- Email: [email protected]
English Language Learners with Special Needs
English Language Learners with Special Needs R Rueda and G Ragusa, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Glossary English learner – English learners are those individuals whose primary language is other than English and who is in the process of acquiring English language skills in the areas of listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing necessary to succeed in the school and in the workplace. IDEA – The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is the current version of the federal special education law that was first enacted in 1975 and was originally known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 or Public Law 94-142l. It outlines the provisions to be followed in the education of students with disabilities. Response to intervention – Response to intervention refers to a family of approaches which aim to prevent unnecessary assignment to special education. With RTI, low-performing children are offered intense, individualized academic intervention. Student progress is monitored to see if response to this intervention yields adequate academic growth. A key aspect of the approach is the provision of services to students with academic delays using one or more research-validated interventions. The student’s academic progress is monitored frequently to see if those interventions are sufficient to help the student to catch up with his or her peers. If the student fails to show significantly improved academic skills despite several well-designed and implemented interventions, this failure to respond to intervention can be viewed as evidence of an underlying learning disability.
This article discusses the challenges and dilemmas associated with placement and service provision for English language learners (ELLs) in special education systems and provides recommendations for improved assessment practices and service provisions. These issues represent a range of factors, including inappropriate assessment and psychometric issues, overrepresentation in special education programs, ambiguities in special education categorization, questionable pre-referral intervention practices, inadequate practitioner preparation related to language and cultural factors, and ineffective instructional practices both within and outside of the special education system
(McCardle et al., 2005). These challenges are not new to the special education field as they have been described in the literature since the 1970s. The difficulties associated with meeting the needs of ELLs appear to remain in spite of new reauthorizations of federal special education legislation that was originally prescribed by Public 94-142 (IDEA, 2004). An extensive review of the literature reveals a continuing issue with practitioners’ beliefs and discrepancies in their understanding of the needs of ELLs in public education that may lead to biased assessment practices, overreferral to special education systems, and ineffective instructional practices. In this article, we provide a brief review of these and related issues.
The English Language Learner Population In order to fully understand the needs of ELLs in education systems, it is important to describe the unique characteristics of the population. Linguistic diversity has dramatically increased in the past decade in the United States. The most recent United States Census data reveals that nearly 47 million US residents comprising nearly 18% of the total US population speak languages other than English. This growth is reflected in both the elementary and secondary school population. According to the US Department of Education, National Center on Educational Statistics (NCES), services related to ELLs were provided to 3.8 million students (11% of all students) during the 2003–04 school years. California and Texas had the largest reported number of students receiving ELL services during this period. In California, there were 1.6 million students (26% of all students) who received ELL services, and in Texas, there were 0.7 million students (16% of all students) who benefited from ELL services. Not only do ELLs face challenges related to language barriers, they are also adversely affected by persistently low teacher expectations and struggles associated with national and state achievement tests (McCardle et al., 2005). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, the academic achievement of ELL students has not kept pace with their English-speaking peers. In 2007, NAEP data revealed that 7% of ELLs read at or above the proficient level in fourth grade, in contrast to 36% of English-speaking students. Research has revealed a variety of reasons for why ELLs do not fare well on NAEP and related types of
701
702
Education of Children with Special Needs
standardized assessments. Test biases, misinterpretation of student needs, inadequate teacher training related to language assessment and instruction, and inconsistent teacher beliefs about the needs and expectations for ELLs all affect the achievement of this group, in particular those who are referred for special education services (Artiles et al., 2004). These difficulties and misperceptions have been cited as factors contributing to overrepresentation of ELLs in special education programs nation-wide. Overrepresentation of ELLs in special education presents significant challenges to families, students, and educational systems nationally (Rueda and Windmueller, 2006).
Range of Special Education Programs Currently, special education offers a range of programs in the United States. This range has increased as a function of each reauthorization of the federal special education legislation. In particular, the federal mandate for placing students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) has been an important factor in increased number and type of special education program options. Current program options include services for children beginning at birth and extending through to the age of 22 years and ranging in service intensity from full inclusion in general education with minimal consultative special education support to residential, segregated special education services. While access to special education services is expected to be equitable and universally available to all students who qualify, national statistics have illustrated that service choice, particularly when inclusion is warranted, is inequitable and racially divided. The most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education and Information Table 1 Fall 2003
Act (IDEIA) included legislative revision that increased the number of students included in general education classroom for a portion of their day. While inclusive settings have become more common, inequities abound. Researchers recognize that inclusion has benefited many students, particularly students identified with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). In the 2003 US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Report to Congress, underrepresented groups including ethnic minorities were placed in special education at significantly higher rates than white students. Moreover, students of color have been found to spend less time in inclusive settings. While Hispanic and Black K-12 students make up the largest population of special education learners, it appears from the national statistics that these subgroups spend more of their educational experiences in more restrictive special education settings than their peers. According to the National Center on Educational Statistics, (2005) approximately 50% of all disabled students in 2003–04 spent 80% or more of their day in a regular classroom, up from 45% in 1994–95. In contrast, Black and Hispanic students with disabilities spent less time in a regular classroom on average than their peers of other races/ ethnicities with disabilities. This inequity suggests that particular ethnic groups are not provided with the full range of service options available to students with special needs. Table 1 provides an illustration of this representation by ethnic group and federally recognized disability category. As indicated by Table 1, in 2003, the percentage of students receiving special education with SLDs (the largest reported category) is highest for Hispanics (many of whom are ELLs). Hispanics represent 57.3% of all students with SLDs served.
Disability distribution, by race/ethnicity, of students aged 6 through 21 receiving special education and related services:
Disability
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
Asian Pacific Islander
Black (not Hispanic)
Hispanic
White (not Hispanic)
Specific learning disability Speech language impairments Mental retardation Emotional disturbance Multiple disabilities Hearing impairments Orthopedic impairments Other health impairments Visual impairments Autism Deaf-blind Traumatic brain injury Developmental delay All disabilities
54.5 16.0 7.5 8.0 2.0 1.0 0.7 5.7 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.4 2.6 100
39.5 26.0 8.9 11.6 2.7 2.8 1.7 5.3 0.8 5.7 0.1 0.4 1.4 100
44.5 14.3 16.1 11.2 2.2 1.0 0.8 5.9 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.2 100
57.3 18.3 8.1 4.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 4.1 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 100
45.6 20.1 7.9 7.9 2.3 1.1 1.2 9.1 0.4 2.7 0.0 1.4 1.2 100
Total may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Source: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2007). 27th Annual (2005) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, vol. 1. Washington, DC.
English Language Learners with Special Needs
Overrepresentation of ELLs in Special Education For nearly four decades, minority students have been overrepresented in special education. As a recent example, Artiles et al. (2005) conducted a study of within-group diversity of disproportionate representation of ELL students in special education. They discovered that ELLs identified as having limited proficiency in both their primary language (L1) and English (L2) showed the highest rates of identification in the special education categories investigated. Moreover, these students were consistently overrepresented in programs for students with learning disabilities and language and speech disabilities, and had significantly greater chances of being placed in special education. Because of the long-standing overrepresentation of certain groups of students in special education, federal legislation now requires states to collect and examine data on disproportionality related to race and ethnicity. Wherever, states identify disproportional representation, they are mandated to plan services and to develop policies and procedures to adjust proportionality (US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2007). In addition to examining referral and identification data, the legislation requires that states adjust their identification criteria for students with SLDs and adopt a policy of prereferral intervention with a process of response to intervention (RTI). RTI is defined as ‘‘the use of strategies used by classroom teachers to target instructional interventions to children’s areas of specific need as soon as those needs become apparent’’ (US Department of Education, 2007), and before referral to special education is formally commenced.
Inappropriate Referrals Based on Language Differences NCLB and the massive demographic changes of the student population have placed a tremendous demand on school districts to educate all students to proficient levels. One challenge is that in response to these conditions, educators increasingly inappropriately refer ELL students for special education (Rhodes et al., 2005). In addition to these pressures, biases in the referral process have been implicated in disproportionality. This bias impacts other steps in the process such as pre-referral interventions and assessment practices.
English Language Learners and Issues of Education Assessment Researchers have suggested that inappropriate assessment practices account for much of the disproportionality of English language learners receiving special education
703
services. Various studies have demonstrated that standardized achievement tests present significant challenges for ELLs. Differentiating between typical second language acquisition and learning disabilities is an important and continuing educational challenge (Gonzalez et al., 1997). Another stems from the difficulty that the educational field has with development of assessment measures and procedures that adequately determine when a child with a primary language other than English is ready to be tested in English only, the primary language currently used to assess learners for special education (Abedi, 2006). Students often appear to be orally proficient in English long before they have fully developed cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), the linguistic proficiency required for comprehending and effectively utilizing academic informational text. Bailey and Butler (2004) propose that effective inclusion efforts must begin with equitable exposure to and learning of the academic language required in the classroom and on content examinations. Macswan and Rolstad (2006) documented a significant discrepancy between ELLs’ performance on commonly used language assessment measures and qualitatively coded natural language samples completed by the study’s research team. This led the researchers to question the construct validity of widely used language tests, and they noted that practitioners should use them with caution when considering special education status. In a related large-scale national study that included analyses of standardized assessment data from K-12 settings, Abedi (2006) found a significant performance gap between ELL and non-ELL students in reading and writing assessments. The gap was less for science assessment measures, and lowest for math problem solving, for which the test items were less linguistically challenging for ELL students. The performance gap virtually disappeared in math computation, where the language demands of the test items were minimal. These results suggest that language-rich tests have significant potential for misidentifying students into special education when they are factored into students’ special education eligibility profiles. Research suggests that test biases and validity issues are highly plausible factors related to the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education. These findings suggest a need to develop assessment measures that fairly, validly, and reliably assess the needs, abilities, and achievements of ELLs with special needs. Additionally, the assessment research suggests that multiple measures that create comprehensive student assessment profiles should be used to assess ELL students for special education eligibility and placement so that the students’ educational future is not determined by a single assessment measure (Rueda and Windmueller, 2006). The practice of developing assessment profiles that include both standardized and holistic community specific measures is a viable option for decreasing misidentification of ELLs for special education placement.
704
Education of Children with Special Needs
Language and Cultural Considerations in Pre-referral and RTI Assessment is not the only step in the special education referral process that may contribute to inappropriate placement and overrepresentation of English learners in special education services. In response to the ineffectiveness of the discrepancy model for special education eligibility, the RTI process has been established. RTI focuses on prereferral interventions to address the overrepresentation of minority groups in special education groups (Fuchs et al., 2003). RTI is defined as the practice of providing highquality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and level of performance in advance of formal referral to make important educational decisions about special education eligibility and service provision. That is, instead of relying on a score as an index of or predictor of learning potential, RTI assesses actual response to high-quality treatment or intervention as a pre-referral metric. Recognizing the potential of pre-referral intervention, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers established RTI to systematically improve and articulate levels of support and intervention provided to students in at-risk conditions (Artiles and Klinger, 2003). The IDEIA legislation requires educators to measure students’ RTI before referring the students for special education assessment and services. A widely used model for RTI includes a three-tiered process. The first tier consists of quality instruction in a general education classroom based on evidence-based practices; the second tier is implemented only with students who do not reach expected benchmarks using an assessment instrument; and the third tier refers to students that are going to engage in the special education referral and assessment processes. While RTI is designed to alleviate disproportionate representation of students of color and English language learners in special education by increasing opportunities to learn, it may at the same time be subject to the same challenges related to cultural and linguistic differences that have plagued the special education system historically (Klinger et al., 2005). The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems suggests that RTI implementers consider the following four critical areas in designing and delivering educational intervention: (1) culturally meaningful task criteria, (2) teacher–student shared understandings of the purpose of tasks and activities, (3) culturally inclusive participation frameworks in classroom discourse, and (4) deficit-based ideologies about low-income racial minority students used in referral and placement practices. These considerations are sparsely evident in many RTI programs or in the RTI research. It has been noted that practitioners and researchers are in conflict around effective interventions in RTI (NCCRESt, 2005). In general, practitioners
conducting RTI use a problem-solving approach to intervention, while researchers often favor the use of standardized treatment protocols.
Intervention Strategies and Cultural Appropriateness Not only are many special education assessment practices inappropriate for ELLs, there are also problems with intervention and instructional practices. In an effort to alleviate inequity in RTI-related services, Gersten and Dimino (2006) recommend that the three RTI tiers be fully implemented with the focus on preventing referral to special education by identifying at-risk factors in students early on in the process. They propose using a combination of national benchmarks and local and classroom norms to identify students at risk for failure. Gersten and Dimino describe the need for immediate, specific one-on-one small group intervention aligned with data that teachers consistently monitor in general education classrooms. In addition, appropriate intervention with ELLs requires training nonspecial education teachers to recognize risk factors in students and to have proficiency in a range of strategies for providing remediation for at-risk learners. Often, teachers’ beliefs, expectations for students, skills sets, and efficacy are challenged at levels that they are not prepared for in their teacher preservice preparation program (Tyler et al., 2004). This situation may contribute to the disproportionality in special education noted earlier in this article. In addition to the potential problems associated with pre-referral (RTI) intervention, researchers note that intervention strategies in full service special education are often culturally and linguistically inappropriate for ELLs. Inflexible implementation of commercial and undifferentiated instruction is of primary concern to researchers in their quests for finding effective intervention strategies for ELLs in intervention programs. Unfortunately, there are relatively few intervention programs specifically designed for ELLs with special needs. Yet even these efforts to deliver early and individualized help may provide benefit to these students. As an example, Williams (2005) conducted a study using a reading-related intervention often found in RTI Tier 3 (as described earlier in this article), focused on text structure and gradual introduction of reading comprehension strategies. The content was introduced to learners in small increments, moving from simpler to complex while providing (1) modeling by the teacher, (2) scaffolding that faded as instruction progressed, (3) substantial guided followed by unguided practice with texts specifically structured for instruction with feedback, and (4) a thematic along with feedback instructional approach. The goal for this intervention was the development of automaticity of
English Language Learners with Special Needs
the comprehension strategies in addition to transfer of the strategies to real life situations. This study revealed significant improvements in reading scores for both Hispanic and African American students, with the resulting treatment effect sizes between 1.64 and 4.06. This finding is consistent with other studies on this issue. While reading has been identified as a primary intervention need for ELLs, many ELLs also receive mathematics instruction through RTI or through ongoing special education service provision. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) identified mathematical problem solving (MPS) as a primary instructional need for students at risk for special education identification. They identify skill transfer as a primary difficulty and suggest that many math interventions have focused on basic skills rather than real life problem solving. Fuchs and Fuchs designed an intervention drawing on schema-based instruction and self-regulation strategies to address the transfer problems in mathematics problem solving. These math intervention strategies have yielded promising results. As previously stated, intervention studies do not have to focus specifically on the needs of ELLs. This is quite unfortunate as the recent NCES statistics (2005) reveal that ELLs continue to be overrepresented in special education and in the special education pre-referral process. While some small-scale studies reveal promising intervention results for ELLs, few studies have focused on the unique cultural and linguistic needs of ELLs in designing interventions. Additionally, at the pre-referral stage in the special education system, the bulk of responsibility for identification and intervention is placed on general education teachers who have little, if any, training at preservice or in-service levels in working with and assessing learners with special needs who are ELLs.
Teacher Qualification, Beliefs, Expectations, and Practices Associated with ELLs in Special Education Teacher education research suggests that teachers’ beliefs influence instructional practices and influence the expectations that they have for students. Other factors such as teachers’ self-efficacy may be important in the quality of instruction provided to students. Research has revealed that many teachers are often uncertain about how to determine whether ELLs are having difficulties due to language differences or due to learning challenges. For example, Obiakor (1999) identified low teacher expectation for ELL students as a significant factor in inappropriate referral to special education. Obiakor suggested that teachers’ beliefs about the abilities and needs of ELL students inform their expectations and in turn inform their instructional practices. These beliefs and assumptions are informed both by personal experiences as well as by formal preservice and
705
in-service teacher education. A significant limitation of teacher training programs nationally is that they overemphasize knowledge acquisition to the detriment of equipping teachers with practical skills for teaching to a diverse range of students, including those with disabilities (Edelen-Smith et al., 1993). Additionally, in most states, preservice teacher preparation programs require only one course in special education (NCATE, 2002), and special educators are often not required to take courses on meeting the needs of ELLs (NCATE, 2002). The shortcomings of teacher preparation programs contribute to the challenges faced by teachers in their professional educational practices. As an example, Richardson et al. (1989) studied two elementary schools and investigated the reasons for teachers referring students for special education assessment. They concluded that often referrals are more a reflection of teacher stress and inadequate training than a result of the students they teach having an identified learning disability. Tyler et al. (2004) suggest that general education teachers often interpret culturally diverse students’ performance through European American middle-income normative parameters of competence. Because culturally diverse students’ performance does not always align with such parameters, it is often regarded as deficient. In many cases, a deficit perspective perpetuates low expectations for ELL students by teachers, and likely contributes to the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education.
Summary and Conclusions While progress has been made in reducing ELLs’ overrepresentation in special education, it remains a problem. Few interventions have been designed specifically to address the linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs at both the pre-referral and service provision levels. Also problematic are teacher preparation programs and teachers’ misunderstanding and misattribution of the needs of ELLs. These challenges have existed for nearly four decades and have not been comprehensively addressed. It appears that without significant changes in the special education system, the needs of ELLs will continue to be unmet.
Recommendations for Research and Practice Significant changes are needed in order to meet the needs of ELLs. Particularly needed are strategies to address the needs of ELLs at the pre-referral stages and in special education. However, the issues are multidimensional (Rueda and Windmueller, 2006) and must be addressed from various avenues. It is critical to address the training needs of general education teachers at both in-service and preservice levels
706
Education of Children with Special Needs
so that they fully understand the needs of ELLs in their classroom. The language, cultural, and socioeconomicrelated dimensions of students’ experiences need to be considered in special education referral processes. This requires a significant overhaul of accreditation standards for teacher preparation programs so that colleges and universities are required to include comprehensive coursework and meaningful supervised preservice practice for all general and special education teacher candidates. This may help address the challenges associated with over-referral to the special education system. Training related to instructional strategies should be provided to effectively teach ELLs using culturally, linguistic, and developmentally appropriate practices. Training of special education teachers is needed in this area because statistics reveal that ELLs in special education are less likely to exit special education once placed in this system. Additionally, assessments that are psychometrically appropriate for validly assessing ELLs are needed. Culturally and linguistically appropriate pre-referral strategies must be developed to address the RTI requirements of the new special education legislation so that ELLs can fully benefit from RTI approaches. The legislative mandates associated with monitoring disproportionality statistics and action plans associated with changing the disproportionality must be fully implemented (IDEA, 2004). These recommendations are critical for ELLs to be insured educational equity. See also: English Language Learners with Special Needs; Overrepresentation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education; Prereferral Strategies.
Bibliography Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record 108(11), 2282–2303. Artiles, A. J. and Klinger, J. K. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education? Educational Leadership 61(2), 5–12. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., and Higareda, I. (2005). Withingroup diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Council for Exceptional Children 71(3), 283–300. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., and Palmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education: Legacies and prospects. In Banks, J. A. and Banks, C. M. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd edn, pp 716–735. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bailey, A. L. and Butler, F. A. (2004). Ethical considerations in the assessment of the language and content knowledge of U.S. schoolage English learners. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal 1(2), 177–193. Edelen-Smith, P., Prater, M., and Sileo, T. (1993). The impact of current issues in teacher education on the preparation of special educators. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation S(1), 7–15. Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Enhancing mathematical problem solving fir students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education 39(1), 45–57. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., and Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and
implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 18(3), 157–171. Gersten, R. and Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly 41(1), 99–108. Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., and Yawkey, T. (1997). Assessment and Instruction of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with or atRisk of Learning Problems: From Research to Practice. Needham Height, MA: Allyn and Bacon. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et. Seq. (Statute). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Regulations). http://www. wrightslaw.com/idea/law.htm. Klinger, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., et al. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 13(38), 1–42. Macswan, J. and Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teacher’s College Record 108(11), 2304–2328. McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., and D’Emilio, T. (2005). Learning disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning Disabilities. Research and Practice 20(1), 1–5. NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) (2002). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges and Departments of Education: 2002 Edition. Washington, DC: NCATE – The Standards of Excellence in Teacher Preparation. NCCRESt (National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems) (2005). Cultural Considerations and Challenges in Response-to-Intervention Models: An NCCRESt Position Statement. Tempe, AZ: NCCRESt. Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Input on ‘‘accuracy’’ of self-concepts. Exceptional Children 66(1), 39–53. Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., and Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide, pp 104–127. New York: Guilford. Richardson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, P., and Guilfoyle, K. (1989). School Children at-Risk. New York: Falmer. Rueda, R. and Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39(2), 99–107. Tyler, N. C., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., and Flippin, S. S. (2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special education workforce: A critical overview. Journal of Special Education 38(1), 22–38. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005). The Condition of Education 2005 (NCES 2005–094). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2007). Annual Report to Congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Washington, DC. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education 39(1), 6–18.
Further Reading Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., and Higareda, I. (2002). Englishlanguage learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In Losen, D. J. and Orfield, G. (eds.) Racial Inequality in Special Education, pp 117–136. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Artiles, A. J. and Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education 27, 410–437. Artiles, A. J. and Zamora-Duran, G. (1997). Disproportionate representation: A contentious and unresolved predicament. In Artiles, A. J. and Zamora-Duran, G. (eds.) Reducing Disproportionate
English Language Learners with Special Needs Representation of Culturally Diverse Students in Special and Gifted Education, pp 1–6. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. August, D. and Shanahan, T. (eds.) (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Donovan, S. and Cross, C. (2002). Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Harry, B. (1994). The Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education: Theories and Recommendations. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Hosp, J. L. and Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children 70(2), 185–199. Klingner, J. K. and Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record 108(11), 2247–2281. Lesaux, N. L. (2006). Building consensus: Future directions for research on English language learners at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers College Record 106(11), 2406–2438. Markowitz, J., Garcia, S. B., and Eichelberger, J. (1997). Addressing the Disproportionate Representation of Students from Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in Special Education: A Resource Document.
707
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). NAEP Data Explorer. Reading Assessments. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. NCLB (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No.107-110. Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomittently with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30(4), 321–332. US Census Bureau (2003). American Fact Finder. http://factfinder.census. gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet?_lang=en (accessed August 2009). US Department of Education (2003). US Department of Education 27th Annual Report to Congress. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., and Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 69(4), 391–409.
Relevant Websites http://www.cec.sped.org – Council for Exceptional Children. http://www.nccrest.org – National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. http://www.ed.gov – US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Glossary English learner – English learners are those individuals whose primary language is other than English and who is in the process of acquiring English language skills in the areas of listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing necessary to succeed in the school and in the workplace. IDEA – The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is the current version of the federal special education law that was first enacted in 1975 and was originally known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 or Public Law 94-142l. It outlines the provisions to be followed in the education of students with disabilities. Response to intervention – Response to intervention refers to a family of approaches which aim to prevent unnecessary assignment to special education. With RTI, low-performing children are offered intense, individualized academic intervention. Student progress is monitored to see if response to this intervention yields adequate academic growth. A key aspect of the approach is the provision of services to students with academic delays using one or more research-validated interventions. The student’s academic progress is monitored frequently to see if those interventions are sufficient to help the student to catch up with his or her peers. If the student fails to show significantly improved academic skills despite several well-designed and implemented interventions, this failure to respond to intervention can be viewed as evidence of an underlying learning disability.
This article discusses the challenges and dilemmas associated with placement and service provision for English language learners (ELLs) in special education systems and provides recommendations for improved assessment practices and service provisions. These issues represent a range of factors, including inappropriate assessment and psychometric issues, overrepresentation in special education programs, ambiguities in special education categorization, questionable pre-referral intervention practices, inadequate practitioner preparation related to language and cultural factors, and ineffective instructional practices both within and outside of the special education system
(McCardle et al., 2005). These challenges are not new to the special education field as they have been described in the literature since the 1970s. The difficulties associated with meeting the needs of ELLs appear to remain in spite of new reauthorizations of federal special education legislation that was originally prescribed by Public 94-142 (IDEA, 2004). An extensive review of the literature reveals a continuing issue with practitioners’ beliefs and discrepancies in their understanding of the needs of ELLs in public education that may lead to biased assessment practices, overreferral to special education systems, and ineffective instructional practices. In this article, we provide a brief review of these and related issues.
The English Language Learner Population In order to fully understand the needs of ELLs in education systems, it is important to describe the unique characteristics of the population. Linguistic diversity has dramatically increased in the past decade in the United States. The most recent United States Census data reveals that nearly 47 million US residents comprising nearly 18% of the total US population speak languages other than English. This growth is reflected in both the elementary and secondary school population. According to the US Department of Education, National Center on Educational Statistics (NCES), services related to ELLs were provided to 3.8 million students (11% of all students) during the 2003–04 school years. California and Texas had the largest reported number of students receiving ELL services during this period. In California, there were 1.6 million students (26% of all students) who received ELL services, and in Texas, there were 0.7 million students (16% of all students) who benefited from ELL services. Not only do ELLs face challenges related to language barriers, they are also adversely affected by persistently low teacher expectations and struggles associated with national and state achievement tests (McCardle et al., 2005). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, the academic achievement of ELL students has not kept pace with their English-speaking peers. In 2007, NAEP data revealed that 7% of ELLs read at or above the proficient level in fourth grade, in contrast to 36% of English-speaking students. Research has revealed a variety of reasons for why ELLs do not fare well on NAEP and related types of
701
702
Education of Children with Special Needs
standardized assessments. Test biases, misinterpretation of student needs, inadequate teacher training related to language assessment and instruction, and inconsistent teacher beliefs about the needs and expectations for ELLs all affect the achievement of this group, in particular those who are referred for special education services (Artiles et al., 2004). These difficulties and misperceptions have been cited as factors contributing to overrepresentation of ELLs in special education programs nation-wide. Overrepresentation of ELLs in special education presents significant challenges to families, students, and educational systems nationally (Rueda and Windmueller, 2006).
Range of Special Education Programs Currently, special education offers a range of programs in the United States. This range has increased as a function of each reauthorization of the federal special education legislation. In particular, the federal mandate for placing students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) has been an important factor in increased number and type of special education program options. Current program options include services for children beginning at birth and extending through to the age of 22 years and ranging in service intensity from full inclusion in general education with minimal consultative special education support to residential, segregated special education services. While access to special education services is expected to be equitable and universally available to all students who qualify, national statistics have illustrated that service choice, particularly when inclusion is warranted, is inequitable and racially divided. The most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education and Information Table 1 Fall 2003
Act (IDEIA) included legislative revision that increased the number of students included in general education classroom for a portion of their day. While inclusive settings have become more common, inequities abound. Researchers recognize that inclusion has benefited many students, particularly students identified with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). In the 2003 US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Report to Congress, underrepresented groups including ethnic minorities were placed in special education at significantly higher rates than white students. Moreover, students of color have been found to spend less time in inclusive settings. While Hispanic and Black K-12 students make up the largest population of special education learners, it appears from the national statistics that these subgroups spend more of their educational experiences in more restrictive special education settings than their peers. According to the National Center on Educational Statistics, (2005) approximately 50% of all disabled students in 2003–04 spent 80% or more of their day in a regular classroom, up from 45% in 1994–95. In contrast, Black and Hispanic students with disabilities spent less time in a regular classroom on average than their peers of other races/ ethnicities with disabilities. This inequity suggests that particular ethnic groups are not provided with the full range of service options available to students with special needs. Table 1 provides an illustration of this representation by ethnic group and federally recognized disability category. As indicated by Table 1, in 2003, the percentage of students receiving special education with SLDs (the largest reported category) is highest for Hispanics (many of whom are ELLs). Hispanics represent 57.3% of all students with SLDs served.
Disability distribution, by race/ethnicity, of students aged 6 through 21 receiving special education and related services:
Disability
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
Asian Pacific Islander
Black (not Hispanic)
Hispanic
White (not Hispanic)
Specific learning disability Speech language impairments Mental retardation Emotional disturbance Multiple disabilities Hearing impairments Orthopedic impairments Other health impairments Visual impairments Autism Deaf-blind Traumatic brain injury Developmental delay All disabilities
54.5 16.0 7.5 8.0 2.0 1.0 0.7 5.7 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.4 2.6 100
39.5 26.0 8.9 11.6 2.7 2.8 1.7 5.3 0.8 5.7 0.1 0.4 1.4 100
44.5 14.3 16.1 11.2 2.2 1.0 0.8 5.9 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.2 100
57.3 18.3 8.1 4.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 4.1 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 100
45.6 20.1 7.9 7.9 2.3 1.1 1.2 9.1 0.4 2.7 0.0 1.4 1.2 100
Total may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Source: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2007). 27th Annual (2005) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, vol. 1. Washington, DC.
English Language Learners with Special Needs
Overrepresentation of ELLs in Special Education For nearly four decades, minority students have been overrepresented in special education. As a recent example, Artiles et al. (2005) conducted a study of within-group diversity of disproportionate representation of ELL students in special education. They discovered that ELLs identified as having limited proficiency in both their primary language (L1) and English (L2) showed the highest rates of identification in the special education categories investigated. Moreover, these students were consistently overrepresented in programs for students with learning disabilities and language and speech disabilities, and had significantly greater chances of being placed in special education. Because of the long-standing overrepresentation of certain groups of students in special education, federal legislation now requires states to collect and examine data on disproportionality related to race and ethnicity. Wherever, states identify disproportional representation, they are mandated to plan services and to develop policies and procedures to adjust proportionality (US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2007). In addition to examining referral and identification data, the legislation requires that states adjust their identification criteria for students with SLDs and adopt a policy of prereferral intervention with a process of response to intervention (RTI). RTI is defined as ‘‘the use of strategies used by classroom teachers to target instructional interventions to children’s areas of specific need as soon as those needs become apparent’’ (US Department of Education, 2007), and before referral to special education is formally commenced.
Inappropriate Referrals Based on Language Differences NCLB and the massive demographic changes of the student population have placed a tremendous demand on school districts to educate all students to proficient levels. One challenge is that in response to these conditions, educators increasingly inappropriately refer ELL students for special education (Rhodes et al., 2005). In addition to these pressures, biases in the referral process have been implicated in disproportionality. This bias impacts other steps in the process such as pre-referral interventions and assessment practices.
English Language Learners and Issues of Education Assessment Researchers have suggested that inappropriate assessment practices account for much of the disproportionality of English language learners receiving special education
703
services. Various studies have demonstrated that standardized achievement tests present significant challenges for ELLs. Differentiating between typical second language acquisition and learning disabilities is an important and continuing educational challenge (Gonzalez et al., 1997). Another stems from the difficulty that the educational field has with development of assessment measures and procedures that adequately determine when a child with a primary language other than English is ready to be tested in English only, the primary language currently used to assess learners for special education (Abedi, 2006). Students often appear to be orally proficient in English long before they have fully developed cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), the linguistic proficiency required for comprehending and effectively utilizing academic informational text. Bailey and Butler (2004) propose that effective inclusion efforts must begin with equitable exposure to and learning of the academic language required in the classroom and on content examinations. Macswan and Rolstad (2006) documented a significant discrepancy between ELLs’ performance on commonly used language assessment measures and qualitatively coded natural language samples completed by the study’s research team. This led the researchers to question the construct validity of widely used language tests, and they noted that practitioners should use them with caution when considering special education status. In a related large-scale national study that included analyses of standardized assessment data from K-12 settings, Abedi (2006) found a significant performance gap between ELL and non-ELL students in reading and writing assessments. The gap was less for science assessment measures, and lowest for math problem solving, for which the test items were less linguistically challenging for ELL students. The performance gap virtually disappeared in math computation, where the language demands of the test items were minimal. These results suggest that language-rich tests have significant potential for misidentifying students into special education when they are factored into students’ special education eligibility profiles. Research suggests that test biases and validity issues are highly plausible factors related to the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education. These findings suggest a need to develop assessment measures that fairly, validly, and reliably assess the needs, abilities, and achievements of ELLs with special needs. Additionally, the assessment research suggests that multiple measures that create comprehensive student assessment profiles should be used to assess ELL students for special education eligibility and placement so that the students’ educational future is not determined by a single assessment measure (Rueda and Windmueller, 2006). The practice of developing assessment profiles that include both standardized and holistic community specific measures is a viable option for decreasing misidentification of ELLs for special education placement.
704
Education of Children with Special Needs
Language and Cultural Considerations in Pre-referral and RTI Assessment is not the only step in the special education referral process that may contribute to inappropriate placement and overrepresentation of English learners in special education services. In response to the ineffectiveness of the discrepancy model for special education eligibility, the RTI process has been established. RTI focuses on prereferral interventions to address the overrepresentation of minority groups in special education groups (Fuchs et al., 2003). RTI is defined as the practice of providing highquality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and level of performance in advance of formal referral to make important educational decisions about special education eligibility and service provision. That is, instead of relying on a score as an index of or predictor of learning potential, RTI assesses actual response to high-quality treatment or intervention as a pre-referral metric. Recognizing the potential of pre-referral intervention, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers established RTI to systematically improve and articulate levels of support and intervention provided to students in at-risk conditions (Artiles and Klinger, 2003). The IDEIA legislation requires educators to measure students’ RTI before referring the students for special education assessment and services. A widely used model for RTI includes a three-tiered process. The first tier consists of quality instruction in a general education classroom based on evidence-based practices; the second tier is implemented only with students who do not reach expected benchmarks using an assessment instrument; and the third tier refers to students that are going to engage in the special education referral and assessment processes. While RTI is designed to alleviate disproportionate representation of students of color and English language learners in special education by increasing opportunities to learn, it may at the same time be subject to the same challenges related to cultural and linguistic differences that have plagued the special education system historically (Klinger et al., 2005). The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems suggests that RTI implementers consider the following four critical areas in designing and delivering educational intervention: (1) culturally meaningful task criteria, (2) teacher–student shared understandings of the purpose of tasks and activities, (3) culturally inclusive participation frameworks in classroom discourse, and (4) deficit-based ideologies about low-income racial minority students used in referral and placement practices. These considerations are sparsely evident in many RTI programs or in the RTI research. It has been noted that practitioners and researchers are in conflict around effective interventions in RTI (NCCRESt, 2005). In general, practitioners
conducting RTI use a problem-solving approach to intervention, while researchers often favor the use of standardized treatment protocols.
Intervention Strategies and Cultural Appropriateness Not only are many special education assessment practices inappropriate for ELLs, there are also problems with intervention and instructional practices. In an effort to alleviate inequity in RTI-related services, Gersten and Dimino (2006) recommend that the three RTI tiers be fully implemented with the focus on preventing referral to special education by identifying at-risk factors in students early on in the process. They propose using a combination of national benchmarks and local and classroom norms to identify students at risk for failure. Gersten and Dimino describe the need for immediate, specific one-on-one small group intervention aligned with data that teachers consistently monitor in general education classrooms. In addition, appropriate intervention with ELLs requires training nonspecial education teachers to recognize risk factors in students and to have proficiency in a range of strategies for providing remediation for at-risk learners. Often, teachers’ beliefs, expectations for students, skills sets, and efficacy are challenged at levels that they are not prepared for in their teacher preservice preparation program (Tyler et al., 2004). This situation may contribute to the disproportionality in special education noted earlier in this article. In addition to the potential problems associated with pre-referral (RTI) intervention, researchers note that intervention strategies in full service special education are often culturally and linguistically inappropriate for ELLs. Inflexible implementation of commercial and undifferentiated instruction is of primary concern to researchers in their quests for finding effective intervention strategies for ELLs in intervention programs. Unfortunately, there are relatively few intervention programs specifically designed for ELLs with special needs. Yet even these efforts to deliver early and individualized help may provide benefit to these students. As an example, Williams (2005) conducted a study using a reading-related intervention often found in RTI Tier 3 (as described earlier in this article), focused on text structure and gradual introduction of reading comprehension strategies. The content was introduced to learners in small increments, moving from simpler to complex while providing (1) modeling by the teacher, (2) scaffolding that faded as instruction progressed, (3) substantial guided followed by unguided practice with texts specifically structured for instruction with feedback, and (4) a thematic along with feedback instructional approach. The goal for this intervention was the development of automaticity of
English Language Learners with Special Needs
the comprehension strategies in addition to transfer of the strategies to real life situations. This study revealed significant improvements in reading scores for both Hispanic and African American students, with the resulting treatment effect sizes between 1.64 and 4.06. This finding is consistent with other studies on this issue. While reading has been identified as a primary intervention need for ELLs, many ELLs also receive mathematics instruction through RTI or through ongoing special education service provision. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) identified mathematical problem solving (MPS) as a primary instructional need for students at risk for special education identification. They identify skill transfer as a primary difficulty and suggest that many math interventions have focused on basic skills rather than real life problem solving. Fuchs and Fuchs designed an intervention drawing on schema-based instruction and self-regulation strategies to address the transfer problems in mathematics problem solving. These math intervention strategies have yielded promising results. As previously stated, intervention studies do not have to focus specifically on the needs of ELLs. This is quite unfortunate as the recent NCES statistics (2005) reveal that ELLs continue to be overrepresented in special education and in the special education pre-referral process. While some small-scale studies reveal promising intervention results for ELLs, few studies have focused on the unique cultural and linguistic needs of ELLs in designing interventions. Additionally, at the pre-referral stage in the special education system, the bulk of responsibility for identification and intervention is placed on general education teachers who have little, if any, training at preservice or in-service levels in working with and assessing learners with special needs who are ELLs.
Teacher Qualification, Beliefs, Expectations, and Practices Associated with ELLs in Special Education Teacher education research suggests that teachers’ beliefs influence instructional practices and influence the expectations that they have for students. Other factors such as teachers’ self-efficacy may be important in the quality of instruction provided to students. Research has revealed that many teachers are often uncertain about how to determine whether ELLs are having difficulties due to language differences or due to learning challenges. For example, Obiakor (1999) identified low teacher expectation for ELL students as a significant factor in inappropriate referral to special education. Obiakor suggested that teachers’ beliefs about the abilities and needs of ELL students inform their expectations and in turn inform their instructional practices. These beliefs and assumptions are informed both by personal experiences as well as by formal preservice and
705
in-service teacher education. A significant limitation of teacher training programs nationally is that they overemphasize knowledge acquisition to the detriment of equipping teachers with practical skills for teaching to a diverse range of students, including those with disabilities (Edelen-Smith et al., 1993). Additionally, in most states, preservice teacher preparation programs require only one course in special education (NCATE, 2002), and special educators are often not required to take courses on meeting the needs of ELLs (NCATE, 2002). The shortcomings of teacher preparation programs contribute to the challenges faced by teachers in their professional educational practices. As an example, Richardson et al. (1989) studied two elementary schools and investigated the reasons for teachers referring students for special education assessment. They concluded that often referrals are more a reflection of teacher stress and inadequate training than a result of the students they teach having an identified learning disability. Tyler et al. (2004) suggest that general education teachers often interpret culturally diverse students’ performance through European American middle-income normative parameters of competence. Because culturally diverse students’ performance does not always align with such parameters, it is often regarded as deficient. In many cases, a deficit perspective perpetuates low expectations for ELL students by teachers, and likely contributes to the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education.
Summary and Conclusions While progress has been made in reducing ELLs’ overrepresentation in special education, it remains a problem. Few interventions have been designed specifically to address the linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs at both the pre-referral and service provision levels. Also problematic are teacher preparation programs and teachers’ misunderstanding and misattribution of the needs of ELLs. These challenges have existed for nearly four decades and have not been comprehensively addressed. It appears that without significant changes in the special education system, the needs of ELLs will continue to be unmet.
Recommendations for Research and Practice Significant changes are needed in order to meet the needs of ELLs. Particularly needed are strategies to address the needs of ELLs at the pre-referral stages and in special education. However, the issues are multidimensional (Rueda and Windmueller, 2006) and must be addressed from various avenues. It is critical to address the training needs of general education teachers at both in-service and preservice levels
706
Education of Children with Special Needs
so that they fully understand the needs of ELLs in their classroom. The language, cultural, and socioeconomicrelated dimensions of students’ experiences need to be considered in special education referral processes. This requires a significant overhaul of accreditation standards for teacher preparation programs so that colleges and universities are required to include comprehensive coursework and meaningful supervised preservice practice for all general and special education teacher candidates. This may help address the challenges associated with over-referral to the special education system. Training related to instructional strategies should be provided to effectively teach ELLs using culturally, linguistic, and developmentally appropriate practices. Training of special education teachers is needed in this area because statistics reveal that ELLs in special education are less likely to exit special education once placed in this system. Additionally, assessments that are psychometrically appropriate for validly assessing ELLs are needed. Culturally and linguistically appropriate pre-referral strategies must be developed to address the RTI requirements of the new special education legislation so that ELLs can fully benefit from RTI approaches. The legislative mandates associated with monitoring disproportionality statistics and action plans associated with changing the disproportionality must be fully implemented (IDEA, 2004). These recommendations are critical for ELLs to be insured educational equity. See also: English Language Learners with Special Needs; Overrepresentation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education; Prereferral Strategies.
Bibliography Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record 108(11), 2282–2303. Artiles, A. J. and Klinger, J. K. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education? Educational Leadership 61(2), 5–12. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., and Higareda, I. (2005). Withingroup diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Council for Exceptional Children 71(3), 283–300. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., and Palmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education: Legacies and prospects. In Banks, J. A. and Banks, C. M. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd edn, pp 716–735. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bailey, A. L. and Butler, F. A. (2004). Ethical considerations in the assessment of the language and content knowledge of U.S. schoolage English learners. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal 1(2), 177–193. Edelen-Smith, P., Prater, M., and Sileo, T. (1993). The impact of current issues in teacher education on the preparation of special educators. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation S(1), 7–15. Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Enhancing mathematical problem solving fir students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education 39(1), 45–57. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., and Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and
implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 18(3), 157–171. Gersten, R. and Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly 41(1), 99–108. Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., and Yawkey, T. (1997). Assessment and Instruction of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with or atRisk of Learning Problems: From Research to Practice. Needham Height, MA: Allyn and Bacon. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et. Seq. (Statute). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Regulations). http://www. wrightslaw.com/idea/law.htm. Klinger, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., et al. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 13(38), 1–42. Macswan, J. and Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teacher’s College Record 108(11), 2304–2328. McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., and D’Emilio, T. (2005). Learning disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning Disabilities. Research and Practice 20(1), 1–5. NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) (2002). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges and Departments of Education: 2002 Edition. Washington, DC: NCATE – The Standards of Excellence in Teacher Preparation. NCCRESt (National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems) (2005). Cultural Considerations and Challenges in Response-to-Intervention Models: An NCCRESt Position Statement. Tempe, AZ: NCCRESt. Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Input on ‘‘accuracy’’ of self-concepts. Exceptional Children 66(1), 39–53. Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., and Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide, pp 104–127. New York: Guilford. Richardson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, P., and Guilfoyle, K. (1989). School Children at-Risk. New York: Falmer. Rueda, R. and Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39(2), 99–107. Tyler, N. C., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., and Flippin, S. S. (2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special education workforce: A critical overview. Journal of Special Education 38(1), 22–38. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005). The Condition of Education 2005 (NCES 2005–094). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2007). Annual Report to Congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Washington, DC. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education 39(1), 6–18.
Further Reading Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., and Higareda, I. (2002). Englishlanguage learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In Losen, D. J. and Orfield, G. (eds.) Racial Inequality in Special Education, pp 117–136. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Artiles, A. J. and Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education 27, 410–437. Artiles, A. J. and Zamora-Duran, G. (1997). Disproportionate representation: A contentious and unresolved predicament. In Artiles, A. J. and Zamora-Duran, G. (eds.) Reducing Disproportionate
English Language Learners with Special Needs Representation of Culturally Diverse Students in Special and Gifted Education, pp 1–6. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. August, D. and Shanahan, T. (eds.) (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Donovan, S. and Cross, C. (2002). Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Harry, B. (1994). The Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education: Theories and Recommendations. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Hosp, J. L. and Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children 70(2), 185–199. Klingner, J. K. and Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record 108(11), 2247–2281. Lesaux, N. L. (2006). Building consensus: Future directions for research on English language learners at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers College Record 106(11), 2406–2438. Markowitz, J., Garcia, S. B., and Eichelberger, J. (1997). Addressing the Disproportionate Representation of Students from Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in Special Education: A Resource Document.
707
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). NAEP Data Explorer. Reading Assessments. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. NCLB (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No.107-110. Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomittently with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30(4), 321–332. US Census Bureau (2003). American Fact Finder. http://factfinder.census. gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet?_lang=en (accessed August 2009). US Department of Education (2003). US Department of Education 27th Annual Report to Congress. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., and Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 69(4), 391–409.
Relevant Websites http://www.cec.sped.org – Council for Exceptional Children. http://www.nccrest.org – National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. http://www.ed.gov – US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.