning of children’s responses. Often, even native speakers are unable to determine what is being signified. Just as frequently, unfortunately, social class differences rather than a language disability may form the basis for a native speaker’s (an interpreter’s) judgment about a child’s use of dialect or dialectal features. An examiner not knowledgeable of the dialect variant may assume delay or handicap when neither is present. A school psychologist must be in the position to at least raise the question whether dialect features are affecting the child’s performance. 4. The psychologist should be able to apply information from testing, observations, and parent and teacher interviews to (a) identify baseline levels of language produc-

Figueroa,

Sandoval,

and Merino

137

tion and comprehension, (b) identify conditions under which language acquisition can occur most efficiently, (c) identify the sequence of instructional activities needed, and (d) plan for evaluation of both process and outcome objectives. Because of the limitations of testing, the psychologist must be able to integrate information from observation and from parent and teacher interviews in order to diagnose the child’s difficulties and to prescribe an adequate program to remedy them. With a language-minority child who is also in contact with another language, baseline levels of comprehension and production must be established in the child’s grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary in both languages and in the domains relevant to the child’s environment. A very thorough linguistic profile must be developed because the exposure of the child to each language may vary to a substantial degree. For example, in determining the child’s proficiency in vocabulary, if only the school domain is tapped and the home and neighborhood domains are ignored, a child who has had no exposure to school vocabulary in the primary language and relatively little exposure in the second language may appear alingual, with little proficiency in either language. Observations and interviews with teachers and parents can help the psychologist determine the amount and kind of exposure to both languages that the child has and thereby help to explain differences in proficiency. Whereas most people will acquire their first language in spite of relatively severe handicaps (Lennenberg, 1967), second-language acquisition is not so automatic, especially in the older language learner. Sociocultural variables, attitude, motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), the kind of environmental input (McLaughlin, 1978), as well as many other factors (Dulay, Burt, & McKeon, 1980) affect the second-language acquisition process. In developing an adequate program for remediation, the psychologist must be aware of the kinds of conditions that facilitate second-language acquisition, as well as those that inhibit it. For example, interaction with normal English-speaking peers is essential in order to achieve second-language proficiency parallel to that of a native speaker (Politzer, 1980). The psychologist should determine if the child has had such exposure. 5. The psychologist should demonstrate knowledge and application of appropriate consultation skills related to assisting educational staff and parents in planning and implementing individual educational plans for LEP/NEP pupils demonstrating exceptionality. Little information exists as to how the consultation process may proceed differently in a non-English-speaking cultural context. Undoubtedly, much of the existing theory and practice of consultation applies cross-culturally. Nevertheless, it may be true that teachers who are bicultural and parents from non-Anglo cultures may have different attitudes toward experts or psychologists. The resulting expectations may force consultation to take particular forms. How does consultation proceed, for example, with parents who have nontraditional views about what exceptionalities mean (Adkins & Young, 1976; Luetke, 1976) or what topics can be discussed openly and who may perceive nondirective procedures as vague and strange (Levine & Padilla, 1980)? The literature on this is essentially nonexistent. Clearly, practitioners in Hispanic and other communities need to document and disseminate their experiences, for surely some consultation styles are more appropriate than others. 6. The psychologist should know and be able to apply principles to follow in adapting measures created for English-proficient speakers for use with children dominant in other languages. The dangers of using translated versions of tests, as accurate as they may be, par-

138

Journal

of School

Psychology

titularly in the area of language assessment, have been extensively documented (Burt, Dulay, & Hernandez-Chavez, 1978; Thorndike, 1973). Before an instrument can be used in another language version, and before any claims to comparability can be made, it must be documented that the two language versions are comparable, at least along these parameters: the area and variety of language assessed, the developmental difficulty of the items, the lexical domains tapped, and the psychometric qualities of the two language forms (see Merino & Spencer, 1980, for a thorough discussion of the issues).

Knowledge of Language Development Regardless of whether a psychologist is competent in the child’s language, establishing the level of proficiency the child has achieved in both English and the language spoken in the home is still important. We must remember that the two rates of development may be completely unrelated. In assessing language proficiency, the psychologist should know: (a) the normal course of language development in monolingual children, (b) the normal course of second-language learning, and (c) factors that influence secondlanguage acquisition, including language use, motivation, attitude, and personality. Psycholinguistic research in language development in a wide range of languages suggests that the processes of language acquisition are grounded on universal principles common to all languages (Slobin, 1973). Children learning languages as disparate as Samoan (Kernan, 1969), Luo (Blount, 1969), and Italian (Antinucci & Parisi, 1973) follow a systematic order in their acquisition of the rules of their languages. A different though equally systematic order seems to apply to the development of English as a second language. While not every individual learner adheres to this order rigidly, significant agreement among learners exists (Krashen, 1981). Knowledge of the order in which language development proceeds, with a focus on those features that can be expected to appear early or late, can help to pinpoint children whose development is delayed. Once delay is identified, an investigation should identify factors that may be contributing to the delay.

Ability to Work with Interpreters The ability to work with interpreters is needed because of the likelihood that in some school districts where many languages are present, some children need the experience of a bilingual examiner even though he or she may not speak or understand the particular language. The competencies included under this ability require that the psychologist demonstrate knowledge of the dynamics of the interpretation procedure, including the establishment of rapport with participants, kinds of information loss inherent in the interpretation procedure, understanding the authority position of the examiner, the use of appropriate nonverbal communication, methods and techniques of interpretation, the importance of obtaining accurate translations, and the need to procure translations that do not include personal evaluations by the translator. The ability to plan and execute pre- and postdiagnostic conferences with the interpreter should also be in evidence. Similarly, the psychologist should demonstrate the ability to plan and execute pre-service and in-service programs to prepare interpreters for psychological work with children in schools and to help interpreters follow the ethical practices of keeping information confidential, not elaborating responses or questions, and following approved methods of interpretation.

Figueroa,

Sandoval,

and Merino

139

The dynamics of interpretation are complex. Outside of the United States, especially in Europe, language interpreters comprise a recognized profession, and training programs for interpreters are widely available. In the United States, training for interpreters is only available at a few institutions. Official certification for interpreters is seldom provided and then usually within the legal field. Court interpreters in California, for example, often are required to pass both oral and written examinations before they can work as interpreters. Interpreters are tested on their knowledge of legal terminology, dialect variants, and criminal argot. They also are examined on their knowledge of the legal constraints and ethical code of interpreters. Interpreting in a clinical versus a legal context, however, differs sharply. In legal interpretation, the interpreter is advised not to relay any information other than that specifically provided by the witness. Physical gestures should not be translated, for example, regardless of the importance of the information which they may convey. The situation is more complex in testing a child. The psychologist often uses just that type of information to refine a diagnosis. Kinesthetic information, however, can be easily misinterpreted (Hall, 1959). The psychologist working with an interpreter must verify that the interpreter is knowledgeable about the culture. Care must be taken to insure that the kinesthetic cues being read are not misinterpreted. Audio or video taping can help in this process by providing an exact record of the testing and the means by which the psychologist working with the interpreter can score both oral and kinesthetic responses. Psychologists will need to be knowledgeable about the dynamics of the interpretation process, especially how to establish rapport through an interpreter. Though the literature on this is scant (Watson, Omark, Grovell, & Heller, 1980) and sometimes questionable, consultation and collaboration with bilingual teaching personnel about developing effective interpretation readily yield useful guidelines on this matter. Other sets of competencies revolve around planning pre-service and in-service training to prepare interpreters for psychological work with children. Interpreters will have to be taught technical information as well as ethical practices, such as maintaining confidentiality and not elaborating responses or questions.

Knowledge of Bilingual Education Curriculum This sixth area of competency poses a unique challenge for school psychologists. In itself, the question of what constitutes a linguistically appropriate instructional program for LEP Hispanic children is unresolved and mired in opinion (Epstein, 1977) and equivocal empirical studies (Dulay & Burt, 1978; Troike, 1978). There is considerable controversy as to whether an English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) program, or a total English immersion program, or a bilingual education program is best suited to meet the needs of such children. Even within the bilingual education model, several program options are possible (Andersson 8~ Boyer, 1978; Legarreta-Marcaida, 1981) based on the sequencing and rate of English-Spanish instruction. In preview-review, for example, a lesson is presented in English one day and the following day is reviewed in Spanish. After this review, new material is presented in Spanish, which in turn gets reviewed the following day in English, and so on. In simultaneous translation, a teacher reads a sentence in English then immediately translates it to Spanish. In alternate day instruction, all classroom activities are performed one day in one language and the next day in the other language, with little if any content overlap from one day to the next. Although there is some evidence that alternate day instruction models

140

Journal

of School

Psychology

are more effective (Legarreta-Marcaida, 1981), the empirical results on the long-term effects of the various instructional programs for LEP children in the United States will not be known for several years. The federal grant for this study was awarded in 1982. For school psychologists working with LEP Hispanic pupils, the entire matter of what constitutes linguistically appropriate instruction cannot wait for empirical or ideological clarification. Bilingual teachers and bilingual programs already in existence need psychological services. Handicapped LEP Hispanic pupils’ IEPs cannot ignore Lau v. Nichols. Also, some LEP Hispanic students may achieve better in one type of program rather than another. Psychologists need to know about the many program options that are possible for LEP children. The challenge here is essentially the same as in the IEP: individualizing instruction to meet the unique needs of the students, even when the empirical data (or local administrative structures) offer few clear directives. CONCLUSION This paper has outlined some competencies needed for school psychologists planning to work with LEP populations. Using the competencies as guides, others hopefully will be able to design training programs, workshops, or course modules that will better prepare school psychologists to work with these groups. The knowledge base for this enterprise is available and accessible. Attempts at implementing training in these areas are underway (e.g., Boston College & Fordham). If one is to believe the demographic trends in urban America, school psychology has to undertake some form of implementation of the competencies described here. Admittedly, however, the competencies discussed herein are not the only ones needed. As more psychologists begin to serve limited-English-proficient children, new issues will emerge and the list may grow and change. Nevertheless, problems associated with preparing psychologists to work with the limited-English-proficient must be faced directly and expeditiously. Demographic and legal imperatives should not dictate the answers to these problems. REFERENCES Adkins, P. G., & Young, R. G. (1976). Culture perceptions in the treatment of handicapped school children of Mexican-American parentage. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 9, 83-90. Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing. New York: Collier-Macmillan. Andersson, T., & Boyer, M. (1978). Bilingualschooling in the United States. Austin, TX: National Educational Laboratory. Antinucci, F., & Parisi, D. (1973). Early language acquisition: A model and some data. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies in child language development (pp. 607-618). New York: Holt. Blount, B. (1970). Acquisition of language by Luo children (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31B:l, 485B. Board of Education of the City of New York (1976). Language Assessment Battery. Palo Alto, CA: Houghton-Mifflin. Brown, G. H., Rosen, H. L., & Hill, T. S. (1980). The condition ofeducationfor Hispanic Americans. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office. Burt, M., Dulay, H., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1975). Bilingual Syntax Measure. San Fransisco, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Figueroa, Sandoval, and Merino

141

Burt, M., Dulay, H., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1978). Evaluation of linguistic proficiency in bilingual children. In S. Singh & J. Lynch (Eds.), Diagnosficprocedures in hearing, language & speech (pp. 305-325). Baltimore: University Park Press. Coles, R. (1977). Eskimos, Chicanos, Indians. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL International Review ofApplied Linguistics, 5, 161-169. Critchlow, D. (1974). DOS Amigos: Verbal Language Scales. San Rafael, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. DeBlassie, R. R. (1980). Testing Mexican-American youth. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation. Diana v. California State Board ofEducation, C-70-37 RFP (District Court of Northern California, 1970). Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1978). Why bilingual education? A summary of research findings. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Bloomsbury West. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & McKeon, D. (1980). Testing and teaching communicatively handicapped Hispanic children. San Francisco: Bloomsbury West. Edgerton, R., & Karno, M. (1972). Community attitudes toward the hospital care of the mentally retarded. Mental Retardation, IO, 3-5. Epstein, N. (1977). Language, ethnicity, and the schools: Policy alternatives for bilingual education. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Institute for Educational Leadership. Fabrega, H. (1969). Social psychiatric aspects of acculturation and migration: A general statement. Comprehensive Psychiatry 4, 3 14-326. Fantini, M. D., & Cardenas, R. (1980). Parenting in a multiculturalsociety. New York: Longman. Figueroa, R. A. (1978). Individualizing instruction in the bilingual classroom. The Bilingual Review, 5, 48-56. Finn, J. D. (1982). Patterns in special education placement as revealed by OCR surveys. In K. A. Heller & W. H. Holtzman (Eds.), Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity (pp. 322-381). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Grossman, P. D. (1982). Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in education. Unpublished manuscript, San Francisco Office for Civil Rights, Region IX. Hall, E. (1959). The silenf language. New York: Fawcett. Herbert, C. (1980). The Basic Inventory of Natural Language. San Bernardino, CA: Checkpoint Associates. Holtzman, W. H., Diaz-Guerrero, R., & Swartz, J. D. (1975). Personality development in two cultures: A cross-cultural longitudinal study of school children in Mexico and the United States. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Kagan, S. (1977). Social motives and behaviors of Mexican-American and Anglo-American children. In J. L. Martinez (Ed.), Chicano Psychology (pp. 45-86). New York: Academic Press. Kernan, K. T. (1970). The acquisition of language by Samoan children (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31B:I, 489B. Krashen, S. (1981). Bilingual education and second language learning acquisition theory. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoreticalframework (pp. 51-82). Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. Labov, W., Cohen, D., Robins, C., & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City: Vol. 2. The use of language in the speech community. Final report of cooperative research project No. 3288, Columbia University. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Legarreta, D. (1979). The effects of program models on language acquisition by Spanish-speaking children. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 521-534. Legarreta-Marcaida, D. (1981). Effective use of the primary language in the classroom. In Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoreticalframework (pp. 83-116). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.

142

Journal of School Psychology

Lennenberg, E. (1967). Biological foundafions of language. New York: Wiley. Levine, E. S., & Padilla, A. M. (1980). Crossing cultures in therapy: Pluralistic counseling for the Hispanic. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Luetke, B. (1976). Questionnaire results from Mexican-American parents of hearing-impaired children in the United States. American Annals of the Deaf, 12/, 565-568. McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Martinez, J. L. (Ed.). (1977). Chicano psychology. New York: Academic Press. Mason, M., Smith, B., & Hinshaw, M. (1976). Medida espanola de articulation (MEDA). San Ysidro School District, San Ysidro, CA. Mercer, J. R. (1979). SOMPA conceptualand technicalmanual. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Merino, B., & Spencer, M. (1980, November). The comparability of English and Spanish versions of oral language proficiency instruments. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Mexican-American Educators, San Diego, CA. Mishra, S. P. (1980). The influence of examiners’ ethnic attributes on intelligence test scores. Psychology in the schools, 17, 1 I7- 122. Morin, K. (1970, March). Attitudes of TexasMexican Americans toward mentalretardation: A Guttman Faler analysis. Paper presented at the American Personnel and Guidance Association, New Orleans. Oakland, T., Bernal, E., Holley, F., Natalicio, D., Teos, R., & Richard, L. (1980). Assessing students with limited-English-speaking abilities. Texas Outlook, 64, 32-33. Olmedo, E. L. (1981). Testing linguistic minorities. American Psychologisl, 36, 1078-1085. Palomares, U. (1966). Evaluation of Mexican-American pupils for EMR classes. California Education, 3, 27-29. Phye, G. D., & Reschly, D. J. (Eds.). (1979). Schoolpsychology: Perspectives and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pletcher, B. P., Locks, N. A., Reynolds, D. F., & Sisson, B. G. (1978). A guide to assessment instruments for limited-English-speaking students. New York: Santillana. Politzer, R. (1980). Foreign language teaching and bilingual education: Research implications. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 291-297. Pottinger, S. (1970, May). [Identification of discrimination and denial of services on the basis of national origin]. Memo to school districts with more than 5% national origin-minority group children. Washington, DC: DHEW, Office of Civil Rights. Ramirez, M. (1983). Psychology of the Americas. New York: Pergamon. Ramirez, M., & Castafieda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognifive development, and education. New York: Academic Press. Sattler, J. (1982). Assessment of children: Intelligence and special abilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), Smdies of child language development (pp. l-36). New York: Halt, Rinehart & Winston. Slobin, D. (1975). Language change in childhood and in history. Working paper no. 41. University of California at Berkeley, Language Behavior Research Laboratory. Thomas, A., Hertzig, M., Dryman, I., & Fernandez, P. (1971). Examiner effect in IQ testing of Puerto Rican working-class children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 809-821. Thorndike, R. (1973). Reading comprehension education in fifteen countries. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Troike, R. C. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education. Bilingual Education Paper Series, 2 (5), pp. l-21. Los Angeles: California State University, National Dissemination and Assessment Center. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1974). Toward qualify education for Mexican Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Waggoner, D. (1978). Non-English-language background persons: Three U.S. surveys. TESOL Quarterly, 12. 247-25 3. Watson, D. L., Omark, D., Grovell, S. L., & Heller, B. (1980). Nondiscriminatory assessment practiiioner’s handbook (Vol. 1). Millbrae, CA: California Association of School Psychologists and Psychometrists. Werner, E. (1979). Cross-cultural child development. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Figueroa,

Sandoval,

and

Merino

143

Woodcock, R. W. (1982). Bateria Woodcock Psico-education en Espatiol. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources. Ysseldyke, J. E., &Weinberg, R. A. (1981). The future of psychology in the schools: Proceedings of the Spring Hill symposium. The School Psychology Review, 20. Richard A. Figueroa Department of Education College of Letters and Science University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616 Manuscript received: October 29, 1981 Revision received: October 10, 1983