bs_bs_banner
BILINGUALISM, SEN AND INCLUSION
Bilingual and special educational needs in
inclusive classrooms: some critical and
pedagogical considerations
ANASTASIA LIASIDOU
In the light of educational reforms aimed at promoting
greater inclusive policies and practices, it is important
to put a more pronounced emphasis on the needs of
English language learners (ELLs) with special educa-
tional needs and/or disabilities. Simultaneously, a focus
should also be placed on understanding and dealing
with the disproportional representation of English
language learners in special education categories. This
dual and arguably sometimes mutually reinforcing
phenomenon, along with its potential implications for
education policy and practice, needs to be discussed
against a convergent analytical framework drawn from
bilingual and special education. The cross-fertilisation
of these disciplinary fields can provide a multimodal
and comprehensive approach to meeting the intersec-
tional needs of culturally and linguistically diverse
students with special educational needs. To this end, it
is important that issues of culture and language should
become indispensable aspects of the special education
knowledge base in inclusive classrooms.
Key words: inclusive classrooms, bilingual education,
pedagogy, curriculum.
Introduction: inclusive education and second
language learning
Inclusive education is a globally mandated education policy
phenomenon that promotes students’ right to quality educa-
tion by means of adopting new educational approaches and
arrangements to meet the needs of students with special
educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) effectively.
‘Broad’ definitions of inclusive education (Ainscow and
César, 2006) extend beyond the notion of disability to
include learner diversity on the grounds of students’ varied
ethnic/race, linguistic, biographical and developmental
characteristics. A broad definition of inclusion denotes an
intersectional dimension of students’ ‘disabled identities’
© 2013 The Author. Support for Learning © 2013 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, MA 02148, USA.
(Thomas, 1999) that results from the interactive relationship
between their innate characteristics/needs and socio-
political/cultural contextual dynamics. This is especially
true for English language learners (ELLs) with special edu-
cational needs (SEN), who experience the accumulative and
intersecting effects of social disadvantage on the basis of
their ability and linguistic characteristics. Thus, the notion
of special educational needs should be understood in rela-
tion to students’ cultural and linguistic background in order
to distinguish and identify effectively their language- and
disability-related needs (Ortiz, 2001; Klingner and Artiles,
2003).
A very significant development with regard to a human
rights approach to disability and difference was the en-
forcement of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities on 3 May 2008. The conven-
tion recognises the relative and contextually contingent
nature of disability, which is the result of the interaction of
a person’s impairment with institutional and environmental
barriers that undermine ‘their full and effective participa-
tion in society on an equal basis with others’ (United
Nations, 2008, p. 1). This perspective chimes with inter-
sectional understandings of a student’s identity that
highlight the ways in which special educational needs rest
upon and emanate from diverse and overlapping forms of
social disadvantage, which need to be addressed simulta-
neously (Liasidou, 2012a, b). Goldstein (1995, p. 463) very
appositely attributes the creation of a ‘learned learning dis-
ability’ to inappropriate teaching methods and strategies
that are ‘devoid of political content’ (Goldstein, 1995,
p. 464), thereby pointing to the necessity to view teaching
as a political act, which is profoundly concerned with the
ways in which social and cultural dynamics interact with
students and construct their identities. In this sense, it is
acknowledged that meeting students’ diverse needs entails
a systemic and interdisciplinary approach in order to
address effectively and efficiently their full continuum of
needs.
Nevertheless, despite the above consideration and the
enhanced concerns about advancing inclusive education
(Slee, 2011), there is considerable empirical evidence sug-
gesting that educational services do not meet the needs of
culturally and linguistically diverse students with SEN, who
are more likely, in comparison with their peers, to leave
school early and to experience educational failure (Artiles
and Ortiz, 2002). This phenomenon can be attributed to the
occasional failure of educational policies and practices to
conjure up and act upon students’ needs in holistic and
multidimensional ways, thereby losing sight of the necessity
of adopting an intersectional approach to education policy
and research (Wilkinson, 2003). That said, in terms of bilin-
gual and special education there are some recurrent and
interrelated issues that should be discussed and analysed so
as to meet the needs of ELLs with SEN effectively. The
needs of this group of students are complex and multifac-
eted; hence their needs should be assessed not only in
relation to their linguistic needs but also in relation to their
cognitive, emotional, social and cultural needs.
Second language learning and special
educational needs
Globalisation and the gradual blurring of national barriers
have precipitated unprecedented demographic shifts that
have altered ethnic homogeneity in many parts of the world.
The influx of immigrant students in many English-speaking
western-centric countries necessitates new pedagogical con-
siderations regarding the ways in which educational systems
should accommodate learner diversity on the basis of their
ability and linguistic/cultural differences. It is estimated that
English language learners have more than 400 native lan-
guages and they differ hugely in terms of their biographical
experiences and their relation to the mainstream culture
(Artiles and Ortiz, 2002).
In the USA alone there are at least a million learners of
English as a second language who have serious learning
difficulties that entitle them to special education services.
Nevertheless, despite the great numbers of linguistically
diverse students with SEN in mainstream schools, educa-
tors systematically fail to address concurrently students’
language- and disability-related needs (Ortiz, 2001; Hart,
2009), an issue that should seriously inform debates on
bilingual special education. To this end, it is important to
re-evaluate the contribution of bilingual and special educa-
tion programmes, as well as the role of the various
professionals implicated in these programmes, in order to
determine their effectiveness in meeting students’ needs,
and to identify scope for improvement.
English language learners with SEN are disadvantaged due
to the lack of educators who are capable of simultaneously
addressing their language- and disability-related needs
(Ortiz, 2001). It is empirically documented that educators
frequently fail to distinguish the difference between learn-
ing disabilities and limited English proficiency. Even in
cases when linguistically and culturally diverse students
with disabilities receive special education services, they
make inadequate progress because these services fail to
address their socio-cultural and linguistic characteristics
12 Support for Learning · Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2013
(McCray and Garcia, 2002). Klingner and Harry (2006)
document the perfunctory attention given to the pre-referral
strategies for supporting English language learners, due to
the erroneous assumption that students’ poor academic
performance and challenging behaviour result from their
innate characteristics, thereby indicating their eligibility for
special education.
That said, English language learners are disproportionately
assigned to SEN categories – something that is indicative of
the ways in which language-related needs are misinterpreted
as learning difficulties due to lack of knowledge or preju-
dice. Paradoxically, the opposite phenomenon of under-
representation is also reported as being rife, due to the
placement of English language learners with disabilities in
bilingual education without paying due attention to their
disability-related needs so as to enable them to fulfil their
potential (Artiles and Ortiz, 2002).
ELLs with special educational needs can hugely benefit
from special education services that can effectively meet
their dual needs (Hart, 2009). To this end, it is important to
transcend disciplinary fragmentation and dichotomous
forms of provision so as to forge cross-disciplinary alli-
ances, and to provide a convergent pedagogical approach to
addressing students’ intersectional needs. The following
sections are given over to exploring the above consider-
ations and discussing some implications for educational
practice and educational professionals’ training.
Bilingual special education: issues of
disproportionality in special education
The issue of over-representation of minority students in
disability categories is not a new phenomenon. A consider-
able number of studies have long documented issues of
over-representation across diverse ethnic minority groups
(Artiles and Ortiz, 2002; McCray and Garcia, 2002). These
observations highlight a number of major issues: on the one
hand, issues of prejudice and discrimination which might
lead to biased assessment (Dyson and Kozleski, 2008); on
the other, erroneous assessments due to the inability of
various professionals to distinguish between English lan-
guage acquisition and actual learning disabilities (Hart,
2009).
Paradis (2005) discusses the pragmatic challenges that are
endemic in assessments of language and learning disabili-
ties for students whose first language is not English. These
challenges are further compounded by the ways in which the
identification and assessment processes are more affected
by educational professionals’ values, beliefs and vested
interests than by students’ intrinsic characteristics (e.g. stu-
dents designated as having learning difficulties or social,
emotional and behavioural difficulties). Dyson and Kozleski
(2008) discuss the ways in which the identification of non-
normative categories of disability is highly dependent on
subjective professional judgements which are occasionally
© 2013 The Author. Support for Learning © 2013 NASEN
skewed by prejudice and discrimination. The increase in the
identification rate in non-normative categories of disability
documents the complex and interactive ways in which the
notion of SEN is inexorably linked with contextual cultural
and social factors and professional interests.
Given the complexity of the needs faced by ELL students, it
is important that the various professionals implicated in the
assessment procedures devise and use appropriate instru-
ments for the accurate diagnosis of disabilities. These
instruments and procedures should not be confined to
standardised tests exclusively designed for monolingual stu-
dents, but rather they should be carefully designed so as to
address simultaneously students’ language- and disability-
related needs (Artiles and Ortiz, 2002). This dual emphasis
can eliminate disproportionate placements for English
language learners. Moreover, in assessing a student’s per-
formance it is important that this is conducted in both
languages by means of formal and informal forms of assess-
ment, observations, interviews and linguistic analyses.
These assessments should be student-centred and criterion-
referenced (Mitchell, 2008) so as to provide valid data with
which to devise appropriate and comprehensive educational
interventions (Hart, 2009).
Another important issue that needs to be addressed is the
inadequate educational provision experienced by this group
of students. Artiles et al. (2000) pointed to the fact that the
English language learners who were placed in special edu-
cation programmes were those who received the least
language support; in particular, those learners who were
solely exposed to instruction in English were three times
more likely to be in special education resource rooms than
their peers who received some educational support in their
native language. At the same time, this group of students
was found to be consistently under-represented in gifted
and talented programmes (Hart, 2009). The above consid-
erations foreground the necessity to provide a critical
examination of the ways in which socio-political, educa-
tional and special education placement practices for English
language learners interact and contribute to their educa-
tional failure (Artiles and Ortiz, 2002).
For instance, the vicious circle of the underachievement of
ELLs is exacerbated by policies that promote high-stakes
testing whereby schools are held accountable for attaining
certain prescribed quantifiable measures of educational
excellence (Sindelar et al., 2006). The increasing preoccu-
pation with this kind of testing renders certain groups of
students undesirable as they are expected to undermine test
scores. As a result, English language learners with or
without SEN are systematically excluded or hastily rel-
egated to special education categories so as to justify their
exclusion (Artiles and Ortiz, 2002).
Another under-investigated yet crucially important issue is
the under-representation of certain ethnic minority students
in disability categories. The phenomenon of under-
identification is an equally problematic issue because it is
© 2013 The Author. Support for Learning © 2013 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2013
responsible for providing inadequate and inappropriate
disability support services for ELL students who have addi-
tional disability-related needs. Hui-Michael and Garcia
(2009) provide the example of Asian-American students
whose special educational placements are disproportionally
lower than their non-Asian-American peers.
Professional practice and development in
inclusive second language classrooms
(assessment and classroom pedagogy)
As already pointed out, one major problem in meeting the
needs of ELLs is the reported lack of specially trained
teachers with dual expertise in special education and Teach-
ing English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
(Garcia and Ortiz, 2006). Students cannot achieve unless
they have access to quality first teaching, an issue that needs
to be seriously taken into consideration when discussing the
reasons why some groups of students underachieve and are
disproportionately placed in special education categories. It
has been reported that English as a second language (ESL)
learners are taught by the least qualified and experienced
educators, an issue that significantly contributes to their
educational failure (Artiles and Ortiz, 2002). Moreover,
there is evidence suggesting that there is a lack of emphasis
on supporting students’ needs during the pre-referral
process, something that can be attributed to factors such as
misinterpretation of limited English proficiency as a learn-
ing disability, as well as negative and biased attitudes
towards a student’s ethnic and racial origin (Hart, 2009).
During the pre-referral process it is important that ELLs
are exposed to positive and effective learning environ-
ments that are culturally and linguistically responsive. It is
important that their socio-cultural, linguistic, racial/ethnic
and other biographical experiences are taken into consid-
eration at all stages of the pre-referral process (Garcia and
Ortiz, 2006). Educational differentiation entails developing
learning programmes and activities based on quality first
teaching, evidence-based teaching and behavioural strate-
gies in meeting students’ diverse needs (Mitchell, 2008).
To this end, teachers are expected to utilise appropriate
pedagogical approaches, as well as specialised interven-
tions, instructional alternatives and support strategies such
as the total physical response (TPR), which has long been
used in second language teaching for students who have
little or no command in the second language. This
approach has been subsequently adopted for students who
have varied language and learning needs. Language is pre-
sented both orally and kinaesthetically, thereby providing a
multimodal approach to teaching and learning. Students
are expected to produce linguistic utterances that are
ushered in by physical acts. In this way English language
learners, who are not yet fluent in the target language, can
participate and comprehend concepts by emulating the
physical acts of their teachers and peers (Hart, 2009).
In cases where learners do not progress despite these
modified and individualised forms of instruction and
13
intervention strategies, it is likely that they might have a
learning disability (Ortiz, 2001).
The stages of educational intervention outlined above chime
with the principles underpinning the multi-tiered Response
to Intervention (RTI) or, as otherwise referred to, Response
to Instruction promoted in the Individuals with Disabilities
Act (2004) in the USA, with the aim of reducing special
educational referrals for students whose learning difficulties
can be attributed to ‘poor’ or ‘inadequate’ instruction. RTI is
an approach that moves away from the notion of categories
and special interventions and concentrates on providing
appropriate, high-quality and effective education for all stu-
dents, including students with disabilities. Moreover, this
approach ensures an early intervention approach to meeting
students’ needs, thereby moving away from a ‘wait to fail’
model. The RTI model can effectively respond to the needs
of ELLs with and without special educational needs (Brown
and Doolittle, 2008).
The first ‘tier’ of response concentrates on providing high-
quality and evidence-based instruction for all children in
general classrooms. The early intervention principle is
applicable at this stage through universal screening assess-
ments in order to single out students at risk in terms of
reading and behaviour. ‘Tier two’ refers to targeted small-
group instructions and additional assistance provided by
teachers in general classrooms, and is available to those
students who might have problems in specific skill areas.
These targeted interventions should be brief (around six
weeks) and students’ progress should be systematically
reviewed and monitored. Finally, ‘Tier three’ focuses on
very intensive instruction intended for students who do
not make adequate progress in Tier two. This final stage
might also involve formal assessment procedures in order
to determine eligibility for special education provision
(McLaughlin, 2009; Rothstein and Johnson, 2010).
Brown and Doolittle (2008) discuss the significance of
adopting an ecological framework for RTI. They suggest
that current educational practices for English language
learners fail to meet the requirement of the first tier of
response. Even though there is a large body of work on
effective reading instructional strategies for ELLs, not all
ELLs have access to appropriate forms of instruction. It is
estimated that only 20% of the 56% of public school teach-
ers who have at least one ELL student in their classrooms
are qualified to teach ELL. Another important issue is the
inability of the members of multidisciplinary teams who are
called upon to take special education eligibility decisions for
ELLs, to distinguish language difference from a learning
disability. That said, the use of RTI is problematic unless it
is underpinned by culturally and linguistically appropriate
instruction strategies, otherwise RTI can further contribute
to the disproportionate placement of ELL in disability cat-
egories. Hence, in order to ensure that ‘RTI does not become
one more discriminatory system’, it is necessary to devise
a linguistically and culturally informed RTI framework
that can address the needs of ELLs (Brown and Doolittle,
2008, p. 67).
14 Support for Learning · Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2013
To this end, teachers need to be equipped with the relevant
attitudes, knowledge and skills in order to provide culturally
and linguistically informed learning opportunities for ELLs,
and to distinguish second language learning difficulties
from actual learning disabilities, or at least to have easy
access to professionals who are able to do so. ELLs’ lan-
guage and culture should be seen ‘as strengths upon which
to build an education’ (Brown and Doolittle, 2008, p. 67)
and their progress should be reviewed and monitored
against the progress of their ‘true peers’ (similar language
proficiency and cultural experiences). In cases where
several ‘true peers’ underachieve, this is a sign of an inef-
fective second language learning environment (Brown and
Doolittle, 2008).
Hart (2009) discusses some other assessment techniques
that need to be adopted by classroom teachers as well as
other educational professionals in order to assess learners’
needs in effective and comprehensive ways. Analytic or, as
otherwise stated, clinical teaching (Ortiz, 2001) is premised
on the necessity to modify teaching strategies systemati-
cally, to observe closely, monitor and document students’
progress as a means of identifying their needs and designing
appropriate interventions. These practices can be supple-
mented by language-sampling procedures which can
provide useful linguistic data to distinguish language- and
disability-related needs during the process of second lan-
guage acquisition.
Studies that come from the field of bilingual education point
to the necessity of dual-language use in classrooms. Even
though bilingual command might not be feasible in many
cases, it is nevertheless expected that general and special
educators demonstrate their respect for a student’s first lan-
guage and they should actively encourage code switching as
a means of facilitating spontaneous language use, which
subsequently leads to increased use of English. Educators
should also use some basic words from a student’s first
language as prompts to encourage increased used of English
(Hart, 2009). The role of bilingual learning support assis-
tants (LSAs) in mainstream inclusive classrooms can also be
instrumental in providing support for learning in increas-
ingly culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms
(Cable, 2003).
An inclusive education reform agenda necessitates that the
predominance of ‘professional monologue’ in education
(Ware, 1994) is transformed into a fertile and continuous
dialogue among the various professionals implicated in
bilingual special education programmes, through the
constitution of interdisciplinary professional teams in-
tended to enable learner diversity to fulfil their potential.
Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should work closely with
educators in order to introduce effective assessment proce-
dures to identify relevant educational programmes and
interventions for ELLs with and without special educational
needs. It is important that these teams consist of ESL teach-
ers who can advise on the processes and factors that
influence second language learning, as well as family and
© 2013 The Author. Support for Learning © 2013 NASEN
community members who can provide valuable insights into
a number of biographical and experiential factors that influ-
ence learning, etc. To this end, professional training should
be multidisciplinary in terms of participants and also in
terms of enabling professionals to forge closer collaborative
working relations. It is important, for instance, that general,
bilingual and special education teachers forge close working
relations in order to draw upon each other’s knowledge and
expertise to address the intersecting needs of this group of
students (Artiles and Ortiz, 2002).
Conclusions
A radical human rights approach to inclusive education
policy and practice concentrates on redressing inequalities
of power and systemic injustices, not only on the basis of
disability, but also on the basis of other forms of social
disadvantage linked to race/ethnicity, socio-economic back-
ground, biographical characteristics and diverse devel-
opmental trajectories (Armstrong and Barton, 2007). This
perspective also necessitates adopting an intersectional
approach to understand and subsequently to meet students’
accumulative and overlapping needs.
Understanding the intersectional nature of students’ needs
and addressing the multifaceted nature of factors that
disable certain groups of students entail critiquing educa-
tional policies and institutional arrangements that maintain
and perpetuate social and educational injustice by adopting
mono-dimensional approaches to meeting these needs.
These approaches might inadvertently place the onus on
individual students to respond to educational modifications
and interventions, while ignoring the intersectional and
reciprocal relationship of disability with race/ethnicity and
the ways in which the latter disadvantages certain groups of
students linguistically and culturally.
Consequently, in terms of bilingual special education, parti-
cular emphasis should be placed on challenging, for instance,
the ways in which certain students experience institutional
racism, which is evidenced in the ways in which minority
ethnic languages, histories and cultures are neglected (Ali
et al., 2001), while ascribing an individual pathology per-
spective to those students who have English as a second
language. It is important to ensure that all students’ ‘voices
and experiences are addressed and valued justly’ (Johnson,
2004, p. 146) by means of providing quality first teaching and
creating amenable pre-referral conditions for all students to
learn without finding recourse to remedial and compensatory
measures of support provided by unnecessary and cata-
strophic special education placements (Lloyd, 2008).
References
AINSCOW, M. and CÉSAR, M. (2006) Inclusive education ten years after
the Salamanca: setting the agenda. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 21, 3, 231–238.
© 2013 The Author. Support for Learning © 2013 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2013
ALI, Z., FAZIL, Q., BYWATERS, P., WALLACE, L., and SINGH, G.
(2001) Disability, ethnicity and childhood: a critical review of research.
Disability & Society, 16, 7, 949–967.
ARMSTRONG, F. and BARTON, L. (2007) Policy, experience and change
and the challenge of inclusive education: the case of England. In L.
Barton and F. Armstrong (eds), Policy, Experience and Change: Cross-
Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education, pp. 5–18. Dordrecht:
Springer.
ARTILES, A. and ORTIZ, A. (2002) English language learners with
special education needs: contexts and possibilities. In A. Artiles and A.
Ortiz (eds), English Language Learners with Special Education Needs,
pp. 25–39. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
ARTILES, A. J., RUEDA, R., SALAZAR, I. and HIGAREDA, I. (2000)
Factors associated with English learner representation in special edu-
cation: emerging evidence from urban school districts in California.
Paper presented at the conference on Minority Issues in Special Edu-
cation in the Public Schools, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
November.
BROWN, E. B. and DOOLITTLE, J. (2008) A cultural, linguistic and
ecological framework for response to intervention with English lan-
guage learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 5, 66–72.
CABLE, C. (2003) Bilingual teaching assistants: their contribution to
learning. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Associa-
tion Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11–13
September.
DYSON, A. and KOZLESKI, E. B. (2008) Disproportionality in special
education: a transatlantic phenomenon. In L. Florian and M.
McLaughlin (eds), Dilemmas and Alternatives in the Classification of
Children with Disabilities: New Perspectives, pp. 170–190. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
GARCIA, S. B. and ORTIZ, A. (2006) Preventing disproportionate
representation: culturally and linguistically responsive prereferral
interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 4, 64–68.
GOLDSTEIN, B. S. C. (1995) Critical pedagogy in a bilingual special
education classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 8, 463–
475.
HART, J. E. (2009) Strategies for culturally and linguistically diverse
students with special needs. Preventing School Failure, 53, 197–
206.
HUI-MICHAEL, Y. and GARCIA, S. (2009) General educators’ percep-
tions and attributions about Asian-American students: implications for
special education referral. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Exceptional Learners, 12, 1, 21–37.
JOHNSON, J. R. (2004) Universal instructional design and critical (com-
munication) pedagogy: strategies for voice, inclusion, and social
justice/change. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 145–153.
KLINGNER, J. K. and ARTILES, A. (2003) When should bilingual
students be in special education? Educational Leadership, 61, 2, 66–
71.
KLINGNER, J. K. and HARRY, B. (2006) The special education
referral and decision-making process for English language learners:
child study, team meetings and staffing. Teachers College Record, 108,
2247–2281.
LIASIDOU, A. (2012a) Intersectional understandings of disability and
implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and
practice. Disability & Society. DOI:10.1080/09687599.2012.710012
LIASIDOU, A. (2012b) Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the
intersections of disability, race, gender and class. Journal for Critical
Education Policy Studies, 10, 1, 168–184.
LLOYD, C. (2008) Removing barriers to achievement: a strategy for inclu-
sion or exclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 2,
221–236.
MCCRAY, D. A. and GARCIA, S. B. (2002) The stories we must tell:
developing a research agenda for multicultural and bilingual special
education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 6, 599–612.
MCLAUGHLIN, M. (2009) What Every Principal Needs to Know about
Special Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
MITCHELL, D. (2008) What Really Works in Special and Inclusive
Education: Using Evidence-Based Teaching Strategies. London:
Routledge.
15
ORTIZ, A. (2001) English language learners with special needs: effective WARE, L. (1994) Contextual barriers to collaboration. Journal of Educa-
instructional strategies. Eric Digest, US Department of Education. tional and Psychological Consultation, 5, 4, 330–357.
PARADIS, J. (2005) Grammatical morphology in children learning WILKINSON, L. (2003) Advancing a perspective on the intersections of
English as a second language: implications of similarities with specific diversity: challenges for research and social policy. Canadian Ethnic
language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Studies/Études Ethniques au Canada, 35, 3, 26–38.
Schools, 36, 172–187.
ROTHSTEIN, L. and JOHNSON, S. (2010) Special Education Law.
London: Sage.
Correspondence
SINDELAR, P., SHEARER, D., YENDOL-HOPPEY, D. and LIEBERT, T. Anastasia Liasidou
(2006) The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Chil- School of Arts and Education Sciences
dren, 72, 3, 317–331. European University Cyprus
SLEE, R. (2011) The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive 6 Diogenes Str. 2404
Education. London: Routledge.
THOMAS, C. (1999) Female Forms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Engomi
UNITED NATIONS (2008) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Nicosia
Disabilities. New York: United Nations. Email: a.liasidou@euc.ac.cy

Recommend a subscription to your library today!

Recommend a subscription for your library to ensure that the latest research is accessible
and readily available to you, your colleagues, and students. Your recommendation can be
a significant influence on the purchasing decisions of your library.
Two easy ways to recommend a subscription:
1. Fill out the form online at bit.ly/wileylibraryrec
2. Simply fill out the form below and give it to your institution’s librarian.

Library I recommend the journal for the following reasons:

Recommendation ____ REFERENCE - I will refer to this journal frequently for new research
articles realted to my work.
Form ____ STUDENT REFERENCE - I will be referring my students to this journal
TO: Librarian/Library Acquisition Committee regularly to assist their studies.

____ BENEFIT TO LIBRARY’S COLLECTION - My assessment of the journal

From: content and direction os very high. Its acquisition will add to the library’s
Position: success in fulfilling department, faculty and student needs.
Department:
I would like to recommend a purchase of a subscription to: ____ OWN AFFILIATION - I am a member of the journal’s editorial board. I
therefore, support the journal strongly and use it regularly in my work. I will
regularly recommend articles to colleagues and students.
This journal is published bt Wiley-Blackwell
Signature: 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Date: 1 800 835 6770 or 781 388 8598
cs-journals@wiley.com
12-46059

16 Support for Learning · Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2013 © 2013 The Author. Support for Learning © 2013 NASEN
Copyright of Support for Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.