Access to opportunities for bilingualism for individuals with developmental disabilities:key informant interviews

The purpose of this article is to describe the results of a thematic analysis of 79 semi-structured interviews collected at six research sites in four countries in relation to the inclusion and exclusion of students with developmental disabilities (DD) in and from special education and bilingual opportunities. The participants were individuals with expertise either in special needs and/or language education to support bilingualism (e.g., second language (L2) instruction), who served as key informants about service delivery and/or policy in these areas. Six themes emerged as salient during the analysis: we include all kids, special needs drives it, time/scheduling conflicts, IEP/IPP/statement drives it, it’s up to the parents, and service availability. The results suggested that access to language programs and services is limited for children with DD, even though participants at all sites reported adherence to a philosophy of inclusion. A priority on special education services over language services was identified, as well as barriers to providing children with DD access to programs and services to support bilingual development. Some of these barriers included time and scheduling conflicts and limited service availability. Additionally, the role of parents in decision making was affirmed, although, in contrast to special education services, decision-making about participation or exemption from language programs was typically left up to the parents. Overall, the results suggest a need for greater attention to providing supports for both first (L1) and L2 language development for bilingual children with DD and greater access to available language programs

Professional practices and opinions about services available to bilingual children with developmental disabilities:an international study

This study aimed to gather information from school- and clinic-based professionals about their practices and opinions pertaining to the provision of bilingual supports to students with developmental disabilities. Using an online survey, data were collected in six socio-culturally and linguistically diverse locations across four countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. In total, 361 surveys were included in the analysis from respondents who were primarily teachers and speech-language pathologists working in schools, daycares/preschools, or community-based clinics. The overall picture that emerged from the data reflected a disconnection between practice and opinion. In general, respondents believed that children with both mild and severe disabilities are capable of learning a second language, although their opinions were more neutral for the latter group. However, children with both mild and severe disabilities who spoke only a minority language at home had less access to services for second language learners than did their typically developing peers, although respondents agreed that such services should be more available. Regardless of clinical group, children who lived in homes where a minority language was spoken were often exposed to, assessed in, and treated in the majority language only; again, respondents generally disagreed with these practices. Finally, second language classes were less available to children in the two disability groups compared to typically developing bilingual children, with general agreement that the opportunity to acquire a second language should be more available, especially to those with mild disabilities. Although the results indicate that there is a considerable gap between current practices and professional opinions, professionals appear to be more supportive of bilingual educational opportunities for these populations than was suggested by previous research

Exploring the validity and reliability of online assessment for conversational, narrative, and expository discourse measures in school-aged children

The COVID-19 pandemic has created novel challenges in the assessment of children's speech and language. Collecting valid data is crucial for researchers and clinicians, yet the evidence on how data collection procedures can validly be adapted to an online format is sparse. The urgent need for online assessments has highlighted possible the barriers such as testing reliability and validity that clinicians face during implementation. The present study describes the adapted procedures for on-line assessments and compares the outcomes for monolingual and bilingual children of online and in-person testing using conversational, narrative and expository discourse samples and a standardized vocabulary test. A sample of 127 (103 in-person, 24 online) English monolinguals and 78 (53 in-person, 25 online) simultaneous French-English bilinguals aged 7–12 years were studied. Discourse samples were analyzed for productivity, proficiency, and syntactic complexity. MANOVAs were used to compare on-line and in-person testing contexts and age in two monolingual and bilingual school-age children. No differences across testing contexts were found for receptive vocabulary or narrative discourse. However, some modality differences were found for conversational and expository. The results from the study contribute to understanding how clinical assessment can be adapted for online format in school-aged children

A multi-site review of policies affecting opportunities for children with developmental disabilities to become bilingual

This review of special education and language-in-education policies at six sites in four countries (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands) aimed to determine the opportunities for bilingualism provided at school for children with developmental disabilities (DD). While research has demonstrated that children with DD are capable of learning more than one language (see Kay Raining Bird, Genesee, & Verhoeven, this issue), it was not clear whether recent policies reflect these findings. The review, conducted using the same protocol across sites, showed that special education policies rarely addressed second language learning explicitly. However, at all sites, the policies favoured inclusion and educational planning based on individual needs, and thus implied that students with DD would have opportunities for second language learning. The language-in-education policies occasionally specified the support individuals with special needs would receive. At some sites, policies and educational options provided little support for minority languages, a factor that could contribute to subtractive bilingualism. At others, we found stronger support for minority languages and optional majority languages: conditions that could be more conducive to additive bilingualism