I S S U E S & A N S W E R S R E L 2 0 1 0 – N o . 0 8 5
At Education Development Center, Inc.
Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State districts
I S S U E S&ANSWERS R E L 2 0 1 0 – N o . 0 8 5
AtEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.
ProcessesandchallengesinidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
inthreeNewYorkStatedistricts
February2010
Preparedby
MaríaTeresaSánchezEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.
CarolineParkerEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.
BercemAkbayinEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.
AnnaMcTigueEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.
WA
OR
ID
MT
NV
CA
UT
AZ
WY
ND
SD
NE
KSCO
NM
TX
OK
CO
AR
LA
MS AL GA
SC
NC
VAWV
KY
TN
PA
NY
FL
AK
MN
WI
IA
IL IN
MI
OH
VT
NH
ME
CT RI
MA
MO
VI
PRAtEducationDevelopment
Center,Inc.
Issues & Answers isanongoingseriesofreportsfromshort-termFastResponseProjectsconductedbytheregionaleduca-tionallaboratoriesoncurrenteducationissuesofimportanceatlocal,state,andregionallevels.FastResponseProjecttopicschangetoreflectnewissues,asidentifiedthroughlaboutreachandrequestsforassistancefrompolicymakersandeduca-torsatstateandlocallevelsandfromcommunities,businesses,parents,families,andyouth.AllIssues&AnswersreportsmeetInstituteofEducationSciencesstandardsforscientificallyvalidresearch.
February2010
ThisreportwaspreparedfortheInstituteofEducationSciences(IES)underContractED-06-CO-0025byRegionalEduca-tionalLaboratoryNortheastandIslandsadministeredbyEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.Thecontentofthepublica-tiondoesnotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsorpoliciesofIESortheU.S.DepartmentofEducationnordoesmentionoftradenames,commercialproducts,ororganizationsimplyendorsementbytheU.S.Government.
Thisreportisinthepublicdomain.Whilepermissiontoreprintthispublicationisnotnecessary,itshouldbecitedas:
Sánchez,M.T.,Parker,C.,Akbayin,B.,andMcTigue,A.(2010).Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State districts(Issues&AnswersReport,REL2010–No.085).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences,NationalCenterforEducationEvalu-ationandRegionalAssistance,RegionalEducationalLaboratoryNortheastandIslands.Retrievedfromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Thisreportisavailableontheregionaleducationallaboratorywebsiteathttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Summary REL 2010–No. 085
ProcessesandchallengesinidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinthreeNewYorkStatedistricts
Usinginterviewswithdistrictandschool Tworesearchquestionsguidedtheproject:personnelanddocumentsfromstateanddistrictwebsitesinthreedistrictsinNew • AccordingtodistrictandschoolpersonnelYorkState,thestudyexaminespractices inthreemidsizeNewYorkStatedistricts,foridentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamong whatprocessesareusedtoidentifystustudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearn- dentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersersandthechallengesthatarise.The andalsohavelearningdisabilities?studyfindsbothsimilaritiesanddifferencesinpractices,withmoredifferences • Whatchallengesdothosedistrictadmininprereferralthaninreferralpractices.It istratorsandschoolpersonneldescribeidentifieseightchallengestotheidentifi abouttheprocessofidentifyinglearningcationoflearningdisabilitiesinstudents disabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEngwhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandfive lishlanguagelearners?interrelatedelementsthatappeartobeimportantforavoidingmisidentification. Theresearchteamprofiledthreemidsizeschool
districtsinNewYorkState.TheteamcollectedResearchshowsthatstudentswhoareEng dataprimarilyfromsemistructuredinterviewslishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearning withdistrictadministratorsandschoolperson-disabilitiesfaceuniquechallengesbecauseof nelbutalsofrompubliclyavailablesourcesandtheirdualstatus(Artilesetal.2005;Figueroa documentsprovidedbyrespondents.1999;Harry2002).Aspartofaninitiativetohelpdistrictsaccuratelyidentifystudentswho Districtidentificationprocesses
areEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilitiesandtoavoidover- and Thethreestudieddistrictsidentifylearningdisunderidentification,theNewYorkStateEduca abilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlantionDepartmentaskedtheRegionalEducational guagelearnersintwostages:prereferralandrefer-LaboratoryNortheastandIslandsforinforma ral.Althoughthetwoprocessesaresimilaracrosstionondistrictpracticesforidentifyinglearning thedistricts,therearealsoimportantdifferences.disabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandthechallengesthatarise, Prereferral. Thethreedistrictsfollowasimilarasperceivedbydistrictandschoolstaff. prereferralprocessthatstartswhenteachers
-
--
--
-
-- -
-
ii Summary
identifystudentswhoarenotprogressingand referralbeginswithobtainingparentalper-consultfellowteachers,schoolsupportperson- missionandcontinueswiththecollectionofnel,oradministrators.Theteacherandschool studentinformation,assessments,andoverallcolleaguesdiscussstudentdata,considerin- evaluationsbyadistrictmultidisciplinaryteamstructionalmodifications,implementthemwith (theCommitteeonSpecialEducation),whichthestudent,andanalyzetheresults.Inallthree determineseligibilityforspecialeducationserdistrictstheprereferralprocessisusuallylonger vices.Nonetheless,thereweresomedifferencesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners inthedistricts’referralprocesses:thanfornativeEnglishspeakerstoensuresufficienttimeforthestudentstodevelopEnglish • Initiating referrals. Intwodistrictsrefer-proficiencyandforeducatorstodifferentiate ralscomefromthechildstudyteam,inbetweenlanguagedevelopmentissuesand consultationwithparents.Inthethirdalearningdisabilities. schooladministratorinitiatesreferrals,
althoughteacherssometimesencourageTherearealsosomedifferencesinthepre- parentstoinitiatereferralsiftheythinkreferralprocessofthethreedistricts: astudent’sneedsarenotbeingmetina
timelyfashion.• General staff organization for planning and
problem solving.Acrossthethreedistricts • Collecting student information. Intwotherearedifferencesinstructuredoppor districtsmostoftherelevantstudenttunitiestodiscussstudentprogressand informationhasalreadybeencollectedbyinaccesstostaffwithexpertiseinsecond thechildstudyteams,whileinthethirdlanguagedevelopment. districtmostoftheinformationiscol
lectedduringthereferralperiod.• Child study team staffing and roles. Child
studyteams,acommonwayoforganizing • Sharing information between the English staffforprereferrals,areusedinthemid- language learner and special education dleschoolsintwoofthethreedistricts. departments. IntwodistrictstheEnglish
languagelearnerandthespecialeducation• Supports and interventions. Thenumber departmentsbeginsharinginformation
ofsupportsandinterventionsavailablein aboutspecificstudentsbeforethereferraleachmiddleschoolvariesacrossthethree process,whileinthethirddistrictperson-districts. nelfromthetwoconsultonlyafterreferral
isinitiated.• Monitoring student progress in interven
tions.Theschoolsanddistrictsmonitor Districtchallengesintheidentificationprocesses
strugglingstudentsindifferentways.Analysisofdistrictandschoolinterviewdata
Referral. Becausefederalguidelinesspecifythe revealedeightchallengesintheprocessofstepstofollowinthereferralprocess,thereare identifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentsonlyminorvariationsacrossthedistricts.A whoareEnglishlanguagelearners:
-
-
-
-
• Difficultieswithpolicyguidelines.
• DifferentstakeholderviewsabouttimingforreferralofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
• Insufficientknowledgeamongpersonnelinvolvedinidentification.
• Difficultiesprovidingconsistent,adequateservicestostudentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearners.
• Lackofcollaborativestructuresinprereferral.
• Lackofaccesstoassessmentsthatdiffer-entiatebetweensecondlanguagedevelop-mentandlearningdisabilities.
• Lackofconsistentmonitoringforstrug-glingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
• Difficultyobtainingstudents’previousschoolrecords.
Thesechallengesreflectthedifficultiesdis-trictsfaceincomplyingwiththeIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActof2004,whichrequiresevidencethatlearningdifficultiesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersarenotdueprimarilytoalackofappropriatein-structionortothestudent’slackofproficiencyinEnglishbeforethestudentcanbeidentifiedashavingalearningdisability.
Analysisofthedifferencesintheprereferralandreferralprocessesandofthechallengesidentifiedinthethreedistrictssuggestsfiveinterrelatedele-mentsthatappeartobeimportantforavoidingmisidentificationoflearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners:
• Adequate professional knowledge. Havingaccesstoprofessionalexpertiseaboutcul-turaldifferences,languagedevelopment,learningdisabilities,andtheirintersectionamongclassroomteachers,specialists,andadministrators.
• Effective instructional practices. ProvidingeffectiveinstructiontostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersbeforeanddur-ingprereferral.
• Effective and valid assessment and interventions.Providingvalidassessmentsandeffectiveinterventionstrategies.
• Interdepartmental collaborative structures. EstablishingstructuresforcollaborationbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments,aswellasopportunitiesforteacherstocollaborateandproblemsolveinschools.
• Clear policy guidelines. ProvidingstreamlinedandclearpolicyguidelinesonprocedurestofollowandcriteriatouseinidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
February2010
iv Table of conTenTs
Table of conTenTs
Whythisstudy? 1NewYorkStateEducationDepartmentinterest 1Theresearchproject 3
Typicalprocessesforidentifyingstudentswithdisabilities 3
Characteristicsofthethreedistrictsinthesample 5District1 6District2 6District3 7
WhatprocessesdodistrictsuseforidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners? 7
Prereferralprocesses 8Formalreferralforspecialeducationservices 12
WhatchallengesdodistrictandschoolpersonnelfindinidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners? 14
1.Difficultieswithpolicyguidelines 142.DifferentstakeholderviewsabouttimingforreferralofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners 163. Insufficientknowledgeamongpersonnelinvolvedinidentification 174.Difficultiesprovidingconsistent,adequateservicestostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners 175.Lackofcollaborativestructuresinprereferral 186.Lackofaccesstoassessmentsthatdifferentiatebetweensecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearning
disabilities 197.LackofconsistentmonitoringforstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners 198.Difficultyobtainingstudents’previousschoolrecords 20
Discussionoffindings 20Adequateprofessionalknowledge 21Effectiveinstructionalpractices 22Effectiveandvalidassessmentsandinterventions 22Interdepartmentalcollaborativestructures 22Clearpolicyguidelines 23
Limitationsandimplicationsforfurtherresearch 24
AppendixA Studymethods 25
AppendixB ResearchonidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners 30
AppendixC Interviewprotocols 32
AppendixD Cross-districtdemographics,organizationalstructure,andprogramsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinmiddleschool 36
Notes 38
References 40
v Table of conTenTs
Boxes
1 Definitionofkeyterms 2
2 Studymethods 4
A1 Finalcodesandcodefamilies 28
Tables
1 DifferencesinprereferralprocessesamongthethreeNewYorkStateschooldistricts,2008 9
2 DifferencesinthereferralprocessesamongthethreeNewYorkStateschooldistricts,2008 13
3 ChallengesencounteredduringprereferralandreferralbydistrictadministratorsandschoolpersonnelinthethreeNewYorkStatedistricts,2008 15
A1 Comparisonofdemographicinformationbetweenparticipating,eligible,andallNewYorkStatedistricts(excepttheBigFive),2005/06 26
A2 Numberofintervieweesbyprotocolused,January–March2008 27
D1 Demographics,organizationalstructure,andprogramsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinmiddleschoolinthethreestudydistricts,2005/06and2008 36
1Why ThiS STudy?
UsinginterviewswithdistrictandschoolpersonnelanddocumentsfromstateanddistrictwebsitesinthreedistrictsinNewYorkState,thestudyexaminespracticesforidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandthechallengesthatarise.Thestudyfindsbothsimilaritiesanddifferencesinpractices,withmoredifferencesinprereferralthaninreferralpractices.ItidentifieseightchallengestotheidentificationoflearningdisabilitiesinstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandfiveinterrelatedelementsthatappeartobeimportantforavoidingmisidentification.
WhYThISSTUdY?
Inrequiringthatstatesreportschool-levelas-sessmentresultsbysubgroup,theNoChildLeftBehind(NCLB)Actof2001highlightedconcernfortheproficiencylevelsofstudentswithdis-abilitiesandstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(NoChildLeftBehindAct2002;seebox1fordefinitionsofkeytermsusedinthisreport).1
AlthoughtheNCLBActdoesnotrequireseparatereportsofachievementdatafordual-identifiedstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavedisabilities,researchshowsthatthissub-groupfacesuniquechallengesbecauseofitsdualstatus(Artilesetal.2005;Figueroa1999;Harry2002).TheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment(NYSED),whichhasmadeaddressingtheneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilitiesapriority,askedtheRegionalEducationalLaboratoryNortheastandIslandstoprovideinformationondistrictpracticestoidentifylearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandonthechallengesindoingso.
NewYorkStateEducationDepartmentinterest
TheNYSEDOfficeofVocationalandEducationalServicesforIndividualswithDisabilities(VESID)andtheOfficeofBilingualEducationandForeignLanguageStudiesareawarethatdistricts,schools,andteachersfacechallengesinidentifyingdis-abilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.AnassociateinbilingualeducationwithinVESIDbringsEnglishlanguagedevelop-mentexpertisetothestateoffice.Inthestate’sre-gionaleducationoffices2similarpositionsarefilledbybilingualspecialistswhoprovideprofessionaldevelopmentthroughoutthestateonissuesaffect-ingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,boththosewithdisabilitiesandthosewithout.Al-thoughNYSEDdoesnothaveprogramsspecificallyaddressinghowtoidentifylearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,itdoessponsorworkshopsfocusingondisabilities,includingonresponsetointerventioninitiatives,3
forstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
2 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
box 1
Definition of key terms
Adequate yearly progress.Themeasurebywhichpublicschools,dis-tricts,andstatesareheldaccountableforstudentperformanceundertheNoChildLeftBehindActof2001.
Child study team.AsafirststepintheprereferralprocessinNewYorkState,ateamofdiverseprofession-alswhomeetintheschoolsettingtobrainstorminstructionalstrategies,interventions,anddatacollectionforstrugglingstudents.
Committee on Special Education.InNewYorkStateateamthatmeetsafterachildhasbeenformallyreferredforspecialeducationevalu-ationtocoordinatetheevaluation,identification,andspecialeducationplacementprocesses.
English as a second language.Classestodevelopskillsinunderstanding,speaking,reading,writing,andcommunicatinginEnglishandtointegrateacademiccontentappropri-ateforthestudent’sage,grade,andEnglishlanguageskills.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004.Lawgovern-inghowstatesandpublicagenciesprovideearlyintervention,specialeducation,andrelatedservicestomorethan6.5millioneligibleinfants,toddlers,children,andyouthwithdisabilities.
Learning disability.UnderIDEA2004,adisorderinoneormorebasicpsychologicalprocessesinvolvedinunderstandingorusingspokenorwrittenlanguagethatmaymanifestitselfinanimperfectabilitytolisten,
think,speak,read,write,spell,ordomathcalculations.
Native (or first) language. Thelanguagespokeninthestudent’shomebeforeformalschoolingstarts,hereusedtorefertolanguagesotherthanEnglish.
Prereferral.Allinvestigativeactivitiesthatoccurbeforeaformalrequestforparentalconsentforevaluationandreferraltospecialeducation.
Referral.Theformalevaluationpro-cess,followingIDEA2004guidelines,todeterminewhetherachildhasadisabilityandiseligibleforspecialeducationorrelatedservices.
Response to intervention. Amultitieredapproachtohelpingstrugglinglearn-ers,withprogresscloselymonitoredateachstageofinterventiontodeterminetheneedforfurtherresearch-basedin-terventioningeneraleducation,specialeducation,orboth.Itisoftencon-ceptualizedinthreetiers:thegeneraleducationsettingwithscientificallybasedeffectiveinstruction,amoreintenselevelofinterventiontargetedtoastudent’sacademicstruggles,andanintenselevelofinterventionandsupport,withachildoftenreceivingspecialeducationorrelatedservices.
Second language development. Theprocessbywhichindividualsacquireordevelopcompetenceinasecondlanguage,includingtheconsciousandunconsciouslearningprocessesoccur-ringnaturallyduringsocialinterac-tionsandthroughaformallearningprocesswiththeguidanceofbooksorclassroominstruction(Ellis1985).
Students who are English language learners.InNewYorkState,studentswhospeakalanguageotherthan
EnglishandeitherunderstandandspeaklittleEnglishorscorebelowastate-designatedlevelofprofi-ciencyontheLanguageAssessmentBattery–RevisedortheNewYorkStateEnglishasaSecondLanguageAchievementTest.
Students who are English language learners and who might have a learning disability. StudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhostrugglewithunderstandingorusingspokenorwrittenlanguage,butforwhomthecausehasnotbeenidentifiedasdueprimarilytoaninherentlearningdisabilityortothenaturalprocessofsecondlanguageacquisition.
Students with disabilities.Anychild,includingastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearner,identifiedashavinganyofthefollowingdisabilitiesandneedsspecialeducationandrelatedservices:mentalretardation,ahearingimpairment(includingdeafness),aspeechorlanguageimpairment,avi-sualimpairment(includingblindness),aseriousemotionaldisturbance,anorthopedicimpairment,autism,trau-maticbraininjury,anotherhealthim-pairment,aspecificlearningdisability,deaf-blindness,ormultipledisabilities(IDEA2004Sec.300.304–300.311).
Students with interrupted formal education or schooling.InNewYorkState,studentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearnersandwhocomefromahomewherealanguageotherthanEnglishisspokenandenteraschoolintheUnitedStatesaftergrade2andwho,atenrollment,havehadatleasttwoyears’lessschoolingthantheirpeers,functionatleasttwoyearsbelowexpectedgradelevelinreadingandmath,andmaylackliteracyskillsinthenativelanguage.
Typical proceSSeS for idenTifying STudenTS WiTh diSabiliTieS 3
Atthetimeofthiswriting,NYSEDwascompletinganewsetofguidelinesforteachersandschoolanddistrictadministratorsonidentifyingandteachingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavealearningdisability.Generalguidancewasavailableonidentifyingandprovidinginstruc-tionforstudentswithdisabilities,buttherewerenospecificguidelinesforidentifyingandprovidinginstructiontostudentswithlearningdisabilitieswhoarealsoEnglishlanguagelearners.Compo-nentsofthatguidancearespreadacrossseveraldocuments,someofthemavailableonline.4
Despitetheavailabilityofwrittenguidanceandtechnicalassistancethroughoutthestate,NYSEDleadersareawarethatnotalldistrictshaveeasyaccesstotheseresources.Inthelargestdistricts,knownastheBigFive(NewYorkCity,Buffalo,Rochester,Syracuse,andYonkers),stateexpertshavebeenworkingcloselywithdistrictstafftoimprovetheidentificationofdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandtoprovideappropriateformsofinstruction.Smallerdistricts,however,donotalwayshaveaccesstotechnicalassistanceresources.Thestateisaddressingthisneedintwoways:bymakingbi-lingualspecialeducationexpertsmoreaccessiblethroughoutthestateandbyupdatingtheguide-linesforidentifyingdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
Theresearchproject
AspartoftheNYSEDinitiativetohelpdistrictsidentifydisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,itaskedtheRegionalEducationalLaboratoryNortheastandIslandstoprovideinformationondistrictpracticesandchallengesinthisarea,asdescribedbyschoolanddistrictstaff.Tworesearchquestionsguidedtheproject:
• AccordingtodistrictandschoolpersonnelinthreemidsizeNewYorkStatedistricts,whatprocessesareusedtoidentifystudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities?
• Whatchallengesdothosedistrictadministra-torsandschoolpersonneldescribeabouttheprocessofidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners?
Box2andappendixAdetailthestudymethods.
TYPIcalProcESSESforIdENTIfYINgSTUdENTSWIThdISabIlITIES
Afreeandappropriatepubliceducationisthepro-tectedrightofeveryeligiblechildinall50statesandU.S.territories.TheIndividualswithDisabili-tiesEducationAct(IDEA)of2004specifieshowtoensureafreeandappropriatepubliceducationforstudentswithdisabilities.TheprocessthatleadstoachildbeingidentifiedashavingadisabilitystartslongbeforetheformalreferralprocessoutlinedinthefederalguidelinesinIDEA2004.Whenastudentisstrugglingacademicallyorbehaviorally,schoolsanddistrictsareencouragedtoimple-mentearlyintervention(prereferral)processestoinvestigatethereasonsforthedifficultiesandtodevelopsolutions(IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct2004).
Prereferralstrategiesattheschoolareafirstattempttounderstandwhyastudentmightbestrugglingacademically(BacaandCervantes1998).Theseearlyinterventionsaredesignedtohelpgeneraleducationteachersmeettheneedsofstrugglingstudentsbeforespecialeducationrefer-ralisconsidered.Schoolshaveavarietyofwaysofimplementingearlyinter-ventionstrategieswhenastudentshowssignsofstrugglingacademi-cally(SlavinandMad-den1989).AsallowedbyIDEA2004,someschoolshaveformalresponsetointerventionprocedures(Gerstenetal.2008,2009).Responsetointer-ventionisanintegrated
Whenastudentis
strugglingacademically
orbehaviorally,schools
anddistrictsare
encouragedtoimplement
earlyintervention
(prereferral)processesto
investigatethereasons
forthedifficultiesand
todevelopsolutions
4 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
box 2
Study methods
TheresearchteamprofiledthreemidsizeschooldistrictsinNewYorkState.Theprojectfocusedonmiddleschools(grades6–8),becauseprevi-ousresearchhasfoundadispropor-tionateincreaseinthenumberofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnerswhoareidentifiedashavinglearningdisabilitiesduringmiddleschool(Artilesetal.2005).
Project sample. BecauseNewYorkStateprovideslargerschooldistrictswithtargetedassistancetomeettheneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities,thisresearchfocusesonmidsizedistricts(6,000–10,000students)thathavenotreceivedthisassistance.ThereportNew York: The State of Learning (UniversityoftheStateofNewYork2006)wasusedtoidentifydistrictsthathadatleast10percentofstudentswhowereEnglishlanguagelearnersand5percentwhohaddisabilitiessothatthesamplewouldincludedistrictsthatworkwiththetargetpopulation.Oftheninedistrictsthatmettheselectioncriteria,onedidnothavepubliclyavailablein-formationaboutschooldemographicsandwasexcluded.Oftheremainingdistricts,threeagreedtoparticipate.
Data sources and collection methods. Theteamcollecteddatafromthefol-lowingsources:
• Publicly available information. DemographicinformationwasretrievedfromtheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment’s(NYSED)2005/06reportcardsforeachdistrict,publishedreports,guides,andregulationsfromtheNYSEDwebsite,andinformationondistricts’websites.
• Interviews. Semistructuredinterviewswereconductedwithdistrictandschooladministra-tors,schoolsupportpersonnel,specialistteachers,andgeneralclassroomteachersduringJanuary–March2008(seeappen-dixCfortheprotocolsused).Thenumberofintervieweesineachstakeholdercategorywithinadis-trictvariedaccordingtoavailabil-ity(seetableA2inappendixA).
• Supplemental documents. Re-spondentsfromtheparticipatingdistrictsandtheirschoolssharedadditionaldocumentationthatwasnotpubliclyavailable.
Data analysis strategy. Allinterviewswithdistrictandschoolpersonnel
wererecorded,transcribed,andcodedusingATLAS.ti.Thenprofilesweredevelopeddescribingtheiden-tificationprocessforeachdistrict,togetherwithapreliminarylistofchallengesdescribedbyintervie-wees.Aftereachprofilewascreated,supplementaldocumentationwasreviewedandanyadditionalinfor-mationwasaddedtotheprofile.Theprofilesweresenttointervieweesforvalidationandrevisedasneeded.
Matriceswerepreparedofeachdistrict’sprereferralandreferralprocesses,similaritiesanddiffer-encesamongdistricts,andapre-liminarylistofchallenges(definedasanythingthatimpairsateacheroradministrator’sabilitytoaccuratelyandexpeditiouslyidentifylearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners).Anitera-tiveprocessoflookingatthedata,detectingpossiblechallenges,andreturningtothedataforconfirma-tionwasusedtoclassifyeightchal-lengesthatsynthesizedtheissuesdiscussedbyinterviewees.Furtheranalysisidentifiedfiveelementsthatappeartobeimportantinavoidingmisidentificationoflearningdisabili-tiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.MoredetailedinformationaboutthemethodologyisinappendixA.
approachtoservicedeliverythatencompasses assistanceteamsorinstructionalsupportteams,generaleducation,strategicinterventionsforat- isanothercommonpractice(Chalfant,Pysh,andrisklearners,andspecialeducation.Amultitiered Moultrie1979).Theteamsincludethestudent’sproblem-solvingframeworkforidentifyingand teacherandotherschoolpersonnel,whodiscussaddressingacademicandbehavioraldifficulties possibleinstructionalstrategiesorinterventionsforallstudents,fromearlychildhoodthrough forthestudent.highschool,itusesscientificallybasedresearchtoguideinstruction,assessment,andinterventions. Ifastudentcontinuestostruggledespitepre-Useofchildstudyteams,sometimescalledteacher referralinterventions,aformalreferralcanbe
characTeriSTicS of The Three diSTricTS in The Sample 5
madeforevaluationforspecialeducationservices.Althoughtheprereferralprocessappliestoallstudents,forstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,schoolsanddistrictsneedtoprovidead-ditionalevidencethatastudent’sstrugglesarenotdueprimarilytoalackofproficiencyinEnglishorlackofappropriateinstruction.
Formalreferral,guidedbyfederalpolicyrequire-mentsinIDEA2004,includesparentalconsentaswellasappropriateassessmentsandlearninginventoriestobetterunderstandstudents’learn-ingneeds.UnderIDEA2004formalreferralforaspecialeducationevaluationcanbeinitiatedbyaschool,ateacher,parents,orlegalguardians.Aparentorlegalguardian’sconsentisnecessarytoconductevaluationsandtobeginthereferralprocess.Followingconsent,adistricthas30daystoconductanevaluationtargetedtothedifficultiesthatthestudentexhibitsandtoobtainafullcasehistoryandeducationalbackgroundreview.
IDEA2004hasadditionalrequirementswhenthestrugglingstudentisanEnglishlanguagelearner(section300.304(c1)(i-v)).Astudentmaynotbeidentifiedwithadisabilityifthelearningproblemsaredueprimarilytoalackofscientificallybasedinstructionalpracticesandprogramsthatcontaintheessentialcomponentsofreadinginstruction,alackofappropriateinstruction,orlimitedEnglishproficiency.Forschoolsanddistrictsthismeansthatthedatacollectedintheprereferralperiodmustdemonstratethatthestudent’sstrugglesarenotdueprimarilytolimitedEnglishproficiency.
IDEA2004furtherstatesthatinthereferralstage,eachpublicagency—generallythedistricts—mustensurethatassessmentsareselectedandadministeredinaraciallyandculturallynondis-criminatoryway;areprovidedandadministeredinthestudent’snativelanguageorothermodeofcommunicationandintheformmostlikelytoyieldaccurateinformationonwhatthestudentknowsandcandoacademically,developmentally,andfunctionally,unlessclearlynotfeasible;areusedforthepurposesforwhichtheassessmentsormeasuresarevalidandreliableandaccordingto
anyinstructionsprovidedbytheproduceroftheassessments;andareadministeredbytrainedandknowledgeablepersonnel.
Followingevaluation,ateamofschoolanddistrictprofessionalsmeetswiththeparentstodiscusstheresults.Eitherthestudentdoesnotqualifyforspecialeduca-tionservicesbecausenodisability(asdefinedbyIDEA2004)hasbeenfound,andtheprocessends,orthestudentisidentifiedashavingadisabilityandqualifiesforservicesunderIDEA2004.Thestudentmustbeplacedintheleastrestrictiveenvi-ronment5thatbestmeetsthediagnosedneedsandmustreceivesupportandservicesasdescribedintheindividualizededucationprogram.6
Researchershaveidentifiedspecificcircumstancesrelatedtotheidentificationofdisabilitiesinstu-dentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersthatresultinadisproportionatenumberofthesestudentsbeingassignedtospecialeducationservices(seeappendixBforasummaryoftheresearch).Stu-dentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersareoftenmisdiagnosedashavingadisability,includinglearningdisabilities,whileothersarenotproperlyidentifiedandthusdonotreceivethenecessaryspecialeducationservices(Chamberlain2006;WargerandBurnette2000).Theliteratureidenti-fiesfourchallengesthatcontributetothedispro-portionateidentificationoflearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearn-ers:professionals’knowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopmentordisabilities,instructionalpractices,interventionstrategies,andassessmenttools.
characTErISTIcSofThEThrEEdISTrIcTSINThESamPlE
Thissectionsummarizesthedemographicinfor-mation,districtorganizationalstructures,and
researchsuggeststhat
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearnersare
oftenmisdiagnosed
ashavinglearning
disabilities,while
othersarenotproperly
identifiedandthusdo
notreceivethenecessary
specialeducationservices
6 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
programsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinthethreedistrictsstudied.Appen-dixDprovidesadetailedcomparisonofthethreedistricts.
District1
District1isinasuburbanareaclosetoamajorurbancenter.AmajorityofthestudentpopulationisHispanic,withBlackstudentsthenextlargestgroup.Morethanhalfthedistrict’sstudentpopu-lationiseligibleforfreeorreduced-pricelunch.Hispanicstudents,manyfromCentralAmericancountries,makeupthemajorityofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.Inthepastfiveyears,thedistricthasreceivedasteadyinfluxofstudentswithinterruptedformaleducationorschooling,aswellastransientstudentsfromfami-lieswhomoveasjobopportunitieschange.
Thedistricthasonemiddleschoolforgrades7and8(SchoolA),andoneintermediateschoolforgrades5and6(SchoolB).In2005/06,thedistrictmadeadequateyearlyprogressinmathattheelementary/middleschoollevelforallsubgroups,butfailedtomakeadequateyearlyprogressinEnglishlanguageartsatalllevelsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandstudentswithdisabilities.
ThedistricthasanEnglishlan-guagelearnerdepartment,whichisresponsibleforidentifyingandservingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,andadepart-mentofspecialeducation,whichisinchargeofidentifyingandservingstudentswithdisabili-ties,includingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities.Bothschoolsstudied(middleschoolAandintermediateschoolB)pro-videaSpanish–EnglishbilingualprogramoranEnglishasasecondlanguage(ESL)programforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguage
learners,dependingontheirnativelanguageandEnglishproficiency.TheESLprogramsatbothschoolsuseapull-outformatforclasses,withtheamountofservicesvaryingfromtwounitsofinstructionaweekforbeginningandintermediatestudentstooneunitaweekforadvancedstudents,basedonthestudent’sproficiencylevel.
District2
District2isalsoinasuburbanareaclosetoamajorurbancenter.ItspopulationisdistributedalmostequallyamongBlack,Hispanic,andWhitestudents.Almosthalfthestudentsareeligibletoreceivefreeorreduced-pricelunch.ThemajorityofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersareHispanic,mostofthemofMexicandescent.SomestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersareU.S.bornandothersarerecentimmigrantswithinterruptedformalschooling.Inrecentyears,thedistricthasreceivedasteadyinfluxofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersfromfamiliesthataretransient,movingasjobopportunitieschange.
Thedistricthastwomiddleschools(SchoolsCandD),whichenrollgrades6–8.In2005/06,thedistrictmadeadequateyearlyprogressinEnglishlanguageartsandmathattheelementary/middleschoollevelforallsubgroups.
ThepeopleservicesofficecoordinatestheeffortsoffourdistrictdepartmentsthatservestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners:theEnglishlan-guagelearnerdepartment,thespecialeducationdepartment,thepupilservicesdepartment,andthemedicalservicesdepartment.Thedirectorsholdbiweeklymeetingstomonitorservicesforallstudents,includingstudentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearnersandstudentswithdisabilities.Atthetimeoftheinterviews,District2washalfwaythroughathree-yearresponsetointerventionpilotinitiativethatbegantwoyearsbeforethestatelauncheditsstatewideinitiativein2007.
SchoolDservesallstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersatbeginningandintermediate
district1hasanEnglish
languagelearner
department,which
isresponsiblefor
identifyingandserving
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearners,and
adepartmentofspecial
education,whichisin
chargeofidentifying
andservingstudents
withdisabilities,
includingstudentswho
areEnglishlanguage
learnersandalsohave
learningdisabilities
proceSSeS for idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS 7
levelsandadvancedstudentswholivewithintheschool’sattendancezone.SchoolCreceivesonlystudentsattheadvancedlevelwholiveinitszone,butitalsohoststhedistrict’sSpanish–Englishdual-languageprogramforstudentswhoattendedtheelementaryschooldual-languageprogram.StudentswhoareatbeginningandintermediatelevelsreceivetwounitsofESLpull-outinstruc-tioneachweekatSchoolDaswellascontent-areaclasses(science,math,English)throughanESLsheltered-Englishapproach.7Forstudentswithinterruptedformalschoolingandlowliteracyskills,theschoolprovidesfoundationalliteracyclasses;otherliteracyclasses;math,science,andsocialstudiesclassesinSpanish;andanafter-schoolprogramforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.StudentsclassifiedasEnglishlanguagelearnersformorethansixyearswhostillrequireextrasupportarenolongerentitledtoESLservicesbutreceivealiteracyenhancementclass.StudentsattheadvancedEnglishproficiencylevelreceiveoneunitaweekofESLinstructionthroughpull-outatSchoolDandtheREAD180programinSchoolC.8
District3
District3isalsoinasuburbanareaofthestate.Themajorityofthedistrict’sstudentpopulationisBlack,includingAfricanAmericansandrecentimmigrants,andthesecondlargestgroupisHis-panicstudents.ThemajorityofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersareHispanicorHaitian.ImmigrantstudentsofHispanicoriginhavebeenthefastestgrowingpopulationinthedistrictoverthepastfouryears.
Thedistricthastwomiddleschoolsservinggrades7and8(SchoolsEandF).Studentsareassignedtoschoolsbygeographiczone.In2005/06thedistrictmadeadequateyearlyprogressattheelementary/middleschoollevelinmathforallsubgroupsandinEnglishlanguageartsforallsubgroupsexceptstudentswithdisabilities.
District3hasanEnglishlanguagelearnerdepartmentwithintheofficeofcurriculumand
instructionandaspecialeducationoffice.Bothmiddleschoolspro-videthesameEnglishlanguagelearnerpro-gramsforstudentsatthebeginning,intermediate,andadvancedlevelsofEnglishproficiency.AteachschoolbeginnerstudentsreceivethefullESLprogram,whichincludestwounitsofESLinstructionaweekandcontent-areaclassesinanESL-contentformat(ESLsocialstudies,ESLmath,andESLscience).Intermediate-levelstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersalsoreceivetwounitsofESLaweekand,depend-ingonthesubjectsandgradelevel,theymayreceiveESL-collaborativeclassescotaughtbyamainstreamcontentteacher.AdvancedstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersareplacedinmainstreamclassroomsandreceiveoneunitofpull-outESLinstructionaweek.InadditiontotheESLprogram,SchoolFhousesthedis-trictwideprogramforstudentswithinterruptedformaleducation.
WhaTProcESSESdodISTrIcTSUSEforIdENTIfYINglEarNINgdISabIlITIESamoNgSTUdENTSWhoarEENglIShlaNgUagElEarNErS?
TherearetwomainphasesindistrictprocessesforidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners:prereferralandreferral.Althoughthedistrictsfollowageneralidentificationprocessregardlessofthestudents’nativelanguageanddisabilitytype,theinterviewsanddocumentanalysissuggestthatdistrictsconsideradditionalfactorswhenthestrugglingstudentisanEnglishlanguagelearner.
Indistrict2thepeople
servicesofficecoordinates
theeffortsoffourdistrict
departmentsthatserve
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearners:
theEnglishlanguage
learnerdepartment,
thespecialeducation
department,thepupil
servicesdepartment,
andthemedical
servicesdepartment.
district3hasanEnglish
languagelearner
departmentwithinthe
officeofcurriculum
andinstructionanda
specialeducationoffice
8 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
Prereferralprocesses
Thissectiondescribesthesimilaritiesanddif-ferencesamongthethreedistricts’prereferralprocessesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities.
Similarities among the three districts’ prereferral process. InallthreedistrictstheprereferralprocessstartswhenteachersnoticeastrugglingstudentandusetheirprofessionaljudgmentandexperienceindeterminingwhetherthelearningdifficultiesofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersgobe-yondlanguagedevelopmentissues.Theycomparetheperformanceofthestrugglingstudentwiththatofotherstudentswithsimilarbackgroundstoevaluatewhetherthestudentisprogressing.Teach-erssometimessuspectthatthereareissuesbeyondsecondlanguagedevelopmentwhenstudentsshowdecodingorcomprehensiondifficultiesorhaveprocessingormemoryproblems.
Teachersusuallyfirstsharetheirconcernswithfellowteacherstocomparethestudent’sperfor-manceacrosssubjectsandtoobtainadvicefromcolleagues.Next,theysharetheirconcernswithothercolleagues,suchasschoolsupportpersonnel(guidancecounselors,schoolpsychologists,socialworkers)andadministrators(principal,assistantprincipals,departmentchairs),andwithparents.Teachersandtheircolleaguesdiscussstudentdata,suchasresultsontheNewYorkStateEnglishasaSecondLanguageAchievementTest(NYSESLAT),9
reportcards,andclassroomas-sessments,aswellaspreviousteacheractivitieswiththestudent.Personnelbrainstormpossiblecausesofthestruggleandinstruc-tionalmodificationstoimple-ment.Ifthestudentcontinuestostruggle,personneldiscussotheravailableprogramsandinterven-tions.Amongthesupportsofferedbythedistricts,threearecommontoallthreedistricts:academicinterventionservices,10resourcerooms,andafterschoolprograms.
Theprereferralprocesscontinueswithmonitoringofstudentprogress.
Afinalcommonalityacrossthethreedistrictsisthattheprereferralprocessisusuallylongerforstu-dentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersthanitisfornativeEnglishspeakers,althoughthetimelineisdecidedcasebycase.Theadditionaltimegivesstu-dentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersmoretimetoacquireEnglishskillsandbetterenablesteacherstodifferentiatebetweenlanguageacquisitionissuesandlearningdisabilities.Asdiscussedlaterinthisreport,somerespondentsineachdistrictfounditchallengingtodecidehowlongtowaitbeforecon-sideringareferralforspecialeducationevaluation.InallthreedistrictstheprereferralprocessendswhentheschoolhasprovidedallavailablesupportstoaddressthestrugglesofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandpersonnelhavesufficientevidencetoshowthateitherthestudenthasnotprogressedandthestruggleisnotdueprimarilytoEnglishlanguagedevelopmentissues(inwhichcasethestudentwillbereferredforspecialeducationevaluation)orthatthestrugglewasdueprimarilytoEnglishlanguagedevelopmentissues.Althoughpersonnelstrivetobasethiscriticaldecisiononstudentdata,thefinaldeterminationof“sufficientevidence”remainssubjective.
Differences in prereferral processes among the three districts. Analysisofinterviewsanddocumentssuggestssomedifferencesinthethreedistricts’prereferralprocessesforstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersintheareasofgen-eralstafforganizationforplanningandproblemsolving,staffingandrolesofchildstudyteam,availabilityofsupportsandinterventions,andmonitoringofstudentprogress(table1).
General staff organization for planning and problem solving.Althoughteachersinallthreedistrictsconsultwithotherprofessionalsaboutstrugglingstudents,includingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,thedistrictsdifferintheconsis-tencyofopportunitiestodiscussstudentprogressandinaccesstostaffwithexpertiseinsecondlan-guagedevelopment.Districts2and3haveformal
Thethreedistricts’
prereferralprocessesfor
strugglingstudentswho
areEnglishlanguage
learnersdifferingeneral
stafforganizationfor
planningandproblem
solving,rolesofchild
studyteam,supports
andinterventions,
andmonitoringof
studentprogress
Table 1
differencesin
process
general staff organization for planning and problem solving
prereferralproce
district 1
informal meetings
ssesamongthethreeNewYorkStateschooldistricts,2008
district 2 district 3
• informal meetings • informal meetings
• formal discussions in gradelevel content • formal discussions in gradelevel teams with daily common planning time content teams with common
planning time every other day • Weekly counselor participation in gradelevel content teams • Specialist teams—english as a
second language (eSl) and special • Support personnel with knowledge of educators—with occasional second language development (one participation in gradelevel content psychologist and one social worker) are teams available to gradelevel content teams
• Some eSl and content teacher coteaching
• analysis of report cards by principal
• bilingual community liaisons (Spanish and haitiancreole)
child study no child study • child study team includes psychologist, • child study team includes assistant team staffing team social worker, guidance counselor, special principal, school psychologist, and roles educator, and teacher. other personnel special educator (teacher or the
(nurse, speech therapist, parent liaison) chair), guidance counselor, and as appropriate teacher. additional personnel
(speech therapist, nurse, special • bilingual support personnel included education supervisor, parent liaison), in child study team for students who as appropriate are english language learners. complex
cases also involve personnel from district • child study team obtains reports english language learner, pupil services, from all the student’s teachers and special education departments • child study team reviews all available
• child study team reviews classroom classroom and student information and student information (background, (background and languagerelated) languagerelated) • child study team makes suggestions
• child study team provides suggestions for differentiated instruction and to differentiate instruction and recommends and follows up on recommendations for interventions, school supports supports, and monitoring • child study team follows additional
• many child study team members (school guidance for students who are and district) received professional english language learners, as development on learning disabilities and described in districtdeveloped second language development five years guidelines for students who are earlier english language learners referred to
child study teams • child study team meets weekly, discusses students regularly • child study team meets weekly
(conTinued)
9proceSSeS for idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
Table 1 (conTinued)
differencesinprereferralprocessesamongthethreeNewYorkStateschooldistricts,2008
process district 1 district 2 district 3
Supports and Supports: Supports: Supports: interventionsa
• academic • academic intervention services • academic intervention services intervention • afterschool program • afterschool eSl academy services
• resource room • resource room • resource room
• literacy enhancement class • Students with interrupted formal (based on education program availability) • english language learning instructional
Software program interventions: • afterschool programs • Students with interrupted formal • Spector phonics
education program • extended eSl interventions: interventions: • read 180 • read 180 • Wilson reading System program
• lindamoodbell learning processes programs
Student done by teachers • progress monitoring linked to response • child study team establishes timeline progress in consultation to intervention initiative for monitoring progress monitoring with school • child study team establishes timeline and • monitoring happens informally during administrators and structure for monitoring progress between teachers and school interventions support personnel support personnel, but child study • Students can receive more than one
team will reconvene when needed intervention
• Some interventions come with predetermined benchmarks and time tables
• district recently launched online monitoring system
• Teachers document what they do in their classrooms
a.Interventionsandsupportsmentionedbyinterviewees,butnotanexhaustivelistofthoseavailableattheschools.
Source:Compiledbyauthorsfrominterviewsanddocumentsprovidedbyinterviewees.
10 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
structurestoidentifystrugglingstudents,whileDistrict1doesthisinformally.
InDistrict1teachersinthemiddleandintermedi-ateschoolsdiscussstrugglingstudentsinformally,onacasebycasebasis,withcolleagues(otherteachers,theprincipal,guidancecounselors,apsychologist,socialworkers),whoprovidesugges-tionsforinstructionalmodificationsandschoolsupports(seetable1forsupportsandinterven-tionsavailableineachdistrict).
InDistrict2teachersalsodiscussstrugglingstu-dentswithotherteachersandsupportpersonnelonacasebycasebasis,butinamoreformaland
consistentcontext,throughgrade-levelcontentmeetings.Duringdailycommonplanningtime,grade-levelcontentteachers(English,math,socialscience,andscienceteachers)shareinstructionalplansandidentifyandstrategizeaboutstrugglingstudents.Acounselorparticipatesinthemeet-ingsonceaweektodiscussindividualcases.Inaddition,whenstrugglingstudentsareEnglishlanguagelearners,staffontheteamshaveaccesstosupportpersonnelwithsecondlanguagede-velopmentexpertise(suchaspsychologists,socialworkers,andESLteachers).11
AsinDistrict2,District3middleschoolsareorganizedaroundgrade-levelcontentteamswith
proceSSeS for idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS 11
contentteacherswhoteachthesamestudents.Teachersoneachteamhavecommonplanningtimeeveryotherdaytodiscusstheirinstructionandstudents’progress.TheESLandspecialeduca-tionteachershaveseparategrade-levelmeetings,buttheycancommunicatewiththegrade-levelcontentteamswhenneeded.TheschoolsalsocreateotheropportunitiesforESLandcontentteacherstocommunicatebecausesomecontentandESLteacherscoteachtheirclasses.12Thedistricthasbilingualcommunityliaisons(oneSpanishandoneHaitian-Creolespeaking)ineachmiddleschooltofacilitatecommunicationwithparents.Inoneofthemiddleschools,inadditiontoteachersidentifyingstudentsfordiscussion,theprincipalflagsstrugglingstudentsbasedonpoorgradesinthreeormoresubjectsanddiscussestheircaseswithteachers,schoolcounselors,andotherpersonnel.
Staffing and roles of child study teams. Althoughthechildstudyteamisanacceptedpartofpre-referralprocesses(Chalfantetal.1979),onlyDistricts2and3haveformalizedtheteamsintheirmiddleschools.Atthetimeofthisstudy,theDistrict1middleandintermediateschoolsdidnothaveaformalchildstudyteam,soteachersaddressedstudentneedsinformallywithotherschoolpersonnel.13InDistricts2and3grade-levelcontentteamsbringtheirconcernstotheschool’schildstudyteamforadditionalproblemsolvingtoaddressachild’sneeds.Theteams—consistingofsupportpersonnel(schoolcounselor,psycholo-gist,socialworker),specialeducator,administra-tor,andtheteacherwhosestudent’scaseisbeingreviewed—meetweekly.Theteamsassemblestaffwiththeappropriateexpertiseandlookmorecloselyatpossibleinterventions.Theteamsalsocaninviteotherpersonnel,asneeded.Forexam-ple,whendiscussingastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearner,thechildstudyteaminDistrict2invitesoneorbothoftheschool’sbilingualsup-portpersonnel,andinDistrict3theteaminvitesthebilingualcommunityliaisons.
Thechildstudyteamsprovideteachersanop-portunitytoproblemsolvethenatureofthe
student’sstruggleandgetassistanceindesigninginterventions.Inbothdistrictstheteamsreviewtheclassroom-baseddataandbackgroundandlanguage-relatedinfor-mationoneachstudent.Inaddition,District3requiresthatthestudent’steacherwriteareportforthechildstudyteam.ChildstudyteamsinDistricts2and3provideteacherswithinstruc-tionalsuggestionsandrecommendationsforschoolsupportsandgoals.District2istheonlydistrictpilottestingtheresponsetointerventioninitiative(seenextsec-tion),andthechildstudyteamisresponsibleformonitoringstudents’progress.
Inbothdistricts,childstudyteamsaretheformalstructuresfordiscussingstudents’strugglesandmakingreferraldecisions.InDistrict2,whenthechildstudyteamfindsitdifficulttodistinguishbetweensecondlanguagedevelopmentissuesandlearningdisabilities,theteammayconsultwithstaffintheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments.InDistrict3,whenthechildstudyteamdiscussesastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearner,theteamconsultsguide-linesdevelopedcollaborativelybythetwodepart-mentsforadditionalguidance.14
Supports and interventions.InDistrict1resourceroomassistanceissometimesconstrainedbyspaceshortages.OtherformalinterventionsprovidedareREAD180andextendedESLclasses.District2offersliteracyenhancementclassaswellasseveralformalinterventionprogramssuchasREAD180,WilsonReadingSystem,15andtheLindamood-BellLearningProcesses.16Inaddition,District2providestheEnglishLanguageLearn-ingInstructionalSoftware(ELLIS)17programdesignedforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersaswellasforstudentsintheStudents
district1middleand
intermediateschoolsdid
nothaveaformalchild
studyteam,soteachers
addressedstudentneeds
informallywithother
schoolpersonnel.In
districts2and3grade
levelcontentteams
bringtheirconcernsto
theschool’schildstudy
teamforadditional
problemsolvingto
addressachild’sneeds
12 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
withInterruptedFormalEducationprogram.District3providesanESLafterschoolacademy,hasaStudentswithInterruptedFormalEduca-tionprogram,andusesSpectorPhonics18asaninterventionprogram.
Atthetimeofthestudy,District2washalfwaythroughathree-yearresponsetointerven-tionpilot,implementedbeforeitwasmandatedstatewide.19District2hadstartedtobuilddistrictandschoolcapacitytoprovideinterventionsandprogramoptionstoallstrugglingstudentsthatwerepreviouslyavailablesolelytostudentswithindividualizededucationprograms.Atthetimeofdatacollection,teacherswereusingavarietyofinterventionswithstudentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearners,anddistrictofficialsweresearch-ingformore(seetable1).Additionally,thedistricthasstartedtoprovidetrainingtoschoolpersonnelinavarietyofresearch-basedprograms.Finally,thedistricthasbeenencouragingschoolperson-neltotakeaproblem-solvingapproachtoeachstudent’scaseandtoexhaustallschoolsupportsystemsbeforesuspectingadisability.
Atthetimeofthestudy,District1officialswerejustgettingfamiliarizedwiththestate’sresponsetointerventioninitiative.District3wasintheearlystagesofimplementation.ResponsetointerventionwasbeingrolledoutinK–6schools,andtheleadershipteamsinthemiddleschoolshadreceivedanintroductiontotheinitiative.Onedistrictofficialsaidthatsomeoftheresponseto
interventionstrategieswereal-readyinplace,suchasprovidingavarietyofinterventionstostudentsbeforeformallyreferringthemforspecialeducationevaluations.
Monitoring of student progress in interventions. Althoughthethreedistrictsfollowupwithallstudentswhoreceivesupportsandinterventions,theapproachestomonitoringstudentprogressdiffer.InDistrict1eachteachermonitorsthesupportsand
interventionsforstudents,andfollow-updeci-sionsaremadethroughinformalcommunicationbetweenteachersandaguidancecounselor,theeducationevaluator,ortheprincipal.InDistrict2thechildstudyteamisinchargeofmonitor-ingstudentprogressandestablishinghowlongstudentsreceiveanintervention.Implementationofresponsetointerventionhasprovidedformal-izedchannelsformonitoringinterventions.Afewmonthsbeforetheinterviewsforthisstudy,District2launchedanonlinedatasystemtodocumentstudentprogress.Studentscoresonamonthlyreadingtestareenteredintotheprogram,whichgraphstheresultstoshowstudents’prog-ress.Teachersdocumentallinterventionsintheirclassrooms.InDistrict3,asinDistrict2,thechildstudyteamdetermineshowlongastudentreceivesanintervention.However,progressmonitoringoccursinformallybetweenteachersandtheguid-ancecounselor;ifneeded,theguidancecounselorreconvenesthechildstudyteamtodiscussfurthersupports.
Formalreferralforspecialeducationservices
Analysisofthedistrictandschoolinterviewdataanddocumentsshowsthatthethreedistrictsfollowthesameformalreferralprocesses,withminorvariations.
Similarities among the referral processes in the three districts. Inallthreedistrictstheformalreferralprocessforaspecialeducationevaluation,includingforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,canbeinitiatedbytheschoolorbypar-entsorlegalguardians(evenwithoutprereferral).Afterparentssigntheconsentform,thedistrictsobtainthefullcasehistoryandadministerevalu-ationsthattargetexhibiteddifficultieswithinthe30daysrequiredbyIDEA2004.Obtainingap-propriateinformationonstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnerswasachallengeinallthreedistricts(seenextsectiononchallenges).
Followingtheevaluation,aninterdisciplinaryteamfromtheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartmentsconvenesthe
differencesexistamong
thethreedistrictsinthe
referralprocessesfor
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearnersin
initiatingthereferral,
collectingstudent
information,andsharing
informationbetween
theEnglishlanguage
learnerandspecial
educationdepartments
Table 2
differencesinthereferralprocessesamongthethreeNewYorkStateschooldis
process district 1 district 2
initiating referral • by schools’ administrators • Through schools’ child study teams in consultation with • in some cases, teachers parents encourage parents to initiate
referral
tricts,2008
district 3
• Through schools’ child study teams in consultation with parents
collecting student • most information collected • most information collected • most information collected information during the 30day referral by child study teams by child study teams
period • district provides valid and • district provides valid and • district works with outside reliable evaluations in reliable evaluations in
agencies to provide Spanish Spanish appropriate evaluations (no • evaluations are not available • evaluations are not available details provided) in other foreign languages in other foreign languages
• district has an evaluator who works with haitiancreole students
Sharing information • departments begin their • departments begin • departments begin between the english communication and sharing communication in the communication in the language learner and of information during the prereferral process prereferral process special education referral process departments
Source:Compiledbyauthorsfrominterviewsanddocumentsprovidedbyinterviewees.
proceSSeS for idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS 13
CommitteeonSpecialEducationtoassessthecase.Thecommitteeconsistsofachairperson,thestudent’sparentsandteacher,aspecialeducationteacher,apsychologist,andtheguidancecoun-selor,withotherpersonnelinvitedasnecessary.ForstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,oneormorestaffrepresentingthedistrictEnglishlanguagelearnerdepartmentorschoolbilingualpersonnelareincluded,aswellastranslatorswhenneeded.Thecommitteemakesthereferraldeci-sionwiththeinformationavailable,takingintoconsiderationelementsuniquetothispopulationofstudents,suchastimeincountry,experienceofinterruptedformalschooling,andEnglishlanguageinstructionreceived.Studentsfoundtoqualifyforspecialeducationreceiveanindividual-izededucationprogramandtheservicesestab-lishedintheprogram.20
Differences among referral processes in the three districts.AnalysisoftheinterviewssuggeststhatsomedifferencesexistinthereferralprocessesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinini-tiatingthereferral,collectingstudentinformation,
andsharinginformationbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepart-ments(table2).
Initiating the referral.InDistricts2and3,referralscomefromthechildstudyteam,inconsultationwithparents,aftertheteamfindssufficientevi-dencethatlearningissuesarenotadirectresultofthechild’slimitedEnglishproficiency.InDistrict1schooladministratorsusuallyinitiatetherefer-ralprocess,butoccasionallyteachersencourageparentstoinitiatethereferraliftheythinkastu-dent’sneedsarenotbeingmetinatimelyfashion.
Collecting student information.InDistricts2and3mostoftheinformationonstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnershasalreadybeencol-lectedbytheschools’childstudyteamsduringtheprereferralperiod,whileinDistrict1mostoftheinformationiscollectedduringthe30-dayreferralperiod.AllthreedistrictshavereliableandvalidevaluationsavailableinSpanishaswellasEng-lishbutnotinotherforeignlanguages.District3hasanevaluatorwhoworkswithHaitian-Creole
14 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
students.District1personnelworkwithoutsideagenciestoprovideappropriateevaluations.
Sharing information between the English language learner and special education departments. InDistricts2and3theEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartmentscollectandsharestudentinformationwiththeschools’childstudyteamsandbrainstormideasaboutthestudent’sstrugglebeforereferralforspecialeducationevaluation.InDistrict1,incontrast,thereferralprocessmarksthefirsttimethatpersonnelfromthetwodepartmentsdiscussthecasewitheachother.
WhaTchallENgESdodISTrIcTaNdSchoolPErSoNNElfINdINIdENTIfYINglEarNINgdISabIlITIESamoNgSTUdENTSWhoarEENglIShlaNgUagElEarNErS?
Analysisofinterviewdatarevealedeightchal-lengesencounteredbydistrictadministratorsandmiddleschoolpersonnelinidentifyinglearn-ingdisabilitiesamongEnglishlanguagelearn-ers:difficultieswithpolicyguidelines;differentstakeholderviewsabouttimingforreferralofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners;insuf-ficientknowledgeamongpersonnelinvolvedinidentification;difficultiesprovidingconsistent,adequateservicestostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners;lackofcollaborativestructuresinprereferral;lackofaccesstoassessmentsthat
differentiatebetweensecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearn-ingdisabilities;lackofconsistentmonitoringforstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners;anddifficultyobtainingstudents’previousschoolrecords(table3).Inallthreedistrictsallchallengesexceptlackofcollaborativestruc-turesinprereferralwereidenti-fiedbyinterviewrespondents;lackofcollaborativestructuresinprereferralwasidentifiedinDistricts1and3.
1. Difficultieswithpolicyguidelines
Districtandschoolpersonneldescribeddifficul-tieswiththepolicyguidelinesaboutstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities.DistrictpersonnelsaidthattheunclearpolicyguidelinesfromthestatemakeitdifficulttoprovideadequateguidelinestoschoolpersonnelonreferralprocessesandcriteriaforidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.SchoolpersonnelmentionedthattherigiddistrictcriteriaforreferringstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersdonotallowforcasebycasedeterminationandmightbedetrimentaltosomestudents.
Lack of clarity in state policy guidelines. Onedistrict-levelrespondentineachdistrictmen-tionedagenerallackofclarityinstateguide-linesforproceduresandinthedeterminationcriteriaforidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.CurrentstateguidelinesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandstudentswithdisabilitiesareinseparatedocuments.Thedocumentsprovideinformationaboutwhatpro-cedurestofollowwhenadisabilityissuspectedinastudentandwaystoworkwithstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.However,districtrespondentssaidthattheguidelinesprovidelessinformationaboutstudentswhomayqualifyunderbothcategoriesorabouthowtodifferentiatebetweenalearningdisabilityandsecondlanguagedevelopment.Respon-dentshaddifficultyfindingtheinformationinthesedocumentsanddevelopingsystemstohelpschoolpersonnelestablishprereferralandreferralprocessesanddifferentiatealearn-ingdisabilityfromsecondlanguagedevelop-ment.DistrictrespondentsmentionedthattheystrugglewithprovidingguidanceonhowmuchformalEnglishinstructionintheUnitedStatesastudentmusthavebeforebeingconsideredforspecialeducationevaluationandabouthowtodealwithstudentswhohavehadinterruptedformalschooling.
districtpersonnelsaid
thattheunclearpolicy
guidelinesfromthe
statemakeitdifficult
toprovideadequate
guidelinestoschool
personnelonreferral
processesandcriteria
foridentifyinglearning
disabilitiesamong
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearners
Table 3
challengesencounteredduringprereferralandreferralbydistrictadministratorsandschoolpersonnelinthethreeNewYorkStatedistricts,2008
district 1 district 2 district 3 personnel personnel personnel
(n = 2 district, (n = 4 district, (n = 3 district, 8 school) 8 school) 13 school)
challenges in prereferral and referral district School district School district School
1.difficultieswithpolicyguidelines
• lack of clarity in state policy guidelines 1 0 1 0 1 0
• rigid criteria for determining eligibility for special education evaluation for students who are english language learners 0 3 0 4 0 12
• cannot refer if student has been in the country less than 1–3 years 0 3 0 3 0 7
• cannot refer if student has had interrupted formal schooling 0 0 0 1 0 4
• cannot refer if student is receiving english as a second language services 0 0 0 3 0 7
2.differentstakeholderviewsabouttimingforreferralofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
• School personnel refer students who are english language learners for special education evaluation too soon 1 0 2 0 2 0
• district personnel delay identification of learning disabilities in students who are english language learners 0 2 0 5 0 11
3.Insufficientknowledgeamongpersonnelinvolvedinidentification
• Second language development 1 1 2 4 1 7
• disabilities (including learning disabilities) 0 0 3 0 0 2
• intersection of learning disabilities and second language development 0 2 1 3 2 4
• cultural background of students who are english language learners 1 1 0 2 1 0
4.difficultiesprovidingconsistent,adequateservicestostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
• lack of effective instruction, interventions, and support services 1 6 3 6 1 6
• lack of services after identification 0 1 0 1 1 5
5.lackofcollaborativestructuresinprereferral
• no structured, schoolbased prereferral 2 3 0 0 0 0
• departments have different priorities and perspectives 0 0 0 0 1 5
6.lackofaccesstoassessmentsthatdifferentiatebetweensecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilities
• lack of assessments in languages other than english and Spanish 2 0 3 2 2 3
• lack of assessments that effectively differentiate second language development and learning disabilities 1 1 4 2 2 5
7.lackofconsistentmonitoringforstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners 0 1 0 6 0 2
8.difficultyobtainingstudents’previousschoolrecords 2 3 3 3 0 3
Note: Tableshowsthenumberofdistrictorschoolrespondentswhomentionedthechallenge.Schoolpersonnelincludedadministrators,supportpersonnel,specialistteachers,andgeneralclassroomteachers.
Source:Compiledbyauthorsfromanalysisofinterviews.
challengeS in idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS 15
16 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
Rigid criteria for determining eligibility for special education evaluation for students who are English language learners. Schoolpersonnelinthethreedistricts(3of8inDistrict1,4of8inDistrict2,and12of13inDistrict3)men-tionedthattheirdistrictadminis-trationhadidentifiedcriteriafordeterminingwhetherastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearneriseligibleforspecialeducationreferralbutthatthe
criteriaaretoorigidanddonotallowforacasebycaseanalysisofstudents’struggles.Forsomestudentsthisrigiditycouldresultindelayedidentificationofalearningdisability.AnEnglishlanguagelearnerstudentwithoneormoreofthefollowingcriteriacannotbereferredforspecialeducationevaluation:beinginthecountrylessthan1–3years(theamountoftimevariedbydistrict;mentionedbythreerespondentsinDis-trict1,threeinDistrict2,andseveninDistrict3);havinghadinterruptedformalschooling(onerespondentinDistrict2andfourinDistrict3);andreceivingESLservices(threerespondentsinDistrict2andseveninDistrict3).Theschoolpersonnelacknowledgedtheimportanceofthecriteriainevaluatingstudentsbutbelievedthatthepresenceofoneormoreofthecriteriashouldnotbeareasontodenyareferral.Schoolperson-nelwouldlikeeachstudenttobeevaluatedonacasebycasebasis.
2. DifferentstakeholderviewsabouttimingforreferralofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
Districtandschoolpersonnelinthethreedis-trictssaidthattheyfounditchallengingwhenotherstakeholdergroupshaddifferentviewsabouttimingforreferralsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.DistrictpersonneldescribedteacherswantingtoreferstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnerstospecialeduca-tiontooquickly,whileschoolpersonnelbelievedthatdistrictadministratorsdelayedidentificationtoolong.
School personnel refer students who are English language learners to special education too soon. Accordingtodistrictstaffinthethreedistricts(oneoftwoinDistrict1,twooffourinDistrict2,andtwoofthreeinDistrict3),teachersjumptooquicklytorecommendidentificationofalearningdisabilityinstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,ratherthanbrainstormingotherwaystomeetthestudents’needs.Respondentsmentionedthatwhentheirdistrict’sCommitteeonSpecialEducationevaluatesstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,itoftenfindsthattheschoolhasnotprovidedsufficientevidencethatsupportsandinterventionshavebeeninsufficient.ThetwodistrictrespondentsinDistrict3alsomentionedthatteachersfeelfrustratedwhentheresultsoftheyearlystateassessment(mandatedbythefederalgovernmentforallstudentsaftertheirfirstyearinthecountry)showalackofprogressandthatteacherslooktospecialeducationservicesforthesestudentsratherthanmodifyingtheirin-structionoraskingformoreschool-levelsupports.
DistrictrespondentsinDistricts2and3(twoineachdistrict)saidthatdespiteschoolfrustrationthatsofewstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersarediagnosedwithlearningdisabilities,districtadministratorscanclassifyastudentonlyiftheyhavesufficientevidence,includingappropriateassessments,fromtheschools.InpartbecausetheirdistrictshaveahistoryofoveridentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersashavinglearn-ingdisabilities,theofficialsaremorecarefulthaninpastyearsinmakingdeterminations.SevenyearsagoDistrict2hiredaconsultanttoprovidetrain-ingtopeopleservicesofficestaffonthedifferencesbetweensecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilities,andmorerecentlythedistrictprovidedmoreresourcestoschoolstosupportstrugglingstudents,includingresponsetointervention–typeinitiatives.DistrictrespondentssaidthatthesestepshaveimprovedservicesforstudentswhoareEng-lishlanguagelearnersandreducedreferralrates.
District personnel delay identification of learning disabilities in students who are English language learners.Accordingtoschoolpersonnelinall
districtpersonnelinthe
threedistrictsdescribed
teacherswantingto
referstudentswho
areEnglishlanguage
learnerstospecial
educationtooquickly,
whileschoolpersonnel
believedthatdistrict
administratorsdelayed
identificationtoolong
challengeS in idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS 17
threedistricts(2inDistrict1,5inDistrict2,and11inDistrict3),districtpersonnelcommonlyruleoutanevaluationforspecialeducation,insteadattributingastudent’sstruggletoissuesofsecondlanguagedevelopment.Schoolpersonnelconsiderthatinsomecasesstudents’academicstrugglesgobeyondtheirlackofsecondlanguagedevelopmentandrequireconcurrentspecialeducationservicesandsecondlanguagedevelopmentsupport.FiveschoolpersonnelinDistrict2andtwoinDistrict3commentedthatschoolpersonnelareawareoftheirdistricts’historyofoveridentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersashavingdisabilitiesandareverycarefulintheirreferrals.Whentheyreferastudentforspecialeducationevaluation,theyareconfidentthatthecasemeritsevaluation,andtheserespondentsfeltthatinter-pretingthereferredstudents’strugglesaslackofexposuretoEnglishreflectsalackofrespectfortheirprofessionaljudgment.Theseschoolperson-nelworriedthatsomestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabili-tiesarenotbeingidentifiedandthatthelackofappropriateplacementandsupportisdetrimental.
3. Insufficientknowledgeamongpersonnelinvolvedinidentification
Inallthreedistrictsinsufficientprofessionalknowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopment,learningdisabilitiesandtheirintersectionandofdifferencesinstudents’culturalbackgroundswascitedasachallengeintheidentificationofdis-abilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersbybothdistrictandschoolpersonnel.Somekeypersonnelinvolvedinidentificationhaveinadequateorinconsistentknowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopment(accordingtotwopeopleinDistrict1,sixinDistrict2,andeightinDistrict3);ofdisabilities,includinglearningdisabilities(notedbythreerespondentsinDistrict2andtwoinDistrict3);oroftheirintersection(tworespon-dentsinDistrict1,fourinDistrict2,andsixinDistrict3).Theserespondentssaidthatidentifica-tionisimpededbyinadequateprofessionalknowl-edgeinalltheseareas.Theycommentedthatdifficultiesthatarepartoftheprocessoflearning
asecondlanguageoftenresemblelearningdis-abilities,andpersonnelwithoutadequateknowl-edgeoflearningdisabilitiesandsecondlanguageacquisitionmightincorrectlyattributestudents’academicstruggles.
Anotherchallengetoidentificationisinsufficientknowledgeofstudents’culturalbackgrounds.TworespondentsinDistricts1and2andoneinDistrict3saidthatsomekeypersonnelhaveinsufficientknowledgeoftheculturalbackgroundofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,makingitdifficulttodifferentiateculturalbehav-iorsfrombehaviorsthatcouldsignalinsufficientsecondlanguagedevelopmentorlearningdisabili-ties.Forexample,teacherswhodonotknowthatSpanishspeakershavedifficultiespronouncingthethsoundmightthinkitisasignofalanguagedis-orderratherthanasecondlanguagedevelopmentissuethatcouldbeaddressedintheclassroom.
4. Difficultiesprovidingconsistent,adequateservicestostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
InallthreedistrictsrespondentsmentionedthatprovidingconsistentandadequateservicestostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersisachallengeaffectingtheidentificationprocessfortworeasons.First,schoolpersonnelhavedifficultydemonstratingthatstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnershavereceivedeffectiveinstruction,services,andinterventionstailoredtotheirneeds.Thisisimportantbecauseschoolpersonnelwantingtoreferstudentsforspecialeducationevaluationmustbeabletoprovideevidencethatastudent’sfailuretoachieveisnotduetoinadequatein-structionorlackofinter-vention.Second,thelackofavailableservicesforduallyidentifiedstudents
Inallthreedistricts
insufficientprofessional
knowledgeofsecond
languagedevelopment,
learningdisabilitiesand
theirintersectionandof
differencesinstudents’
culturalbackgrounds
wascitedasachallenge
intheidentification
ofdisabilitiesamong
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearners
bybothdistrictand
schoolpersonnel
18 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
inmiddleschoolsdiscouragesreferralsforspecialeducationevaluation.
Lack of effective instruction, interventions, and support services.Despiteeffortstoprovidere-sourcestostrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersbothbeforeandduringprerefer-ral,middleschoolsfinditdifficulttoprovidethesestudentswitheffectiveinstructionandservices(mentionedbysevenrespondentsinDistrict1,nineinDistrict2,andseveninDistrict3).Theserespondentssaidthatschoolslackqualifiedpersonnel,donothaveappropriateprofessionaldevelopment(challenge3),havelargeclasssizes,andarenotadequatelyinformedaboutresearch-basedscientificinterventionsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.Withalltheseissues,respondentsnotedthatitwasachallengetodeterminewhetherastudent’sdifficultieswereduetoalearningdisability,toineffectiveinstructionalpractices,ortolackofappropriateinterventions.
Lack of services after identification.SchoolsmaynotalwayshavespecificservicesavailableforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhohavebeenidentifiedashavinglearningdis-abilities.Respondentssaidthatdistrictshavetodealwithbudgetconcernswhenservicingasmallnumberofstudents,particularlythoseneedingabilingualspecialeducationclassroomoraspecialeducationclassroomwithateacherwhocanalsoprovidesecondlanguageinstruction.BecausetheCommitteeonSpecialEducationevaluateseachcasenotonlyonitseducationalmeritsbutalsoonthedistrict’sabilitytoprovideservicesforidenti-
fiedstudents,thelackofavailableservicescontributestodecisionsnottoidentifylearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.Schoolperson-nelgetdiscouragedaboutreferringstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersforspecialeducationevaluationknowingthattherearenoservicesavailableforduallyidentifiedstudentsandthattheCommitteeonSpecialEducation
willlikelyfailtoidentifythemashavinglearn-ingdisabilities(mentionedbyonerespondentinDistrict1,oneinDistrict2,andsixinDistrict3).
5. Lackofcollaborativestructuresinprereferral
PersonnelinDistricts1and3strugglewithalackofcollaborativestructuresintheprereferralprocess.InDistrict1theissuesfocusonthelackofstructuredschool-basedprereferralprocesses,whileinDistrict3thelackofcollaborativestruc-turesisfoundatthedistrictlevel,withsometimesconflictingprioritiesandperspectivesbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments.
No structured schoolbased prereferral.District1hasworkedtoimplementaprereferralstructureforallstrugglingstudents,includingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(mentionedbyfiverespondents).RespondentsnotedthatDis-trict1’smiddleschoolsdidnothavechildstudyteamsduringtheperiodcoveredbythisstudybecauseofteachercontracts,whichimpededtheentireprereferralprocess.Withonlyahandfulofschoolpersonnel—insteadofaformalchildstudyteamthatincludedallteachersworkingwithastudent—thereislimitedcapacitytoad-dressstudentneedsandtocollectevidenceaboutstudentresponsestointervention.ThedistrictalsofaceschallengesincommunicationbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandthespecialeducationdepartments.District1’sEnglishlanguagelearnerdepartmentgetsinvolvedonlyatthereferralstage,whereasintheotherdistrictsbothdepartmentscollaborateinprereferral.
Departments have different priorities and perspectives.Asthefindingsforthefirstresearchquestionondistrictidentificationprocessesshow,districtpersonnelinDistrict3mentionedpositivecom-municationandcollaborationbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepart-ments.Butonedistrictandfiveschoolpersonnelnotedtensionsbetweentheperspectivesofthetwodepartmentsbecausethespecialeducationdepart-menthasgreaterdecisionmakingauthoritythan
Neitherdistrictnorschool
personnelinthethree
districtshaveaccessto
assessmentsinlanguages
otherthanEnglishor
Spanishortoassessments
thatdifferentiate
betweensecond
languagedevelopment
andlearningdisabilities
challengeS in idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS 19
theEnglishlanguagelearnerdepartment.Specialeducationisaseparateofficewithitsowndirec-tor,whiletheEnglishlanguagelearnersupervi-sorreportstothedirectorofthecurriculumandinstructionoffice.TheserespondentsmentionedthatfinaldecisionsaboutstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilitiesseemtorestwiththespecialeducationdepartmentanddonotalwaystakeintoaccounttheexpertiseandjudgmentsoftheEnglishlan-guagelearnersupervisor.TwoschoolpersonnelsaidthatacommoninterventionforstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersistokeeptheminbeginnerESLclasses,thussparingspecialeducationresources.
6. Lackofaccesstoassessmentsthatdifferentiatebetweensecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilities
NeitherdistrictnorschoolpersonnelinthethreedistrictshaveaccesstoassessmentsinlanguagesotherthanEnglishorSpanishortoassessmentsthatdifferentiatebetweensecondlanguagedevel-opmentandlearningdisabilities.ThatcreatesachallengeinidentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities.
Lack of assessments in languages other than English and Spanish.GiventhatstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersstrugglewithEnglish,testsinEnglisharenotavalidmeasureoftheirproficiency.ThethreedistrictsstruggletofindvalidassessmentsinlanguagesotherthanEnglish(mentionedbytworespondentsinDistrict1,fiveinDistrict2,andfiveinDistrict3).Insomecasesrespondentsnotedthatnativelanguageassess-mentscouldhelpdistinguishalanguageprocess-ingdisorderfromsecondlanguagedevelopment,butnotalways.AlthoughdistrictshaveaccesstovalidassessmentsforSpanishspeakersthathavebeennormedfortheSpanish-speakingpopula-tionintheUnitedStates,respondentsnotedthattheassessmentsarenotalwaysvalidforrecentimmigrantsorforstudentswhohavenotre-ceivedacademicinstructioninSpanish.These
respondentsmentionedthattestsarenotavailableinotherlanguagesandthatitisparticularlydif-ficultforschoolpersonneltodifferentiatebetweenlearningdisabilitiesandsecondlanguagedevelop-mentforstudentswhospeakforeignlanguagesotherthanSpanish.
Lack of assessments that effectively differentiate second language development and learning disabilities.Personnelinthethreedistrictshavenotfoundabatteryofteststodifferentiatelearningdisabilitiesfromsecondlanguagedevelopment.Assessmentsrarelyaccountforthecomplexindividualcharacteristicsofstudentswhomayhavedisabilities(mentionedbytworespondentsinDistrict1,sixinDistrict2,andseveninDistrict3).BecauseeachEnglishlanguagelearnerstudenthasuniquebackgroundcharacteristics(suchasnum-berofyearsintheU.S.schoolsystem,numberofyearsofuninterruptedformalschooling,exposuretoEnglishinandoutofschool,andexposuretoacademicEnglish),respondentsmentionedthatitcanbedifficultforanyassessmentorbatteryofassessmentstoeffectivelydifferentiatelanguagedevelopmentfromdisabilities.
7. LackofconsistentmonitoringforstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
Accordingtosomeschoolpersonnel,thedistrictsdonothaveastructuredandconsistentsystemforprovidingmiddleschoolswithdetailedelementaryschoolacademichistoriesofstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,includinganylearningissuesnotedbypreviousteachers,anysupportsorinterventionsprovided,andnotesfromelementaryschoolchildstudyteams(notedbyoneschoolrespondentinDistrict1,sixinDistrict2,andtwoinDistrict3).Schoolpersonnelsaidthatalthoughstudentrecordsfollowstudentstomiddleschool,theydonotprovidedetailedinformationequivalenttostudentindividualized
accordingtosomeschool
personnel,thedistricts
donothaveastructured
andconsistentsystemfor
providingmiddleschools
withdetailedelementary
schoolacademic
historiesofstruggling
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearners
20 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
educationprogramsandthatthislackofconsistentmonitoringresultsinthelossofvaluablein-formationandunnecessarydelaysintheidentificationprocessinmiddleschools.TheserespondentsnotedthatprereferralprocessesofstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersarere-startedeachyear,lengtheningtheidentificationprocess,andthatitispossiblethatstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners
canleavemiddleschoolwithouttheidentifica-tionprocessbeingcompleted.Andsincethelackofconsistentmonitoringnotedbetweenelemen-taryandmiddleschoolsisalsoreportedbetweenmiddleandhighschools,schoolpersonnelworrythatstrugglingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersgetlostinthesystem.
8. Difficultyobtainingstudents’previousschoolrecords
Personnelinallthreedistrictsnoteddifficul-tiesobtainingstudentrecords,particularlyfromschoolsoutsidetheUnitedStates.Theinformationprovidedbyrecords,suchastheconsistencyofthechild’sformaleducationorpreviousidentifica-tionofadisability,canbevitalfordemonstratingwhetheradisabilitymightbeacontributingfactortoastudent’sstruggleinschool(mentionedbyfiverespondentsinDistrict1,sixinDistrict2,andthreeschoolpersonnelinDistrict3).Studentssometimesdonotbringtranscriptsfromothercountries,andparentsmaybehesitanttoprovideinformationaboutpreviousschoolplacementorhealthcon-cerns.Theserespondentsfeltthattheprereferralprocesscouldbeshortenedifadministratorshaddocumentationshowingahistoryoflearningissuesorpreviousspecialeducationplacement.
dIScUSSIoNoffINdINgS
ThisstudyportraystheprocessesusedtoidentifylearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinthreedistrictsin
NewYorkStateandthechallengesfacingdistrictandschoolpersonnelinthisprocess.ThethreedistrictsfollowasimilarprereferralprocessforidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.TheprocessistypicallylongerforstudentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearnersthanfornativeEnglishspeakers,toensuresufficienttimeforstudentstodevelopEnglishlanguageskillsandforeducatorstodif-ferentiatebetweenlanguagedevelopmentissuesanddisabilities.
Thethreedistrictsincorporateelementsofbestpracticesinprereferral,includingappropriateinstructioninthegeneraleducationsetting,infor-malandformalconsultationprocessesforclass-roomteachers,earlyinterventionsforstrugglinglearners,andprocessesforteacherstoanalyzetheresultsoftheearlyinterventionsandconsidernextsteps(BacaandCervantes1998;Ortiz2002;OrtizandYates2001).Thedistricts’prereferralprocessesvaryinfourareas:generalstafforga-nizationforplanningandproblemsolving,childstudyteamstaffingandroles,interventionsandsupports,andmonitoringofstudents’progressduringinterventions.Despitethesevariationsinprereferralpractices,referralprocessesaresimilaracrossdistricts,ingreatpartbecauseofthelegalmandatesprescribedinIDEA2004.Minorvaria-tionsamongthedistrictswereencounteredinthreeareas:initiatingreferral,collectingstudentinformation,andsharinginformationbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments.
DistrictandschoolpersonnelinthethreedistrictsstrugglewitheightsimilarchallengesateachphaseintheidentificationoflearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearn-ers.PersonnelfinditdifficulttocomplywiththeIDEA2004mandatetodemonstratethatstudentlearningdifficultiesarenotdueprimarilytoalackofscientificallybasedinstructionalpracticesandprograms,alackofappropriateinstruction,orlimitedEnglishproficiency.Researchshowsthatthesestrugglesarenotuniquetothesethreedistrictsortospecifictypesofpersonnel(such
Personnelinallthree
districtsnoteddifficulties
obtainingstudent
records,particularly
fromschoolsoutside
theUnitedStates,
thatcouldbevitalfor
demonstratingwhether
adisabilitymightbe
afactorinastudent’s
struggleinschool
diScuSSion of findingS 21
asschoolanddistrictpersonnel).Educatorsareconcernedaboutbothover-andunderidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEng-lishlanguagelearners(Artilesetal.2005;WargerandBurnette2000).
Althoughtheeightchallengesidentifiedarepresentedseparatelyinthisreport,theyareinter-related.Forexample,districtandschoolrespon-dentsdescribedchallengeswhenstakeholdershavedifferentviewsaboutthetimingforreferralofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(chal-lenge2).Frustrationandtensionbetweengroupsisexacerbatedwhendistrictandschoolperson-nellacksufficientknowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopment,learningdisabilities,andstudents’culturalbackgrounds(challenge4)orwhentheystrugglewithpolicyguidelines(challenge1).
Analysisofdistrictdifferencesintheprereferralandreferralprocessesandofthechallengesdistrictsandschoolsfacesuggestsfiveinterrelatedelementsthatappeartobeimportantforavoid-ingmisidentificationofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersintheprereferralandreferralprocesses:adequateprofessionalknowledge,ef-fectiveinstructionalpractices,effectiveandvalidassessmentsandinterventions,interdepartmentalcollaborativestructures,andclearpolicyguide-lines.TheliteratureonchallengestoidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEng-lishlanguagelearners(seeappendixB)highlightstheimportanceofthefirstthreeelements.Theimportanceofcollaborativestructuresbetweengeneraleducationandspecialeducationinmono-lingualsettings,atbothdistrictandschoollevels,hasbeenstudiedanddiscussedformanyyears(DiekerandMurawski2003;FriendandCook1996;PugachandJohnson1995;WeissandLloyd2002).However,withtheexceptionoftheworkofresearcherssuchasAlbaOrtiz(2002),littlehasbeenwrittenaboutcollaborativestructuresandpracticesbetweenEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments,andmuchofwhathasbeenwrittenhasidentifiedinequitiesinpractice(forexample,KlingnerandHarry2006).Theneedforclearpolicyguidelineshasnotbeen
specificallyidentifiedintheliteratureonstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,althoughthegeneralliteratureonspecialeducationstressesschoolanddistrictneedsforguidanceindevelop-ingtheirowneligibilitydeterminationforspecialeducation(ArtilesandOrtiz2002;MacMillanandSiperstein2002;OrtizandGraves2001;Wilkinsonetal.2006).
Adequateprofessionalknowledge
Educatorsneedaccesstoallavailableinformationonsecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilitiesnotonlytoeffectivelyimplementpre-referralandreferralprocessesbutalsotoprovideappropriateclassroominstruction(ArtilesandOrtiz2002;Baca,Fletcher,andHoover2008;KushnerandOrtiz2000;Orozcoetal.2008;WangandReynolds1994;Zehleretal.2003).Thethreedistrictsstudiedinthisprojectstrugglewithinsufficientknowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopment,learningdisabilities,andtheirintersection,aswellasstudents’culturalback-grounds.Althoughallthreedistricts,especiallyDistrict2,havetriedtobuildtheircapacityinsecondlanguagedevelopmentandpedagogy,moretrainingisstillneeded.Thesefindingsareinlinewithresearchsuggestingthateducatorsdonothaveadequateknowledgeabouttheeduca-tionneedsofstrugglingstudentswhoareEng-lishlanguagelearners(ArtilesandOrtiz2002;KushnerandOrtiz2000;Orozcoetal.2008;Zehleretal.2003).However,researchersarestilllearningwhatconstitutestherangeoflanguagedevelopmentpatternsforstudentswhoarelearn-ingEnglishasasecondlanguagecomparedwiththatofstudentswhohavelearningdisabilities(Klingner,Artiles,andBarletta2006).
fiveinterrelated
elementsappeartobe
importantforavoiding
misidentificationof
studentswhoare
Englishlanguage
learners:adequate
professionalknowledge,
effectiveinstructional
practices,effective
andvalidassessments
andinterventions,
interdepartmental
collaborative
structures,andclear
policyguidelines
22 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
Effectiveinstructionalpractices
MeetingtheinstructionalneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersinthegeneraleducationsetting,includingtheirsecondlanguagedevelopmentneeds,isacriticalfirststepindetermin-ingwhetherastudent’sacademicstruggleisdueprimarilytoadisabilityortoinadequateinstruc-tion(GerstenandBaker2000;Ruiz1995b;Zehleretal.2003).Howclassroominstructionispro-videdinfluencesstudentlearningandperformance(Arreaga-Mayer
andPerdomo-Rivera1996),andomissionoftheclassroomcontexthasanimpactonreferraldeci-sions(Harryetal.2002).Consequently,IDEA2004requireseducatorstodemonstratethatastudent’slearningdifficultiesarenotdueprimarilytoalackofadequateinstructionbeforereferringthestudenttospecialeducationservices.
ThisstudyillustratesthatthethreedistrictsstruggletoprovideinstructionandsupportservicesthatmeettheneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersbeforeandduringtheprereferralprocessandhavedifficultiesprovidingservicesforduallyidentifiedstudents.Schoolper-sonnelinthethreedistrictsarechallengedtodem-onstratedecisivelytotheircommitteesonspecialeducationthatstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnershavereceivedrobustinstructionandthattheirdifficultiesgobeyondsecondlanguagede-velopment.Whereappropriateevidenceislacking,thecommitteeisforcedtorejecttheidentificationofdisabilities,causingtensionbetweendistrictandschoolpersonnel.Eachgroupbelievesthattheotherisnotappropriatelyevaluatingstudents’needs.
EffectiveinstructionisalsocloselyrelatedtotheneedforadequateprofessionalknowledgebecauseknowledgeofeffectivestrategiesfordifferentiatinginstructionforstudentslearningEnglishiscriticaltomeetingtheirinstructionalneeds.
Effectiveandvalidassessmentsandinterventions
SomestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearn-ersaremisidentifiedashavinglearningdisabili-tiesbecauseofinadequateassessmenttoolsandpractices(Artilesetal.2005;GarciaandOrtiz2006;Klingneretal.2008;Klingneretal.2005;RuedaandWindmueller2006).AssessmenttoolsforevaluatinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersarestillindevelopment(Abedi2006;Bacaetal.2008,Skiba,Knesting,andBush2002).Inaddition,thereisalackofresearch-basedinstructionalinterventionsspecificallyforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(Figueroa2005;GarciaandOrtiz2006;KlingnerandArtiles2003;Wilkinsonetal.2006).Allthreedistrictsstrugglewiththislackofvalidassessmenttoolsandadequateinterventions.Althoughthedistrictshadsomeformofinterven-tioninplaceforstrugglingstudents,moreeffec-tiveinterventionstrategiesandassessmentsareneededthatcanhelpeducatorsdeterminewhetherdifficultiesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersresultfromalearningdisabilityoralackofappropriateinstructionorinterventions.
Withoutvalidassessmenttoolsthattakeintoconsiderationstudents’literacyintheirnativelanguage,educatorslacktheobjectiveinformationtodeterminethenatureofstudents’struggles.
Interdepartmentalcollaborativestructures
TherehasbeenlittleresearchoncollaborativestructuresandcoordinationbetweenspecialeducationstaffandEnglishlanguagelearnerpersonneltosupporttheidentificationoflearn-ingdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(GarciaandOrtiz2006;Zehleretal.2003).Whatresearchthereisfocusesonmonolingualsettings,withscholarsdiscussingtheroleofcollaborativeconsultation(Cobenetal.1997),collaborativeproblemsolving(PugachandJohnson1995;Vaughn,Bos,andSchumm1997),andcoteaching(FriendandCook1991,1996).Otherresearch,alsoinmonolingualcontexts,hasshownthatdistrictcollaborationshapeshow
Thisstudyillustrates
thatthethreedistricts
struggletoprovide
instructionandsupport
servicesthatmeetthe
needsofstudentswho
areEnglishlanguage
learnersbeforeand
duringtheprereferral
processandhave
difficultiesproviding
servicesfordually
identifiedstudents
limiTaTionS and implicaTionS for furTher reSearch 23
schoolsuseresources(FullanandHargreaves1996;HargreavesandFullan1998;LeonardandLeonard2003;NationalCommissiononTeachingandAmerica’sFuture2007;ShannonandBylsma2004).Researchhasalsonotedtheroleofschoolanddistrictcultureinmeetingthediverseneedsofstudentsfromculturallyandlinguisticallydi-versebackgrounds,aswellasthosewithdisabili-ties(AugustandHakuta1997;KushnerandOrtiz2000;Paulsen2008).
ThisprojectprovidesexamplesofthreewaysthatschooldistrictsorganizetheirEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartmentsandtheschoolwidecollaborativestructuresthatareavailabletoproblemsolvetheissuesofstrug-glingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.Althoughdistrictdepartmentalcollaborationoccursinallthreedistrictsinthisstudy,District2ismoreintentionalandactiveinitsefforts.TheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartmentscollaborateearlyintheprereferralprocessbycoordinatingserviceprovision,devel-opingguidelinesforprereferralandreferral,pool-ingresourcesandinformation,andencouraginginterdepartmentalmeetingsatdistrictandschoollevels.Theyalsoprovideprofessionaldevelop-mentonsecondlanguagedevelopmentandspecialeducationtoallmiddleschoolstaff.InDistrict3theEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartmentsalsocommunicateandcollaborateondevelopingguidelinesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities,buttherearetensionsbetweentheperspectivesandprioritiesofthetwodepartments.InDistrict1thetwodepartmentsworktogetheronlyatthereferralstage.
Attheschoollevel,accesstoproblem-solvingandcollaborativesupport,asrecommendedbyGarciaandOrtiz(2004),varies.District1hasstruggledtodevelopacollaborativeprereferralprocesstohelpschoolpersonnelinproblemsolvingandinterventionplanning.InDistrict2,grade-levelcontentteamsandchildstudyteamsarestaffedwithexpertsonsecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilities,butthedistrictstruggles
toconsistentlymonitorandshareprereferralinformationforstudentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearnersacrosselementary,middle,andhighschools.District3alsohasgrade-levelcontentteams,andthechildstudyteamsincludepersonnelwithsecondlanguageacquisitionexpertise,butthereislittleevidenceofconsis-tentdistrict-schoolorwithin-schoolcollaborationbetweentheEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments.
FormalizedcollaborativestructuresbetweenEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartmentsmayhelpaddressseveralofthechal-lengesfacingthethreedistrictsintheprereferralandreferralprocessesintheareasofeffectivein-structionandintervention(challenge4),personnelknowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilities(challenge3),andmonitoring(challenge7).Suchstructures,foundinDistrict2andonamorelimitedscaleinDistrict3,helptoprovidesupportstoschoolsandtoensurethatchildstudyteamsincludepersonnelwithrelevantexpertise.Alackofcollaborativesystemspres-entschallengesindevelopingprereferralsystemsanddecisionmakingaboutlearningdisabilitiesinstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(challenge5).
Clearpolicyguidelines
ThisstudysuggeststhatanimportantelementinidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersisclearstatepolicyguidancetodistrictsondeterminingeligibilityforspecialeducationforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,afindingalsocon-firmedbyresearchonspecialeducation(ArtilesandOrtiz2002;MacMillanandSiperstein2002;OrtizandGraves2001;Wilkinsonetal.2006).
Therehasbeenlittle
researchoncollaborative
structuresand
coordinationbetween
specialeducationstaff
andEnglishlanguage
learnerpersonnel
tosupportthe
identificationoflearning
disabilitiesamong
studentswhoareEnglish
languagelearners
24 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
Schoolswouldbenefitfromclearpolicyguidelinesonthecrite-riatouseindistinguishingalearningdisabilityfromsecondlanguagedevelopment,clearprocessestofollowinprereferralandreferralforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,andwaystodefineanddevelopcollaborativestructuresbetweenEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationpersonnel.AlackofclarityinpoliciesandguidelinesmaycontributetothedifferencesindistrictandschoolpersonnelviewsonthetimingofthereferralprocessforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearn-ers(challenge2).
lImITaTIoNSaNdImPlIcaTIoNSforfUrThErrESEarch
ThisqualitativestudyhasseverallimitationsthataffectitsgeneralizabilitytootherschooldistrictsinNewYorkState.First,thestudylookedonlyatthreedistricts.Second,thethreedistrictswereself-selectedfromtheeighteligibledistricts.Third,thethreedistrictsareallinsuburbanlocales.Fourth,notallrelevantpersonnelineachdistrictwereinter-viewed,sotheviewsexpressedmaynotberepresen-tativeofthewholedistrict.Andfifth,morepeoplewereinterviewedinDistrict3(16)thaninDistrict2(12)andDistrict1(10)becauseofavailabilityandwillingnesstobeinterviewed.Thestrengthoftheevidencemaythereforevaryacrossdistricts.
Thefindingsconfirmrecentresearchonthechal-lengesinidentifyingdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandprovidenewevidenceontheroleofcollaborativestruc-turesforEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationprofessionals,aswellastheneedforguidanceonprereferralprocessesforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
Thefindingsraiseseveralquestionsmeritingmoreresearch.Furtherresearchcouldcon-tributetothedevelopmentofresearch-based,scientificinterventionsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandstudentsintheearlystagesofidentificationoflearningdisabili-ties.AnotherareaisthedevelopmentofvalidassessmenttoolstoidentifydisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.InIDEAreauthorizationhearings,theSenateCommitteeonHealth,Education,Labor,andPensionsfoundthatbetterinterventionandassessmenttoolsareneeded,especiallyforstu-dentsfromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversebackgroundswhoriskbeingwrongfullyidenti-fiedashavingintrinsicintellectuallimitationsbasedonassessmentresultswhentheresultsreallyreflectlackofexperienceoreducationalopportunity(IndividualswithDisabilitiesEdu-cationAct2004).
Researchcouldalsoexpandtheunderstandingoftheroleandimpactofcollaborativestructuresindistrictsandschoolsasprofessionalsworktobettermeettheneedsoflinguisticallydiversestudents.AsstatesanddistrictsworkonbuildingcollaborativestructuresbetweentheirEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepart-ments,researchcouldexaminehowdistrictswithhighlevelsofinterdepartmentalcollaborationareorganizedandhowthiscollaborationmightcontributetomeetingtheneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities.
Finally,researchinNewYorkStatecouldtakeadvantageoftheconcentrationofresourcesintheBigFivedistrictsaswellasthefindingsfromthisstudy.TheBigFivedistrictshavebenefitedfromtechnicalassistancefromstateexpertstoimprovetheidentificationprocessfordual-identifiedstudents,andthelessonslearnedinthosedistrictsandthefindingsfromthisstudycouldbenefitsmallerdistricts.Areviewofprocessesandguide-linescouldbesharedwithotherdistrictsthrough-outthestate.
Schoolswouldbenefit
fromclearpolicy
guidelinesonthecriteria
touseindistinguishing
alearningdisability
fromsecondlanguage
development,clear
processestofollow
inprereferraland
referralforstudents
whoareEnglish
languagelearners,
andwaystodefineand
developcollaborative
structuresbetween
Englishlanguage
learnerandspecial
educationpersonnel
25appendix a. STudy meThodS
aPPENdIxaSTUdYmEThodS
TheresearchquestionsfocusontheprocessesusedinNewYorkStatetoidentifystudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities,alongwiththechallengesofthecurrentprocess,asdescribedbystakeholders:
• AccordingtodistrictandschoolpersonnelinthreemidsizeNewYorkStatedistricts,whatprocessesareusedtoidentifystudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities?
• WhatchallengesdothosedistrictadministratorsandschoolpersonneldescribeabouttheprocessofidentifyinglearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners?
Thestudyprofilesthreeschooldistricts,focusingontheirmiddleschoolsandincludingstakeholdersfromboththeschoolanddistrictlevels.Thefollowingareaswereexploredwithineachdistrictandschool:
• DescriptionofthepopulationofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
• Descriptionoftheorganizationalstructureofthedistrict-levelEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments.
• DescriptionoftheprocessesforidentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities.
• ChallengesfacedbyvariousstakeholdersinidentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities,andtheservicesprovided.
• InstructionforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities.
Sample
Theresearchteamconductedpurposive(nonrandom)sampling,establishingspecificcriteriaforselectingdistrictsforprofiling(O’Leary2004).Theteamchosetolookatmidsizeratherthanlargedistrictsbecauseexpertsfromthestatehavebeenworkingcloselywiththelargedistricts(theBigFive:NewYorkCity,Buffalo,Rochester,Syracuse,andYonkers)toimprovetheiridentificationandinstructionofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities.Thefollowingcriteriawereused:
• Midsizedistricts(6,000–10,000students).
• Atleast10percentofstudentsarestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,toincludedistrictsthatworkwiththetargetpopulation.
• Atleast5percentofstudentshavedisabilities,toincludedistrictsthatworkwiththetargetpopulation.
Inadditiontothesethreecriteria,theresearchteamalsowantedtoidentifydistrictswithinvariedgeographicareasbecauseofpossibledifferencesinthecompositionandfinancingofurban,suburban,andruralschools(Betts,Reuben,andDanenberg2000),aswellasdistrictsthatusedthemiddleschoolstructureratherthanK–8.Alldistrictsthatmetthefirstcriterionusedamiddleschoolstructure;however,thethreecriteriaidentifiedonlyschoolsinsuburbanareasandsmallcities.
UsingthereportNew York: The State of Learning (UniversityoftheStateofNewYork2006),theresearchteamidentifiedninepublicschooldistrictsthatfitthethreecriteria.TheteamcollectedpubliclyavailabledataonthesedistrictsfromtheNationalCenteronEducationStatistics(U.S.DepartmentofEducation2006)andNewYorkStatedistrictreportcards(NewYorkStateEducationDepartment2006)tofurtheridentifysalientcharacteristics,suchasdistrictandschooldemographicsandgradelevels.Oneoftheinitiallyidentifieddistrictswasexcludedbecauseitsschool
26 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
reportcardwasnotpubliclyavailable(withannualperformancedata)atthetimeofrecruitment.Theremainingschooldistrictswereinvitedtoparticipateinthestudy,andthreeconsented.
TableA1providesdemographicdataforthethreeparticipatingdistricts,thedistrictsthatfitthecriteriabutdidnotparticipateinthestudy,andallotherNewYorkStatedistrictsexcepttheBigFive.Thedataarepresentedasrangestoavoididentifyingthegroupsofdistricts.
Datasources
Toanswertheresearchquestions,theresearchteamtriangulateddatafromthefollowingsources:
• Publicly available information. Thisincludeddistricts’reportcards,reports,guides,andregulationsfromtheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment(NYSED)websiteandinformationavailableondistricts’websites.
• Interviews. Semistructuredinterviewswereconductedwithstakeholdersatthedistrictandschoollevels(seeappendixCforinterviewprotocols).InterviewswereconductedbytworesearchersduringJanuary–March2008.
TheresearchteamwasinterestedininterviewingkeypersonnelinEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationunitsatboththedistrictand
schoollevelstoincludeawiderangeofstakeholdersineachdistrict.Ateachmiddleschoolthisincludedkeypersonnelwithdifferentlevelsofresponsibilities(administrators,supportpersonnel,specialistteachers,andclassroomteachers).
Theresearchteamcreatedopen-endedinterviewprotocolsforeachofthefivekeycategoriesofstakeholderstoguidedatacollection:
• Districtadministrators:directors(assistantdirectorsortheirequivalent)oftheEnglishlanguagelearner21andspecialeducationdepartments.
• Schooladministrators:principalsorassistantprincipalsandchairpersons.
• Schoolsupportpersonnel:guidancecounselors,psychologists,andspecialeducationsupervisors.
• Specialistteachers:Englishasasecondlanguage(ESL)teachersandspecialeducationteachers.
• Teachers:bilingualteachersandcontentteachers.
Thenumberofintervieweesperdistrictandschoolvaried(tableA2).Ultimately,theparticipatingdistrictsdecidedwhowouldbeinterviewed,
Table a1
comparisonofdemographicinformationbetweenparticipating,eligible,andallNewYorkStatedistricts(exceptthebigfive),2005/06
districts invited but participating districts not participating all new york State districts
characteristic (n = 3) (n = 5) (except big five)
below 6,000 (641 districts) 6,000–10,000 (69 districts)
enrollment 6,000–10,000 6,000–9,000 above 10,000 (40 districts)
percentage of students who are less than 10 (719 districts) english language learners 13–28 11–32 10–38 (31 districts)
percentage of students with disabilities 7–10 5–11 more than 5 (744 districts)
Source:Authors’analysisofdatafromU.S.DepartmentofEducation(2006)andNewYorkStateEducationDepartment(2006).
27appendix a. STudy meThodS
dependingonwhowasinvolvedintheprocessandavailableduringtheschoolvisitorafterwards.22
• Supplemental documents. Respondentsfromthedistrictsandschoolssharedadditionaldocumentationthatwasnotpubliclyavailable.ThedocumentationincludedguidelinesforprereferralandreferralprocessesofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,anEnglishlanguagelearnerreferralarticulationform,anddemographicinformationonstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnerswhoarealsoreceivingspecialeducationservices.
Datacollectionmethods
Datawerecollectedinatwo-stepprocess.DatacollectionbeganinSeptember2007andwascom-pletedinMarch2008,asoutlinedbelow.
Collection of publicly available information on the processes used to identify students who are English language learners and who might have learning disabilities.TheresearchteamreviewedpublicdocumentsfoundontheInternet,includingdistrictandNYSEDwebsites.Thisprocessservedthreepurposes.First,teammemberslearnedmoreabouttheNYSED’sregulationsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandstudentswithdisabilities,whichhelpedthemunderstandthepolicydocumentsavailabletoschoolpersonnelinvolvedinidentifyingstudentswithdisabilities.Second,theresearchteamobtainedpubliclyavail-abledemographicinformationforeachprofileddistrict.Andthird,theteamidentifiedkeycon-tactstointerviewwithineachdistrict.
Site visits in each district.Districtsthatagreedtoparticipateintheprojectdesignateddistrict-levelcontactstoserveasliaisonsbetweentheresearchteamandthedistrictandschoolprincipals.Theresearchteammentioneditsinterestinschedulingatwo-orthree-dayvisitforfacetofaceinterviewswithatleastonestakeholderineachcategory.Theliaisonscoordinatedthedateswiththedistrictandschoolofficialsanddeterminedwhowouldbeinterviewed.Tworesearchersvisitedeachmiddle
Table a2
NumberofintervieweeJanuary–march2008
sbyprotocolused,
interview protocol district 1 district 2 district 3
district administrators 2 4 3
School administrators 2 3 4
School support personnel 1 1 5
Specialist teachers 2 3 2
Teachers 3 1 2
Total 10 12 16
schoolandthedistrictofficesfortwoorthreedaysbetweenJanuaryandMarch2008.23Mostinterviewswereconductedinperson,butafewpersonnelwhowerenotavailableduringthesitevisitsandwhoexpressedinterestinparticipatinginthestudywereinterviewedlaterbytelephone.Withtheparticipants’permission,allinterviews,whichtookapproximately45minuteseach,wererecordedandtranscribed.Afewparticipantsshareddocumentsabouttheidentificationprocessthattheyhadreceivedfromthedistrictorstate.
Dataanalysisstrategies
TheanalysisoftheinterviewtranscriptsbeganwiththecreationofapreliminarycodelistbasedonafirstsetofinterviewtranscriptsgatheredfromDistrict1.Tobuildacommoncodingsys-tem,theteamcodedasecondanddifferentsetofinterviewtranscriptsfromDistricts1and2.Thisinformationwasusedtomodifytheinitialcodesandtocreateafinalsetofcodes.
Toensureuniformcodingandreliability,onlytworesearcherscodedthedata.Theyfirstcodedthesametranscriptindependently,discussedtheircoding,andclarifiedanydiscrepancies.Then,eachresearcherseparatelycodedasecondinterviewtextandcomparedtheircodingitembyitem.Interraterreliabilitywashigh(Cohen’skappaof0.82andpercentageagreementof93percent),sothefinallistofcodesandcodefamilieswasconfirmed(seeboxA1forthecodebook).Finally,theinterviewtranscriptswereenteredintothe
28 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
box a1 • Interventionstrategies • Challengesinreferralfinalcodesandcodefamilies • Monitoringprogress • Specialeducationplacement
• Other issuesAdministrative issues • Monitoring• Schoollevel
Collaboration • Other• Districtlevel• Schoollevel• Structure
Philosophy of service provision • • DistrictlevelOther• School-district • Philosophy• Other • PerceptionofstudentswhoareDemographics and
Englishlanguagelearnersbackground information Programs • Perceptionoffamiliesofstu• District• Bilingual dentswhoareEnglishlanguage• School• Englishasasecondlanguage learners• StudentswhoareEnglishlan• Mainstream • Otherguagelearners• ShelteredEnglish• StudentswhoareEnglish• Specialeducation Placement of students who are languagewhohavelearning• Options English language learners disabilities• Staffing • Monitoringprogress• Impactofchanges• Programmingchallenges • Placementintoprogramsofstu• Other• Other dentswhoareEnglishlanguage
learnersPrereferral to special education Referral to special education • Placementofstudentswhoare• Process• Process Englishlanguagelearnerswho• Staffing• Staffing alsohavelearningdisabilities• Indicatorsoflearningdisability• Evaluations • Other• Challengesinprereferral• Indicatorsoflearningdisability
qualitativeanalysissoftwareATLAS.tianddistributedtothetworesearchersforcoding.
Afterthecoding,theresearchteamdevelopedaprofileofeachdistrictbasedontheinterviews.Informationforeachfamilycodewassynthesizedthematicallybasedonthekeyareasthatguidedtheresearch:
• DescriptionofthepopulationofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
• Descriptionoftheorganizationalstructureofthedistrict-levelEnglishlanguagelearnerandspecialeducationdepartments.
• DescriptionoftheprereferralprocessforidentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities.
• ChallengesfacedbyvariousstakeholdersinidentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities,andtheservicesprovided.
• InstructionforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandalsohavelearningdisabilities.
Publiclyavailabledocumentsanddocumentsprovidedbyrespondentswerereviewedtoobtainmorecompleteinformationonthedistricts’processesforidentifyingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilities.Publiclyavailabledocumentswerecollectedbeforetheinterviewsandprovidedinformationonthedemographicsandorganizationofthedistrictandonthepolicydocumentsthatprovideguidancetoschooldistrictsfortheidentification
appendix a. STudy meThodS 29
process.Additionaldocumentsprovidedbyrespondentsalsowereincludedinthedocumentanalysis.Thissystematicanalysisallowedtheresearcherstobuildprofilesforthethreeschooldistricts.
Theteamreviewedallprofiles,revisedthembasedoncommentsfromtheteam,andsenttherevisedprofilestorespondentsforvalidation.Theteamsenttheentireprofileforadistrict(withthedistrictprofileandbothmiddleschoolprofiles)toeachdistrictrespondent,andthedistrictprofileandtherespondent’sschoolprofileweresenttoeachschool.Districts1and2respondedtotherequestforfeedback;inonedistrictadistrictofficialrespondedindependently,andintheotherdistrictadistrictofficialrespondedafterconsultingwiththeotherpersonnelinterviewed,sotheofficial’sfeedbackreflectedcolleagues’commentsaswell.
Profileswereagainrevisedinlightoftherespondents’comments.Inthefewcaseswherethereweredisagreementsbetweenelementsoftheprofilesproducedbytheresearchteamandtherespondents,theresearchteamandtherespondentdiscussedthereasonsforthedisagreements(byemailandphone).Wheredisagreementsfocusedonperceivedinaccurateportrayalsofthedistrictorganizationstructuresorprogramsavailableforstudents,thedisagreementwasresolvedafterdiscussionswiththerespondent,andtheprofileswererevised.Inonecaseadistrictrespondentdisagreedwiththeprofile’sportrayaloftheschoolrespondents’characterizationoftheidentificationprocess.Oncethedistrictrespondentunderstoodthattheprofiledescribedtheperceptionsoftheschoolrespondents,whichapparentlydifferedfromthedistrictrespondent’s,theissuewasresolved.
Fromtheprofilestheresearchteambuiltmatricesofeachdistricts’prereferralandreferralprocesses,showingsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongthedistrictsandapreliminarylistofchallenges(definedasanythingthatnegativelyaffectsteachers’andadministrators’abilitytoaccuratelyidentifylearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoare
Englishlanguagelearners).Difficultiesunrelatedtotheidentificationprocesswerenotconsideredachallengeforpurposesofthisstudy.Theteamdiscussedthepreliminarylistofchallenges,organizedthestatements,andsynthesizedthemintobroadercategoriesofchallenges,returningtothedatamultipletimestoensureaccuraterepresentationofrespondents’views.Attheconclusionofthisiterativeprocess,theresearchteamidentifiedeightchallengesthatsynthesizedalltheissuesdiscussedbyrespondents.
Theteambuiltmatriceswiththenumberandpositionofrespondentswhomentionedeachchallenge.Thematriceshelpedidentifysimilaritiesanddifferencesamongdistrictsandbetweendistrictandschoolpersonnel.TheteamthencomparedthesefindingswiththeliteratureandidentifiedfiveinterrelatedelementsthatappeartobeimportantforavoidingmisidentificationofdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.Theresearchteamworkedcollaborativelyonthereport,exchangingfeedbackandinsights.Whenneeded,theteamwentbacktothecodesandinterviewtranscriptstoensurethatthefiveidentifiedelementsaccuratelyrepresentedthedata.
Humansubjectsconcerns
BecauseofthepotentialsensitivityoftheinformationcollectedontheprocessesusedtoidentifystudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilitiesandonthechallengesencounteredinimplementingtheseprocesses,theresearchteamdecidedtokeepthenamesoftheprofiledschooldistrictsandtherespondents’positionsconfidential,sothatparticipantswouldfeelcomfortablesharingtheirideas.Confidentialitywasstressedduringtheinitialcontactwiththedistrictsandintheinformedconsentform.IncompliancewithEducationDevelopmentCenter’sInstitutionalReviewBoardpolicy,theresearchteaminformedrespondentsoftheirrightsandresponsibilitiesandaskedeachrespondenttosigntheinformedconsentformbeforeparticipatingintheproject.
30 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
aPPENdIxbrESEarchoNIdENTIfYINglEarNINgdISabIlITIESamoNgSTUdENTSWhoarEENglIShlaNgUagElEarNErS
ResearchershaveidentifiedissuesrelatedtotheidentificationofdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersthatleadtoadisproportionatenumberofthesestudentsbeingassignedtospecialeducationservices.SomestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersaremisdiagnosedashavingadisability,includingalearningdisability,whileothersarenotproperlyidentifiedashavingadisabilityandthusdonotreceivethespecialeducationservicestowhichtheyareentitled(Chamberlain2006;WargerandBurnette2000).Theliteratureidentifiesfourchal-lengesthatcontributetodisproportionatepatternsintheidentificationoflearningdisabilitiesamongstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners:pro-fessionals’knowledgeofsecondlanguagedevel-opmentanddisabilities,instructionalpractices,interventionstrategies,andassessmenttools.
Professionals’knowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopmentandlearningdisabilities
Educatorsfaceanongoingchallengeindistin-guishingalearningdisabilityfromthechallengesoflearningasecondlanguage(KlingnerandArtiles2006;KlingnerandHarry2006;RuedaandWindmueller2006).WhenastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearnerfailstolearnEnglishattheexpectedpace,fallsbehindacademically,orexhibitsinappropriatebehavior,educatorsmustdecidewhetherthisiscausedbyalearningdisabil-ityorbydifficultyindevelopingsecondlanguageskills(Gopaul-McNicolandThomas-Presswood1998;Orozcoetal.2008).However,theprocessofacquiringasecondlanguagevariesfromchildtochild,anddifficultieswithlanguageacquisitionoftenappearsimilartolearningdisabilities(CaseandTaylor2005).Teachersobservinglanguageac-quisitioninastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearnercanconfusethesymptomsoflearningdisabilitieswiththepatternsofpronunciationde-velopment(Lue2001;Piper2003),developmentof
syntax(Gopaul-McNicolandThomas-Presswood1998;Kuder2003),orsemanticdevelopment(Mer-cel1987)inasecondlanguagelearner.
Researchhasalsopointedoutthedifferenttime-linesforlearningsocialandacademiclanguage.Onaverageitcantakeuptothreeyearsforasec-ondlanguagelearnertolearnbasicinterpersonalcommunicationskills(Cummins1979)andfivetosevenyearstoacquirethecognitiveacademiclanguageproficiencynecessaryforacademicsuc-cessinschool(AugustandHakuta1997;Cummins1979,2000;Hakuta2001;Hakuta,Butler,andWitt2000).Becauseofthelongertimerequiredtoacquirecognitiveacademiclanguageproficiency,educatorsmayincorrectlyidentifydelaysasalearningdisabilityratherthanalanguagedevel-opmentissue(Cummins1984;Ortiz1997;Ruiz1995a).
Researchsuggeststhatmostteachers,especiallygeneralandspecialeducationteachers,donothaveadequateknowledgeoftheeducationneedsofstudentsfromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversebackgrounds(ArtilesandOrtiz2002;KushnerandOrtiz2000;Zehleretal.2003).ArtilesandOrtiz(2002)suggestthattopreventacademicfailureofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,allteachersshouldbetrainedinsecondlanguagedevelopmentaswellasitsrelationshiptonativelanguage.ResearcherspositthatprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesareessentialtobuildingacommonknowledgeandphilosophyinallteachersinvolvedineducatingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners(ArtilesandOrtiz2002;WangandReynolds1994;Wong-FillmoreandSnow2000).
Instructionalpractices
AlthoughtheIndividualswithDisabilitiesActof2004requiresthatallstudentsreceiveresearch-based,effectiveinstructioninreadingandmathinthegeneraleducationsettingbeforespecialeducationisconsidered,studentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhomighthavelearningdisabilitiesmightreceiveineffectiveinstructionor
31appendix b. reSearch on idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among engliSh language learnerS
beplacedininappropriatelearningenvironments(Cummins1984;Ortiz1997;Ruiz1995a).GerstenandBaker(2000)suggestthatstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersdonotreceiveeffectivecontentinstructioninmathandreadingfromgeneraleducationteachers.Ineffectiveteachingcanconfoundthealreadydifficultprocessofdif-ferentiatingalearningdisabilityfromalanguagedevelopmentissue.ManystudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersreceiveeducationservicesinmonolingual,mainstreamclassesfromteacherswhohavenothadtraininginEnglishasasecondlanguageorinspecialeducationmethods(Zehleretal.2003).Oftenwhenstudentsarereferredforspecialeducation,thegeneraleducatorisaskedforinputonthereferral,butrarelyaretheprogramsorclassroomsinwhichstudentsareexperiencingfailuresinvestigated(Ruiz1995a).
Interventionstrategies
RecentresearchalsoindicatesthatstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersandwhoarestrug-glingacademicallydonotalwaysreceivethemostappropriateinterventionstomeettheirneeds(Figueroa2005;GarciaandOrtiz2006;KlingnerandArtiles2003;KlingnerandEdwards2006;Wilkinsonetal.2006).Thestudyofresearch-basedinterventionsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersisstillrelativelynew,andthereisadearthofknowledgeaboutthemosteffectiveinterventions(ArtilesandKlingner2006;Linan-Thompsonetal.2005).TeachersdonothaveaccesstoinformationaboutnewinterventionstoaddresstheneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersbeforemovingtothenextstageofreferraltospecialeducationservices(Fletcher,Bos,andJohnson1999;Ortiz1997).Thus,ifprereferral
interventionsarenoteffective,itmaybebecausethetypesofinterventionsdonotmeettheuniquelearningandlinguisticneedsofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,ratherthanbecausethestudentshavealearningdisability(Ortiz1997;OrtizandWilkinson1991;Wilkinsonetal.2006).ThislackofappropriateinterventionsleadstosomestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearn-ersbeingincorrectlyplacedindisabilityservices,wheretheyarelesslikelytoreceiveextensiveEng-lishlanguagelearnerservices(Zehleretal.2003).Othersareneveridentifiedforspecialeducationservices(Artilesetal.2002).
Assessmenttools
SomestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersaremisidentifiedashaving—ornothaving—adisabilitybecauseofinadequateassessmenttoolsandpractices(Artilesetal.2005;GarciaandOrtiz2006;Klingneretal.2008;Klingneretal.2005;RuedaandWindmueller2006).Researchershavefoundthatbecauseofthecomplexlinguisticstructuresoftestitemsinassessmenttoolsusedtoidentifystudentswithdisabilities,studentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersareoftennotaccuratelyassessed,apsychometricbiasthatcanresultinover-orunderdiagnosis(Abedi2006;Skiba,Knesting,andBush2002).Addingtothecomplexity,theassessmentsusedindisabilityidentificationprocedurescanbehighlydependentonsubjectivejudgmentsoftheevaluator(Harryetal.2002).Evenwhenbilingualassessmentsareadministeredasadiagnostictooltoidentifydisabilities,theoutcomedependsonboththequalificationsoftheevaluatorsandthepsycho-metricpropertiesoftheinstruments(Klingneretal.2008;OrtizandGraves2001).
32 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
aPPENdIxcINTErvIEWProTocolS
Thisappendixincludesinterviewprotocolsfordistrictadministratorsandschooladministra-tors,supportpersonnel,specialistteachers,andclassroomteachers.
Districtadministratorinterviewprotocol:specialeducation,Englishlanguagelearner,andcurriculumdirectorsandassistantdirectors(orequivalent)
English language learners (ELLs)24 in your district
1. PleasedescribetheELLspopulationinyourdistrict.• Languages• Educationalbackground• YearsintheU.S.
Prereferral process
1. ThinkaboutELLsinyourdistrict;howdoesyourdistrictensurethattheyarereceivingadequateinstruction?
2. IfanELLisstrugglinganditisthoughtitmightbemorethanalanguageissue,whatisthetypicalprocesstoinvestigatethis?(pre-referralprocess)
3. WhatareyourdistrictpoliciesforreferringELLsforspecialeducationservices?
4. WhatchallengesdoyouencounterintheidentificationofELLswithlearningdisabilities?
Instruction for ELLs with learning disabilities
1. Howdoesyourofficetrytoensurethatspecialeducation,ELL,andgeneraleducationstaffmeettheneedsofELLswithlearningdisabili-tiesintheircaseloads?
2. Howdogeneralstaffbecomeinformedabouteffectiveinstructionalstrategiesfor:• ELLs?• Studentswhohavespecialneeds?
3. HowdoesyourdistricttrytoensurethatELLswithlearningdisabilitiesarepro-videdinstructioninthe“leastrestrictiveenvironment”?
Working relationship between the districts’ special education and ELL departments
1. WhatisyourworkingrelationshipwiththeELLorspecialeducationdepartment?
2. WhatchallengesdoyouencounterwhenworkingwiththeELLorspecialeducationdepartment?
Culture
1. WhatdoesthedistrictdotoensurethattheparentsofELLsunderstandthefollowing?• Prereferralactivities• TheIEP[individualeducationprogram]
process• TheroleofparentsintheIEPprocess
2. Whatstrategiesdoesthedistrictusetocom-municatewithparentswhodonotspeakEnglish?
3. Whatchallengesdoyouencounterincom-municatingwithparentsofstudentswhoareELLswithlearningdisabilities?
33appendix c. inTervieW proTocolS
Schooladministratorinterviewprotocol:principals,assistantprincipals,anddepartmentchairs
English language learners (ELLs) in your school
1. PleasedescribethepopulationofELLsinyourschool.
2. WhataretheprogramoptionsforELLsinyourschool?
Identifying ELLs with learning disabilities
1. Whenateacher(oranyotherstaffmember)comestoyouwhentheyseeastudentwhoisanELLstruggling,howdoyouknowwhetherthestudentstrugglesbecauseofalearningdisability?
2. IfanELLisstrugglinganditisthoughtthatitmightbemorethanalanguageissue,whatisthetypicalprocesstoinvestigatethis?
3. Whatpersonnelinthisschoolwouldbein-volvedinthatprocess?
4. ArethereparticularissuesorchallengesyoufacewhendecidingwhetherornotanELLhasalearningdisability?
5. Whatspecialeducationservicescanbepro-videdatyourschoolforELLswithlearningdisabilities?
6. Doesyourschoolofferprofessionaldevelopmenttoaddresstheinstructionand/oridentificationofstrugglingELLs?Ifyes,pleaseexplain.
7. WhatistherelationshipbetweenyouandyoursupportpersonnelandteacherswhentryingtocommunicateaboutELLswhomighthavealearningdisability?
Parent participation
1. Howdoesyourschoolencourageparentat-tendanceandactiveparticipationintheIEPprocessforfamiliesofELLs?
2. Howdoyouestablishtheseparents’trustandrespect?
Schoolsupportpersonnelinterviewprotocol:guidancecounselors,psychologists,andspecialeducationsupervisors
Identification of English language learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities
1. Whatroledoyouplayintheprereferralpro-cessofELLs?
2. WhatarethestepstakentomeettheneedsofELLswhomayhavelearningdisabilities?
Prereferral• Servicesofferedbeforeformalreferral• Whobeginstheprocess?• Whatwouldpeopleseethatmakethem
thinkthatanELLmayneedaspecialeducationreferral?
Referral• Howlongdoestheprocesstakefromstart
tofinish?• Whywouldsomebodysay,“It’sadisabil-
ityandnotthelanguage”?• Whoisinvolvedandatwhatpoint?
Evaluation
1. HowdoesyourdistrictensurethatELLsareevaluatedproperlyforspecialeducationservices?
2. Howdoyouacquireinformationaboutthestudent?
3. WhattestsareusedwithELLs?
4. Howdoyouaccountforlanguageandculturaldifferencesintheevaluationprocess?
Services offered
1. Howareservicesdetermined?
2. Whatservicesareavailable?
34 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
3. Whichareusedmostoften?
Monitoring
1. Howarestudentsmonitoredastheyprogressthroughthesystem?
2. Whatisdiscussedinteammeetings?Howaretheystructured?
3. Howdoyouensurethattherehasbeenad-equateinstructionforanELLtobeevaluatedproperlyforspecialeducationservices?
4. WhatdoyouseebeingtheissuesintheidentificationprocessofELLswithlearningdisabilities?
5. Whatistherelationshipbetweenyou,thebilingualorgeneraleducationteachers,andspecialeducatorswhentryingtodiscernifanELLmighthavealearningdisability?
Culture
1. WhatisdonetoensurethattheparentsofELLsunderstandthefollowing?• Evaluationresults.• TheIEP[individualizededucationpro-
gram]process.• TheroleofparentsintheIEPprocess.
2. Whatroledoyouplayinthiseffort?
3. WhatstrategiesareusedtocommunicateevaluationresultswithparentswhodonotspeakEnglish?
Specialistteacherinterviewprotocol:specialeducationteachersandEnglishasasecondlanguageteachers
Instruction of English language learners (ELLs)
1. WhatisyourroleintheinstructionofELLs?• Supportinthegeneraleducation
classroom?• Coteaching?• Self-contained—allsubjects?
2. WhatdoyoudotoservetheneedsofELLsinyourclassroom?
3. Whatsupportsdoyouhaveavailable(fromtheschool/district)toworkwithELLs?
Identification of ELLs with learning disabilities
1. Howdoyouknowwhetherastrugglingstu-denthas:• AdditionalEnglishlanguagelearning
needs?• Specialeducationneeds?
2. IfanELLisstruggling,whatdoyoutypicallydotounderstandwhatisgoingonwiththisstudent?
3. WhatdoyoudowhenyoufeelthatanELLinyourclassroomneedsmoreservices,particu-larlyspecialeducationservices?
4. Doyoufeelthatyouandotherspecialistsandteachershavethesameagendawhendiscuss-ingELLswhomighthavealearningdisabil-ity?Ordoyoufeelthereisadisconnect?
5. Whataresomebarriersforthosestudentsfornotgettingthenecessaryservicestheyneed?
Classroomteacherinterviewprotocol:bilingual,mainstream,andcontentarea
English language learners (ELLs) in the classroom
1. DoyouhaveELLsinyourclassroom?Whataretheircharacteristics?
Instruction of ELLs
1. Whatdoyoudointermsofinstructionthatmightbedifferentforthesestudents?
2. HowdoesthedistrictsupportyoutoworkwithELLs?
3. Haveyoureceivedprofessionaldevelopmentfromthedistrictorschoolonhowtowork
35appendix c. inTervieW proTocolS
withELLsand/orstudentswhohavespecialneeds?
Identification of ELLs with learning disabilities
1. Ifyoubelievethatthisstudent’sdifficultiesmightbemorethanalanguageissue,whatdoyoutypicallydotoinvestigatethis?
2. Whatwouldmakeyoubelievethatastudent’sdifficultiesmightbemorethanalanguageissue?
3. WhatarethestepsthatyouneedtofollowforELLstobeevaluatedandprovidedtheservicestheyneed?
4. WhointheschooldoyoucommunicatewithaboutthoseELLswhoarestruggling?Pleasedescribethecommunicationpatternsandcommunicationbarriers.
5. WhatchallengesdoyouencounterintheidentificationofELLswithlearningdisabilities?
Culture
1. WhenandhowdoyoucommunicatewithfamiliesofELLs?
aPPENdIxdcroSS-dISTrIcTdEmograPhIcS,orgaNIzaTIoNalSTrUcTUrE,aNdProgramSforSTUdENTSWhoarEENglIShlaNgUagElEarNErSINmIddlESchool
Table d1
demographicsmiddleschool
category
demographics
,organizationalstructure,andprogramsforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersininthethreestudydistricts,2005/06and2008
district 1 district 2 district 3
• Suburban, close to major urban • Suburban, close to major urban • Suburban center center • meets criteria for district size
• meets criteria for district size • meets criteria for district size and english language learner and english language learner and english language learner and special education student and special education student and special education student populations populations populations • more than half of students
• more than half of students • almost half of students receive receive free or reducedprice receive free or reducedprice free or reducedprice lunch lunch lunch • even distribution of White, • more than half of students are
• more than half of students are black, and hispanic students black, with rapidly growing hispanic, and onethird are immigrant hispanic community • most students who are english black language learners are of • most students who are english
• highly transient population mexican origin and born in the language learners are haitianof students who are english united States creole or Spanish speakers language learners • in 2005/06 met adequate yearly • in 2005/06 met adequate
• in 2005/06 did not meet progress in english language yearly progress in math and adequate yearly progress arts and math for all subgroups english language arts for all in english language arts for subgroups (except students students who are english with disabilities in english language learners and students language arts) with disabilities; met adequate yearly progress in math for all subgroups
organizational • one intermediate school • Two middle schools (grades • Two middle schools (grades structure (grades 5–6) and one middle 6–8) 7–8)
school (grades 7–8) • departments of english • english language learner • department of english language learners, special department is part of the office
language learners education, pupil services, and of curriculum and instruction medical services are part of the • department of special • office of special education people services office education • There is collaboration between
• close collaboration among • collaboration between the english language learner these departments; directors departments very limited department and the office of have biweekly meetings to special education • early stages of response to coordinate their services
intervention development • fluid communication between • during past 18 months district school principals
has been pilot testing response • early stages of response to to intervention
intervention implementation
(conTinued)
36 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
Table d1 (conTinued)
demographics,organizationalstructure,andprogramsforstudentswhoaremiddleschoolinthethreestudydistricts,2005/06and2008
category district 1 district 2
programs for • district offers same program • different programs in each students who options at intermediate (School middle school are english a) and middle (School b) • middle School c: advanced language schools students only; advanced learners in • Spanishenglish bilingual eSl classes with read 180 middle schools education option for beginner program
and intermediate students • middle School d: beginner (Spanishspeaking) to advanced
• english as a second language • pullout eSl classes for all (eSl) pullout for other students and content area language groups and advanced classes through eSlsheltered eSl Spanish speakers; grouping english strategies for varies by grade or english beginning and intermediate proficiency level, depending level only on schedule
• Students may take Spanish native language or math in Spanish
• other interventions include read 180 and english language learning and instruction System (elliS) programs, and after school program
• Special class for students in the Students with interrupted formal education program
• literacy enhancement for students in eSl for more than six years
Englishlanguagelearnersin
district 3
• eSl program at both middle schools differentiated by proficiency level
• beginner students receive two units of eSl plus eSl content classes (with eSl teacher teaching content)
• intermediate students, depending on grade and subject, may receive pullout eSl and collaborative content classes cotaught by eSl and content teachers
• advanced students receive eSl pullout
• implementation varies by school
• middle School f: provides districtwide Students with interrupted formal education program
Source:Compiledbyauthorsfrominterviews,NewYorkStateEducationDepartment(2006),andU.S.DepartmentofEducation2006.
37appendix d. croSS-diSTricT demographicS, organizaTional STrucTure, and programS
38 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
NoTES
ThisreportcouldnothavebeencompletedwithouttheassistanceoftheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment,participantsfromthethreeschooldistricts,HarounaBa,MichelleLaPointe,RebeccaCarey,KatieCulp,JosephineLouie,Maria-PazAvery,andJessicaBrett.
1. Theauthorsuseperson-firstlanguagethroughoutthisreport.Person-firstlanguage(seewww.disabilityisnatural.com)putsthefocusonthechild,notthedisabilityorthechild’sEnglishlanguagelearningstatus.WhileNewYorkStateusesthetermsEnglish language learner andlimited English proficient interchangeablytorefertostudentslearningEnglish,thisreportusessolelystudents who are English language learners.
2. RegionaleducationofficesarepartofVESIDandoverseepreschoolandK–12specialeducationservices.
3. Responsetointerventionisamultitieredapproachtohelpstrugglinglearners(seebox1anddiscussionlaterinthereport).Students’progressiscloselymonitoredateachstageofinterventiontodeterminetheneedforfurtherresearch-basedinstructionorintervention.NewYorkrequirestheimplementationofresponsetointerventionbeginningintheearlygrades.
4. DocumentsfromVESIDincludeguidelinesforidentifyingstudentswithdisabilities(general),includingspecificrequirementsforstudentswhospeakotherlanguages,andguidanceonbilingualspecialeducationissues,includingguidanceonindividualevaluationsandeligibilitydeterminationsandindividualeducationprograms.Inaddition,theNYSEDwebsitehasinformation,compiledin2002,on“Keyissuesinbilingualspecialeducation.”Thestateguidelinesonindividualizededucationpro-gramsalsoincludeinformationforidentifyingdisabilities,includingspecificissuespertainingtostudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
5. “Leastrestrictiveenvironment”inIDEA2004requiresthatstudentswithdisabilitiesreceiveeducationservicestothegreatestextentpossiblewithchildrenwhodonothavedisabilities.
6. AnindividualizededucationprograminIDEA2004referstoawrittenstatementthatdescribestheeducationalprogramtofollowforeachchildwithadisability.
7. Sheltered-EnglishisanapproachtoteachingstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersthatintegratesEnglishlanguagedevelopmentandgrade-levelcontentinstruction.
8. PublishedbyScholastic(nodate),READ180isareadinginterventionprogramforstrugglingreadersingrades3–12.
9. TheannualNewYorkStateEnglishlanguageproficiencyassessmentforstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners.
10. TheNYSEDdefinesacademicinterventionservicesasadditionalinstructiontosupple-mentinstructioninthegeneralcurriculumandtoassiststudentsatriskofnotachievingtheNewYorkStateLearningStandards,aswellasstudentsupportservices,whichmayincludeguidance,counseling,andstudyskillstosupportimprovedacademicperformance.Academicinterventionservicesareavailabletostudentswithdisabilitiesonthesamebasisastostudentswithoutdisabilities.Fordetails,seewww.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/persprep/cse/0403cse2.htm.
11. District2hastriedtohiresupportpersonnelwithknowledgeofsecondlanguagedevelopmentatoneofitstwomiddleschools.AtSchoolD,whichhasthemajorityofthedistrict’smiddleschoolpopulationofstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners,oneofthetwoschoolpsychologistsandoneofthetwosocialworkersarebilingual(Spanish-English)andareknowledgeableaboutsecondlanguagedevelopment.Eachgrade-levelcontentteam
-
-
-
-
- -
noTeS 39
hasanassignedbilingualsupportstafftoprovideexpertiseonsecondlanguagedevel-opmentwhentheteamisdiscussingastudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearner.Otherbilingualsupportpersonnelarealsoavailablewhenneeded.
12. Inbothmiddleschools,studentsatthebeginningandintermediatelevelsofEnglishproficiencymayattendclassesinscience,socialstudies,andmaththatarestaffedbyamainstreamcontentteacherandanESLteacher.Becauseoflimitedresources,theschoolswerenotabletoprovideESLcollab-orativesinallgradelevelsandsubjectsduringtheyearofthestudy.
13. BecauseofcontractualagreementsinDistrict1,teacherparticipationinchildstudyteamsisvoluntary.Intheyearwhendatawerecol-lected,notenoughteachershadvolunteeredfortheteams,sotheteamswerenotimple-mentedineitherschool.
14. Accordingtotheguidelines,astudentwhoisanEnglishlanguagelearnershouldnotbeassessedbeforehavinglivedandgonetoschoolinthecountryforoneyear,formalizedassessmentsshouldbeperformedbytheESLteacherandrelatedschoolpersonneltoruleoutEnglishdefi-ciencyasthereasonforthereferraltotheCom-mitteeonSpecialEducation,andmorethanoneevaluationtoolmustbeused(multibatterytestsmustbeadministeredbyateamofexperts).Thechildshouldbeobservedbysomeoneotherthantheclassroomteacher,andtheprincipaloradesigneeshouldreviewtheinformation.Specialconsiderationshouldbegiventocogni-tiveacademiclanguageproficiencyskills,whichtakesixtosevenyearstodevelop,andexperien-tialbackground.ThestudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersPrereferralFormshouldbeincludedandreviewed.AllstudentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearnersshouldhaveaccesstorelatedservicesprovidersforconsultations.
15. PublishedbyWilsonLanguageTrainingCor-poration(2004),theWilsonReadingSystem
isareadingandwritingprogramforteachingdecodingandencoding(spelling)fromtheupperelementarygradesthroughadults.
16. PublishedbyGanderPublishing(nodate),theLindamood-BellLearningProcessesconsistofprogramsthatteachchildrenandadultstoread,spell,comprehend,andexpresslanguage.
17. PublishedbyPearson(nodate),ELLISisamultimediaEnglishlanguagedevelopmentprogramthataddressesawiderangeofEng-lishproficiencylevels.
18. PublishedbyLeonaD.Spector(nodate),Spec-torPhonicsisanOrton-Gillinghambasedtotallanguageprogramthatencompassesreading,writing,andspelling.
19. NewYorkStatemandatedresponsetointer-ventioninJuly2007,anditisintheinitialimplementationstage.
20. Thisstudyfocusedontheidentificationpro-cessanddidnotcollectdataontheprogramsavailableforstudentswhoareEnglishlan-guagelearnersaftertheyhavebeenidentifiedashavinglearningdisabilities.
21. Referstothedistrictdepartmentthatregu-latestheeducationofstudentswhoareEng-lishlanguagelearners.Thetitleofthedepart-mentvariesbydistrict.
22. Becausethepersonnelinvolvedinthedeter-minationoflearningdisabilitiesfluctuate,itwasnotalwayspossibletoidentifyallstake-holderseligibleineachcategory.
23. Thesamepairofresearchersconductedalltheinterviewsinthethreedistricts.
24. Aftertheinterviewswereconducted,theauthorsdecidedtouseperson-firstlanguagereferenceinwritingthereportandchangedEnglish language learnerstostudents who are English language learners.
40 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
rEfErENcES
Abedi,J.(2006).PsychometricissuesintheELLassess-mentandspecialeducationeligibility.Teachers College Record, 108(11),2282–303.
Arreaga-Mayer,C.,andPerdomo-Rivera,C.(1996).Ecobe-havioralanalysisofinstructionforat-risklanguagemi-noritystudents.The Elementary School Journal, 96(3),245–58.
Artiles,A.J.,andKlingner,J.K.(2006).ForgingaknowledgebaseonEnglishlanguagelearnerswithspecialneeds:theoretical,population,andtechnicalissues.Teachers College Record, 108(11),2187–94.
Artiles,A.J.,andOrtiz,A.A.(Eds.).(2002).English language learners with special needs: identification, placement, and instruction.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.
Artiles,A.J.,Rueda,R.,Salazar,J.J.,andHigareda,I.(2002).Ofrocksandsoftplaces:EnglishlanguagelearnerrepresentationinspecialeducationinCaliforniaurbanschooldistricts.InD.J.LosenandG.Orfield(Eds.),Racial inequity in special education.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.
Artiles,A.J.,Rueda,R.,Salazar,J.J.,andHigareda,I.(2005).Within-groupdiversityinminoritydisproportionaterepresentation:Englishlanguagelearnersinurbanschooldistricts.Exceptional Children, 71(3),283–300.
August,D.,andHakuta,K.(1997).Improving schooling for languageminority children: a research agenda.Wash-ington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.
Baca,L.M.,andCervantes,H.T.(1998).The bilingual special education interface(3rded.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:SimonandSchuster.
Baca,L.M.,Fletcher,T.,andHoover,J.J.(2008).Conclu-sion.Puttingthepiecestogether.InJ.K.Klingner,J.J.Hoover,andL.M.Baca(Eds.),Why do English language learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.
Betts,J.R.,Reuben,K.S.,andDanenberg,A.(2000).Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California.SanFrancisco,CA:PublicPolicyInstituteofCalifornia.
Case,R.E.,andTaylor,S.S.(2005).Languagedifferenceorlearningdisability?Clearing House, 78(3),127–30.
Chalfant,J.,Pysh,M.,andMoultrie,R.(1979).Teacherassistanceteams:amodelforwithin-buildingproblemsolving.Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(3),85–96.
Chamberlain,S.P.(2006).AlfredoArtilesandBethHarry:issuesofoverrepresentationandeducationalequityforculturallyandlinguisticallydiversestudents.Interview.Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4),228–32.
Coben,S.,Thomas,C.,Sattler,R.,andMorsink,C.(1997).Meetingthechallengeofconsultationandcollabora-tion:developinginteractiveteams.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4),427–33.
Cummins,J.(1979).Cognitive/academiclanguageprofi-ciency,linguisticinterdependence,theoptimumagequestion,andsomeothermatters.Working Papers on Bilingualism,19,121–29.RetrievedMay4,2007,fromwww.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html.
Cummins,J.(1984).Bilingual and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy.SanDiego,CA:College-HillPress.
Cummins,J.(2000).Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire.Buffalo,NY:MultilingualMatters.
Dieker,L.A.,andMurawski,W.(2003).Co-teachingatthesecondarylevel:uniqueissues,currenttrends,andsug-gestionsforsuccess.High School Journal, 86 (4),1–11.
Ellis,R.(1985).Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversity.
Figueroa,R.A.(1999).SpecialeducationforLatinostu-dentsintheUnitedStates.Bilingual Review, 24(1/2),147–59.
41referenceS
Figueroa,R.A.(2005).Dificultadesodesabilidadesdeaprendizaje?Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2),163–67.
Fletcher,T.V.,Bos,C.S.,andJohnson,L.M.(1999).Accom-modatingEnglishlanguagelearnerswithlanguageandlearningdisabilitiesinbilingualeducationclassrooms.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(2),80–91.
Friend,M.M.,andCook,L.(1991).Interactions: collaboration skills for school professionals(1sted.).NewYork:Longman.
Friend,M.M.,andCook,L.(1996).Interactions: collaboration skills for school professionals(2nded.).WhitePlains,NY:Longman.
Fullan,M.,andHargreaves,A.(1996).What’s worth fighting for in your school? NewYork,NY:TeachersCollege.
GanderPublishing.(nodate).Lindamood-BellLearningProcesses.RetrievedJanuary5,2010,from,www.lindamoodbell.com.
Garcia,S.B.,andOrtiz,A.A.(2006).Preventingdispropor-tionaterepresentation:culturallyandlinguisticallyresponsiveprereferralinterventions.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4),64–68.
Gersten,R.,andBaker,S.(2000).WhatweknowabouteffectiveinstructionalpracticesforEnglishlanguagelearners.Exceptional Children, 66(4),454–70.
Gersten,R.,Beckmann,S.,Clarke,B.,Foegen,A.,Marsh,L.,Star,J.R.,andWitzel,B.(2009).Assisting students struggling with mathematics: response to Intervention (RTI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 20094060).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences,NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance.
Gersten,R.,Ferrini-Mundy,J.,Benbow,C.,Clements,D.H.,Loveless,T.,andWilliams,V.(2008).Chapter 6: report of the Task Group on Instructional Practices.Washing-ton,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation.
Gopaul-McNicol,S.-A.,andThomas-Presswood,T.(1998).Working with linguistically and culturally different children: innovative practice and clinical approaches.Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon.
Hakuta,K.(2001).Acriticalperiodforsecondlanguageacquisition?InD.B.Bailey,J.T.Bruer,F.J.Symons,andJ.W.Lichtman(Eds.),Critical thinking about critical periods.Baltimore,MD:PaulH.Brookes.
Hakuta,K.,Butler,Y.G.,andWitt,D.(2000).How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?PolicyReport.Stanford,CA:TheUniversityofCaliforniaLinguisticMinorityResearchInstitute.
Hargreaves,A.,andFullan,M.(1998).What’s worth fighting for out there?NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Harry,B.(2002).Trendsandissuesinservingculturallydiversefamiliesofchildrenwithdisabilities.Journal of Special Education, 36(3),131–38.
Harry,B.,Klingner,J.K.,Sturges,K.M.,andMoore,R.F.(2002).Ofrocksandsoftplaces:usingqualitativemethodstoinvestigatedisproportionality.InD.J.LosenandG.Orfield(Eds.),Racial inequity in special education.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.
IndividualwithDisabilitiesActof2004(IDEA).(2004).Pub.L.No.108-446,20U.S.C.Stat.1400.
Klingner,J.K.,Almanza,E.,deOnis,C.,andBarletta,L.M.(2008).Misconceptions about the second language acquisition process.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.
Klingner,J.K.,andArtiles,A.J.(2003).Whenshouldbi-lingualstudentsbeinspecialeducation?Educational Leadership, 61(2),66–71.
Klingner,J.K.,andArtiles,A.J.(2006).Englishlanguagelearnersstrugglingtolearntoread:emergentscholar-shiponlinguisticdifferencesandlearningdisabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5),386–89.
Klingner,J.K.,Artiles,A.J.,andBarletta,L.M.(2006).Englishlanguagelearnerswhostrugglewithreading:
42 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
languageacquisitionorLD?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2),108–28.
Klingner,J.K.,Artiles,A.J.,Kozleski,E.,Harry,B.,Zion,S.,Tate,W.,Durán,G.Z.,andRiley,D.(2005).Address-ingthedisproportionaterepresentationofculturallyandlinguisticallydiversestudentsinspecialeducationthroughculturallyresponsiveeducationalsystems.Education Policy Analysis Archives,13(38).RetrievedMarch18,2009,fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n38.
Klingner,J.K.,andEdwards,P.A.(2006).Culturalconsider-ationswithresponsetointerventionmodels.Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1),108–17.
Klingner,J.K.,andHarry,B.(2006).Thespecialeducationreferralanddecision-makingprocessforEnglishlan-guagelearners:childstudyteammeetingsandplace-mentconferences.Teachers College Record, 108(11),2247–81.
Kuder,S.J.(2003).Teaching students with language and communication disabilities(2nded.).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.
Kushner,M.I.,andOrtiz,A.A.(2000).ThepreparationofearlychildhoodeducationteachersforEnglishlanguagelearners.InNew teachers for a new century: the future of early childhood professional development.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,NationalInstituteonEarlyChildhoodDevelopmentandEducation.
Leonard,L.,andLeonard,P.(2003).Thecontinuingtroublewithcollaboration:teacherstalk.Current Issues in Education,6.RetrievedMay13,2008,fromhttp://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number15.
Linan-Thompson,S.,Bryant,D.P.,Dickson,S.V.,andKouzekanani,K.(2005).Spanishliteracyinstructionforat-riskkindergartenstudents.Remedial and Special Education, 26(4),236–44.
Lue,M.S.(2001).A survey of communication disorders for classroom teachers.Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon.
MacMillan,D.L.,andSiperstein,G.N.(2002).Learningdisabilitiesasoperationallydefinedbyschools.In
R.Bradley,L.Danielson,andD.Hallahan(Eds.),Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Mercel,C.D.(1987).Students with learning disabilities(3rded.).Columbus,OH:Merrill.
NationalCommissiononTeachingandAmerica’sFuture.(2007).Reducing the achievement gap through district/ union collaboration: the tale of two school districts.Washington,DC:TheNationalCommissiononTeach-ingandAmerica’sFuture.
NewYorkStateEducationDepartment.(2006).New York State school and district report cards for school year 2005–2006.RetrievedJuly16,2008,fromhttps://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/Home.do?year=2006.
NoChildLeftBehindActof2001(NCLB),Pub.L.107-110,115Stat.1425.
O’Leary,Z.(2004).The essential guide to doing research: skills and strategies.London:SAGEPublications.
Orozco,M.J.,Almanza,E.,deOnis,C.,Klingner,J.K.,andHoover,J.J.(2008).DistinguishingbetweenlanguageacquisitionandlearningdisabilitiesamongEnglishlan-guagelearners.InJ.K.Klingner,J.J.Hoover,andL.M.Baca(Eds.),Why do English language learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.
Ortiz,A.A.(1997).Learningdisabilitiesoccurringconcom-itantlywithlinguisticdifferences.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3),321–32.
Ortiz,A.A.(2002).PreventionofschoolfailureandearlyinterventionforEnglishlanguagelearners.InA.J.ArtilesandA.A.Ortiz(Eds.),English language learners with special education needs: identification assessment and instruction.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguisticsandDeltaSystemsCo.,Inc.
Ortiz,A.A.,andGraves,A.(2001).Englishlanguagelearn-erswithliteracy-relatedlearningdisabilities.InInternational Dyslexia Association commemorative booklet.Baltimore,MD:InternationalDyslexiaAssociation.
43referenceS
Ortiz,A.A.,andWilkinson,C.Y.(1991).Assessmentandinterventionmodelforthebilingualexceptionalstu-dent(AIMfortheBESt).Teacher Education and Special Education, 14(1),35–42.
Ortiz,A.A.,andYates,J.R.(2001).AframeworkforservingEnglishlanguagelearnerswithdisabilities.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14(2),72–80.
Paulsen,K.J.(2008).School-basedcollaboration:anintro-ductiontothecollaborationcolumn.Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5),313–15.
Pearson.(nodate).EnglishLanguageLearningandIn-structionSystem(ELLIS).RetrievedJanuary4,2010,fromwww.ellis.com.
Piper,T.(2003).Language and learning: the home and school years (3rded.).Columbus,OH:Merrill/PrenticeHall.
Pugach,M.C.,andJohnson,L.J.(1995).Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools.Denver:Love.
Rueda,R.,andWindmueller,M.P.(2006).Englishlanguagelearners,LD,andoverrepresentation:amultiple-levelanalysis.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2),99–107.
Ruiz,N.T.(1995a).Thesocialconstructionofabilityanddisability:I.ProfiletypesofLatinochildrenidentifiedaslanguagelearningdisabled.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(8),476–90.
Ruiz,N.T.(1995b).Thesocialconstructionofabilityanddisability:II.Optimalandat-risklessonsinabilingualspecialeducationclassroom.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(8),491–502.
Scholastic.(nodate).READ180.RetrievedJanuary4,2010,fromhttp://teacher.scholastic.com/products/read180/overview/.
Shannon,G.S.,andBylsma,P.(2004).Characteristics of improved school districts: themes from research.Olympia,WA:OfficeofSuperintendentofPublicInstruction.Re-trievedJune11,2008,fromwww.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/DistrictImprovementReport.pdf.
Skiba,R.J.,Knesting,K.,andBush,L.D.(2002).Culturallycompetentassessment:morethannonbiasedtests.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1),61–78.
Slavin,R.E.,andMadden,N.A.(1989).Whatworksforstudentsatrisk:aresearchsynthesis.Educational Leadership, 46(5),4–13.
Spector,Leona.(nodate).SpectorPhonics.RetrievedJanu-ary4,2010,from,www.readingreformny.org/instruc-tors.htm.
UniversityoftheStateofNewYork.(2006).New York. The state of learning. A report to the governor and the legislature on the educational status of the state’s schools.Albany,NY:NewYorkStateEducationDepartment.
U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSci-ences,NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.(2006).CommonCoreofData,searchforpublicschooldis-trictsdatafor2005–2006.RetrievedAugust10,2007,fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch.
Vaughn,S.R.,Bos,C.S.,andSchumm,J.(1997).Teaching mainstreamed, diverse, and atrisk students in the general education classroom.NeedhamHeights,MA:Allyn&Bacon.
Wang,M.C.,andReynolds,M.C.(1994).Servingstudentsatthemargins.Educational Leadership, 52(4),12.
Warger,C.,andBurnette,J.(2000).Five strategies to reduce overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education.Arlington,VA:ERICClearinghouseonDisabilitiesandGiftedEducation.
Weiss,M.P.andLloyd,J.W.(2002)Congruencebetweenrolesandactionsofsecondaryspecialeducatorsinco-taughtandspecialeducationsettings. Journal of Special Education, (36)2,58–68.
Wilkinson,C.Y.,Ortiz,A.,Robertson,P.M.,andKushner,M.I.(2006).Englishlanguagelearnerswithreading-relatedLD:linkingdatafrommultiplesourcestomakeeligibilitydeterminations.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2),129–141.
44 idenTifying learning diSabiliTieS among STudenTS Who are engliSh language learnerS
WilsonLanguageTrainingCorporation.(2004).TheWil-sonReadingSystem.RetrievedJanuary4,2010,fromwww.wilsonlanguage.com/w_wrs.htm.
Wong-Fillmore,L.,andSnow,C.(2000).What teachers need to know about language.Washington,DC:ERICClearinghouseonLanguageandLinguistics.
Zehler,A.M.,Fleischman,H.L.,Hopstock,P.J.,Stephenson,T.G.,Pendzick,M.L.,andSapru,S.(2003).Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities(No.4Specialtopicreport:findingsonspe-cialeducationLEPstudents).Arlington,VA:Develop-mentAssociates.