A Critical Analysis of State-Level Policies Impacting Racialized Emergent Bilinguals Suspected or Labeled as Dis/abled.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review article is to conduct a critical analysis of state-level policies focusing on the provision of speech-language therapy and special education to children and youth who are racialized emergent bilinguals (REBs) suspected or labeled as dis/abled. METHOD: We analyzed the state-level policies focusing on speech-language therapy and/or special education of California, Kansas, Florida, and New York. We coded content in terms of labels used to describe REBs; the focus of states' policies, whether the policy mentioned the provision of bilingual services, and the orientation toward bilingualism. Thematic analyses and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the policies, and interrater reliability was calculated. RESULTS: The results of this review revealed that most state-level policies contain English-centric, deficit-based labels to describe REBs and that most focus primarily on the classification and eligibility for dis/ability. Only one state addresses the provision of bilingual education for REBs labeled as dis/abled. The bulk of policies are underpinned by an ideology of "bilingualism as a difference," meaning that the main idea of the policies is that emerging English skills does not result in a dis/ability. CONCLUSIONS: Policies do not exist in a vacuum and are influenced by sociopolitical ideologies. The findings of this review highlight the urgency of applying an intersectional, justice-focused approach to the policies and practices impacting REBs suspected and/or labeled as disabled in the fields of speech-language therapy and special education.

Gaps in Framing and Naming: Commentary to "A Viewpoint on Accent Services".

PURPOSE: In this commentary, we offer a critique of "A Viewpoint on Accent Services: Framing and Terminology Matter" (Grover et al., 2022). We argue that the authors' proposal to rename and reframe accent modification lacks criticality, which actually hinders-rather than advances-the movement toward equitable, culturally sustaining, and emancipatory practices. METHOD: We offer an analysis of the shortfall between the authors' calls for linguistic justice in "A Viewpoint on Accent Services" and the actual changes they proposed. We break down major gaps in criticality, reflexivity, practice, and vision and discuss their potential for undercutting meaningful progress as it relates to linguistic justice. RESULTS: We found that the frameworks for the pursuit of equity, cultural sustenance, and emancipatory practices were misrepresented in the article in such a way that suggests that these goals could be achieved through superficial changes in terminology and attitudes. "A Viewpoint on Accent Services" upholds a power-neutral frame of operation that does not address the deeper systemic forces that make accent modification problematic. The lack of criticality toward accent intervention fosters complacency toward real transformation. CONCLUSION: We advocate for a serious and critical interrogation of accent practices and commitment to an emancipatory practice that addresses linguistic discrimination above all else. We emphasize the need to decenter standardized languages and to co-envision linguistic liberation using critical methods in scholarship, pedagogy, clinical practice, and policy.

Initial Development of a National Survey on Remote Learning in Early Childhood During COVID-19: Establishing Content Validity and Reporting Successes and Barriers.

This article describes the development and administration of a survey to identify early childhood educators' successes and barriers when delivering remote instruction (e.g., online whole or small group instruction) during the COVID-19 pandemic to children 2-5 years old. The survey was developed using procedures outlined by the commonly accepted stages of an instrument development process. Content validity was established using four approaches: (a) identification of the purpose of the survey, (b) creation of a blueprint of items, (c) cognitive interviews, and (d) expert panel review. A total of 1,053 early childhood educators began the survey, with 808 (77%) of the responses included because educators met the inclusion criteria of working in the United States and responding to at least one question related to remote instruction. The survey contained 37 closed-ended and six open-ended items covering eight domains: (a) demographic information; (b) preparation, guidelines, and materials for remote learning; (c) caregiver communication and engagement; (d) assessment; (e) instruction; (f) educators' levels of confidence before and after remote learning; (g) access to services (i.e., wraparound and/or special education); and (h) planning for the return to face-to-face instruction. Both quantitative (descriptive, t-test, regression, ANOVA, and Chi-square tests) and consensual qualitative research analyses were applied to summarize the survey results. Findings from this survey indicated that even with limited or no guidance from administrators, educators successfully adapted to remote instruction and their levels of confidence increased over time. Ongoing improvements need to be made to sustain regular communication with all families, to offer access to technology (i.e., devices and internet), to administer assessments or universal screeners, and to provide cohesive guidelines and expectations. Results from this study begin to shed light on early childhood educators' adaptation to remote instruction as a result of COVID-19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10643-021-01216-y.