This issue of NASET’s Practical Teacher was written by Olga M. Torguet of Florida International University. The subject of underrepresentation and overrepresentation of English Language Learners (ELLs) in special education programs has been a topic of discussion in the field of education for many years. Students who are English Language Learners (ELL) experience many obstacles when entering the U.S. educational system. When these students struggle more than most students, they may face an even larger obstacle. In many occasions, teachers erroneously attribute low school performance to a lack of English language acquisition. Other times, educators make the opposite mistake when ELLs exhibit characteristics that resemble traits of students with learning or language disabilities and associate their poor school performance with a disability. Accurately identifying ELLs who also need special education services has long been a challenge for educators.
The subject of underrepresentation and overrepresentation of English Language Learners (ELLs) in special education programs has been a topic of discussion in the field of education for many years. Students who are English Language Learners (ELL) experience many obstacles when entering the U.S. educational system. When these students struggle more than most students, they may face an even larger obstacle. In many occasions, teachers erroneously attribute low school performance to a lack of English language acquisition.
Other times, educators make the opposite mistake when ELLs exhibit characteristics that resemble traits of students with learning or language disabilities and associate their poor school performance with a disability. Accurately identifying ELLs who also need special education services has long been a challenge for educators. According to Artiles and Ortiz (2002), general educators are often unable to distinguish students whose academic problems are due to limited English proficiency from those whose difficulties are associated with disabilities.
Several authors have analyzed and reported data demonstrating the growing number of ELLs in the U.S. educational public system. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2005), by the year 2030 English Language Learners will comprise an estimated 40 percent of the American student population. Rueda and Stillman (2012) stated that ELLs represent the fastest growing student population in the U.S. public schools and while the general student population rose by 2.6% between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of ELL students increased by more than 57%. Ford (2012) reported that sixteen percent of both Hispanics and Asian students spoke a non-English language at home and spoke English with difficulty.
“Data from a sample of more than 1,300 U.S. school districts revealed that 76% of ELLs scored below grade level on tests of reading English.” (Ortiz, Robertson, Wilkinson, Liu, McGhee & Kushner, 2011, p 317). Evidence suggests that ELLs face a tough challenge when entering the U.S. public system. They must learn to read, write, speak and understand English they way it is used in the American classroom within a limited time. They also have to keep up with their English-speaking peers in math, science, social studies and other subjects, all while adapting to a new culture and lifestyle.
It is critical to differentiate between a lack of English proficiency and a disability. While schools are currently using a multi-tiered instructional delivery model called Response to Intervention (RTI) to serve the needs of students with academic or behavioral concerns and teams of educators, service providers and administrators participate in this model, referral of ELLs ultimately reflect the opinion and input of their classroom teachers. Therefore, referrals to special education are influenced by teachers’ perception whether the students’ cause of low academic performance is due to the existence of a disability or just lack of English language acquisition. “Before English learners are recommended for Tier 2 or Tier 3 services, teachers need to ensure that these students have had sufficient exposure to high quality appropriate teaching that includes academic English instruction in an environment that is supportive of their language development” (Echevarria & Hasbrouck, 2009, p 3).
Samson and LeSaux (2009) claim that ELL students are underrepresented in special education in the primary grades but overrepresented beginning in third grade. The lack of services for ELLs with disabilities and teacher unwillingness to refer ELLs in the primary grades are the main causes of these patterns. Ortiz and Artiles (2010) consider the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education a complicated issue mainly because educators have limited knowledge of the relationship between language acquisition and disability. Additionally, evidence suggests that the measurement tools used to determine students’ abilities are culturally and linguistically biased and fail to provide accurate measures of ELLs true capabilities. Ford (2012) stated that the main contributors to overrepresentation are attitudes, expectations and testing. Rueda and Stillman (2012), attribute the misidentification of ELLs as learning disabled to the current high-stakes accountability policies mandated under No Child Left Behind by limiting ELLs access to instruction and services that research has demonstrated to empower them. ELLs who have been misidentified as having a learning disability face a massive amount of potentially negative consequences. ELLs who receive special education services have access to fewer language support services than other ELL students. Furthermore, these students frequently spend more time in segregated educational settings. According to Wagner, Francis and Morris (2005), current research suggests ELLs typically begin receiving special education services 2 to 3 years later than most students who are English proficient. As a result of delays in special education placement, ELLs are more susceptible to inadequate services because of both misidentification and inability to be identified in time.
Ortiz, Robertson, Wilkinson, Liu, McGhee and Kushner (2011) analyzed and reviewed three studies that were part of a longitudinal study of the characteristics of ELLs who had been previously identified as having a Learning Disability (LD) and whose Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) indicated they received reading instruction in a special education program. The studies included a total of 44 participants of which 25 were boys and 19 were girls. Language Proficiency Assessments administered by the school district revealed that 31 were Spanish monolinguals and 10 were Spanish dominant. The researchers obtained data from each student’s cumulative folder that contained information about participation in state-mandated achievement testing and bilingual education placement committee records as well as special education records. They also analyzed data related to referral, assessment and eligibility determination from ELLs with reading difficulties. Results of the three studies indicated that the most common reasons for referral were general academic problems and/or language and literacy difficulties. The results of the studies proved that the primary disability for 16 out of the 44 participants was different than LD. Researchers concluded that 18 out of the 44 students (41%) likely had disabilities but the experts felt that confounding factors made reading related LD classification questionable. Analyses of data from the three studies confirmed that when information other than IQ achievement discrepancies was considered, 77% of students did not meet the qualifications for a learning disability. Researchers agreed that documentation was sufficient to qualify only 10 out of the 44 students who participated in the study. Consequently, findings across the three studies imply that in order to properly classify ELLs as learning disabled a collection of data sources is essential. Relying on IQ tests and referral alone does not provide sufficient evidence to place an English language learner in a special education program.
Sullivan (2011) conducted a study that took place in a Southwestern state with an enrollment of approximately 1.1 million students, of which 16% were ELLs and almost 8% received special education services. The purpose of the study was to examine the representation of students identified as ELLs in comparison to their White peers over an eight-year period. The study consisted of analyses of data on district-level general and special education enrollment as well as other data regarding district demographics available from the State Department of Education during the 1999 to 2006 academic school years to investigate the degree of disproportionality among students identified as ELLs. The study explored patterns and predictors of special education identification and placement of ELLs. Annual data on general and special education enrollment for the state and each district within the state were acquired via a research agreement with the state. Results of the study indicated an increasing incidence of overrepresentation of ELLs in special education. Overrepresentation was highest in Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and Mild Mental Retardation (MIMR), where the 2006 risk ratios reached 1.82 and 1.63 respectively. A high level of underrepresentation was evident in the Emotionally Disabilities (ED) category. Additionally, the authors discovered that districts with high percentages of teachers with ESL certification had a tendency to place students identified as ELLs in the least restrictive environment. Consequently, the researcher concluded that students identified as ELLs are overrepresented in special education in this state and are less likely to be placed in the least restrictive environment compared to their White peers, especially when teachers are not certified to teach ELLs.
Current practices in the referral of ELLs to special education services apply the use of the Response to Intervention (RTI) process as an alternative to the IQ discrepancy formula utilized in the past as the main evidence to identify ELLs with a learning disability. Prior to the implementation of the RTI model in schools, educators relied on the IQ achievement discrepancy formula by analyzing the gap between a student’s potential and achievement. According to Garcia and Ortiz (2008), current federal laws clearly mandate nonbiased evaluation procedures of ELLs and recommend RTI to be part of the identification process to address the disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education. Although RTI can assist teachers choose the best strategies possible for ELLs and decrease the number of these students referred for special education, some authors agree there are limitations of using RTI when identifying ELLs with disabilities. Garcia and Ortiz (2008) believe RTI does not include scientifically based research on the diverse population of ELLs. These authors recommend culturally responsive approaches in addition to RTI for identifying ELLs with LDs.
Nguyen (2012) recommends several strategies educators can implement to ensure proper identification of ELLs with disabilities. The participation of educators in relevant professional development (PD) workshops allow them to gain an understanding of strategies, research-based practices and effective assessments for ELLs. Nguyen (2012) also approves a collaboration model in which all teachers, support staff, service providers, parents and administrators work together to properly identify ELLs for eligibility in special education. Teachers can provide a welcoming environment, offer positive reinforcement strategies and modeling the anticipated learning outcomes by using gestures, body language, and facial expression; all of which influence the success of ELLs in the general education classroom.
Additionally, Nguyen (2012) proposed to remind educators that ELLs require a period of three to five years to acquire English oral proficiency and four to seven years to develop academic proficiency in the English language. Therefore, educators’ knowledge about culturally responsive practices as well as research-based strategies that have been proven to work with ELLs is critical.
In order to assist ELLs in improving their English language acquisition skills and avoid being identified as having a disability, parents must actively participate in all aspects of their children’s education. “To reinforce reading skills, parents can also support their children’s education at home by reading to their children, having their children read to them, checking their children’s homework, projects, and reminding them of assignment deadlines” (Nguyen, 2012, p. 147). Parents’ efforts can assist students in closing the achievement gap between language acquisition and grade level expectations. Teachers can also encourage parents to request meetings and participate in discussions pertaining to their children throughout the school year.
Based on the previously mentioned studies as well as the research reviewed by numerous authors presented in this document, the increasing demands placed on the teaching profession by federal, state and local agencies, force teachers to collaborate with all individuals who are involved in the education process of ELLs. Collaboration among teachers, administrators, counselors, parents and all service providers who are familiar with the child is critical at the time of making decisions and identifying possible solutions to properly identify ELLs with and without disabilities. Additionally, to completely include ELLs in the least restrictive environment and determine whether RTI strategies are truly working, teachers must utilize research-based practices specific to ELLs and allow ELLs enough time to demonstrate the effectiveness of the interventions prior to referring them to special education services. Likewise, ELLs who already have been identified with a disability will benefit from culturally responsive pedagogy as well as the use of accommodations and research-based approaches that have worked in the past and evidence has demonstrated to be effective tools with this population of students.
References
Artiles, A.J., & Ortiz, A.A. (2002). English language learners with special education needs:
identification, assessment and instruction. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied
Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English language learners with learning disabilities.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 84 (6),
244-248.
Echevarria, J. & Hasbrouck (2009). Response to intervention and English learners. Center for
Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners.
Retrieved April 7, 2016 from .
Ford, D. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: looking backward to move
Forward. Exceptional Children. 78 (4), 391-405.
Garcia, S. B. & Ortiz, A. A. (2008). A framework for culturally and linguistically responsive
design of response-to-intervention models. Multiple Voices. 11 (1), 24-41.
Marsten, D. P., Muyskens, M. L., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem solving model for decision making with high incidence disabilities: the Minneapolis experience. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practices. 18 (3), 187-200.
Nguyen, H.T. (2012). General education and special education teachers collaborate to support
English language learners with learning disabilities. Issues in Teacher Education. 21 (1),
127-150.
Ortiz, A.A., Robertson, P.M., Wilkinson, C.Y., Liu, Y., McGhee, B.D., & Kushner, M.I. (2011).
The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to
Special education: implications for response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal,
34 (3), 316-333.
Obiakor, F.E. (2007). Multicultural special education: effective intervention for today’s schools.
Intervention in School and Clinic. 42 (3), 148-155.
Rueda, R., & Stillman, J. (2012). The 21st century teacher: a cultural perspective. Journal of
Teacher Education. 63 (4), 245-253.
Samson, J.F., & Lesaux, N.K. (2009). Language minority learners in special education: rates
and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 42,
148-162.
Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Exceptional Children. 77 (3), 317-334.
About the Author
Olga Torguet has been working as a special education teacher for Dade County Public Schools in Florida for the past 18 years. Mrs. Torguet has taught students with Specific Learning Disabilities, Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Spectrum Disorders. In 2007, she was awarded Teacher of the Year at Ruth K Broad Bay Harbor K-8 Center. She is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in Special Education with a concentration in Autism Spectrum Disorder through Florida International University.
Download Information
To view or print this handout you have the following options:
View or Download PDF Version of “Disproportionate Representation of English Language Learns (ELLs) in Special Education Programs” – PDF (Right Click and Choose Save)
