Processes and challenges in identifying learning ... · Processes and challenges in identifying...

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


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


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


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


languagelearners:

theEnglishlanguage

learnerdepartment,

thespecialeducation

department,thepupil

servicesdepartment,

andthemedical

servicesdepartment.

district3hasanEnglish

languagelearner

departmentwithinthe

officeofcurriculum

andinstructionanda

specialeducationoffice


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


languagelearners

bybothdistrictand

schoolpersonnel


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


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


languagelearners


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


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


languagelearners


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


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


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.


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).


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?


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)


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


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.


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:


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.


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.

Processes and challenges in identifying learning ... · Processes and challenges in identifying...

Documents

Transcript of Processes and challenges in identifying learning ... · Processes and challenges in identifying...