SCOPE OF PRACTICE

A Culturally Responsive framework will provide the structure for our discussion of the SLPs scope of practice for ELLs. In brief, Culturally Responsive Practices (CRP) are those that recognize and include, rather than exclude, cultural and linguistic differences. CRP is an integral component of the Pyramid of Support Model, and aligns with Response to Intervention. The major tenets of CRP encourage a broad perspective and cultural sensitivity toward student differences. CRP uses language, culture, and experiences of the ELL student, as a context for learning. Teaching is tied to prior knowledge and experiences. Students with cultural and linguistic differences can perform to their potential, if value is placed on the richness of their individual backgrounds. Communication strategies that build on student’s culture are encouraged. Differences are not disabilities. Academic concerns are evaluated within the context of student specific cultural and linguistic variables.

Here are two examples of how CRP can play out in the classroom. A teacher was concerned that her 4th grade student, from Central America was “not participating” in class. The student was in her class for about two weeks and knew no English. He generally put his head down on his desk, or in his desk, during instruction. He sometimes cried. The teacher became frustrated. She would sometimes give him pictures to color in a secluded area of the classroom, by himself. Other times, she would send him to the office because he would “not follow directions”. However, everything changed the day the teacher was conducting a lesson on ecosystems. Beautiful photographs were presented to the class of deserts, rainforests, and tundra. The student put his head inside his desk as usual, but then seemed to pull out something to work on. His head was lowered over his work. After some time, he wildly raised his hand and was smiling and gesturing to the teacher for attention. When the teacher came over to him, surprised his hand was raised and thinking something was wrong, the student showed her a detailed drawing of his home in the rainforest. On the back of one of the black line drawings the teacher had given him to color, he had illustrated exotic plants, trees, snakes, and birds. He pointed to his picture and to the photograph in the teacher’s book excitedly. The teacher quickly learned that by tapping into this student’s prior knowledge and experience, she created an engaged learner. He was not only learning, but became an asset to the classroom as he labeled rainforest dwellers in Spanish for his classmates to learn. The teacher also learned that she could nurture his artistic skills and use them as a tool for teaching and learning. Finally, through conferences with the family (which she had previously put off because she was “too overwhelmed to deal with the language barrier”) she learned that the student’s crying was due in part to leaving friends and family behind in his home country.

In another example, a teacher of a 3rd grade student from China was convinced that something was wrong because the student “refused” to speak, three months into the school year. This teacher expected a great deal of classroom discussion and oral participation from her students. This student’s “refusal” to speak was unacceptable. The teacher kept the student from attending all specials, science and social studies. During the time the student stayed back, the teacher gave the student crayons and worksheets. The teacher often left the student alone during this time, and did not interact with her. However, one day soon thereafter the student handed the teacher a well composed book report, an assignment the teacher had given to the other students earlier that week. The teacher was stunned. She subsequently learned that many schools in China require at least two years of instruction in English reading and writing skills. Oral skills are not emphasized. Writing proficiency is valued. The teacher revised her opinion of this student and no longer thought that something was “wrong”. The teacher adjusted her oral participation requirement for this student, allowing her to complete written assignments for credit, while building oral skills and self-confidence.

In these cases, both teachers learned about the early stages of second language acquisition and how to put “refusing” to talk in proper perspective. Both teachers learned about the importance of background educational experiences and knowledge. Both teachers learned about cultural factors that affect learning. Both teachers learned more from these two experiences that any textbook definition of CRP could provide. Both teachers learned valuable lessons in how to be Culturally Responsive.

Now, with a general idea of what CRP can look like, we will introduce four cardinal policy documents from ASHA. These documents respond to questions regarding SLP roles and responsibilities in working with ELL students, within a CRP framework. These guiding policy statements represent the work of ASHA’s Multicultural Issues Board and the Board of Ethics. We will first consider questions regarding our roles and responsibilities in working with ELLs for English language instruction. We will then consider questions regarding our roles and responsibilities in identifying and remediating speech/language disorders of the ELL student.

In addressing the questions regarding our roles and responsibilities in English language instruction, we refer to Provision of Instruction in English as a Second Language by Speech-Language Pathologists in School Settings (q.v., Appendix A). This ASHA position statement sets forth the following guidelines:

• School SLPs may provide direct English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, if they possess the specialized knowledge and skills,

• School SLPs who do not possess the required knowledge and skills should not provide direct ESL instruction, however they should collaborate with ESL staff in providing pre/assessment, and/or interventions.

In order to accurately assess whether or not basic competencies mentioned in the above position statement are met, we can then examine Knowledge and Skills Needed by Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists to Provide Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (q.v., Appendix A). This official statement by ASHA provides a blueprint for personal professional development for Culturally Responsive Practice. ASHA outlines basic requisite competencies and foundational knowledge for working with ELL students. Competencies include: sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, bilingual development, acculturation, and linguistic universals, among others. Competency areas will be highlighted throughout these guidelines.

Therefore, when considering your role in English language instruction of an ELL student, first assess your skills, knowledge, and competencies. Determine how your skills and competencies might support the ELL student. Build on your knowledge through professional development activities and networking. Actively support Culturally Responsive understanding and solutions, through collaboration with ESL staff and other team members. Use the ASHA documents to create policy recommendations within your setting.

Continuing within a CRP framework, we will present additional core documents of the profession, as we turn to the question of our roles and responsibilities in working with ELL students with speech/language disorders. We should first recall the Federal antidiscrimination legislation discussed previously. This Federal mandate is echoed in our Code of Ethics and is further elaborated in the Board of Ethics’ Cultural Competence (q.v., Appendix A) document, which prohibits discrimination “in the delivery of services….on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, age, religion, national origin…”. So, clearly we have a role in determining needs and providing services to ELL students with suspected disability. Although the antidiscrimination mandates are clear, how we meet compliance within our scope of practice and respective clinical competencies, is often not as clear. We will address this further throughout.

In Clinical Management of Communicatively Handicapped Minority Language Populations (q.v., Appendix A), ASHA states, ‘it is recognized that not all SLPs.. possess the recommended competencies to serve limited English proficient speakers’. However, this position statement continues, “The establishment of competencies in the area of service delivery to minority language populations is not intended to impose prohibitions or a “hands off” philosophy for those who do not meet those competencies. But it is the professional responsibility of the SLP…to judge their own minority language proficiency, clinical knowledge base, and cultural sensitivity … It is incumbent on professionals to upgrade their level of competence…”. So, how to we put this into practice?

Without getting too much ahead of ourselves and into topics that will be addressed later in these guidelines (e.g., second language acquisition, assessment, etc.), we take a moment to illustrate our fit in the diagnostic process, in order to operationalize ASHA’s charge. Within a CRP framework, there are crucial questions to consider, long before we consider the: How do I test the student who speaks another language? question, or the What test do I use? question. We must first consider the question of what skills and knowledge the SLP possesses, as well as other team members, specific to ELL issues. Long before we move to determining suspected disability, we are charged with determining the viability of the referral concern, within the cultural context of the specific ELL student being referred. Making premature disability decisions without recognizing what knowledge the team lacks, specific to second language learning and even more specific to the referred student’s background, is not Culturally Responsive. Knowing what we do not know, is an essential aspect of CRP.

To expand this point, reflect back on the classroom examples. Would it be Culturally Responsive to refer the Chinese student for a suspicion of selective mutism, or emotional disturbance? Or would it be Culturally Responsive to refer the Spanish speaking student for suspicion of mental retardation? Would these referrals be valid, in spite of knowing nothing about the culture of Chinese educational systems, or the culture of South American schools? Appropriate without knowing anything about the students’ educational experience or performance before coming to the U.S.? Are selective mutism, emotional disturbance, and mental retardation fictitious and extreme examples, contrived to emphasize the importance of CRP? No. These are actual case scenarios and actual suspected disabilities of ELL students in our case scenarios. With your now heightened sensitivity to CRP, the unsophisticated and premature assumptions made in these two cases, become readily apparent.

Therefore, the SLP is vital in (at least) encouraging teams to consider the deeper questions that get to pivotal answers. Can the SLP answer all of the questions posed, for all cultures of all ELL students? Of course not. However, what is emphasized here is our role in supporting team CRP. Supporting and encouraging team sensitivity to these big, pre-assessment questions, is key in determining the viability of suspected disability referral of an ELL student. However, there is a flip side to this aspect of CRP. Well-meaning teams or team members will sometimes state that referral concerns are ‘only cultural’, and do not pursue concerns, believing they are being Culturally Responsive. It is as if all concerns of all non-native speakers of English should be assumed to be ‘culturally based’. As if there is nothing we can or should do to support learning, because it is ‘just cultural’. Clearly, this naïve stance can be just as damaging as ignoring cultural context altogether. CRP is not a single action in a moment in time. We will address this further in Part IV, on classroom support and intervention.

There is one more issue we need to acknowledge. Whether considering our role in working with ELL students for English language instruction, or for a speech/language disorder, SLPs are often concerned that they do not meet competency because they do not speak the student’s native language. ASHA provides a clear definition for Bilingual SLPs and Audiologists (q.v., Appendix A: Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists: Definition). In order to practice as a Bilingual SLP or Audiologist, the practitioner must be able to ‘speak at least one other language with native or near native proficiency’. However, the definition does not end here. Bilingual proficiency does not necessarily mean that other competencies are met. Before we continue with ASHA’s stipulations, we will respond to the concern of service delivery to ELLs, by the practitioner without bilingual skills, by looking at the issue through another lens.

Let us consider educators in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), and other related professions. It is a strong foundation and understanding of language universals, language differences, second language acquisition, bilingualism, acculturation, and cultural sensitivity, that creates the TESOL teacher’s expertise in teaching English to ELL students. Think about it. Even if a TESOL teacher is proficient in another language or even two, no one can be proficient in all the languages and dialects of all of their students. TESOL teachers may or may not have proficiency in a language other than English, and many do not. Yet, TESOL teachers have the unique training and understanding of what it takes to learn another language. They also have sensitivity to cultural and related factors that each student brings to their new classroom. They have insight into the learning dynamics of the ELL student and support CRP in the classroom through these insights.

If we further examine the ASHA definition for bilingual practitioners, the first stipulation mandates an “ability to describe the process of normal speech and language acquisition for both bilingual and monolingual individuals and how those processes are manifested in oral.. and written language”. So, it is not just about speaking another language, it is about understanding what lies underneath learning any language and the factors that affect that learning. It is about cross-linguistic knowledge and understanding of what is common and what differs, between English and the home language of the student. It is about cross-cultural knowledge and understanding of what is common and what differs, between U.S. culture and the home culture of the student. For the SLP, language barriers do not eliminate the need for services. Ways to address language barriers will be discussed later in these guidelines. Specific roles and responsibilities will also be discussed.

As SLPs, we are charged with honoring culture and working within the context of individual backgrounds. Although we may not know all the sociolinguistic and educational implications of a given culture, that does not preclude our ability to collaborate with teachers and teams for better decision-making for ELL students. We can build on our strong knowledge base of language development to build understanding of language learning for the ELL student. We can collaborate with other professionals to ask better questions and create better interventions within a broader perspective. This is a start towards Culturally Responsive Practice.

Refer to the two Cultural Competence self-assessments in Appendix A (Personal Reflection and Service Delivery), to assist you in taking a closer look at CRP.

With the background information that Part I has presented, Part II will now build understanding of the processes of second language acquisition and acculturation.