Introduction
English Language Learners (ELLs), also referred to as Emergent Bilinguals (EBs), represent the fastest-growing subgroup of students in the United States. Researchers project that by 2025, approximately 25% of students in the country will be classified as ELLs. These students come from households where a language other than English is spoken and typically require additional language support to develop proficiency in reading, writing, and comprehending English at a level that enables them to fully benefit from instruction delivered in English.
Federal policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 provide guidelines for both general and special education services for ELL students. The ESSA mandates that states incorporate English language proficiency attainment as a critical component of their statewide accountability measures. Additionally, it allows states flexibility in assessing newly arrived ELLs, establishes standardized identification and exit criteria for ELLs, and sets a clear timeline for language proficiency attainment (NYC DE).
IDEA, NCLB, and ESSA also include provisions for the special education needs of ELLs. Importantly, these laws prohibit classifying a student's limited English proficiency as a disability. Similarly, environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantages cannot serve as the sole basis for special education placement (Mikutis, p. 2). Despite these legal safeguards, a significant issue persists in the misidentification and disproportionate placement of ELLs in special education programs, which can have profound and lasting consequences on their academic trajectory.
The Issue: Disproportionality in Special Education
Although federal legislation mandates nondiscriminatory assessments and emphasizes the use of a student's native language during evaluations, a disproportionate number of ELLs continue to be incorrectly placed in special education. This misplacement not only hinders their access to general education but also contributes to systemic inequities within the education system. Alarmingly, improperly placed ELLs account for approximately 75% of the total ELL population in special education programs (Mikutis, p. 2).
The issue of disproportionality manifests in two key ways: overrepresentation and underrepresentation. As Mark Guiberson explains in Hispanic Representation in Special Education: Patterns and Implications, overrepresentation occurs when minority students are placed in special education programs at rates higher than their overall presence in the school population. Conversely, underrepresentation happens when students who require special education services are overlooked and not provided with the necessary support. This national issue is further exacerbated by state-level disparities, leading to inconsistencies in the identification and placement of ELLs in special education programs (Mikutis, p. 3).
Why Disproportionality Happens
Scholars have identified four primary factors contributing to the disproportionate classification of ELLs in special education: educators' knowledge of second language acquisition, instructional practices, intervention strategies, and assessment tools. Addressing these issues requires systemic reform and professional development initiatives that equip educators with the skills necessary to distinguish between language development challenges and genuine learning disabilities.
- Educators' Knowledge of Second Language Development and Disabilities
Research indicates that many educators, both in general and special education, lack adequate training in second language development and the distinctions between language acquisition challenges and learning disabilities (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Kushner & Ortiz, 2000; Zehler et al., 2003). This knowledge gap often leads to misinterpretation of an ELL's language development process as a learning disability.
Language acquisition follows a predictable timeline: ELLs typically develop basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) within 2-3 years, while academic language proficiency (CALP) can take between 5-7 years to develop fully (Cummins, 1979, 2000; Hakuta, 2001). Without a clear understanding of these developmental stages, educators may mistakenly attribute an ELL’s language difficulties to cognitive impairments rather than recognizing them as a normal part of the language acquisition process (Cummins, 1984; Ortiz, 1997).
- Instructional Practices
Despite legal requirements mandating that all students receive evidence-based English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics instruction before undergoing special education evaluations, many ELLs are placed in mainstream monolingual classrooms that do not accommodate their language learning needs (Cummins, 1984; Ortiz, 1997). In many cases, mainstream teachers are not trained in second language acquisition or special education strategies, further exacerbating the challenge (Zehler et al., 2003). As a result, ELLs may struggle academically due to inadequate instruction rather than a cognitive disability, leading to misidentification and improper placement in special education programs.
- Intervention Strategies
Research suggests that the intervention strategies used for struggling ELLs are often ineffective (Garcia & Ortiz, 2006; Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Many educators lack access to culturally and linguistically appropriate intervention strategies tailored to ELLs, resulting in premature referrals to special education services. Effective early intervention and Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks should include targeted language support and differentiated instruction strategies to ensure ELLs receive appropriate academic assistance before being considered for special education placement.
- Assessment Tools
The linguistic complexity of diagnostic assessments can significantly impact the accuracy of disability evaluations for ELLs (Abedi, 2006; Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002). Standardized tests designed for native English speakers often fail to account for the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of ELLs, leading to false positives or false negatives in disability identification. Additionally, assessment outcomes heavily depend on the evaluator’s judgment, the psychometric validity of the tools used, and whether the assessments account for language acquisition factors (Klingner et al., 2008; Ortiz & Graves, 2001).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The disproportional representation of ELLs in special education remains a pressing issue that requires systemic change at multiple levels. Addressing this challenge necessitates:
- Enhanced Teacher Training: Educators must receive specialized training in second language acquisition and disability differentiation to reduce misidentification of ELLs.
- Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction: Schools should implement instructional strategies that support ELLs' language development while ensuring access to rigorous academic content.
- Targeted Early Intervention Programs: Implementing effective RTI models tailored to ELLs can help distinguish between language acquisition challenges and genuine disabilities.
- Revised Assessment Practices: Schools and districts should adopt linguistically appropriate assessment tools that minimize bias and accurately evaluate ELLs' abilities.
- Policy Reforms and Accountability Measures: State and federal agencies must ensure compliance with legislation designed to protect ELLs from discriminatory practices in special education.
By addressing these factors, educators and policymakers can work toward a more equitable education system that ensures ELLs receive the appropriate support they need to succeed academically without being erroneously placed in special education programs.
References:
Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282–2303.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010085.pdf
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special needs: Identification, placement, and instruction. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. College-Hill Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
García, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2006). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive prereferral interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 64–68.
Hakuta, K. (2001). A critical period for second language acquisition? In D. B. Bailey, J. T. Bruer, F. J. Symons, & J. W. Lichtman (Eds.), Critical thinking about critical periods (pp. 193–205). Paul H. Brookes.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.
Klingner, J. K., Almanza, E., de Onis, C., & Barletta, L. M. (2008). Misconceptions about the second language acquisition process. Corwin.
Kushner, M. I., & Ortiz, A. A. (2000). The preparation of early childhood education teachers for English language learners. In New teachers for a new century: The future of early childhood professional development (pp. 101–120). U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education.
Guiberson, M. (2009). Hispanic representation in special education: Patterns and implications. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.3.167-176
Mikutis, M. (n.d.). The disproportionate representation of limited English proficiency (LEP) students in special education programs. Retrieved from https://www.law.uh.edu/center4clp/policy/mikutis.pdf
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2004). Disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: Measuring the problem. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/disproportionate-representation-culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-students-special
New York State Education Department. (n.d.). English language learners/multilingual learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/english-language-learnersmultilingual-learners-and-every-student-succeeds-act-essa
Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 321–332.
Ortiz, A. A., & Graves, A. (2001). English language learners with literacy-related learning disabilities. In International Dyslexia Association commemorative booklet. International Dyslexia Association.
Piper, T. (2003). Language and learning: The home and school years (3rd ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Robertson, K., Sánchez-López, C., & Breiseth, L. (n.d.). Addressing ELLs' language learning and special education needs: Questions and considerations. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/addressing-ells’-language-learning-and-special-education-needs-questions-and-considerations
Sánchez, M. T., Parker, C., Akbayin, B., & McTigue, A. (2010). Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State districts (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2010–No. 085). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010085.pdf
Skiba, R. J., Knesting, K., & Bush, L. D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than non-biased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 61–78.
Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (No. 4 Special Topic Report: Findings on special education LEP students). Development Associates.
