By the Bilingual Special Education Evaluation Network of Texas

Facilitated by Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

January, 2007Updated January 2009

Copyright © Notice The materials are copyrighted © as the property of the Bilingual Special Education Evaluation Network of Texasand may not be reproduced without the express written permission of Dr. Criselda Alvarado

DYSLEXIA AND THE SPANISH-SPEAKING AND BILINGUAL (ENGLISH/SPANISH SPEAKING) STUDENT

By the Bilingual Special Education Evaluation Network of TexasFacilitated by Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

This document endeavors to provide support to school districts on the issues of dyslexia of Spanish-speaking and bilingual (English-Spanish speaking) students. This document is a work-in-progress and updates can be obtained by contacting Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado at cris.alvarado@educationeval.com. Realizing that educators are seeking more information on issues of dyslexia as they pertain to students who are monolingual in a language other than English or who are bilingual in English and another language, the Bilingual Special Education Evaluation Network of Texas took on the mission of adding their expertise of second language acquisition and assessment to the existing knowledge base of dyslexia. The Bilingual Special Education Evaluation Network of Texas is a group of approximately 500 bilingual evaluation professionals who work as Speech and Language Pathologists, Educational Diagnosticians, or Licensed Specialists in School Psychology in the state of Texas.

The Network made the decision to first focus their work on the largest minority language group, Spanish speakers, but understands that other minority language groups have similar needs and the Network hopes to continue their work in other languages. It should also be noted that this document acknowledges and respects the diversity of opinions and approaches to dyslexia which coexist at the present time and that this document simply attempts to include the expertise in testing and second language learning of bilingual evaluation professionals. Due to the wide variety of dyslexic disorders, the Network decided to focus, at this time, on phonological developmental dyslexia.

The list of works and research studies read that were found to pertain to the topic at hand can be found in the bibliography at the end of this document. This document also contains an English/Spanish glossary of dyslexia terms found in Appendix A. Appendix B is a list of available tests in Spanish that may be useful in dyslexia testing.

Because of the complexities of the topic addressed here, training on dyslexia, evaluation of dyslexia, and second language learning should precede or accompany this document. Figures 3 through 8 present specific dyslexia evaluation models. These models have been adapted for use with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students who have been exposed to English and Spanish. To recognize the changes that were made and to fully understand the evaluation process, training in the original evaluation models is required. For a general foundation on the topic of dyslexia, please refer to The Dyslexia Handbook: Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders developed by the Texas Education Agency, February 2001. Additionally, the International Dyslexia Association has a vast amount of information available.

Introduction

The majority of research studies in the area of dyslexia have been with English-speaking individuals. Critical questions arise on the applicability of the results of these studies of English speakers to individuals who speak another language or are bilingual in English and another language. The Network focused on the following questions:

Is the reading process different across languages?

Does dyslexia exist in all languages or is it distinctive to those languages with poor grapheme-phoneme correspondence?

If dyslexia is universal, but the reading process is different across languages, how is dyslexia manifested differently from one orthographic system to another?

What interventions are appropriate for students who speak another language and have dyslexia? What interventions are appropriate for students who learning English as a second language and have dyslexia?

The Bilingual Special Education Evaluation Network of Texas began first by collecting, reading and assimilating information from research studies on dyslexia of Spanish monolingual speakers. Once satisfied with having a grasp of the characteristics and underlying causes of dyslexia in Spanish monolinguals, the Network directed their attention to research studies on dyslexia of bilingual (English/Spanish) individuals.

Definitions

Texas Education Code 38.003:(1) “Dyslexia” means a disorder of constitutional origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to read, write,

or spell, despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity.(2) “Related disorders” includes disorders similar to or related to dyslexia such as developmental auditory

imperception, dysphasia, specific developmental dyslexia, developmental dysgraphia, and developmental spelling disability.

International Dyslexia Association:“Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to othercognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.”(International Dyslexia Association, Adopted by the Board of Directors: November 12, 2002).

The Dyslexia Handbook Revised 2007: Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders“The primary difficulties of a student identified as having dyslexia occur in phonemic awareness and manipulation, single-word decoding, reading fluency, and spelling. Secondary consequences of dyslexia may include difficulties in reading comprehension and/or written expression. These difficulties are unexpected for the student’s age, educational level, or cognitive abilities. Additionally, there is often a family history of similar difficulties.” (Texas Education Agency, Revised 2007 p. 1.)

Related Disorders:Developmental auditory imperceptions is difficulty hearing the difference in sounds in words.Dysphasia is difficulty recalling specific words.Developmental dysgraphia is the difficulty in expressing thoughts on paper and with the act of

handwriting.Developmental spelling disability is difficulty with spelling words.

Medical research using brain imagining reveals that individuals with dyslexia have physiological differences in the brains that underlie the differences in cognitive functioning and development (Paulesu et al., 1996, Stein et al 2001). At the cognitive level, individuals with dyslexia may exhibit deficiencies in visual processing, linguistic processing, and memory.

Dyslexia and the Spanish Speaking Student

Impact of the Syllable Structure, Syllable Time, and Word Shapes of a Language

The linguistic structures of different languages vary; therefore, the sequence and development of phonological awareness across these languages will also differ. The development, and possibly the sequence, of phonological awareness will be driven by the cues of the student’s language.

Syllable Structure. The most common syllable shape in Spanish is the open vowel (Consonant-Vowel or CV) syllable (e.g. ta-za, pla-to, va, so, cu-cha-ra, cu-chi-llo). Consequently, the syllable boundaries in Spanish are generally clear. After a vowel, a new syllable begins. For example, Spanish speaking individuals know that “cuchillo” has three syllables because of the three vowels and will know that the syllables begin after the vowels, “cu-chi-llo”. The most common syllable shape in English is the closed vowel (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant or CVC) syllable. The English language, however, does not adhere to the CVC syllable shape, as much as the Spanish language adheres to the CV syllable shape, resulting in more ambiguity in English (e.g. “comfortable” is divided into “com-fort-able” and not “com-for-tab-le”). Additionally, in the CVC syllable shape, the syllable boundaries are less clear because of consonant blends. For example, is “publish” divided into “pub-lish” or “pu-blish”?

Syllable Time. In Spanish, the syllables are typically equally timed. The Spanish word, “transportación”, is divided into “trans-por-ta-ción” with each syllable pronounced with approximate equal duration of time. English is a stressed timed language. Syllables have longer or shorter duration depending if they are stressed or not. For example, the duration of the syllables in the spoken word, “transportation” vary in length. Syllable Stress. In every word in English, there is one main emphasized syllable.  The vowel sound in this syllable sounds higher in pitch, longer, and louder, and this is called stress. In English, the nouns typically have the first syllable stressed, whereas verbs have the stressed second syllable. 90% two-syllable nouns, and 60% two-syllable verbs follow this pattern (Avery and Ehrlich, 1992). Native speakers of English use word stress naturally. Word stress is so natural for them that they don't even know they use it. Non-native speakers who speak English to native speakers without using word stress, however, may encounter two problems:

(1) They find it difficult to understand native speakers, especially those speaking fast. (2) The native speakers may find it difficult to understand them. All spoken languages have syllable stress. For example, multi-syllabic content words in Finnish always

have stress on the initial syllable, while in French stress is on the final syllable. Additionally, in Dutch, most words have stress on the initial syllable, although there are a few variations (Vroomen et al. 1998).

In Spanish all multisyllabic words have one syllable marked for primary stress. Penultimate stress, that is stress on the second-to-last syllable, is predominant (in 75% to 80% of the words) (Harris, 1983; Quilis, 1984). This is also the case for trisyllabic words, for which Spanish has a stress-medial pattern (Navarro, 1966). The percentage of trisyllabic words in Spanish that stress the medial syllable is 73.52. It may be reasonably assumed that a listener’s performance in a segmentation task in their second language improves when the phonological cues in the stream match those of their native language.

Word Shapes. English has a wide variety of word shapes. There are numerous monosyllabic words in English. Many of these monosyllabic words are content words (desk, chair, room, pen). In Spanish, most words are multisyllabic. Monosyllable words are generally function words, such as prepositions (“en”), conjunctions (“y, o”), pronouns (“el”, “tu”), and articles (“el”, “la”).

Additionally, English consonant clusters are frequent and can occur in all word positions: initial, medial, and final (e.g. children, teacher, reach). In Spanish, consonant clusters are much less frequent, occurring in only 3.59% of words (Guirao & Manrique, 1972). Consonant clusters in Spanish can occur in the initial and medial position, but not in the final position of words.

Most consonants in English can close words (e.g. tab, arc, red, tuff, rag, etc.). Very few consonants (d, j, l, n, r, s, and z) can occur in final position of words in Spanish.

Impact of the Orthographic System of a Language

The representation of a language by means of a writing system is known as its orthographic system. The different languages of the world have different writing or orthographic systems. Most languages use an alphabetic script, but there are exceptions. [Chinese and Japanese, for instance, use kanji (Chinese characters) in writing.] For alphabetic-based languages, oral language is represented by minimal sound units of speech called phonemes, which in turn are represented by written symbol(s), graphemes. The regularity of the phoneme/grapheme correspondence in a particular language impacts the reading and writing process in that language.

Multilingual studies (Müller & Brady, 2001; Oney & Durgunuglu, 1997; Seymour, Aro & Erskine, 2003) in the area of learning suggest that the development of reading and writing skills is different in different orthographic systems. What's more, the varying pervasiveness of learning disabilities in different countries appears to be related to the complexity and irregularities of the orthographic system of that language. Müller & Brady (2001) and others explain that orthographic systems of alphabetic-based languages are dispersed across an “opaque-transparency” continuum according to the degree to which the orthographic system follow the alphabetic principle (Serrano & Defior, 2004).

Orthographical Continuum of Alphabetic-Based Languages Irregular Phoneme/Grapheme Correspondence Regular Phoneme/Grapheme

Correspondence

Opaque Orthographies Transparent Orthographies

Examples: Chinese Examples: English Examples: Turkish Japanese French Spanish

Figure 1. Portuguese Italian

Orthographic systems close to the transparent end of the continuum have an almost perfect one-to-one grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Turkish, Finnish, Greek, Italian, and Spanish are universally considered to be transparent orthographic systems. Writing systems close to the opaque end of the continuum are those who often have phonemes that correspond to several graphemes and graphemes that correspond to several phonemes (Seymour et al., 2003). English, French, Danish, and Portuguese fall closer to the opaque end of the continuum. It is important to note that although some languages can share many commonalities in their spoken language, such as in the example of Spanish and Portuguese, the written language or orthography for these languages can fall on opposite ends of the continuum depending on the languages’ phoneme/grapheme correspondence. In contrast, logographic systems or character languages, such as Chinese, are those where the character (the smallest written unit of the language) represent words and thus are not phonetic.

Dyslexia and other learning disabilities have been found to be more common in countries where the orthographical system is more opaque than in countries with transparent writing systems (Landerl, Wimmer, & Frith, 1997; Oney & Goldman, 1984; Spencer, 2000). Given that dyslexia is primarily manifested in difficulty memorizing the correspondence between a phoneme and its grapheme and combining multiple phoneme/grapheme units to make words, achieving reading and spelling in an opaque orthographic system presents the learner with more challenges due to its irregularities in adhering to the alphabetic system. Oney and Goldman (1984) compared first and third-grade students in American and Turkish schools. While English is an opaque language, Turkish has an almost perfect phoneme/grapheme correspondence. Turkish students were faster and more accurate at reading words than the American students. An additional interesting note of the study was that little difference was noted in reading between Turkish first-grade and Turkish third-grade students suggesting that once a student in a transparent orthography makes the phoneme/grapheme connection, reading proceeds quickly and expertise in reading is achieved earlier.

Reading. The particular characteristics of each language’s writing system can be assumed to affect the reading process in that language and the important reading indicators for that language. In English, for example, word decoding and reading comprehension are important reading indicators. In transparent orthographies, however, word decoding is much easier, thus could have a lesser influence in the reading process. Additionally, because of the stronger adherence to the alphabetic principle, the reading process of transparent languages is more accelerated than in the opaque systems. Since it is easier to obtain an expert reading level, readers learning transparent orthographies can devote more time and cognitive resources to higher level reading skills once the phoneme/grapheme connection has been made and memorized.

Research in opaque orthographies comparing children with normal reading abilities to children with dyslexia found that these two groups differ most in reading accuracy, the ability to decode words successfully; while research in transparent orthographies found that reading speed was more significant (Wimmer &

LogographicSystems

Mayringer, 2001; Holopainen, Ahoen, & Hyytinen, 2001; Müller & Brady, 2001; Treesodi et al., 2001; Jiménez & Hernández, 2001). Phonological processing, regardless of orthographic system, however, appears to be the principal and universal deficit in children and adults with dyslexia. A deficit in phonological processing that persists in older children with dyslexia from transparent writing systems is considered more severe because the difficulty continues despite the system’s greater one-to-one grapheme-phoneme correspondence (Wimmer, 1993).

Paulessu et al. (2001) investigated the manifestations of dyslexia across opaque (English and French) and transparent systems (Italian). In their study, Italian speaking children identified as dyslexic had better reading execution than American and French children with dyslexia. Irregardless of country, however, Paulessu et al. found that comparison of children with normal reading abilities to children with dyslexia revealed significant differences suggesting that dyslexia may manifest itself differently in different countries, but dyslexia exists even in those countries with transparent orthographies.

Spanish-speaking students with strong phonemic awareness are generally successful in reading and spelling. Bravo-Valdivieso (1995) followed the reading progress of low socioeconomic status urban children in Chile for four years, comparing average readers with children who had severe reading difficulties. The best predictor of reading achievement in the fourth year of the study was the student’s phonemic awareness and ability to decode words in the first year of reading instruction.

The majority of studies of monolingual Spanish speakers find that the problems of dyslexic children were more significant when analyzing the speed measurement of phonological and reading tasks, as well as text comprehension. For example, Serrano & Defior (2005) compared skills of phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking children identified with dyslexia and Spanish-speaking children with equivalent reading levels who were younger and identified as normal readers. Results showed that the children with dyslexia worked significantly slower on phonological tasks. Jiménez et al. (2005) compared the semantic processing of Spanish monolingual students in: 4th grade who had reading disabilities, 4th grade who had normal reading abilities, and 2nd grade who had an equivalent reading level as the grade 4 group with reading disabilities. The 4th grade students with reading disabilities scored lower on syntactic processing than even the 2nd grade students. The deficit was shown in gender and number agreement tasks.

In summary, dyslexia exists even in transparent languages, but is manifested slightly differently from dyslexia in opaque languages. Because of the regularity of the phoneme/grapheme correspondence in transparent languages, less students exhibit difficulty in making the connection between phonemes and graphemes. Students with phonological processing deficits, however, may still experience delayed or labored mastery of the alphabetic principle. Delayed or labored mastery of the alphabetic principle leads to reduced automaticity in reading and deficient syntactic processing, resulting in poor text comprehension. Students with phonological processing deficits that are sufficiently severe fail to master the alphabetic principle and the student displays serious deficiencies in word recognition and decoding.

Deficits in Phonological Awarenesslead to

Delayed or Impaired Phoneme/Grapheme Connectionleads to

Slower than Typical Reading Speedleads to

Lower Reading ComprehensionFigure 2.

Spelling. In general, the spelling development of Spanish monolingual speakers has been found to parallel the spelling development of English monolingual speakers with some minor exceptions (Freeman &

Freeman, 1997). Research has found that the early spellings of monolingual Spanish writers exhibit initial mastery of vowels, while monolingual English writers show more initial focus on consonants. This slight difference is easily explained when the process of teaching writing is examined for these two languages. In Spanish, vowels are usually introduced first since each vowel has only one phoneme, while in English the consonants are taught first since the vowels are highly irregular. Another difference between English and Spanish spelling involves the level of difficulty in memorization and reproduction of symbolic material when it is presented at speed. Achieving correct spelling in an opaque language presents students with exceptional difficulty. In transparent, phonetically regular languages, memorization of letter-sound correspondences may take a little longer for the dyslexic student and precise retrieval of graphemes may cause difficulty, but overall students in transparent languages face fewer challenges. Some spelling deficiencies in dyslexic students in transparent orthographies include more difficulty in the early spelling stages (initial learning of letter-sound correspondence), spelling non-words versus real words (reliance of phoneme-grapheme conversion), and with complex writing conventions.

In summary, dyslexic children in all languages appear to have phonological deficits. Their problems in acquiring literacy seem to occur because the phonological foundation, upon which reading and spelling is built, is deficient. Writing difficulties are more apparent in the early spelling stages when most students with dyslexia experience delayed mastery of the alphabetic principle and in the later stages of spelling when having to memorize writing conventions such as diacritical marks.

Teaching Literacy in Spanish. Another important consideration in dyslexia is the differences between countries in the teaching of reading and writing. In countries with transparent languages, the predominant and commonsensical method of teaching reading is phonetic. A sight word method, for languages such as Turkish and Spanish, would be irrelevant. In the early stages of reading, children are immediately taught the grapheme that matches the phoneme. Often, children are not taught the letter name of the grapheme, only its phoneme, because many letter names are combinations of several phonemes, ruining the advantage of the transparency of the language. For example, in Spanish, the letter name for the grapheme “f” is “efe”, while its phoneme is /f/. Teachers may delay or even delete the teaching of the letter name.

In teaching Spanish reading, the first phoneme/grapheme correspondences taught are the five vowels because each of these vowels has only one phoneme and they rarely vary. Because Spanish vowels are very consistent, Spanish speakers have been found to correctly identify them with 97% accuracy in isolation and 99% accuracy in context (Manrique, 1979). In contrast, English speakers correctly identify vowels with 58% accuracy in isolation and 83% accuracy in context. Because of the strong phoneme/grapheme connection of vowels, Spanish speakers rarely omit vowels when writing. For English speakers, vowels cause special difficulty in the writing.

After vowels, students are taught two or three consonants (their phoneme & grapheme) at a time. Spanish and English share the majority of consonants. Once a student has been taught the vowels and a few consonants, the student is instructed to combine these phonemes to make syllables. The syllables are immediately combined to make words. These words are combined to make sentences. A few more consonants are introduced, and the process continues. The student begins to read even before all consonants have been taught. For example, the students are taught the five vowel sounds (a, e, i, o, and u) and the consonant “m”. The teacher has the students combine them to make syllables like “ma”, “me”, “mi”, “mo”, and “mu”, then introduces another consonant such as “s” and its resulting syllables, “sa”, “se”, “si”, “so”, and “su”. The syllables are then combined to make words, such as “masa” (dough or to knead), “mesa” (table), “suma” (add), “museo” (museum), etc. The students then read simple sentences like “Mamá masa.”

The syllable is an important unit in Spanish reading and decoding. Recognition and spelling of syllable units, as opposed to single phonemes (Freeman & Freeman, 1998), is a more common method of attacking unknown reading or spelling words. Student’s who are unable to attack syllables, however, are instructed on the phoneme level, but immediately taken to the syllable level, not the word level. For example, most students seeing the word “gato” for the first time, would sound it out as “ga-to” dividing the word into its syllable components because this is the way they were taught. For a student who is having trouble reading the word, the teacher might teach the student to sound out the phonemes that make up each of the syllables and then combine the syllables to make the word (/g/ + /a/ is “ga” and /t/ + /o/ is “to” and “ga-to” makes “gato”)

Another difference between the English and Spanish reading process is the relevance of rhyming in reading. Rhyming serves an important role in phonological awareness in both languages, but rhyme is also important in the English reading process because it is used in word families. The Spanish reading process does not use word families.

Within a few months of the introduction to reading, students can read fairly sophisticated material and the reading process begins focusing on the study of word formation and the components of words (morphology). Teaching of writing in Spanish, more times than not, is complementary, simultaneous, and interactive with the teaching of reading.

Some Basic Differences about the Spanish Reading Process

1. Phonetic approach to reading is utilized almost exclusively in Spanish.2. Five vowel phonemes and graphemes are taught first.3. Consonant phonemes and graphemes are taught a few at a time.

Consonant phonemes and graphemes do not have to be all taught before beginning reading words and full sentences occurs.

4. The letter names are not necessary for reading Spanish.5. Emphasis in Spanish is given to the syllable, not the individual phoneme.6. Rhyming is not an important component to reading since word families

are not part of the reading process in Spanish.7.

Figure 3.

Dyslexia and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

Much diversity exists among students often referred to as bilinguals. Students can vary greatly in their level of knowledge of their two languages. For the purpose of addressing the characteristics, assessment, and instructional needs of such a wide variety of students, this document has made five language distinctions based on oral language (receptive and expressive) abilities in the two target languages. These five language distinctions refer to the relationship between the two languages of the individual, but not the level of competency in the two languages. The five language categories are:

Spanish monolingual or Predominantly Spanish Bilingual, Spanish dominant Balanced bilingual Bilingual, English dominant English monolingual or Predominantly English

The Spanish monolingual or predominantly Spanish speaking student understands and speaks little or no English. Any exposure to English has been very limited. The next three language distinctions are of bilinguals. The bilingual, Spanish dominant learner is stronger in the Spanish language, but also understands and speaks some English. The balanced bilingual learner has roughly equal levels of proficiency in English and Spanish oral language. These balanced levels of proficiency can vary in range from low proficiency in both languages to above average proficiency in both languages. The bilingual, English dominant student is stronger in the English language, but also understands and speaks some Spanish. The last language distinction, like the first, is predominantly monolingual. This student may be characterized as monolingual in English or predominantly English speaking, understanding and speaking little or no Spanish. This student is still characterized as culturally diverse and may have had more exposure to linguistic diversity than a typical monolingual, even though the student does not speak another language.

Evaluation Process

Because of differences between writing systems, the measurement models used to identify dyslexia should not merely be adapted by changing the language of the measurement tools. For example, testing Spanish dyslexia, instead of English dyslexia, can not be appropriately accomplished by simply administering the same kinds of tests in Spanish as would be given in English. The profiles often used in identifying the characteristics of dyslexia may also need to be altered because these characteristics may have changed. There are several general principles in interpreting test results of culturally and linguistically diverse students.

1. The examiner looks at within language differences across different abilities to help determine if the student’s evaluation profile implies dyslexia or a language difference issue. For example, the examiner would compare Listening Comprehension, Reading Comprehension, Phonological Processing, etc. within the same language, not across different languages.

2. The examiner may want to compare the student’s functioning in both English and Spanish in a particular skill area. For example, by comparing English and Spanish oral language functioning, the examiner will have a good picture of the student’s proficiency levels in each of the languages and the examiner can compare these proficiency levels to determine dominance. Testing of phonological skills in the student’s two languages may also provide the examiner valuable information about the student’s abilities and of dyslexia.

3. The examiner takes into account if there has been a disparity between the student’s preferred or dominant language and the language of reading and writing instruction. Many students are being taught to read and write in their weak language or in a language they simply do not speak. Because of this disparity between the student’s stronger oral language skills and language of instruction, testing for dyslexia requires thoughtful selection of the language of the tests to be administered and careful interpretation of test results.

4. When a bilingual student has dyslexia, the characteristics of dyslexia must be manifested in both languages. A student with dyslexic-looking characteristics in one language, but not in the other; should not be considered as having dyslexia. However, because of the transparency of Spanish, it is possible that a Spanish native speaker with dyslexia can develop the necessary strategies over time to prevail over the characteristics of dyslexia in order to achieve age-appropriate Spanish reading and writing skills. This same student, however, may not be able to surmount those same obstacles in English when faced with the numerous irregularities of reading and writing in English. The student, can be said to, exhibit characteristics of dyslexia in both languages.

It is crucial that the identification process includes a wide-range of information and is not based solely on test results. Information from the parent, student, and teacher will need to be gathered, as well as the educational history of the student. Additionally, previous test results, if available, can provide a backdrop to the interpretation of current test results.

Spanish Monolingual or Predominantly Spanish Speaking Students

For children who speak Spanish and receive academic instruction in that language, but are demonstrating reading and writing difficulties, the evaluation can proceed in Spanish with just a few alterations in the typical profiles expected for students with dyslexia. One such alteration may be the need for more testing than would typically be conducted in the area of oral language functioning, in order to clarify and document proficiency levels in Spanish. Because of a myriad of possible educational history and linguistic environmental issues that often impact a CLD student’s life, a more comprehensive oral language assessment is considered prudent, yielding results that can be interpreted with more confidence and accuracy.

Valeria, a young girl from Chile, moved to the United States a year ago at the age of seven and was placed in a second grade bilingual education program. She has been receiving 90% Spanish language academic instruction and 10% English as a second language (ESL) instruction. One year later, at the age of eight and in the third grade, Valeria was tested because of reading difficulties. Comprehensive oral language testing suggested performance

one year below the student’s chronological age. Analysis of her performance on the oral language tests revealed that her listening comprehension skills appeared average, but her expressive language skills were below average. Spanish testing of reading comprehension, reading speed, and spelling yielded a level of performance commensurate with her assessed oral language. Additionally, Spanish testing of auditory processing and phonological awareness, as well as rapid automatized naming, did not indicate any particular difficulty. Further inquiry into Valeria’s school history revealed that the child had missed a significant amount of schooling (4 or 5 months) during first grade due to the move from Chile to the United States. The school district interpreted the test results taking into account the lack of educational opportunity during first grade and carefully considering Valeria’s solid performance on auditory processing, phonological tasks, and rapid automatized naming. The school team concluded that dyslexia was not indicated in Valeria’s case.

Another alteration in the evaluation process regards the Spanish reading process. The reading markers of decoding and word recognition receive less power in recognizing dyslexia in Spanish, while phonological processing, reading speed, and rapid automatized naming continue to serve as guideposts in distinguishing the characteristics of dyslexia.

Test results of Spanish speaking students in English-only academic instructional programming require special care in interpretation. The disparity between preferred or dominant language and the language of instruction can cause an assessment profile to look indicative of dyslexia, however, this profile may easily be a result of the academic situation.

Andres, a pre-dominantly Spanish speaking student receiving English-only reading and writing instruction, exhibited average Spanish oral language skills, but very poor Spanish reading and writing abilities. Although Andres speaks Spanish, he has not received any formal academic instruction in Spanish reading and writing. This discrepancy between oral language and literacy skills appears to be the result of the disparity in Andres’ academic situation, not of dyslexia. In English, Andres scored extremely low on oral language tasks, most likely due to not yet having had the time to acquire the English language, and he scored slightly better on reading and writing tasks. Although not yet fluent in English, Andres is being taught to read and write in English. At this point in his education, his reading and writing skills in English appear better developed than his oral language skills in English.

Unfortunately, students that have genuine characteristics of dyslexia, but also have a disparity between preferred/dominant language and the language of academic instruction, can be easily missed and not given appropriate services. Careful and detailed testing of rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness and phonological processing in Spanish, accompanied by in-depth teacher and parent interviews may be the only methods of identification.

A 2nd grade teacher, of a predominantly Spanish speaking student who had been instructed in an English-only academic environment since kindergarten, expressed concern about the student’s severe difficulties in learning the English language, and in learning to read and write. The student’s performance on the English testing in oral language, reading, and writing reflected the teacher’s observation. English oral language skills were so limited, that the examiner decided not to test English phonological awareness and processing or rapid automatized naming. Instead the examiner began to investigate the student’s Spanish abilities. The student’s performance on the Spanish testing revealed below average to poor Spanish oral language skills, poor phonological awareness and phonological processing, and poor rapid automatized naming. Spanish reading and writing were not tested because the student had had no academic instruction in Spanish and the student’s parents confirmed that their son could not read and write in his native language. To tease out the possibility that the low functioning in both the native language and English was due to overall low general intellectual ability, the examiner administered a comprehensive cognitive assessment in Spanish. The student scored in the average range of intelligence. An in-depth parent interview was conducted. The parent report indicated a family history of academic problems. The school team concluded that dyslexia was indicated in this student’s case. Phonological training in his native language was recommended. The student was moved into a bilingual education classroom and taught reading and writing in Spanish.

Bilingual (English/Spanish Speaking) Students

Children with bilingual backgrounds in English and Spanish can also pose a complex and challenging situation. A wide variety of interactions between these two languages results in different kinds of bilingualism, sometimes made further complicated by a disparity between preferred or dominant language and the language of academic instruction. Comprehensive oral language testing will most likely need to be conducted in both English and Spanish, in order to get a clear understanding of the student’s proficiency levels in the two languages and to determine language dominance. In addition, testing in the phonological areas and in rapid automatized naming is also recommended to be assessed in both languages of the student. In some cases, testing in both languages may seem excessive, but a judicious approach is recommended due to the complexities of the student’s situation. Literacy testing in reading and spelling should be in the language(s) of instruction. Students, who have received both English and Spanish academic instruction, should be tested in both languages.

Jose Miguel is in a 3rd grade bilingual education classroom. He has been referred for dyslexia testing. The examiner administers English and Spanish oral language tests. Phonological testing is also conducted in both languages. English and Spanish reading and writing tests are administered because Jose Miguel has received academic instruction in both languages.

María Teresa went to school in Mexico for kindergarten and first grade. She and her family moved to the United States two years ago. María Teresa was placed in an all-English 2nd grade with ESL pull-out services 45 minutes daily. This school year, she is repeating 2nd grade in an English-only academic environment with ESL for 45 minutes daily. The examiner administered English and Spanish oral language and phonological testing. Reading and writing testing in both languages was conducted. An intelligence test was additionally administered in María Teresa’s dominant language, Spanish.

English Monolingual or Predominantly English Speaking CLD Students

For CLD children who speak English and receive English academic instruction, testing is very straightforward. Testing is conducted in English only and the same evaluation profiles of dyslexia used for English monolingual students apply. The only possible difference in testing may be more in-depth testing of oral language skills than may be typically done, to clearly document the student’s proficiency levels in English.

Sarah is an English speaking student of Hispanic heritage, who is having difficulty in school. Both of her parents speak fluent English and Spanish, but Sarah is reported to speak English only. The teacher notes that Sarah struggles with word attack skills, sight word recognition, and reading comprehension and that her spelling skills are poor. The examiner administers a comprehensive English oral language exam that includes listening comprehension and oral expression. The examiner then administers the standard dyslexia battery of tests in English that is typically used in the district.

Testing Using the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Characteristics of Dyslexia Profiles

Using the research information gathered thus far, three dyslexia evaluation profiles using the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Model are proposed. See Figures 3, 4, and 5. The first profile is intended for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students who are essentially English monolingual, although they may have had some exposure to the Spanish language. The second profile is suggested for CLD students who are essentially Spanish monolingual, who up to this point, have had minor exposure to English. The third dyslexia evaluation profile is for CLD students whose oral language skills fall into one of the three categories of bilingualism: (1) bilingual, Spanish dominant, (2) balanced bilingual, and (3) bilingual, English dominant.

The first evaluation step in all three profiles is oral language testing. For students who are, for the most part, monolingual; oral language testing is conducted in that language that they speak. Oral language proficiency, however, still requires more investigation than typically is done for a student who is not culturally and linguistically diverse. For CLD students who are bilingual, oral language proficiency in the two or more languages is assessed and dominance is determined. A thorough understanding of the student’s proficiency in his or her languages is needed to properly interpret performance in reading and writing. Additionally, if an

IQ/cognitive test is to be administered, it is imperative that language dominance is established in order to administer the IQ/cognitive test in the student’s stronger language.

Phonological testing proceeds similarly as oral language testing. For CLD students who are predominantly monolingual, phonological processing need only be tested in their overriding language. For CLD students who are bilingual, phonological testing is suggested in both languages, even though this may, at times, be excessive. Because of the complexities and varieties of bilingualism, a conservative and cautious approach is suggested in the evaluation of such a critical and decisive skill area. Therefore, testing phonological processing in the student’s both languages is recommended.

Evaluation of reading and writing skills is conducted in the language(s) of academic instruction. For example, a student’s reading and writing skills, regardless of oral language status or dominance, receiving English only academic instruction is tested in English. When disparity exists between the student’s dominant language and the language of instruction, reading and writing test results are interpreted in light of (1) the disparity between language dominance and language of instruction, (2) oral language proficiency level in the language of instruction, (3) the amount and quality of academic exposure, as well as (4) factors such as general intelligence, motivation, ability, etc. that influence rate of learning. For students who have received English and Spanish academic instruction, reading and writing are tested in both languages. Interpretation of the reading and writing test results must take into consideration the student’s oral language proficiency in each of the languages, amount and quality of academic exposure in each of the languages and other factors that influence learning as mentioned previously.

Name of student: ________________________ Grade:_____ Date:__________Tester:______________

Characteristics of Dyslexia in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students Who are Monolingual English Speaking or Predominantly English Speaking

Student’s native language: ENGLISH. In what grades has the student received English academic instruction, if any: _____________In what grades has the student received Spanish academic instruction, if any: ____________ Current language of instruction: _______

Percentile Rank Standard Score 50 75 85 100 115 130

Below Average Average Above AverageBelow 90 90 - 109 110+

ENGLISH ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY (Test English oral language skills. Use this information to help interpret other test scores.) Listening Comprehension: Age Equiv._____Oral Expression: Age Equiv.____

UNDERLYING CAUSE:PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING (Investigate phonological processing in English.)PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS Phonological Memory Rapid NamingLetter Knowledge

DYSLEXIC CHARACTERISTICS (Test in language(s) of instruction. Interpret results based on amount & quality of exposure. Indicate language(s) of scores using E for English and S for Spanish.)DECODING E: S: E: S: E: S: WORD RECOGNITION E: S: E: S: E: S: ORAL READING FLUENCY: ACCURACY E: S: E: S: E: S: ORAL READING FLUENCY: RATE E: S: E: S: E: S: SPELLING E: S: E: S: E: S:

OUTCOMES: Variable Impact (Test in language(s) of instruction. Interpret results based on amount & quality of exposure. Indicate language(s) of scores using E for English and S for Spanish.)READING COMPREHENSION E: S: E: S: E: S: Written Expression E: S: E: S: E: S:

IQ/COGNITIVE ABILITY in English

CO-EXISTING COMPLICATIONS OR ASSETS (Indicate language when appropriate.) COMPLICATION ASSETAttentionMathematicsHandwritingBehavior/Emotions

Figure 3. Adapted from the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Characteristics of Dyslexia Profile by Texas Sp. Ed. Eval. Network of TX.

25 751 99

Name of student:_______________________ Grade:_____ Date:__________ Tester:______________

Characteristics of Dyslexia in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students Who are Monolingual Spanish Speaking or Predominantly Spanish Speaking

Student’s native language: SPANISH In what grades has the student received Spanish academic instruction, if any: ______________In what grades has the student received English academic instruction, if any: ____________ Current language of instruction: _______

Percentile Rank Standard Score 50 75 85 100 115 130

Below Average Average Above AverageBelow 90 90 - 109 110+

SPANISH ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY (Test Spanish oral language skills. Use this information to help interpret other test scores.) Listening Comprehension: Age Equiv._____Oral Expression: Age Equiv.____

UNDERLYING CAUSE: PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING (Investigate phonological processing in Spanish)

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS Phonological Memory Rapid NamingLetter Knowledge ** In Spanish reading, the names of the letters of the alphabet may not be taught in early reading because names of letter consonants contain vowel sounds; spoiling the advantage of the almost perfect grapheme-phoneme correspondence in Spanish..

DYSLEXIC CHARACTERISTICS (Test in language(s) of instruction. Interpret results based on amount & quality of exposure. Indicate language(s) of scores using E for English and S for Spanish.)DECODING E: S: E: S: E: S: WORD RECOGNITION E: S: E: S: E: S: ORAL READING FLUENCY: ACCURACY E: S: E: S: E: S: ORAL READING FLUENCY: RATE E: S: E: S: E: S: SPELLING E: S: E: S: E: S: Note: While decoding, word recognition, accuracy, and spelling are important dyslexia indicators in the English orthography, in more transparent orthographies, such as Spanish, it has less influence. Poor reading rate and reading comprehension appear to be more decisive characteristics in the identification process of dyslexia in a phonetic language such as Spanish.

OUTCOMES: Variable Impact (Test in language(s) of instruction. Interpret results based on amount & quality of exposure. Indicate language(s) of scores using E for English and S for Spanish.)READING COMPREHENSION E: S: E: S: E: S: Written Expression E: S: E: S: E: S:

IQ/COGNITIVE ABILITY in Spanish

CO-EXISTING COMPLICATIONS OR ASSETS (Indicate language when appropriate.) COMPLICATION ASSETAttentionMathematicsHandwritingBehavior/Emotions

25 751 99

Figure 3. Adapted from the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Characteristics of Dyslexia Profile by Texas Sp. Ed. Eval. Network of TX.Name of student: ________________________ Grade:_____ Date:__________ Tester:_____________

Characteristics of Dyslexia in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) StudentsWho are Bilingual (English/Spanish-Speaking)

Student’s native language: _____________ In what grades has the student received Spanish academic instruction, if any: __________ In what grades has the student received English academic instruction, if any: ____________Current language of instruction: ________

Percentile Rank Standard Score 50 75 85 100 115 130

Below Average Average Above AverageBelow 90 90 – 109 110+

ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY & DOMINANCE (Test in both languages of the student. Use this information to understand other test scores. Indicate language(s) of scores using E for English and S for Spanish.) Listening Comprehension: Age Equiv.: E___S___ E: S: E: S: E: S: Oral Expression: Age Equiv.: E___S___ E: S: E: S: E: S:

UNDERLYING CAUSE: PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING (Test in both languages of the student. A “true” deficit should be demonstrated in both languages. Indicate language(s) of scores)PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS E: S: E: S: E: S: Phonological Memory E: S: E: S: E: S: Rapid Naming E: S: E: S: E: S: Letter Knowledge * E: S: E: S: E: S: * In the Spanish reading process, the names of the letters of the alphabet are usually not taught in early reading because the names of consonants contain vowel sounds spoiling the advantage of an almost perfect grapheme-phoneme correspondence.

DYSLEXIC CHARACTERISTICS (Test in language(s) of instruction. Interpret results based on amount & quality of exposure to the language, both oral and written. Indicate language(s) of scores.)DECODING E: S: E: S: E: S: WORD RECOGNITION E: S: E: S: E: S: ORAL READING FLUENCY: ACCURACY E: S: E: S: E: S: ORAL READING FLUENCY: RATE E: S: E: S: E: S: SPELLING E: S: E: S: E: S: Note: While decoding, word recognition, accuracy, and spelling are important dyslexia indicators in the English orthography, in more transparent orthographies, such as Spanish, it has less influence. Poor reading rate and reading comprehension appear to be more decisive characteristics in the identification process of dyslexia in a language as phonetic as Spanish.

OUTCOMES: Variable Impact (Test in language(s) of instruction. Interpret results based on amount & quality of exposure to the language, both oral and written. Indicate language(s) of scores.)READING COMPREHENSION E: S: E: S: E: S: Written Expression E: S: E: S: E: S:

IQ/COGNITIVE ABILITY dominant lang. E: S: E: S: E: S:

CO-EXISTING COMPLICATIONS OR ASSETS (Indicate language when appropriate) COMPLICATION ASSETAttention E: S: E: S: E: S: Mathematics E: S: E: S: E: S: Handwriting E: S: E: S: E: S:

1 25 75 99

Behavior/Emotions E: S: E: S: E: S:

Figure 5. Adapted from the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Characteristics of Dyslexia Profile by Texas Sp. Ed. Eval. Network of TX.

Testing Using the Stair Step Model

Another dyslexia evaluation model used is the Stair step Model. Figure 6 represents the adapted dyslexia evaluation model for CLD students who are English monolingual or predominantly English speaking. The dyslexia evaluation model in Figure 7 has been adapted for CLD students who are Spanish monolingual or predominantly Spanish speaking. Figure 8 presents the adapted model for students who are bilingual.

Stair Step Evaluation Model of DyslexiaFor CLD Students who are English Monolingual or Predominantly English Speaking

For English monolingual or predominantly English speaking students, minimal adaptation is usually required. The only alteration in the evaluation model above is the addition of expressive language testing in English. Expressive language testing, along with the listening comprehension testing, which is already in the model, yields a more comprehensive evaluation of oral language. Although the model above is intended for English monolingual or predominantly English speaking student, the student is still characterized as culturally diverse and may have experienced some linguistic diversity in their language environment. It is for this reason that a comprehensive oral language evaluation is recommended.

Stair Step Evaluation Model of DyslexiaFor CLD Students who are Spanish Monolingual or Predominantly Spanish Speaking

Phonological Awareness in EnglishPhonological Memory in EnglishRapid Naming in English

IQ in English

Listening Comprehension in English

Expressive Languagein English

Reading Comprehensionin language(s) of instruction

Word Identification in language(s) of instruction

Nonsense Words in language(s) of instruction

Reading Fluency in language(s) of instruction

Spelling in language(s) of instruction

Figure 6.

Phonological Awareness in Spanish Phonological Memory in SpanishRapid Naming in Spanish

Listening Comprehensionin Spanish

Reading Comprehensionin language(s) of instruction

Expressive Languagein Spanish

Word Identification in language(s) of instruction

Nonsense Words in language(s) of instruction

Reading Fluency in language(s) of instruction

IQ in Spanish

Spelling in language(s) of instruction

Figure 7.

Based on what is known about dyslexia in Spanish monolinguals, certain adaptations were made to the Stair Step Model. One alteration to the model is represented by the dotted lines, indicating that it is possible for Spanish speakers with dyslexia to perform better than English speakers with dyslexia in the areas of word identification, reading of nonsense words, and reading fluency. Another change involves moving spelling up in the model, representing that spelling is an easier skill to master in Spanish because of the close phoneme/grapheme correspondence of the language.

Stair Step Evaluation Model of DyslexiaFor CLD Students who are Bilingual (English/Spanish Speaking)

For bilingual (English/Spanish speaking) students, comprehensive oral language testing is recommended in both languages. This model shows expressive language and listening comprehension is assessed in English and Spanish. Additionally, this model has the upward extension (represented by the dotted lines) for word identification, reading of nonsense words, and reading fluency; keeping in mind that the extension is intended to represent skills in Spanish may be better developed, not these skills in English. Difficulties in English spelling continue to be symptomatic of dyslexia.

Interpretation Issues

To appropriately interpret test results, the examiner must take into account the student’s educational history, linguistic background, affective factors, socioeconomic issues, and anything else that can impact learning. This preliminary document cannot begin to address all the factors. Below, however, is a brief examination of alternative language programming and how the programming impacts the academic achievement of CLD students who are English language learners (ELLs).

Effects of Different Alternative Language Programming on the Academic Performance of English Language Learners

English language learners (ELLs) in the United States are currently served in different alternative language programs ranging from ESL pull-out to Dual Language/Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs. Research has demonstrated that the effects on student performance of these widely varying programs differ greatly. Table 1 presents the different alternative language programs currently in use and provides a basic description of each. These programs are often referred to by several different names. For example, the Developmental Bilingual Education program is also known as the Maintenance program and the Late-Exit

Phonological Awareness in Eng.. & Span..Phonological Memory in Eng.. & Span..Rapid Naming in Eng. & Span.

Listening Comprehensionin Eng. & Span

Reading Comprehension in language(s) of instruction

Word Identification in language(s) of instruction

Nonsense Words in language(s) of instruction

Reading Fluency in language(s) of instruction

ExpressiveLanguage in Eng & Span.

Figure 8.

IQ in dominant language

Spelling in language(s) of instruction

program. Implementation can vary considerably among school districts and even within a school district. Slight variations to these programs are also often seen.

Table 1Alternative Language Programs

Program TypeLanguage

of Instruction

Instructional Method Service Delivered

ESL

Pull-out/Traditional ESL

English-only

Teachers use specific strategies to support English language

learning. Teachers are trained in the second language learning process and ESL strategies

Students are “pulled-out” for a specific amount of

time, such as 1 hour a time by ESL teacher

Content ESL English-only

Content teachers (English, Science, Math, History, etc.) use

specific strategies to support English language learning. Teachers are trained in the

second language learning process and ESL strategies

Students receive more services in Content ESL

than in Pull-Out ESL. Time may range from a few hours

a day to all day.

Bilingual Education

Transitional/Early-Exit Bilingual

EducationEnglish and

Spanish

Bilingual teachers use the student’s native language as a

vehicle to teach English. Native language is maintained and

supported only until English is developed. Content is taught in the native language so students

will not fall behind while learning English.

Students receive native language support during the

early elementary grades, usually kindergarten

through 3rd grade.

Developmental/Late-Exit Bilingual

Education

English and Spanish

Focus of this program is bilingualism, fluency and literacy in English and Spanish. Bilingual

teachers maintain and develop student’s Spanish language and literacy skills, while developing

student’s English proficiency and literacy skills.

Students receive native language and English

instruction throughout elementary grades and

sometimes into middle/junior high grades.

Dual Language/Two Way Bilingual

Immersion

50/50 English and Spanish

Half of the students in the classroom are Spanish speakers

learning English as a second language; the other half are

English native speakers learning Spanish as a foreign language. Teachers maintain and develop the student’s native language,

while developing student’s proficiency and literacy in the

“other” language.

Students receive English and Spanish instruction

throughout elementary grades and sometimes into middle/junior high grades. In the first few years of the

program 50% of instruction is in English and 50% is in

Spanish.

90/10 English and Spanish

Half of students in the classroom are Spanish speakers learning

English as a second language; the other half are English native

speakers learning Spanish as a foreign language. Teachers

maintain & develop student’s native language, while developing student’s proficiency and literacy

in the “other” language.

Students receive English and Spanish instruction

throughout elementary grades and sometimes into middle/junior high grades.

In the first two or three years of the program 90% of instruction is in Spanish and

10% is in English, slowly increasing English to 100%.

Research on the effectiveness of these programs on the academic achievement of students who are ELLs indicates that native language instruction supports English language and literacy learning (Thomas & Collier, 2001; August et. al, 2005; Carlo et. al, 2004; Jiménez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995). Programs with strong native language components appear to be the only programs found to date that assist language minority students to fully reach the 50th percentile in both the first and second language in all subjects and to maintain that level through the end of schooling. The fewest number of dropouts come from these programs (Thomas & Collier, 2001).

Figure 9 presents the English achievement results of a longitudinal research study conducted by Thomas and Collier in 2001. The research focused on analyzing the long-term effectiveness of a variety of educational services provided to ELLs in the United States. Five school districts throughout the United States participated in the study. The total number of student records collected was 210,054. Each student record represented all school data for one student during one school year. Over 80 primary languages were represented in the study, but Spanish was the largest language group. As clearly illustrated in the graph below, students in educational programs with strong and maintained native language instruction had the highest English academic achievement.

The academic achievement of English language learners who were immersed in the English mainstream and did not receive any bilingual/ESL services was also studied. Moderately fair initial progress in English language and literacy development was demonstrated for the first couple of years, but the students seemed to hit a ceiling quickly and began to show large decreases in reading and math achievement by 5th grade. The largest number of dropouts came from this group. Those remaining finished 11th grade at the 12th percentile (Thomas & Collier, 2001).

Thomas & Collier, 2001

Instructional Implications

Cross-Transfer of Phonological Skills and Reading

Numerous studies have found that phonological skills transfer from the native language to the second language (August, et. al. 2005; August, et. al. 2002; Bialystok, 2005; Chiang, 2003; Cisero & Royer, 1995; Comeau et. al., 1999, Durgunoglu, not dated). Add to that, that phonological training has been found to positively impact reading and writing performance. Consequently, phonological training in the student’s native language has been found to not only benefit the student in reading and writing in his/her native language, but also in English reading and writing. Furthermore, research has found that reading skills taught in the native language transfer to the second language when the two languages are alphabetic-based (August, et. al. 2005; Durgunogul, not dated). The bottom line seems to be that phonological training in the native language will help the student, regardless of language, in reading and writing.

The research suggests several tenets that have instructional implications. As has been demonstrated in English, basic phonological awareness in Spanish is necessary

for the development of early reading in Spanish. Research has shown that for Spanish speaking students and adults, level of phonological awareness is a good predictor of success in learning to read. Lewkowicz (1980) observed that phoneme segmentation and blending appear to be closely related to reading. Adrian, Alegria, and Morais (1995) found that Spanish-speaking illiterate adults had significant difficulties with tasks requiring conscious manipulation of individual phonemes within words (phoneme deletion and reversals), as well as manipulation of syllables (syllable deletion and reversals).

There is evidence that simple phonological awareness tasks such as rhyme detection and distinguishing similar sounding words or syllables develop very early; prior to reading. In a study conducted in Spain, Carrillo (1994) investigated which phonological awareness skills develop before reading instruction has begun. In this study, pre-readers were able to recognize words that end the in same way and words that begin in the same way.

There is evidence that complex forms of phonological awareness are developed after reading instruction has begun and that reading actually helps the development of these more complex forms of phonological awareness. Carrillo (1994) studied which phonological awareness skills are developed after reading instruction has begun. Carrillo concluded that phoneme segmentation separated pre-readers from students who were already readers. Phoneme segmentation also separated good readers from average and poor readers.

Phonological awareness in the native language transfers to the second language. Cisero and Royer (1995) concluded that phonological awareness transfers from a familiar language to an unfamiliar language, thus implying that phonological awareness is a kind of “abstract cognitive ability” that facilitates language processing across a variety of languages. Once a student is able to reflect on the components of a language, it is likely that this awareness could be applied to a second language as well. August, Calderón, Carlo (2002) found that in 155 Spanish-English bilingual students, the effects of Spanish phonemic awareness on English phonemic awareness emerged for all students.

Phonological training in Spanish makes it easier for children to learn to read and spell in English. Research in cross-language transfer of skills (Cisero &Royer, 1995; Durgunoglu et. al, 1993; Dickinson et. al., 2004) indicates that phonological training in the native language benefits reading and spelling in the non-native language.

Reading instruction in Spanish promotes reading in English. Increasingly more studies in the area of cross-language transfer of reading skills are being conducted. For example, Royer and Carlo (1991) examined the transfer of reading comprehension skills from Spanish to English. Results indicated that students’ English reading performance at the end of sixth grade was highly correlated with their reading in Spanish a year earlier. Bialystok, Luk, and Kwan (2005) studied the interactions among languages and writing systems. They found that bilinguals learning two

alphabetic systems, such as English and Spanish, transferred literacy skills across languages. August, Calderón, and Carlo (2002) found strong evidence for cross-language transfer of reading skills from Spanish to English for students receiving formal Spanish reading instruction.

The research appears to strongly suggest that once developed, the cognitive capabilities underlying language skills, such as reading and writing, can be applied to another language. Children can transfer a variety of component skills from their first to their second language, including phonological awareness, word reading, word knowledge, and comprehension strategies. As a result, native-language instruction and interventions for English-language learners in phonological awareness, reading, and writing is recommended.

Equal and Meaningful Access to Dyslexia Programs for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

Federal law requires that CLD students not be prohibited access to any service, program, activity, or opportunity that other students enjoy. This is a basic civil right for every individual in the United States, whether they speak another language or have a disability. Additionally, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lau vs. Nichols, and Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 prohibit denial of “equal access” (emphasis added). School districts receiving federal financial assistance are required to take the necessary steps to ensure that the student has “meaningful access” to the program. Thus, a dyslexia program must (1) be available for all students, including ELLs, and (2) be meaningfully accessible to ELLs.

Title VI – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin. “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974Title 20, Chapter 39, Subchapter I, Part 2, Section 1703

Denial of equal educational opportunity prohibitedNo State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or

national origin, by -(a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin

among or within schools;(b) the failure of an educational agency which has formerly practiced such deliberate segregation to take

affirmative steps, consistent with part 4 of this subchapter, to remove the vestiges of a dual school system;(c) the assignment by an educational agency of a student to a school, other than the one closest to his or her

place of residence within the school district in which he or she resides, if the assignment results in a greater degree of segregation of students on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin among the schools of such agency than would result if such student were assigned to the school closest to his or her place of residence within the school district of such agency providing the appropriate grade level and type of education for such student;

(d) discrimination by an educational agency on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the employment, employment conditions, or assignment to schools of its faculty or staff, except to fulfill the purposes of subsection (f) below;

(e) the transfer by an educational agency, whether voluntary or otherwise, of a student from one school to another if the purpose and effect of such transfer is to increase segregation of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among the schools of such agency; or

(f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.

Lau v. Nichols, 1968“Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.”…”Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.”

Executive Order 13166, August 11, 2000“The Federal Government provides and funds an array of services that can be made accessible to otherwise eligible persons who are not proficient in the English language.” … “recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons.”

Office of Civil RightsGuidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI

Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons“Recipients (of Federal financial assistance) are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons.” [Parenthetical information added]

References

Adrian, J.A., Alegria, J., & Morais, J. (1995). Metaphonological abilities of Spanish illiterate adults. International Journal of Psychology, 30(3), 329-353.

August, D., Calderon, M., & Carlo M. (2002). The transfer of skills from Spanish to English: a study of young learners. NABE News, 1-26.

August, D., Carlo, M., Calderón, M., & Proctor, P. (2005). Development of Literacy in Spanish-Speaking English-Language Learners: Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Elementary School Children. The International Dyslexia Association Quarterly Newsletter, 31(2), 17-19. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 43-61.

Bravo-Valdivieso, L. (1995). A four year follow-up study of low socioeconomic status, Latin American children with reading difficulties. International Journal of Disability, Development, & Education, 42(3), 189-202.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. Lively, R., & White, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.

Carrillo, M. (1994). Development of phonological awareness and reading acquisition: A study in Spanish language. Reading and Writing, 6(3), 279-298.

Chiang, P. (2003). Bilingual children's phonological awareness: the effect of articulation training. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 31(3), 532-544.

Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275-303.

Cline, T., & Frederickson, N. (1999). Identification and assessment of dyslexia in bi/multilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2(2), 81-93.

Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29-43.

Denney, Maria K. "Family and Home Literacy Practices: Mediating Factors for Preliterate English Learners at Risk." AERA Conference. , Seattle. April 2001.

Durgunoglu, A. Y. (n.d.). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2006, from International Dyslexia Association Web site: http://www.interdys.org/.

Durkin, C. (2000). Dyslexia and bilingual children-Does recent research assist identification?. Dyslexia News Worldwide, 6(1), 248-267.

Everett, J., Smythe I., Ocampo D., and Gyarmathy, E. (2004). Issues in the assessment of literacy-related difficulties across language backgrounds: a cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(2), 141-151.

Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1998). La enseñanza de la lectura y la escritura en español en el aula bilingüe [Teaching reading and writing in the bilingual classroom]. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English reader: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90-112.

Geva, E. (2000). Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in l2 children-Beliefs and research evidence. Dyslexia News Worldwide, 6(1), 13-28.

Gonzáles, J. E. J., & García, C. R. H. (1995). Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness in Spanish children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 193-201.

Guron, L. M., & Lundberg, I. (2003). Identifying dyslexia in multilingual students: can phonological awareness be assessed in the majority language? Journal of Research in Reading, 26(1), 69-82.

Hellendoorn, J., & Ruijssenaars, W. (2000). Personal experiences and adjustment of Dutch adults with dyslexia. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 227-239.

Jiménez, E. J., García E., Estévez A., and Díaz, A. et.al. (). An evaluation of syntactic-semantic processing in developmental dyslexia. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2. Retrieved Feb 17, 2006, from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/english/.

Jiménez, E. J., Gregg, N., & Díaz A. (2004). Evaluación de habilidades fonológicas y ortográficas en adolescentes con dislexia y adolescentes buenos lectores (Assessment of sublexical and lexical processing of Spanish young adults with reading disabilities and young adults normal readers). Infancia y Aprendizaje, 27(1), 63-84.

Landerl, K., & Wimmer, F. (2000). Deficits in phoneme segmentation are not the core problem of dyslexia: evidence from German and English children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(1), 243-262.

Landerl, K., Wimmer, F., & Frith, U. (1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: a German-English comparison. Cognition, 63, 315-334.

Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(4), 252-279.

Miles, T. R. (). Some problems in determining the prevalence of dyslexia. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2. Retrieved Feb 17, 2006, from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/english/.

Nieto, J. E. (). Analysis of difficulties in understanding and applying the alphabetic principle. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2. Retrieved Feb 17, 2006, from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/english/.

Oney, B. & Goldman, S. R. (1984). Decoding and comprehension skills in Turkish and English: Effects of the regularity of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 557-568.

Peer, L. (1999). Dyslexia and multilingualism. Dyslexia News Worldwide, 5(1), 53-55.

Rodrigo, M., Jiménez J. E., García E., and Díaz, A. (). Assessment of orthographical processing in Spanish children with dyslexia: the role of lexical and sublexical units. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2. Retrieved Feb 17, 2006, from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/english/.

Royer, J. M., and Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of Comprehension Skills from Native to Second Language. Journal of Reading, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 450-455.

Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (). Dyslexia in Spanish: The state of the matter. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2. Retrieved Feb 17, 2006, from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/english/.

Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (submitted). Dyslexia Speed Problems in a Transparent Orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (in press). Las habilidades de conciencia fonológica en niños disléxicos españoles: ¿déficit o retraso? [Phonological Awareness Skills in Spanish Dyslexic Children: Deficit or delay?] XXII Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (AESLA) “Perspectiva interdisciplinaria y tecnologías emergentes”. University of Valencia.

Spencer, K. (2000). Is English a dyslexic language?. Dyslexia News Worldwide, 6(1), 152-162.

Texas Education Agency (2007). The Dyslexia Handbook Revised 2007: Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders. (No. GE01 210 05). Austin, TX: Author.

Thomas, W. P. & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (OERI Publication No. R306A60001-96).

Wijnendele, I. V., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: phonological priming from the second to the first language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 616-627.