R-Questions to Build the Literature

¶ … R-Questions to build the literature review.

What were the perceptions of teachers regarding the existing identification and referral process for ELLs and learning-disabled students?

What were the perceptions of the existing identification and referral process for ELLs as reported by parents of these students?

What gaps existed between the existing identification and referral process for ELLs and the ideal process?

What were the best practices of ELL identification and referral that prevent misidentification of ELLs as learning-disabled?

What recommendations can be offered to the school to improve assessment and referral processes for the evaluation of language-instruction needs among Haitian students at the schools?

Nadia's current chapter outline:

Review of the Literature

ELLs: Demographic and Academic Trends

Assessment Concerns

Implications

The Prevention of Misidentification of ELLs

Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies

Research Questions

Summary

For Nadia:

Nadia, I have not tried to include this new work within your existing chapter, as I felt you would likely wish to move the topics where they fit best within your work. I am sending you this file as a word document (.doc) which means that the bibliography at the end will be a static text and not update automatically like it does in the newer word format (.docx). If you would also like the newer version, please contact me and let me know. I have also kept the formatting of this new work the same as your existing work (margins, etc.). I did not number the sections but did indent where I felt they were headings and subheadings (you can change these of course).

Good luck!

Elke (writer name: Teatime101)

Problems with ELL and LD Referral and Intervention Implementation Processes

Teacher Understandings of Referral Processes for ELL and LD Students

There is a clear need to objectively distinguish the needs of students who may be indicated for special services intervention. Garcia and Ortiz (2004) state there an academic failure distinctions can be generalized into three categories: Type I, where students are in inappropriate classrooms for their particular learning needs (such as ELL's); Type II, where students have learning and achievement issues that do not fall into the special education/learning disabled category and therefore must be served in the general education classroom; and Type III, where students clearly have a functionally severe limitation such as a major disorder which limits the learning process (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004). Failure to distinguish between the three types may result in student being inappropriately referred for special education, when in fact they should not be. The question arises as to why the referral process may be dysfunctional to allow for this type of failure to occur in needs-assessments of students.

Various issues in the assessment process have been identified in the research literature and are presented here. There are issues related to professional practices, with the spectrum ranging from one end where teacher perceptions and attitudes influence the assessment process, including their prejudices as well as their lack of awareness and training in properly assessing ELL students, to the other end which represents inappropriate and inefficient professional methods of assessment, implementation, and follow-through. Additional barriers relate to the structure of assessment testing, with much criticism leveled at the use of IQ and achievement testing in assessing students for learning disabilities; this methodology does not adequately reflect the individual learning styles of the students, and so may inappropriately identify students as learning disabled when in fact their issues are not due to learning disabilities.

Teachers may fail to understand the referral process. Ortiz et al. (1985) found that in assessing data that was gathered as part of referral and pre-referral processes on English language deficient learners in LD classrooms revealed that education professionals involved in the data gathering phase of the referral process may not understand the learning issues underlying students with limited English language proficiency (Ortiz, et al., 1985).

Misidentification of ELL students as Learning Disabled

Wagner et al. (2005) report that the need for different approaches to identifiying ELL students that have learning disabilities is paramount and progressive in the field of education. They state that the existing models of assessment and intervention do not effectively address the need for proper identification of students at risk. The needs of ELL students within the education system points to need for a larger conceptualization of what constitutes learning disability, including the proper distinction between learning disabled and language proficiency issues (Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005).

The following table illustrates the number of students in public schools for year 2001-2002, who are receiving IEP services (individualized education plans) and ELL services:

Table 10. Number and percentage of public school students participating in selected programs, by state: School year 2001 -- 02

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

of students of students of students receiving

State

with IEPs

with IEPs

ELL services

ELL services

Reporting states1

6,313,342

13.3

3,768,653

7.9

Alabama

95,708

13.2

7,159

1.0

Alaska

17,814

13.3

20,401

15.2

Arizona

97,654

10.6

148,861

16.1

Arkansas

56,165

12.5

13,187

2.9

California

661,575

10.8

1,510,859

24.6

Colorado

73,887

10.0

71,011

9.6

Connecticut

74,016

13.0

21,540

3.8

Delaware

16,068

13.9

3,004

2.6

District of Columbia

New Hampshire

28,675

13.9

3,268

1.6

New Jersey

218,364

16.3

56,712

4.2

New Mexico

62,738

19.6

66,035

20.6

New York

424,722

14.8

193,711

6.7

North Carolina

186,255

14.2

52,644

4.0

North Dakota

13,401

12.6

See footnotes at end of table.

Table 10. Number and percentage of public school students participating in selected programs, by state: School year 2001 -- 02 -- Continued

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

of students of students of students receiving

State

with IEPs

with IEPs

ELL services

ELL services

Ohio

224,986

12.4

Oklahoma

87,672

14.1

37,618

6.0

Oregon

70,309

12.7

44,162

8.0

Pennsylvania

232,056

12.7

Rhode Island

31,616

20.0

10,156

6.4

South Carolina

98,423

14.6

6,409

1.0

South Dakota

16,764

13.1

4,246

3.3

Tennessee

143,116

15.9

Texas

495,493

11.9

601,791

14.5

Utah

54,571

11.3

41,306

8.6

Vermont

13,430

13.3

1,009

1.0

Virginia

164,523

14.1

43,535

3.7

Washington

120,775

12.0

(4)

(4)

West Virginia

50,080

17.7

0.3

Wisconsin

126,152

14.3

23,454

2.7

Wyoming

11,716

13.3

2,830

3.2

Outlying areas, DoD Dependents Schools, and Bureau of Indian Affairs

DoDDS: DoDs Overseas

6,718

9.2

6,085

8.3

DDESS: DoDs Domestic

3,340

10.2

2,031

6.2

Bureau of Indian Affairs

American Samoa

5.1

15,342

96.5

Guam

2,543

7.9

14,336

44.8

Northern Marianas

5.3

Puerto Rico

65,874

10.9

Virgin Islands

1,504

8.0

-- Not available.

# Rounds to zero.

Reporting states totals exclude states for which data were missing for 20% or more of the schools or districts.

Migrant students include those who were enrolled at any time during the previous (2000 -- 01) regular school year. They are reported for each school in which they enrolled; because this is a duplicated count, the table does not show migrants as a percentage of all students.

American Samoa did not report students eligible for reduced-price meals. See technical notes.

Data were missing for more than 20% of schools or districts.

NOTE: IEP is the acronym for individualized education program. ELL is the acronym for English language learner. Some data items were more likely to be missing from charter schools than from other schools. Free lunch data were missing for 625 of 2,348 charter schools, and migrant student data were missing for 682. Data on ELL students were missing for 110 of the total 989 charter school districts. Percentages are based on schools and agencies reporting. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. U.S. totals include the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey," 2001 -- 02 and "Local Education Agency Universe Survey," 2001 -- 02.

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).

Spinelli (2008) points to the fact that misidentification of ELL students as learning disabled leads to those students not being able to receive appropriate services and hence those students face greater emotional, social, behavioral, and educational challenges as time progresses and their needs continue to go unmet. Spinelli holds that an informal assessment measure is a viable option in the evaluation process that can be adapted to culturally and linguistically diverse students, their learning styles, and their unique characteristics which underlie their challenges (Spinelli, 2008).

Guiberson (2009) finds that not only are ELL students misidentified as learning disabled, but also the forms in which the misidentification manifests are varied. These forms include overrepresentation of the minority students in special education compared to the whole school population, underepresentation when those ELL students with disabilities do not get correctly identified for intervention services, and misidentification when the ELL student is categorized as having a disability different from the one that they really possess (Guiberson, 2009).

Sandberg and Reschly (2010) state that the growing gap in achievement between ELL students and language majority is increasing and that traditional standardized testing fails to bridge the gap. The use of curriculum-based measurement may be a better standard to use for assessing academic needs of ELL students and correctly identifying those with true learning disabilities (Sandberg & Reschly, 2010).

Vaughn et al. (2003) report that the identification of LD students has increased upwards of 200% since 1977, with explanations ranging from a likely outcome of the growing knowledge field, to LD as a field serving as a sink for the failures of general education to meet the needs of students of varying abilities. The study investigators find that not only is the heterogeneity of the identified students quite wide, they also find that many students are overrepresented (misidentified) or underrepresented (unidentified). One large problem is the use of IQ tests to identify those students as learning disabled. Using standardized tests fails to accurately identify those students who either have reading difficulties or those students whose first language is not English. More emphasis is needed on response to instruction type models of assessment and intervention to replace ineffective normalized standards for identifying students at risk and properly placing students for early intervention (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003).

Abedi (2008) reports that the problem of administering assessment tests in English for non-native English speakers may not provide reliable information about the academic levels of the ELL student. Additionally, the linguistic issues in the wording of the tests that are outside of knowledge content further confound the issue. Language variables that are not pertinent to the academic content take away from the strength of the testing outcomes. Test results used for identification of students at risk for learning disability may not be reliable especially for ELL students on the low end of the English language proficiency curve. ELL students risk being misidentified by tests that do not accurately measure their knowledge or reflect their current academic levels (Abedi, 2008).

Waitoller et al. (2009) reviewed research on overrepresentation between 1968 and 2006. The study was intended to find the characteristics of overrepresentation studies, as well as to elucidate how those studies framed the problem of overrepresentation. The study investigators found that most of the literature came from journals on special education, with study number increasing over time with emphasis after year 2000. Most studies focused on learning disabilities and African-Americans. The studies were typically framed in one of three ways: sociodemographic models focusing on individuals and social contexts; critical perspectives involving power issues revolving around the race issue, and professional practices leading to both creation and maintenance of overrepresentation. This study finding indicates that while awareness is increasing, the spheres in which it is occurring may need redressing especially to capture the cultural factor of misidentifying ELL students as learning disabled (Waitoller, Artiles, & Cheney, 2009).

Contreras (2006) found that Spanish-speaking Latino students in a South Texas school district were twice as likely to be receiving special education services as their English speaking counterparts. Further analysis revealed that the overrepresentation of ELL students receiving special education was at 77%. This clearly reveals an inappropriate method in those school districts where ELL students were misidentified as learning disabled, likely due to language proficiency issues (Contreras, 2006).

Sullivan (2009) reports that there has been a disproportionate representation of linguistic minorities in the research on misidentification of students for special education services, with most studies focusing on racial minorities. Sullivan finds that ELL students are not only not represented well in the literature, they are also overrepresented in actuality for special education services (Sullivan, 2009).

August et al. (2005) report that ELL students who display slow development of their vocabulary cannot comprehend text to the same degree as their English speaking counterparts. Outcomes for these students are that they are likely to perform poorly on assessment tests and hence risk being misidentified as learning disabled. The study investigators suggest using native language testing, basic word-meaning tests, and appropriate support and reinforcement in instruction can mitigate the language deficits of ELL students (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005).

ELL students are at particular risk for being misidentified as learning disabled overall in the typical English speaking educational system. Cultural and linguistic differences in testing and intervention do not account for the actual academic knowledge of the students, with static models of testing and intervention potentially exacerbating and prolonging the situation for the ELL student, in terms of the student's academic needs not being met.

Issues in the Pre-Referral Process

Educators and school personnel are those people that are involved in identifying children at risk and in possible need of intervention services. Teachers may be affected by existing processes for referring students for intervention services, as well as be unfavorably influenced by factors relating to implementation of intervention programs in the typical classroom setting. The problem is not only limited to the referral process, it is also related to the implementation process, and this falls within the concerns regarding assessment. The need is to identify those areas of concern held by teachers that may affect both the referral process and the implementation process for intervention services. The issue becomes even more concerning when dealing with a child who is an English language learner (ELL) (Wood, 1998).

There is a strong need for collaboration between teachers that provide intervention services and the general education teacher. This is a problem area. Hardin et al. (2007) found that teaching staff felt they were inadequately trained to work with ELL students of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Hardin, Roach-Scott, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2007). If English is the primary language of the staff and there is little or no resource staff that speak the native language of the child in need of services, the problem is significantly compounded, and may result in inappropriate placement. Placing ELL students in the special education classroom due to some misidentification in the referral process actually causes a further deterioration in the ELL students achievement in the long-run (Buysse, Castro, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010), and is therefore of primary concern in determining the underlying factors in the pre-referral and referral process.

In the pre-referral process, there are discrepancies between what the family believes is being said and what the interpreter is actually saying. This problem is likely due to the interpreter's lack of knowledge regarding not only the referral process but also their lack of training in early childhood education terminology (Hardin, Roach-Scott, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2007). The data methods used across cultures and languages also vary, making it difficult to obtain reliable data upon which to make referral assessments (Collier, 2007).

The Federal Government has addressed students whose first language is not English, defining them as Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in Title VII of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994; while the government offered a definition of what qualifies as an LEP student, the burden is on the individual states to determine exactly how they will address students with ELL needs (Schon, Shaftel, & Markham, 2008). As such, the lack of an institutionalized methodology for data-gathering has contributed to the problem of properly assessing and placing students with ELL need. Such data-gathering in the pre-referral and referral stages include home-language surveys, teacher observations, language test assessments, informal assessments, role-playing, physical demonstrations, pictorial illustrations, student portfolio assessments, and other methods (Norris, 1998, p. 28). The diversity of assessments calls for a need for best practices in language minority students.

Defining the Problem of General Education Teacher Compliance

The setting of the general education classroom typically brings to mind an organized routine structured around various curricula activities such as the liberal arts and the sciences. Other activities include physical education, and specialist classes such as information technology or others that the school district may offer. The overriding idea is that the general curriculum is one where the typical student does not need any additional supports (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).

When determining if a student can have intervention needs met in this setting, the onus falls on the general education teacher to integrate the student and their special services guidelines into the typical curriculum atmosphere. The general education teacher is not prepared for this issue. They are not trained in college for teaching ELL's who may also be special needs students, unless that is their particular academic focus (Dev, 1996). A general education teacher trained in teaching early childhood education is not well prepared for the emotional, behavioral, and physical needs that may be necessitated by inclusion of a student with alternative needs into their classroom, nor trained in the various cultural traits of a non-English speaking student (Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988).

Therefore, there is no 'buy-in' on the part of the general education teacher to comply with more than the basics of the special services model as it pertains to their typical day in the classroom. They may be understaffed, under-resourced, and under-trained.

Teachers may not be prepared for dealing with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Walker et al. (2004) examined the ideologies attitudes that general education teachers have regarding their ELL students, and the programs that serve these students. Teachers that have racist, ethnocentric attitudes toward their ELL students typically fail to meet the academic needs of those students. The study investigators looked at the attitudes of mainstream teachers, what factors influence those attitudes, and how the attitudes varied by community. The findings of the study were generally negative; 70% of teachers surveyed did not want ELL students in their classroom, and 87% had no professional training to address the needs of ELL students. General education teachers felt that having inclusion of students with special needs in the typical classroom was time demanding and an overall burden. Many teachers responded that they already were burdened with meeting state standards for the mainstream students, and adapting to ELL students was an additional onus. Additionally, while teachers responded that lack of training was a problem in addressing the needs of ELL students, they also responded that the time demand placed on them to receive training was too great, and they would only do such training on school time (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004).

The following table represents the nature of ELL instruction in all 50 states of the United States from 2008-2009; it is interesting to note that even as recently as this time period represented by the table, that there are some states that ban native language instruction, perhaps reflecting on the social context of the state regarding attitudes toward ELL students and minorities in general:

State policies regarding teaching of English Language Learner (ELL) students, by state: 2008 -- 09

State

State has teacher standards for ELL instruction

State requires all prospective teachers to demonstrate competence in ELL instruction

State offers incentives to earn English as a Second Language license and/or endorsement

State bans or restricts native-language instruction

United States1

33

3

11

7

Alabama

No

No

No

No

Alaska

No

No

No

No

Arizona

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Arkansas

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

California

Yes

No

No

Yes

Colorado

Yes

No

No

No

Connecticut

No

No

No

Yes

Delaware

No

No

Yes

No

District of Columbia

New Hampshire

Yes

No

No

Yes 2

New Mexico

Yes

No

No

No

New York

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

North Carolina

Yes

No

No

No

North Dakota

Yes

No

No

No

Ohio

No

No

No

No

Oklahoma

No

No

No

No

Oregon

Yes

No

No

No

Pennsylvania

Yes

No

No

No

Rhode Island

Yes

No

No

No

South Carolina

No

No

No

No

South Dakota

No

No

No

No

Tennessee

Yes

No

No

No

Texas

Yes

No

No

No

Utah

No

No

No

No

Vermont

Yes

No

No

No

Virginia

Yes

No

No

No

Washington

No

No

Yes

No

West Virginia

Yes

No

Yes

No

Wisconsin

Yes

No

No

Yes

Wyoming

Yes

No

No

No

1 National total reflects the number of "Yes" responses for each column.

2 New Hampshire state law indicates that instruction should be exclusively in English, but bilingual education programs are permitted with the approval of the state board of education and the local school district.

SOURCE: Quality Counts 2009: Portrait of a Population, Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Education Week, 2009. Data Source

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).

Teacher Attitudes on Special Services in the General Education Classrooms opposed to the traditional idea of special needs service delivery through 'mainstreaming', where the child must demonstrate an ability to keep up with his or her typical peers, incorporating a student with ELL needs and/or special education needs in to the general classroom involves bringing the services to the child, and allowing the student the opportunity to participate in the general education classroom to the greatest extent possible (Dev, 1996). The problems that arises is the somewhat unspoken nature of taking the special needs child/ELL out of the special education/ELL setting; what is the responsibility of the general education teacher to implement the needed guidelines for the student in the regular classroom setting?

Several studies have been conducted that address teacher attitudes on conducting special services in the general education classroom (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). An overriding result is that while educators do feel that they personally have an obligation to teach all the children, results of various surveys has shown that there is a negative correlation between positive attitudes about special services education and the amount of post-secondary education in special services education courses that the teacher has taken (Dev, 1996). Moreover, there is significant variation in teacher attitudes toward delivering special services in the mainstream seeting, with some studies showing that there is resistance to general education inclusion by teachers (Coates, 1989) (Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988), and other studies showing teachers to be supportive of delivering special services in the general education setting (Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996) (Wolpert, 2001).

Primary factors of negative perceptions of the mainstreaming of students with special needs/ELL needs into the general education classroom by teachers involve both subjective and tangible issues. There may not be enough resources and support in the general education classroom to sustain successful implementation (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999). The general education teachers may not have enough training in implementing special services, most especially services for the ELL student (Huefner, 2000). The general education teacher may not feel that they have the obligation to teach a student with alternative needs, as it is not their educational area (Wood, 1998). Additionally, the teacher may have subjective negative attitudes towards people with disabilities in general or prejudices against non-English speaking students, leading them to have less confidence in teaching the student with alternative needs, as well as an overall lack of willingness to do so out of deeply held social and cultural beliefs (Little & Witek, 1996).

Overcoming Teacher Barriers to Successful Assessment Processes

Surveys conducted on teacher attitudes toward provision of special services in the general education classroom have revealed some promising areas for development. Chief among the areas that can be addressed, are teacher collaboration and teacher development (Jung, 2007). Teachers have responded in surveys that that lack the confidence to teach students with special needs and ELL needs has been a hindrance to positive academic outcomes for indicated students, can be overcome through collaboration with trained professional staff in ELL needs and child development, staff development training, as well as having resources in terms of placing trained staff in the classroom to assist the teacher (Bull, Overton, & Montgomery, 2000). Additionally, having interpreters who are trained in the terminology of childhood education would allow for a more favorable initial assessment process (Schon, Shaftel, & Markham, 2008).

Training development programs for general education teachers has a precedence of success (Hari, 2007). When teachers have undergone specialized training in how to conduct inclusion of ELL students and students with alternative needs, their attitudes were overall more positive than before training (Vaughn, Hughs, Schumm, & Klinger, 1998). Collaboration between alternative (ELL and special education) education teachers and general education teachers revealed a more positive attitude toward implementing special services and increasing teacher confidence (Noell, Witt, Gilbertson, Ranier, & Freeland, 1997).

Best Practices Theory in Assessing Language Minority Students:

The lack of clarity in objective measures for assessing ELL students' abilities and determining their needs reflects a failure in the U.S. Education system to take into account not only the resources needed by educators to adequately address the issue, but also a failure to address the needs of the growing ELL population in the United States. There is a mainstream bias which exists in the social and educational realms of the American cultural schema, which is manifesting in the inability to serve the underserved in the nation (National Research Council Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited English Proficient and Bilingual Students, 2001).

Adjusting for the Language Barrier

Various examinations have addressed the need for Best Practices in language minority students. Bainter and Tollefson (2003) in a 195-response survey of school psychologists that assess language minority students, found that native language formed testing, using a bi-lingual school psychologist, and using tests in English when the student was dominant in English were always acceptable methods of testing the cognitive skills of ELL students, while administering non-verbal tests which required oral instructions without the use of an interpreter and using tests in English when the student was dominant in another language was never acceptable (Bainter & Tollefson, 2003).

Using Cultural Intelligence Theory for the Classroom

Chang et al. (2007) found that there was a strong correlation between the context of the social setting in the classroom and peer-to-peer and student-to-teacher relationship. In those classrooms where there some Spanish speaking occurring and where educators spoke some Spanish, students developed better social skills and had a more favorable learning atmosphere (Chang, et al., 2007). The implication is that approaching policies regarding ELL students should always take into account the context in which the assessment is taking place.

The concept of cultural intelligence can apply to the topic of education. Typically this concept is used in global business management, to teach global managers how to best address other culture's needs for optimum business strategizing. Cultural intelligence is not limited to the business realm, however, and is useful in understanding how best practices for ELL students can benefit from incorporating cultural intelligence into the social sphere of policy making for ELL students. The use of cultural intelligence management psychology would benefit the professionals who are assessing ELL students, which would ultimately benefit the students (Peterson, 2004, pp. 166-172).

Cultural intelligence is a field of management psychology with broad implications to other areas which require effective leadership; the field of education is no exception. Cultural intelligence deals with how people relate to each across cultures in. Through the understanding of a person's cultural background and the particular culture's norms, ideologies, and other ways of thinking of the world, the interested person can become more successful in dealing within the foreign culture's worldview. Simply, understanding the norms, language semiotics, and society of the culture an ELL student is native to, will result in a more favorable educational outcome for the ELL student (Ang, et al., 2007).

This is especially true for societies that are multicultural, as having an understanding of the various aspects of a multicultural society (religion, language, and social customs) can enable the educational professional to best formulate a plan for an ELL student's entry into the classroom (Earley & Ang, 2003). Cultural intelligence, also called cultural quotient, focuses on three main areas as points of development of CQ/CI:

Cognitive means (understanding cultural diversity)

Physical means (using one's senses and body language to facilitate cross-cultural communication, such as in the foot example given above)

Motivational means (becoming empowered through successful outcomes)

People who score with high CQ's are viewed as better able to merge and engage in other cultures than people who score with a low CQ (Earley & Ang, 2003).

Through using the three-pronged model of CQ (cognitive, physical, motivational), the education professional has the capability to explore opportunities via a cultural-awareness assessment module approach. Education professionals, through utilizing CQ/CI, can have the proper tools to approach problematic social and cultural instances for the ELL student assessment, thereby allowing the different cultural landscapes of the ELL students to be taken into account (DuBrin, 2008).

Multiple Intelligence Model for ELL Students

A way to approach policy making, the referral process, and assessments of students of diverse cultural and ethnic origins whose first language is not English, is through the framework of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Essentially, this theory holds that there is no one 'right' way to know 'how' intelligent someone is, or any one test which can accurately measure that (Gardner, Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, 1993). In the field of education, the traditional structure of teaching and measuring learning outcomes has been based on reading and writing. This can work well for students. However, there will be those students for whom the logical intelligence (reading) and linguistical intelligence (writing) standards of teaching and testing do not work well. Gardner proposed an eight-degree model of intelligences (Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 1983), which is illustrated thusly:

Multiple Intelligence Model

* Model Adapted from: (New Horizons, 2010)

To better serve all students, a broader methodology for teaching and testing, and understanding that not all students are intelligent in the same way (multiple intelligences) is required (Stanford, 2003). This model of multiple intelligences is viewed by many educators as a matter of course; the educators simply adjust when they need to for the requirements of the student to be fully met. However, for ELL students who are at risk for being misidentified as learning disabled, the theory of multiple intelligences takes on a new light.

Haley (2008) found that teachers using MI (multiple intelligence) teaching strategies for ELL students improved the success rates in assessment tests for those students (Haley, 2008). Campbell & Campbell (1999) studied six schools that employed MI strategies, and who represented a culturally and linguistically diverse student body. All six schools report that using MI strategies in teaching was advantageous for the student population. The interesting aspect that arose from this study was that the influence of MI upon the teachers' attitudes toward teaching was a notable factor in the academic success of the students (Campbell & Campbell, 1999).

Kim (2009) found that use of MI theory in ESL classrooms improved language learning skills (Kim & I., 2009). Nolen (2003) found that teachers that adjust their teaching methods to account for MI of their students have better outcomes in the classrooms, simply by being 'aware' that students do not learn alike and that varying the teaching methods captures more students than teaching along a linear model (Nolen, 2003).

A combination of adjusting for the language barrier by allowing assessment processes which take into account the primary language of the student being assessed, employing teachers who are professionally trained in cultural intelligence theory and multiple intelligence strategy applications, opens the door to creating assessment models that are more than just words; indeed, assessment models that take into account the student's needs and the teachers lack of understanding of those needs by bridging the gap is a necessary step in preventing the misidentification of ELL students as learning disabled.

Teacher attitudes and perceptions strongly influence the educational setting and learning outcome of all students in the respective classroom. General education teachers who are faced with the possibility of being involved in an academic plan for a special education student may be prejudiced by their lack of training in special education, lack of resources for accommodating the special needs student, and by other subject beliefs about disability in general. When the issue arises to attempt to determine whether a student has a linguistic deficiency or a learning disability, those same prejudices based on training, resources, and other beliefs may negatively influence the pre-referral and implementation outcome for those students (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).

Not only is the general educator engaged in dealing with a potential learning disabled student, they may also be facing the issue of having a learning disabled student who does not speak English. The teacher is best supported through this process by identifying 'differences' rather than 'problems', to allow for proper assessment procedures (Buysse, Castro, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010).

Linguistic Deficiency or Learning Disability:

A Pre-referral Model

Garcia and Ortiz (2004) offer a pre-referral model that addresses the needs of the students, the resources available, the training and qualification of the teachers, and a process model that allows for understanding in a step-wise fashion what issues need to be addressed at distinct stages. The model is as follows:

(Garcia & Ortiz, 2004).

The model offered by Garcia and Ortiz (2004) helps educators note that some students within a student population will experience some academic difficulty at some point; however, not many of those students experience such due to a learning disability. One of the hallmarks of this pre-referral model is that it engages educators to clearly identify that lack of English proficiency is or is not the cause of the learning/behavioral problem. As such, other strategies for intervention must be attempted before referral to special education (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004).

Some schools have a pre-referral process that is heavily based on testing scores, yet without understanding the cultural intelligence component of teachers attitudes and approaches toward students, those pre-referral processes that are test-heavy may lead to the misidentification of ELL students to special education (Norris, 1998).

Klingner and Harry (2006) conducted a study to find if pre-referral processes effectively screened ELL students as distinct from special education referrals a priori to a possible referral to special education. Using a focus on Child Study Teams and placement conferences, they found that there was great variation in team members' understanding of language issues of ELL students, and a great diversity in opinion on what best courses of action should be for assessment and placement. The following pre-referral model was identified in the study, though the problems with preventing misidentification of ELL students to special education lay in team members intentions, skills, training, and commitment (Klingner & Harry, The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process for English Language Learners: Child Study Team Meetings and Placement Conferences, 2006):

Child Study Team Pre-Referral Process

In the Klingner & Harry model, the primary problems in the pre-referral process had less to do with the awareness that ELL students should be identified as distinct from LD students if such was the case, and more to do with team member perception issues (Klingner & Harry, The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process for English Language Learners: Child Study Team Meetings and Placement Conferences, 2006).

Discrepancy Model verus Response to Intervention

Students need to be tested for their academic language proficiency in order to be properly assessed for either a learning disability or a learning disability with language deficiency. Garcia and Ortiz (2004) state that teachers need to be able to assess comprehension through using tools of dictation story telling and comprehension by students. Without attaining a reliable measure of academic language proficiency (comprehension of what is being said), the teacher may attribute low performance to a learning disability (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004).

The assessment process to determine if the ELL student is having difficulty due to language comprehension issues or due to a learning disability should include a portfolio with data collected from the student's primary teacher, the bi-lingual teacher, the family, and the ESL/ELL teacher (Litt, 2010). Questions the assessment teach should ask include whether or not the student's problem has been persistent over time, has the problem resisted normal instruction, does the problem interfere with normal academic progress, is there a difference between the student's oral and written skills, and is there an irregular pattern of success? These types of questions help educators/assessment professionals distinguish between the existence of a language development issue and a learning disability (Litt, 2010).

Discrepancy Formula Model for Determining Learning Disability

Models used to distinguish between and/or identify concomitant LD and ELL students generally utilize the Discrepancy Formula, or Response to Intervention. The Discrepancy Model is a standardized mathematical formula using scores of intelligent quotient and achievement testing. The formula has been criticized for endorsing the Medical Model of Disability, where all students who fall within a certain score are labeled as 'disabled' and therefore ineligible for learning services, when the reality was that many students simply learned differently (Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009).