Journal of Multilingual Education Research

Volume 6 Bilingual Special Education: Exploring

Article 8
Pedagogical, Research, and Policy Implications

2015

Dual Language Program Meets Integrated

Collaborative Teaching
Bethany Hatheway
Fordham University

Deborah Shea
Fordham University, [email protected]

Monica Winslow
Fordham University

Follow this and additional works at: http://fordham.bepress.com/jmer

Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Hatheway, Bethany; Shea, Deborah; and Winslow, Monica (2015) "Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative
Teaching," Journal of Multilingual Education Research: Vol. 6, Article 8.
Available at: http://fordham.bepress.com/jmer/vol6/iss1/8

This Article on Practice is brought to you for free and open access by
DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of
Multilingual Education Research by an authorized administrator of
DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 137

Dual Language Program Meets

Integrated Collaborative
Teaching
Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow
Fordham University

This article proposes combining dual language programs with integrated

collaborative teaching classrooms since both English language learners and special
education students use many of the same teaching strategies and because there is a
growing culturally and linguistically diverse population and shortage of bilingual
special educators. Literature from peer reviewed journals and early childhood
education publications support the idea with data from successful dual language
programs. In addition, interviews conducted with teachers and principals in
current dual language programs (DLP) and integrated collaborative teaching (ICT)
classrooms give practical ideas and strategies for running such programs. We also
explore how such a program can be implemented and question what changes and
recommendations should be made.

Keywords: English language learners, dual language programs, overrepresentation,

culturally and linguistically diverse, integrated cooperative teaching, biliterate

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2012), recent
statistics show that in the 2011-2012 school year, 9.1% or 4.4 million public school
students were English language learners (ELLs) compared to 8.7% (4.1 million) in
2002-2003. Unfortunately, this population has not been properly identified or
adequately served. As Harry (2008) argues, there are three main areas of concern.
“First, children of African American, Latino, and Native American groups represent a
disproportionately large group of certain disability categories and a disproportionately
small percentage of gifted programs” (p. 372). Second, the nation’s history of excluding
and marginalizing culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) groups continues; and
when children from such groups fall in the category of disability, it reinforces
historically embedded prejudices. Third, and quite noteworthy, is that the concept and
definition of disability varies across cultures, meaning the potential for
miscommunication between service providers and families is very high. These
concerns suggest that the education system is not sufficiently equipped to meet their
needs, resulting in misplacement, overrepresentation, and high dropout rates.
The problem of overrepresentation in special education in the United States is
widely documented (Trent et al., 2014). Leonard Baca and Hermes Cervantes (2004)

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

138 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

noted “It has been well established that bilingual children and minority children in
general have historically been misplaced and thus overrepresented in special
education” (p. 12). In 2007 the National Education Association (NEA) reported that
approximately 13.5% of all students in K–12 schools receive special education services.
The report also indicates that some subgroups of children, especially those from
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) populations, receive special education
services at rates that are significantly higher or lower than 13.5%. Consequently, CLD
students may be perceived as having three strikes against them, one of which is being
categorized as special education, compounded by being a dual language learner, and
thirdly most likely in a lower socio-economic group (NEA, 2007, p. 6).
Some misconceptions about ELLs are that (1) they should be immersed in
English, (2) through immersion; ELLs will learn enough English within a year to survive
academically, and (3) the less ELLs use their first language, the better (Artiles & Oriz,
2002; Baca & Cervantes, 2004; Brown & Sanford, 2011). On the contrary when ELLs
learn in their first language, they can solidly transfer that knowledge to academic work
in their second language. There are two types of language proficiency: basic
interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency
(CALP). Acquiring BICS takes two to three years and is insufficient for learning
academic content and most ELLs need five to seven years to reach CALP in their second
language. According to Cummins (1981) and Collier and Thomas (2004) they must
continue to develop CALP to stay on grade level.
In this article we critically examine two issues: (1) the need for more effective
bilingual programs and (2) the overrepresentation of minority CLD students in special
education. Importantly, we also consider how two instructional programs, if
implemented together, may ameliorate the negative impact of the practices described
earlier. First, we consider the history of bilingual education in the United States.
Second, we define and examine Dual Language Programs (DLPs) and Integrated Co-
Teaching (ICT). Finally, we will propose combining the two types of educational
programs, DLP and ICT, in order to create an inclusive general education model where
bilingual and special educational needs of children can be met effectively in one
classroom.
Models of Bilingual Education Programs in the United States
The Bilingual Education Act in 1968 was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. This
legislation paved the way for federal funds to be used in local school districts for
bilingual education. The landmark U. S. Supreme Court case of Lau vs. Nichols affirmed
a student’s right to equal educational opportunity through special language programs in
the United States, resulting in equality of outcomes for a broader range of students
(Baca & Cervantes, 2004, p. 4).
Presently, there are three basic models of bilingual education: transitional,
maintenance, and two-way enrichment. According to Baca and Cervantes (2004)
Transitional programs are also known as “early-exit” models because as soon as
students are deemed proficient in English language acquisition, which takes 2-3 years,
they are exited. Maintenance typically provides native language instruction in the
elementary years (k-6) and often the amount of native language instruction decreases

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 139

as English proficiency increases. Of the three bilingual models, dual language programs
are having the most success for English Language Learners and Native English Speakers
(NES) because, according to Baca and Cervantes, the goals of bilingual education are to
accept and develop the native language and culture in the instructional process,
whereas ELs instruction relies exclusively on English as the medium for teaching and
learning (p. 27).
The dual language model is a two-way enrichment model. This model effectively
educates ELLs in their native language and English while educating native English
speaking students to become bilingual. In fact, “Research shows that dual language
programs are an effective way to meet the needs of Latino ELLs and close the
achievement gap” (López Estrada, Gómez, & Ruiz-Escalante, 2009, p. 54). Furthermore,
scholars not only address how this model teaches ELLs to become literate in English,
but places value on how to do so in a culturally responsive way. Sage Handbook of
Leadership illustrates ways of teaching ELL students to become literate in English, “Dual
language is considered an enrichment, or additive, model building on a student’s home
language, with content being taught in both languages” (Wilson, 2011, p. 1). Dual
language education is a type of bilingual education that is becoming more popular in the
United States, specifically in places like California, Texas, and Utah. Maxwell writes that
dual language classes are seeing growth in popularity and according to estimates from
national experts, dual language immersion programs have been steadily on the rise in
public schools over the past decade (Maxwell, 2012, p. 16).
There are currently around 2,500 DLPs across the United States (Maxwell, 2014)
with “300 in New York State alone” (Wilson, 2011, p. 1). According to the New York City
Department of Education, DLPs make up only 4.1% of the programs, 78.3% use the
model of ESL, 15.2% transitional bilingual education, 1.7% have no program, and the
remainder (0.7%) is unreported (New York City Department of Education, 2013a).
A long term dual language program study conducted by Virginia Collier and
Wayne Thomas of George Mason University revealed, “After almost two decades of
program evaluation research that we have conducted in 23 large and small school
districts from 15 different states, representing all regions of the U.S. in urban, suburban,
and rural contexts, we continue to be astonished at the power of this school reform
model” (Collier & Thomas, 2004, p. 1). It seems clear that dual language programs are
having success in a wide range of settings.
In light of this research, it appears that dual language programs are having more
success than the abundant transitional and maintenance bilingual models. “Models for
educating English-language learners have shifted since three U.S. states banned the use
of transitional bilingual education (TBE) classes in the 1990s” (Wilson, 2011, p. 1). As
the transitional models fade we see more promise for dual language.
“At a time when other types of bilingual education are on the decline and the B-
word— bilingual—has been scrubbed from the U.S. Department of Education lexicon,
dual language programs are showing promise in their mission to promote biliteracy and
positive cross-cultural attitudes in our increasingly multilingual world” (Wilson, 2011,
p. 1). If indeed we are living in an increasingly multilingual world, it doesn’t make sense
to reduce cultures to a monochromatic way of life which requires the culturally diverse

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

140 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

to assimilate and students to become monolingual. Furthermore, it is argued that this

country is better served by preserving the various cultures’ contributions and in the
long-term help linguistic minority children become more productive members of
society in their adult life.
Language Ideologies
The bilingual practices that are implemented in the United States are guided by
larger social relations of power. Historically, some people conceive of blackness and
browness as inferior while upholding the myth of whiteness as superior. Importantly,
many multilingual speakers are not only seen as being inferior due to their physical
features, but because of the language they speak (Pimental, 2011).
The discrimination of language is supported by a number of language ideologies
as defined by Pimental. These ideologies are identified and described below.
• Linguistic Conformity. This ideology disseminates the idea that this
nation must conform to one linguistic code in order to ensure national
unity, social stability, and the preservation of democratic values.
• Language as a Liability. This ideology that constructs non-English
languages as social impediments that prohibit students from learning the
English language.
• The Fear of Language. This ideology emerges out of fear of Latinos taking
over U.S. cities and resisting assimilation, thereby posing a direct
challenge to existing power relations in this country that privilege
Whites.
• Language Elitism. The English language is perceived as being superior, a
language of intellect and enlightenment.
• Language of Commodity. This ideology perceives non-English language as
commodities--assets that can create job opportunities and career
advancements (Pimental, 2011).
These languages ideologies, operating as part of the larger project of Whiteness,
are often embedded in the language programs that are implemented in schools and
thus shape how emergent bilinguals (EBs) are perceived within these programs.
Unfortunately, these students risk never learning that their language is a valuable asset
worthy of further development; their language serves as a foundation for learning
material. Educators must take special care to ensure that students’ minority languages
are perceived as valuable academic resources and important cultural reflections of
students’ involvement in bilingual programs.
Minority languages should be viewed as a resource and not a hindrance. In the
next section we look more in depth at successful dual language programs, how they’ve
been implemented, what strategies work, and what future prospects may be in store for
the bilingual/biliterate student and society.

Dual Language Programs

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 141

According to Estrada, Gómez, and Ruiz-Escalante (2009, p. 56), “In the past 10
years, many language experts have begun to advocate dual language programs”. In fact,
the numbers of dual language immersion programs have been steadily growing over
the past decade even in the face of English immersion being pushed in states like
Arizona, Massachusetts, and California. “Spanish is by far the most prevalent language
taught in dual programs, followed by Mandarin Chinese and French, according to
national language experts” (p. 16).
In San Jose, California, Gardner Academy offers a two-way immersion program
in which native learners of English and native learners of Spanish learn both languages
in the same classroom. Maxwell (2012) writes that its goal is to establish skills in both
languages during the early grades to produce fully bilingual and biliterate students by
the end of elementary school. However, because of the state’s Proposition 227 law,
parents must “opt” for their children to enroll in the two-way program.
“The goal isn’t to run away from one language or another, but to really educate
the child in both and to use the native language as a resource and asset,” said Mr. Gómez
(as quoted in Maxwell, 2012, p. 16). Looking at using native language as a resource is a
far cry from terms such as “limited English proficiency” and “English Immersion”.
Furthermore, according to Maxwell (2012), leading the nation in dual language
programs are Texas, Utah, and California. The Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent
School District was likely to become the nation’s first to have dual language programs in
all its schools including middle and high school. In fact, the fourth cohort of students
who have been in dual language since kindergarten will graduate from the district’s
four high schools (p. 17).
Maxwell (2012) further states that in Utah, a statewide dual language immersion
program initiative funded by the legislature is now in its third year. He quotes Gregg
Roberts, a specialist in world languages and dual-language immersion for the state
office of education:
Utah is a small state and, for our future economic development and the national
security of our country, we have to educate students who are multilingual.
There is broad agreement in our state about that. It is not a red or blue issue
here. (p. 17).
Rosa Molina, the executive director of Two-Way CABE, an advocacy group for
dual language programs that is an affiliate of the California Association for Bilingual
Education, said students benefit in multiple ways.
They preserve their primary language, they develop a broader worldview that
they take into college and the work world, and they gain huge advantages in
their cognitive development that translates into flexibility of their thinking and
the ability to tackle really rigorous coursework (as quoted in Maxwell, 2012,
p. 17).
In a Dallas dual language program, after five years, students in this program
outperformed native English speakers on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge of Skills
test in spring of 2010 in reading and math. Superintendent Michael Hinojosa said, “The
chance for students to graduate bilingual and biliterate make them competitive in this

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

142 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

ever-widening global society” (Pascopella, 2011). He added that if students start the
program in Kindergarten, they should be literate in two languages by fifth grade.
Furthermore, Lindohlm-Leary (2001), and Thomas and Collier (2002) support research
which shows that that DLPs are an effective way to meet the needs of Latino ELLs and
close the achievement gap.
Consultants with expertise in bilingual education and who have implemented
enrichment bilingual programs throughout Texas claim, “We have observed that dual
language models in which students perform academic work daily in both English and
Spanish are the most effective way to educate Latino ELLs. We believe it’s crucial that
schools all over the United States, particularly those serving Latino students go dual
language” (Estrada et al., 2009, p. 55).
A DLP model that Gómez and Gómez (1999) developed in the 1990’s, designed
for mixed groups of elementary-age English and Spanish dominant speakers, uses
bilingual pairs and groups. Content areas are taught in one language only. Language
arts are taught in both languages, while math is taught in English only and science and
social studies are taught in Spanish only. Teachers report that after they’ve used this
model for even a short time, their ELLs show markedly higher levels of motivation and
enthusiasm. In fact, some students who were quiet, shy and confused transformed into
active, vocal, cooperative learners. An added bonus is that native English speakers
benefit as well because as they become academically strong in English they transfer
those skills conversationally to Spanish.
Thomas and Collier (2002) studied dual language enrichment programs in five
sites across the United States and found that ELLs schooled in well-implemented dual
language programs had greater long term academic success in English than did their
native English-speaking peers in monolingual English programs (Estrada et al., 2009).
While the outcomes outlined in the above research demonstrate improvement in
academics and promise for future opportunities, Alanis (2011), writes “Children’s daily
classroom experiences influence their development of bilingualism and biliteracy and
impact the way they feel about themselves as successful learners” (p. 21). This is most
noteworthy because if children do not have positive, meaningful daily classroom
learning experiences and see themselves as successful, they will not be able to develop
language and meet academic achievement. This holds true for all students, including
dual language learners and students with disabilities.
Within the above mentioned dual language programs that have proven to be
effective, close the achievement gap, and show higher levels of motivation and
enthusiasm, there are various teaching methods and strategies used that benefit both
the dual language learner and the special education student. These are described
below.
Instructional Methods and Strategies
One popular teaching model used in many school districts across the United
States is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP; Echevarria, Vogt, &
Short, 2012). In the sheltered classroom, teachers use physical activities, visual aids,
and the environment to teach vocabulary and concept development in mathematics,

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 143

science, social studies and other subjects. Visual aids are an essential strategy used in
the special education classroom as are the use of physical prompts to teach necessary
skills.
Other strategies used by the Kent, Washington School District are to use
paraprofessionals and instructional assistants who speak the native language as well as
tiered intervention framework or Response to Intervention (RTI), which is also used as
a special education tool (Pascopella, 2011, p. 32). RTI allows student data to determine
specific skill gaps or identify struggling students, which is important so that children
don’t get misplaced or misrepresented. In fact, the Vista Program in San Diego, was
created in 1988 to train bilingual paraprofessionals to help students with learning
disabilities and speech and language delays due to unavailable bilingual special
education instructors (Charter, 1991, p. 3). There is still a shortage of certified
teachers with the above mentioned specialty areas. In addition, according to Charter,
one of the advantages of training paraprofessionals to work with bilingual special
education students is that they can be a bridge to the family.
In our opinion, if students can be literate in two languages by fifth grade,
students with disabilities and language delays may very well be able to use the same
strategies to acquire language and improve communication. It is our belief that
teachers, service providers, paraprofessionals, and families can also be useful resources
to one another.
Skilled teachers of young children integrate culturally relevant material in the
classroom and help children interact with one another to help them understand the
world around them and make connections. This has been successfully done by
grouping children in “bilingual pairs,” which we discuss below.
Bilingual pairs will typically complete a project or do a hands-on activity and a
teacher may select one student who is strong in English to work with another student
who is strong in Spanish so they can support each other. This can also be done for
students with disabilities in areas of development where they may be weak; they can
partner with a peer who is strong in that area and vice versa (Carrasquillo & Rodríguez,
2002).
Some advantages and outcomes of bilingual pairs are that it creates community
when children feel safe and connected, they are willing to take more risks as learners,
and they are actively involved in their own learning and can express and exchange
ideas as they build communication skills. Consequently, this cooperative learning
increases children’s social interactions and allows them to use their language skills to
develop academic concepts. Children get to participate more fully this way and it works
well in activities such as circle time. Working in pairs like this could be beneficial for
children with special needs as well since children often learn from one another in a
social context. Therefore, they don’t feel singled out and experience peer support in a
safe environment (Carrasquillo & Rodríguez, 2002; Christian, 2011). In such settings
students can feel free to learn in a friendly environment and acquire new formal and
informal language, develop social skills, and improve communication. Both dual
language learners and students with disabilities need to acquire such skills.

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

144 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

Again, it is important to remember that school districts nationwide report more

than 400 languages spoken. While dual language programs have grown and become
more popular over the last decade, there has also been a “steady undertow of resistance
to bilingualism and bilingual education” according to T. G. Wiley and W. E. Wright as
quoted by Varghese and Park (2010, p. 73). Lindholm-Leary (2001) argued that DLP
programs provide a solution to this resistance, eradicating any negative status because
they combine maintenance bilingual and immersion education models in an integrated
classroom with the goal of full bilingualism and biliteracy for both language majority
and language minority students.
With all the positive aspects of dual language education, there is one missing
component. Dual language education should address the needs of students with
disabilities. Combining DLP with ICT could alleviate that issue. The following sections
describe this idea further and propose ways it can be implemented in schools, but first
we will discuss the ICT model.
Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) Model
During the 2012-13 school year, 159,824 ELLs were enrolled in NYC public schools
and 35,787 (22.4%) of them were identified as having a disability and eligible for
special education services (New York City Department of Education, 2013b). Given the
frequency of special education placements, we will address the issue of ELLs with
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), which we believe is best accommodated in the
Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) model.
Through our studies in early childhood special education we have come to
understand that ICT is an inclusive model for teaching special education students mixed
with general education students in the same classroom. ICT classes have two teachers,
one general education and one special education teacher. The ratio of students is
generally 40% with IEPs and 60% general education students. This model is more
expensive than a typical general education classroom (New York City Department of
Education, 2013). However, ICT is more supportive and inclusive and educates
students with special needs in a general education environment.
Teacher collaboration is a necessary component for a successful ICT program.
With this model, the ESL, special education, general education, and bilingual teachers
can work together to plan and differentiate instruction insuring the best outcomes for
all students. In this model, teachers are able to share responsibilities, as well as lead,
allowing them to use their talents and areas of expertise.
Collaboration between Bilingual and Special Education Teachers
The ICT model has two teachers whereas DLP has one, but a hybrid of the two
types of classroom, DLP/ICT, would need two teachers, one teacher would need a
special education license and both teachers would need bilingual extensions to their
teaching licenses. In the DLP/ICT model, students with special needs would be active
participants in the class, rather than being pulled out for services and missing
classroom instruction. This model is inclusive and would meet all the children’s needs
in the classroom.

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 145

In New York City the DLP/ICT model already exists. According to the 2012-2013
Demographic Report by the New York City Office of English Language Learners there
are 11 DLP/ICT classes out of 141 DLP classes. Ten of these classes are
Spanish/English and one is Mandarin/English. Furthermore, during the 2012-13 school
year, ELLs in New York City spoke 166 languages other than English. This report also
indicates that in particular 62.4% speak Spanish at home, followed by 14.1% who speak
Chinese. Given the percentage of Spanish speaking ELLs in New York City, the DLP/ICT
model seems like it would be a favorable investment in the future and save money in
the long run (New York City Department of Education, 2013a).
In our opinion, it could reduce overrepresentation in New York City public
schools and create an inclusive model for Spanish speaking students with IEPs. This
model has key components respectful of each student’s language, culture and learning
needs. It would foster a supportive atmosphere for both students and teachers. Lastly,
since 71% of teachers are white females, it would behoove schools to combine DLP
with ICT classes to promote diversity, share knowledge, and most importantly to be
culturally responsive to student needs as 78% are second language learners
(Rodríguez, 2014).
How Can Schools Implement DLP and ICT?
A wide variety of strategies may be pursued to implement DLP/ICT classrooms
in schools. It may be advisable to have a consultation assistance team for the whole
school in order to implement this model. According to Leonard Baca and Hermes
Cervantes (2004), team members may be selected across grades and include
specialists representing the skills and interests of the entire school. One benefit of
forming such a group is that many times members volunteer to be on the team.
Consequently, the team’s purpose is valued and promoted by its members. The main
strategy in both DLP and ICT is to use co-teaching teams with a variety of individuals,
such as general and special educators, bilingual and English as a second language
educators, as well as speech and language therapists.
In regards to policy development, the National School Board Association (2002,
as cited in Baca & Cervantes, 2004, p. 394) provides resources and guidance and offers
the following 12-step procedure that could be helpful in developing and implementing
a bilingual special education policy.
1. Define the issue or problem.
2. Gather necessary information on the issue.
3. Secure recommendations from the superintendent.
4. Discuss and debate at the board level.
5. Draft policy.
6. Hold first reading.
7. Make revisions.
8. Hold second reading.
9. Adopt the policy.
10. Distribute to the public.

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

146 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

11. Oversee policy implementation.

12. Engage in policy evaluation and revision or modification.
Without access to a combined DLP/ICT program we used the following personal
interviews to collect information and identify some of the practical issues that impact
school implementing separate models of DLP and ICT. We will explore two different
schools’ experiences, one with the implementation of a DLP and the other’s direct
experience with teaching in an ICT classroom.
Interviews Conducted In Two Different Schools
First we will share information from an interview from December 2014 which
provides a principal’s explanation of how an urban school in the Northeast region
implemented a DLP. This is followed by the findings from interviews conducted with
teachers in an ICT program.
According to Principal A, in order to start a dual language program a school must
first organize a group of “stakeholders”. Stakeholders are a group of parents and staff.
In urban School A the primary stakeholders consisted of Principal A, Teacher A and a
small group of parents. Together they developed a proposal or plan of how they
envisioned getting their French dual language program started. This proposal was
submitted to the Office of English Language Learners in the Department of Education.
Once it was accepted, the program had initial funding; however, Principal A said that it
was not enough funding. She said in order to be successful you need to find a secondary
source of funding. Principal A and the other primary stakeholders approached the
French Embassy with another proposal for additional funding. That proposal was
granted as well. The French Embassy provided monetary and general support, which
included funding for all of the French books and materials used in the program. The
French Embassy paid for teacher planning and limited professional development in
France, as well as provided a support network of teachers and schools. Embassies can
provide invaluable supports for dual language programs.
Principal A suggested rolling out a new DLP very slowly, one class/grade per
year. In this way potential community problems and bumps can be minimized
according to Principal A. There must also be available space in a school for a dual
language program to get started. A new class on the next grade is added each year so
there must be more than one free classroom available. Principals must also have a
good source of fully certified bilingual and bicultural teachers if they need to hire a
new teacher(s). This school built a partnership with two universities to hire new
teachers. It is currently trying to build two more partnerships with additional
universities (K. DelloStritto, personal interview, December 2014).
As far as starting a combined DLP/ICT program, there must be a need for the ICT
component. In order to start an ICT classroom, at least 40% of students should have an
IEP (United Federation of Teachers, 2015). With each IEP student comes funding for a
second teacher in the DLP/ICT classroom. According to Principal A the real challenge
comes with identifying teachers that have the proper certification. Teachers in the
DLP/ICT classroom must have an early childhood or childhood education license with a
bilingual extension or ESL license and one of the teachers needs a special education

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 147

license as well. A principal must be able to find and hire teachers with all of this
certification to start a DLP/ICT program. (K. DelloStritto, personal interview, December
2014).
In a different urban Northeast school, three teachers in the ICT program were
asked, “How can schools implement a DLP/ ICT Program?” They provided the following
suggestions, strategies and recommendations, which coincide with the information
provided above by Principal A. Teacher A is a special education teacher who works in
an ICT classroom with a general education bilingual teacher. Teacher A stated:
The DLP/ICT model would be great if it was implemented when students with
disabilities enter Pre-Kindergarten. Teacher A mentioned two challenges in
implementing the DLP/ICT model: ensuring classes have a balanced student
population; and staffing bilingual teachers. Most of the urban schools have ESL
programs because it’s easier to find certified ESL teachers. (P. Narcano,
personal interview, December 12, 2014).
Teacher B is a second grade bilingual general education teacher. She works in the
second grade classroom with Teacher A. Teacher B stated:
The DLP/ICT model would be quite beneficial to the school community… The
majority of the students and families are descendants from the Dominican
Republic. They do not speak the English language at all. The DLP/ICT model
would piggyback the ESL program. The ELLs would be able to acquire the
English language faster (L. Kantoine, personal interview, December 12, 2014).
Teacher C is a special education teacher that works in a K-1 ICT classroom. Teacher C
stated:
The biggest misconception of ICT programs is that there are two teachers in the
classroom; therefore, it’s easier to work with the students. Unfortunately, that’s
not true. In this class, there are 18 students. Most of the students are ELLs and
some have behavioral issues. This is a combined class, so we have two
curriculums to implement. We have to differentiate instruction to meet the
students’ range of capabilities. The DLP/ICT model would be beneficial to our
students, especially if implemented in the beginning of the school year. It would
also benefit our parents who primarily speak Spanish (S. Henry, personal
interview, December 12, 2014).
Teacher A’s recommendations are:
Make sure the personalities of the teachers mesh (teaching styles, beliefs,
communication, philosophy). This is the most important component of an ICT
program. Consider how the teachers would be licensed. Would each of the
teachers have to be certified in special education? Bilingual education? Would
there be separate licenses to obtain or one to cover all these components of
certification (P. Narcano, personal interview, December 2014,).
Teacher B’s recommendations are:
Teachers involved in the DLP/ICT model would have to be experienced certified
bilingual teachers, having worked three to five years in special education. As of
now, Integrated Co-teachers have a lot to juggle when working with these

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

148 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

students such as common core standards and the bilingual component (ESL
program). The DLP/ICT model would need to provide clear, precise roles for
teachers and establish how the day would flow. Would half of the day be
dedicated to English instruction and the other half of the day be the second
language instruction?
In addition, schools should provide:
● professional development for teachers to implement the DLP/ICT
model;
● hands-on materials and visual aids to help bilingual students; and
● a school-wide tuition reimbursement incentive for all teachers in order
to obtain certification in bilingual education. (L. Kantoine, personal
interview, December 12, 2014).
Teacher C’s recommendations are:
Consider these two questions: What would happen to the ESL programs? How
do parents feel about a DLP/ICT program? (S. Henry, personal interview,
December 12, 2014).
In light of those personal accounts and expert commentaries, the future of
integrated co-teaching may be dependent on increasing the quantity and quality of
research on it and placing co-teaching in the larger context of school reform and
improvement. This may foster a transition from a dual system of education to a more
blended and contemporary educational practice. Three groups of educators are
directly affected. First, special educators must understand how their knowledge and
skills facilitate learning in co-teaching. Second, it is equally important to prepare
general education, bilingual, and ESL teachers to understand and implement their skills.
Third, principals and other site administrators cannot be expected to lead staff
members through this fundamental change or to integrate it with other school
improvement efforts without increasing their understanding” (Friend, Cook, Hurley-
Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010).
Conclusion and Implications for Further Research
In summary, our article addresses the need for more effective bilingual
programs, defines both dual language programs and the ICT model, and proposes
combining these two models. The DLP and ICT models use many of the same strategies
to help students reach their optimum level of learning. The numbers of ELLs in public
schools and the projection that they will increase by 2030, along with
overrepresentation of misplaced ELLs in special education, justify resources needed to
provide equal educational opportunities to CLD students in special education.
Research discussed in the article argues that DLP is a promising educational
program in teaching ELLs. However, there is a gap between the number of DLPs
compared to the number of ESL programs and even a higher deficit in the small number
of DLP/ICT hybrid programs that exist. We agree with Foote, Press, and Rinaldo (2010)
in that:

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 149

to measure and improve inclusion in today’s general education we must provide

answers to these questions: How much special education training classes do
general education teachers need? What is the optimal inclusion class size? How
many students with severe disabilities can be accommodated within a single
class? How much and what kind of personnel support will make the class
successful?” (p. 44).
In addition, we question, how can we expedite the certification process for
bilingual teachers and bilingual special education teachers in order to keep up with the
growing population and demand for quality bilingual instruction? These are questions
not to be left unanswered.
Interviews with teachers and principals provide answers and information for
starting such a program. They discuss strategies, obstacles, and possible solutions prior
to embarking on such an endeavor. Baca and Cervantes support what one teacher
recommends above, that personalities and philosophies should mesh when forming co-
teaching teams and that “interpersonal communication is the cornerstone of a co-
teaching relationship” (2004, p. 342) to meet the diverse need of dual language learners
and those with IEPs.
A major obstacle according to Ochoa, Brandon, Kaplan, and Ramirez (2014), is
that less than 2% of special education teachers in California are certified in both special
and bilingual education disciplines and 1 in 4 students are identified as ELLs.
Therefore, a teacher preparation program was created to incorporate key standards for
special education and bilingual teacher education candidates to develop critical
knowledge and skills required to address the growing linguistic diversity (p. 79). We
recommend more programs such as this to meet the needs of teachers and students in
order to bridge bilingual and special education classrooms.
Finally, we found there is a need for more current literature on the topic of
bilingual special education. Therefore we recommend that future research be
conducted in the DLP/ ICT models that exist today thus helping them and their
culturally diverse learners to grow and succeed academically.

References

Alanis, I., (2011). Learning from each other: Bilingual pairs in dual-language classrooms. Dimensions of
Early Childhood, 31(1), 21-28.

Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. (Eds.). (2002). English Language Learners with special needs: Identification,
placement, and instruction. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (2004). The bilingual special education interface (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Brown, J.E., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and
progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.
Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/images/stories/pdfs/rtiforells.pdf

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

150 Dual Language Program Meets Integrated Collaborative Teaching

Carrasquillo, A., & Rodríguez, V. (2002). Language minority students in the mainstream classroom (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Charter, P. F. (1991). Who will teach our children?...Use of bilingual paraprofessionals in special
education. ERIC document ED336896. Available from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336896.pdf

Christian, D. (2011). Dual language education. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning Vol. 2 (pp 3-20). New York, NY: Routledge.

Collier, V. P. & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all.
NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(2), 1-20. Retrieved from
http://www.hillcrest.waoisd.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_345/File/Publications/ELL/Dual%
20language%20survey.pdf

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for
language minority students. In D.P. Dolton (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissertation, and Assessment
Center.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English language
learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Estrada, V. L., Gómez, L., & Ruiz-Escalante, J. (2009). Let’s make dual language the norm. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 54-58.

Foote, C. J., Press, K. L., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers: A survey of current
practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43-56.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., &, Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the
complexity of collaboration in special education, Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. doi: 10.1080/10474410903535380 Available from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10474410903535380

Gómez, R., & Gómez, L. (1999). Supporting dual CALP development among second language learners: The
two way model revisited. Educational Considerations Journal, 26(2), 29-33.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality.
Council for Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.

Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Maxwell, L. A. (2012). ‘Dual’ classes see growth in popularity. Education Week, 31(26), 15-17.

Maxwell, L. A. (2014). Schools successes inspire N.C. push for dual language. Education Week, 34(8), 1,
14-15. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/15/08dual.h34.html

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). English language learners. In NCES, The
Condition of Education (Chapter 2, 1-3). Washington, DC: Author

National Education Association of the United States & National Association of School Psychologists.
(2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/books

New York City Department of Education, Office of English Language Learners. (2013a). 2013
Demographic Report. Available from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FD5EB945-5C27-
44F8-BE4B-E4C65D7176F8/0/2013DemographicReport_june2013_revised.pdf

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015

Bethany Hatheway, Deborah Shea, and Monica Winslow 151

New York City Department of Education, Office of English Language Learners. (2013b). Special education
English language learners (ELLs). New York City, NY: Author.

Ochoa, A., Brandon, R., Kaplan, K., & Ramírez, P. (2014). Bridging bilingual and special education:
Opportunities for transformative change in teacher preparation programs. Association of
Mexican-American Educators, 8(1), 72-82.

Pascopella, A. (2011). Successful strategies for English language learners. District Administration.
Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/successful-strategies-english-
language-learners

Pimental, C. (2011). The color of language: The racialized educational trajectory of an emerging bilingual
student. Journal of Latinos and Educators, 10(4), 342-343.

Trent, S. C., Driver, M. K., Rodríguez, D., Oh, K., Stewart, S., Kea, C., Artiles, A., & Hull, M. (2014). Beyond
Brown: Empirical research on diverse learners with or at-risk for specific learning disabilities
from 1994-2012. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 14(2), 12-29.

United Federation of Teachers. (2015). Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT). Retrieved from

http://www.uft.org/teaching/integrated-co-teaching-ict

Varghese, M. & Park, C. (2010). Going global: can dual-language programs save bilingual education?
Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(1), 72-80.

Wilson, D. M. (2011). Dual language programs on the rise. Harvard Education Letter, 27(2), 1-2.
Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/hel-home/issues/27_2/helarticle/dual-language-
programs-on-the-rise

Journal of Multilingual Education Research, Volume 6, 2015