University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

(USC Thesis Other)

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ENGLISH-LEARNER REPRESENTATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION:
IMPACT OF PREREFERRAL INTERVENTIONS AND ASSESSMENT
PRACTICES

by

Veronica del Rio

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2007

Copyright 2007 Veronica del Rio

ii
Dedication
I dedicate this study to my parents, Ramón and Alicia, for their endless sacrifice to
provide my siblings and me unrelenting guidance and better life. I will always
appreciate their encouragement, their words of wisdom, and their love and support in
achieving my goals for the rest of my life. To my parents I say, “Todos sus
sacrificios y duro trabajo no fueron en vano…los quiero mucho.” I also give my
deepest gratitude to my best friend and beloved Husband Ramón, whom without his
undying love, understanding, support, encouragement, and advice, my doctorate
degree might never have been realized. Thank you Mi Amor.

iii
Acknowledgements
Many, many thanks to my committee members: Chairperson Dr. Gisele Ragusa,
Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, and Dr. Margo Pensavalle. Dr. Ragusa gave the freedom
to explore and research a topic that I was passionate about. Dr. Mora-Flores extended
her expertise and encouraged me to examine other important issues related to my
topic. Dr. Pensavalle also gave me new perspectives to think about related to my
topic.
I would also like to thank the schools and school psychologists at BUSD for
participating in my study.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Definition of Terms 7
Significance of the Study 12

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Introduction 14
Theoretical Framework 15
Functionalist Theory 15
Critical Race Theory 16
Socio-Cultural Theory 18
Historical Trends on Disproportionate Representation 19
Trends and Issues with African American and Hispanic Students 19
Current Research with African American and Hispanic Students 23
Prereferral Considerations/Interventions and Impact on Special Education 32
Language Proficiency 37
Cultural Factors 40
The Student Success Team 47
Implications of Assessment practice on Representation in Special Education 51
DSM-IV vs. IDEIA 2004 51
School Psychologist Training and Assessment of ELs 53
Best Practice Approaches on Assessment of English-learners 59
Conclusion 62

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 65
Introduction 65
Research Questions 66
Unit of Analysis 68
Research Design 68
Population 69
Participants 71
Recruitment, Instrumentation, and Data Collection Procedures 72
Instrumentation and Data Sets 73
Data Analysis Procedures 75

v
Strengths of Research Design 76
Limitations of Research Design 77
Conclusion 78

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 79
Findings by Research Sub-Questions 79
Pre-referral Teams and Recommended Interventions 79
School psychologist training and assessment practices 88
Background characteristics of EL student referred for special education 96
Assessment practices in school psychological reports 99
Conclusion 106

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 109
Review of the Problem 109
Purpose of the Study 110
Key Findings 111
Generalizability 118
Implications of Current Research 119
Recommendations for Practice 121
Recommendations for Families 123
Recommendations for Future Research 123
Conclusion 124

REFERENCES 125

APPENDIX A: SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 137

APPENDIX B: STUDENT SUCCESS TEAM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL 139

APPENDIX C: FILE AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL 141

vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Percentage of School Ethnic Representation 70
at Bernardo Unified School District

Table 2 Student Success Team (SST) Member Composition 80
Table 3 Characteristics Associated with Students Referred to SST 83
Table 4 Recommended Pre-referral Interventions/Modifications 87
Table 5 School Psychologist Demographic Characteristics 88
Table 6 School Psychologist Training and Experience 90
Table 7 School Psychologist Self-Reported Assessment 93
Practices of English-learners

Table 8 Academic Characteristics of Students Referred 98
to Special Education

Table 9 Student English Proficiency at Time of Initial Assessment 100
Table 10 Assessment Characteristics of Sample Reports 103

vii
Abstract
Disproportionate representation of English-learners (ELs) in special education
has been a longstanding challenge and concern. Researchers and practitioners
express concern with the appropriateness of the referral, identification, and
placement process of ELs. This study examined pre-referral interventions and
assessment practices with ELs and representation in special education in an urban
school district in Southern California selected because of its large EL population.
Variables of interest included observations of Student Success Team (SST) meetings,
school psychologist interviews, and file review of special education files.
Observations examined characteristics of students referred to SSTs, members present
at meetings, the consideration of pertinent cultural, linguistic, and educational
information, and actions/strategies recommended by the team. Interviews examined
school psychologist educational training and knowledge in working with culturally
and linguistically diverse students and assessment practices. File analysis and review
of special education files were conducted to examine language and assessment
characteristics of EL students currently in special education.
Observations results suggest the district did not have clearly defined guidelines
for SSTs, information regarding student ELD instructional program, student primary
language, and English language proficiency was only discussed in 27% of
observations. Data also indicated discussion of duration, implementation, and
progress monitoring of recommended interventions was not observed. Interview data
revealed the most frequently cited concern by school psychologists was lack of

viii
adequate training received by their university program in conducting non-
discriminatory EL assessments. All reported conducting their own language
proficiency assessments, assessing EL students in both languages including
intelligence, achievement, and processing assessments. However, file review of
psycho-educational assessment reports indicated only 52% of reports included
assessment of student language proficiency in both languages, 25% of reports
included the determination of language dominance and assessment, 17 of the 40
assessment reports indicated that ELs with a Beginning CELDT level were assessed
in English.
The problematic pre-referral and assessment practices with ELs encountered in
the present study further substantiate the common multifaceted and challenging tasks
faced by educators in the field. The position stands that there is much more we need
to know in order to work effectively with the increasing number of ELs in schools.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
The U.S. Census Bureau (2003) reported Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic
group in U.S. schools having surpassed African Americans as the largest minority
group in the United States. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of
Education (2003), 9.6% of the Hispanic population is English-learners (ELs). As the
EL population continues to increase, educators are becoming increasingly aware of
some of the challenges this population may experience. Non-English speakers or ELs
face challenges overcoming language barriers, but also overcoming low expectations
and academic achievement (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, Cutting, Leos, & D’Emilio,
2005). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
academic achievement of students who are culturally and linguistically diverse have
not kept pace with their White, middle class peers. Specifically, only 15% of
Hispanic students, many of whom were English-learners, read at proficient or above
levels in fourth grade, in contrast to 41% of White students (U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).
As a result of these academic challenges, U.S. school systems are mandated to
address the educational needs of the English-learning population. One such mandate
is the increased focus on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB requires that
states in the United States prepare all students to be proficient in reading and math by
2014, this includes ELs. ELs that do not acquire the English-language or do not

2
perform well academically after several years of instruction in both languages are
often referred for special education services (McCardle et al., 2005).
In the hope of improving the academic success of English-learners, teachers
often times turn to special education for assistance when they are uncertain what
English-language curriculum to use and how to adapt this curriculum to help
students reach proficient levels. In addition, they are also uncertain how to determine
whether ELs are experiencing difficulty due to learning difficulties or limited
comprehension of the English language (Gersten & Woodward, 1994). For example,
in 1986 Mehan, Hertweck, and Meihls conducted an ethnographic study of teachers’
decisions to refer students into special education. They found that “the teacher’s
decision to refer students is only partially grounded in the students’ behavior” (p.
86). Mehan et al. (1986) concluded that the major determinant of teacher referral was
their belief that she or he is unable to provide adequate instruction to the child.
Richardson, Casanova, Placier, and Guilfoyle (1989) reached a similar
conclusion in their ethnographic study of two elementary schools. The purpose of
their study was to investigate reasons why and when teachers referred students for
special education assessment. They found that classroom teachers often refer
students for special education or compensatory education services when they believe
that the students are not benefiting from classroom instruction and when the teachers
are unsure how to deal with the problem. Richardson et al. (1989) concluded that
referral often is more a reflection of teacher stress, than a result of an actual learning
disability.

3
It is apparent that with the increased focus on NCLB and the educational and
demographic changes of the student population, a tremendous demand is now placed
on school districts to educate all students to proficient levels. According to Rhodes,
Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005), “student behaviors that trigger teacher referrals suggest that
English-language acquisition stages and interaction with English-only programs are
being confused for handicapping conditions” (p.31). In response to these
phenomena, many educators may improperly refer an EL student for special
education. Gersten and Woodward (1994) called this practice a convenient way for
educators to “do something” without truly understanding the students’ language
needs or dealing with systemic problems such as pre-referral interventions and
assessment. This flawed practice may be a reason for the disproportionate number of
referrals for special education.
Key issues are related to the disproportionate number of referrals for special
education. Bias in the pre-referral and assessment process has been noted to
influence disproportionality (Artiles & Trent, 1994). This bias can be manifested in
two ways: (1) lack of pre-referral interventions, and (2) assessment practices. In the
first manifestation, there is evidence to suggest that a lack of pre-referral
interventions exist (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). In September of 1995, Jean
Peelen from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) (as cited in Markowitz, 1996a) stated
“there were problems related to interventions, particularly interventions implemented
haphazardly and inconsistently across schools in the same district. When inconsistent
interventions are combined with high referral rate to special education for minority

4
students, this may be a violation of Title VI. Sometimes we see school districts
where the pre-referral programs are good in schools with a high concentration of
non-minority students and poor in schools with a high concentration of minority
students” (p.4). Additionally, pre-referral interventions in general education are rare;
moreover, when pre-referral interventions were implemented, they were of “poor
quality” (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
The second manifestation of bias is the use of culturally and linguistically
inappropriate assessments. Testing practices used to assess EL students have come
under intense scrutiny and criticism (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Questionable
assessment practices include the use of untrained interpreters, insufficient or
inadequate language proficiency testing, and intellectual and academic assessments
conducted only in English (Nuttall, 1987) (as cited in Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz,
2005). Professional standards written by the Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing emphasize the importance of testing students in their language
of proficiency (American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council of Measurement in Education, 1999).
However, these standards have not always been followed when ELs have been
assessed for special education services. A collective review of the research on the
assessment process was summarized by the Civil Rights Project (2000) at Harvard
University, “The special education evaluation process is often described as a set of
discrete decisions based on scientific analysis and assessment. In reality, evaluation

5
decisions are more subjective, with many interdependent variables such as cultural
and language bias” (p. 2).
The widespread variability across school districts in representation of EL
students in special education highlights the inconsistency and lack of coherence in
approaches to assessment and identification of children for special education services
(Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005). This variability has led to a paradoxical
existence in some communities of overrepresentation of ELs in disability categories
of special education, and the under-representation in other categories. Specifically,
the complex evolution of this paradox stems from research documenting, over a 20-
year period, a tendency to inappropriately refer large numbers of EL students for
special education (Mercer & Rueda, 1991). On the other hand, a fear of legal action
as well as the lack of valid assessment tools, has led to a tendency toward under-
referral of these students for special support services (Gersten & Woodward, 1994).
Since the disproportionate representation continues to be an unresolved problem, it is
important for educators to understand factors that may be contributing to this
problem. Researchers and practitioners continue to express concern that ELs are
disproportionately represented in special education (Klingner & Artiles, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
This study profiled the pre-referral process and interventions, school
psychologist training and assessment practices, and placement characteristics of EL
students in special education in an urban, California school district. Additionally, it
contributes to the limited research on the classification, identification, and

6
intervention methods not yet established for ELs (McCardle et al., 2005); results
assist school psychologists and other school personnel understand how socio-
demographic and school factors such as instructional, referral, and assessment
practices contribute to disproportionate representation.
Research Questions
The current dissertation study collected information on the profile of EL student
representation in special education and pre-referral and assessment practices used to
determine eligibility. The following primary question guided the research:
What is the profile of Spanish-speaking EL students with a Learning Disability
(LD) and Mental Retardation (MR) at pre-referral, assessment, and placement in
special education in urban settings?
Additionally, the following sub-questions were also addressed to further guide
the research:
1. Who are the pre-referral team and what types of interventions are
recommended prior to assessment of EL students?
2. What are school psychologists’ assessment practices, knowledge, experience,
and training in assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students?
3. What are the familial, linguistic, and academic characteristics of EL students
referred for special education?
4. What are assessment characteristics, such as language information included
at initial assessment, English proficiency and language testing, assessments
included in school psychologists’ reports, and placement characteristics?

7
Definition of Terms
The purpose of this section is to list and define the following terms presented in
this dissertation:
1. Disproportionate Representation: The literature includes many different
definitions of disproportionate representation and various methods for
calculating extent and thresholds, each of which has strengths and
weaknesses (Countinho & Oswald, 2000). Disproportionate representation is
defines as the presence of students from a specific group in an educational
program being higher or lower than one would expect based on their
representation on the general population of students.
2. English-Learner (EL): is the most recent term used to identify these students.
Other commonly used terms in the literature include “limited English
proficient (LEP), “second-language learner” (SLL), “English-language
learner” (ELL), “bilingual,” and “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse”
(CLD). The present dissertation study used the term EL to refer to this
population. The federal definition of an EL individual is defined as someone
who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the
English language and whose difficulties may deny such an individual the
opportunity to learn successfully in the classrooms where the language of
instruction is in English. However, the manner in which this federal
definition is operationally defined by states varies. In addition, each school
district’s definition of ELs impacts the methods used to identify EL students.

8
The Bernardo Unified School District’s (BUSD) board policy on the
identification of ELs was used in this study; the methods used to identify ELs
are discussed in Chapter 3.
3. California English Language Development Test (CELDT): The state-
approved assessment most typically used in California school districts to
determine whether the students are to be designated as ELs or Fluent English
Proficient (FEP). The CELDT is used to assess student’s fluency and literacy
in English and is given within 30 days of enrollment and has five
classification levels: Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early
Advanced, and Advanced. FEP students are those whose Home Language
Surveys indicate a language other than English, but whose initial
identification or redesignation assessments indicate that they have English
academic proficiency at Early Advanced or Advanced, and comparable to
that of the English-only population. Each student reported as an EL must
receive, at a minimum, a program of English Language Development (ELD).
ELD is a specialized program of English language instruction appropriate for
the student’s identified level of language proficiency which is consistently
implemented and is designed to promote second language acquisition of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
4. Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised (WMLS-R): A common
instrument used by school psychologists to measure language proficiency.
The WMLS-R is sets of individually administered tests for providing a broad

9
sampling of proficiency in oral language, reading, and writing in Spanish and
English. The WMLS is primarily a measure of cognitive-academic language
proficiency.
5. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency: CALP is a type of language
proficiency defined as the language skills an individual needs to do
schoolwork. This is differentiated from a second-type of language
proficiency known as basic interpersonal communication skills.
6. Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills: BICS is the type of language
proficiency typically used in social or informal settings to carry a
conversation between classmates on the playground or informal greetings and
conversations (Cummins, 1984).
7. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997): Law originally,
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, 1975) gives all
individuals with disabilities the entitlement to a free appropriate public
education (FAPE).
8. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA):
Law was enacted into law as P.L. 108-446 on December 3, 2004, formally
known as IDEA 1997. IDEIA aligns closely to the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) and is intended to help children with disabilities achieve to high
standards by promoting accountability for results, enhancing parental
involvement, and using proven practices and materials. While regulations
implementing the IDEIA 2004 are being prepared, the regulations

10
implementing the 1997 law remain in effect, to the extent that they are
consistent with the IDEIA 2004 statue.
9. Pre-referral Intervention: Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, and Young (2003) define
pre-referral intervention as a teacher’s modification of instruction, or some
other aspect of the learning environment, to better accommodate a difficult to
teach student prior to a formal referral of the student for testing and possible
special education placement. Pre-referral interventions are generally
mediated by a Student Success Team.
10. Student Success Team (SST): Team is comprised of general education
teachers, administrator, special education personnel, and related service
personnel that work collaboratively within a problem solving framework to
assist one of their peers who is seeking assistance of a given child (Rhodes,
Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).
11. Response-to-Intervention (RtI): RtI is defined as a problem-solving approach
and practice designed to provide high-quality instruction/intervention
matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and level of
performance to make important educational decisions (National Association
of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). A popular current model has
three tiers: the first tier consists of quality instruction in a general education
classroom based on evidence-based practices; the second tier is implemented
only with students who do not reach expected benchmarks using an
assessment instrument; the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

11
(DIBELS) is one example. These students are then provided with an
intensive, systematic intervention; when students do not respond to high
quality, empirically supported intervention, precisely implemented with
fidelity, they are then provided with a third tier level of assistance (Klingner,
Artiles, Kozleski, Harry, Zion, Tate, Zamora Duran, & Riley, 2005). Third
tier assistance is considered special education and is provided by special
education teachers.
12. Individual Education Plan (IEP): A written plan developed by parents and
schools special education teams when students are assessed and/or found
eligible for special education services. The plan specifies a student’s
academic goals and method to obtain these goals.
13. Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Team: A multi-disciplinary team
involved in the assessment and evaluation of a student with the purpose of
determining eligibility. Team members include special education teacher,
general education teacher, school psychologist, parents, principal, and any
other pertinent professional that can make an informed decision on placement
of a student. The IEP team will also determine the best special education
placement for the given child.
14. Resource Specialist Program (RSP): RSP is a special education placement
where students receive special education services between 10-49% of the
school day.

12
15. Special Day Class (SDC): A SDC is a self-contained classroom where they
receive direct instruction by an SDC teacher for 50% or more of their school
day. Students that receive services in this setting typically have at least
moderate to multiple disabilities.
Significance of the Study
At present, given the over- and under-referral problems that exist in our nation’s
schools, practioners may not be accurately identifying a disability in ELs (McCardle
et al., 2005). Whereas data has been collected to document ethnic disproportionate
representation of ethnic groups in special education, very little research has been
conducted with EL students who are not English proficient (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz,
2005). Thus, little is known about the representation of ELs in special education
programs (Klingner & Artiles, 2003). Over- and under-representation can adversely
affect students and their school performance (Patton, 1998). According to Patton
(1998), the overrepresentation of EL students in special education has raised
concerns about these students’ being placed on a separate and unequal track that
denies them access to the general education curriculum, a practice that frequently has
a negative effect on their academic performance, self-esteem, classroom behavior
and interactions, educational and career goals, and motivation. Similarly, the under-
representation of EL students’ can also have a negative impact on students’
educational outcomes by denying them valuable services and support that may help
them with a legitimate disability (Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000).

13
Given that disproportionate representation continues to be an unresolved
problem, it is paramount for school-based practitioners to understand critical factors
that may be contributing to its maintenance.

14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction

Considerable amount of research has documented the disproportionate
representation of minority students in special education (Dunn, 1968; Kauffman,
Hallahan, & Ford, 2000; MacMillan & Reschly, 1998). Although state
departments of education collect data about the ethnicity of students in special
education, they typically do not accumulate information about student’s language
proficiency (Klinger & Artiles, 2003). Thus, little is known about the
representation of ELs in special education programs. The current review will
evaluate issues, trends, and practices that have in some way contributed to the
disproportionate representation of ELs for nearly four decades. Four key areas
are examined in this review of literature:
1. An evaluation of the research on disproportionate representation of ethnic
and linguistic minorities and the corresponding theoretical framework.
2. A historical examination of the issues affecting disproportionate
representation of minority students in special education.
3. A review of pre-referral considerations and interventions and their impact on
referrals of ELs to special education.
4. An examination of assessment practices utilized by school psychologists
when determining eligibility special education placement for ELs and the
recommended best practices.

15
Theoretical Framework
Functionalist Theory
There are several views on disproportionate representation of cultural and
linguistic minorities. According to Patton (1998), the dominant view in the field of
special education has closely followed the “objectivist,” or functionalist, tradition of
theory development. The functionalist perspective presupposes an objective, rational,
orderly interpretation of social reality, whereby deviations from that view are placed
under a pathology heading (Foucault, 1976) (as cited in Patton, 1998). Specifically,
those who look or act different from the socially constructed expectation of the
dominant culture are viewed as deviant. Under this perspective, schools are viewed
as the vehicles that transmit the socially prescribed knowledge, skills, values, and
norms that are critical for society. This functionalist perspective, enjoined by the
medical and psychological grounding of the field of special education, explains
deviations from the norm as deficits or pathologies (Skrtic, 1991). Skrtic (1991)
points out that students who fail in general education are viewed as defective and
consequently needing some “special” system to organize itself, develop a different
set of norms, values, roles, expectations and procedures to “fix” these defective
students. However, the functionalist perspective fails to recognize the
socioeconomic, cultural, and political nature of the school system (Patton, 1998). It
fails to consider racism continues to be a problem of social, cultural, political, and
economic import in American society (Bell, 1996).

16
Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theorists (CRT) believe racism is as powerful today as it was in the
past; that it has merely assumed normality, and invisibility in our daily lives (Lopez,
2003). The modern American view and understanding of racism stems from the Civil
Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and posits that in an ideal world, people
are, and ought to be colorblind (Farley, 2002). Although a credible expectation, it
positions racism at the individual level and ignores other ways in which it continues
to function in society. In today’s modern society, overt and blatant acts of hate such
as desegregation, name calling, and lynching are rarely seen. When these acts are
committed, they are viewed as isolated incidents committed by deviant and
“ignorant” individuals (Lopez, 2003). In this regard, racism is not necessarily
connected to the larger “distribution of jobs, power, prestige, and wealth,” but
instead viewed as deviant behaviors and attitudes in an otherwise neutral, racist-free
world (Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995). By ignoring the broader
sociological web of power in which racism functions, the focus is moved away from
barriers and inequities that may continue to exist.
It is only recent that scholars have suggested race and racism are tools that
account for the inequalities that permeate our social institutions. Even worse, the
social institution where the impact of racism is felt most is in education (Lynn &
Adams, 2002). In response to these growing concerns, CRT has emerged to analyze
the pervasiveness of racism in society, and most importantly, in our public schools.
CRT’s premise is to critically analyze how the law reproduces, reifies, and

17
normalizes racism in society (Lopez, 2003). Instead of believing that racism is an
abnormal or unusual concept, critical race theorists begin with the premise that
racism is a normal and endemic component of our social fabric (Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995; Scheurich & Young, 1997; Tatum, 1997). These theorists suggest that
the reason why society fails to see racism is because it is part of our everyday reality;
it is part of our social fabric and embedded in our organizations, practices, and
structures (Scheurich & Young, 1997; Tyson, 1998). CRT ultimately aims to unveil
the hidden faces of racism and expose its various permutations (Ladson-Billings,
1999). These “permutations” are in some cases, inevitably linked to school structures
and processes, including those used in special education.
The lack of consideration of the affects of culture, socio-economic status, and
language on a student’s academic achievement contributes to the magnitude of race-
based inequities such as the representation of minority students in special education.
CRT reminds educators that time needs to be taken to understand how it operates,
recognize it within ourselves, highlight it within the field, and take steps to do
something about it (Lopez, 2003). It is critical that educational leaders and collegiate
training programs cannot continue to marginalize and trivialize the impact of
cultural, socio-economic, and language factors on special education referrals and
performance on psycho-educational assessments. Although critical race theorists take
a stand on behalf of the “injustices” of cultural and linguistic minorities in special
education, their theory may invoke feelings of distrust in minorities toward the
dominant culture. Reducing disproportionate representation is a matter of creating an

18
equitable, successful, and trusting school environment for all students to accurately
distinguish disabilities from cultural differences, political influences, and
socioeconomic factors.
Socio-Cultural Theory
When considering the placement of ELs in special education, consideration
should be given to the student’s culture, socio-economic status, level of language
proficiency, responsiveness to evidenced based interventions, and opportunity to
learn. A socio-cultural perspective allows researchers to continue to look at culture
but in new ways, considering these components of culture and learning that have
traditionally been ignored (Monzo & Rueda, 2006). According to Vygotsky (1987)
(as cited in Monzo & Rueda, 2006), learning is always a social matter as people learn
through the mediation of others and cultural tools that have been socially developed.
Socio-cultural theory posits that learning is a product of the interaction between the
individual and the social context (Weedon, 1997). This attention to culture and
context will promote cultural awareness and sensitivity in both researchers and
practitioners who work with English-language learners (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy,
& Leos, 2005).
The current study reviewed the literature, collected data, and presented study
results through a socio-cultural lens. A social-cultural perspective will help educators
understand the EL student and the contextual factors such as culture, socio-economic
status, and language affects his/her academic achievement.

19
Historical Trends on Disproportionate Representation
This section of the review of literature discusses the historical trends of
disproportionate representation of minority children in special education. However,
before possible responses and solutions to disproportionate representation can be
evaluated, understanding the historical policies, trends and practice in the field of
special education will be examined as experienced first by African American then
Hispanic students.
Trends and Issues with African American and Hispanic Students
The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education has
been a constant and consistent concern for nearly four decades (Hosp & Reschly,
2004). The issue of disproportionate representation was initially touched on in
Dunn’s (1968) seminal research where he mentioned, “overwhelming evidence
showed present and past practices have their major justification in removing
pressures on regular teachers and pupils, at the expense of the socio-culturally
deprived slow learning pupils” (p. 6). Dunn outlined several reasons to support his
position; a large proportion of special education in its present form was obsolete and
unjustifiable from the point of view of the pupils so placed.
Dunn’s first reason for change was the practice of homogeneous grouping.
According to Dunn (1968), homogeneous groupings tended to work to the
disadvantage of slow learners and underprivileged. Special schools and classes were
a form of homogeneous tracking and grouping. A second reason was the labeling
process. Diagnostic practices usually were conducted using one of two procedures

20
instead of using a multidisciplinary team that looked at the complete child. Finally,
Dunn discussed the need for improvements in general education that included
changes in school organization, curriculum, professional public school personnel,
and incorporation of computerized teaching. Dunn’s evaluation of special education
was through a socio-cultural lens. He points out that the status of those pupils who
came from poverty, broken and inadequate homes, and low status ethnic groups had
been a checkered one, due in part to a change in laws. As compulsory attendance
laws were enforced, socio-culturally deprived children were no longer allowed to be
excluded from attending school. Dunn posited that this resulted in the establishment
of self-contained special schools and classrooms as a method of transferring these
‘misfits’ from regular grades (p.5).
Dunn’s classic research study on disproportionate representation of ethnic
minorities, particularly African American students, was the first to shed light on this
controversial issue. In her seminal research on ethnic minorities in special education,
Mercer (1973) conducted an eight year study on Hispanic students in the Riverside,
California public school system. The purpose of her longitudinal study was to
investigate who was labeled with mental retardation by analyzing the process. Data
for her study was drawn from a representative sample of 7,000 persons under fifty
years of age who were tested and/or screened for the presence of mental retardation.
Her research found that Hispanic students were often erroneously diagnosed as
students with learning disabilities or mental retardation and were improperly placed
in special education classes. Mercer found that while Mexican American students

21
constituted only 11% of the sample public school population (6-15 years of age),
they constituted 45.3% of the placement in classes for students with mild retardation.
Mercer also found that the placement of Black children was three times greater than
their numbers in the population at large. Similar to Dunn, Mercer also pursued the
issue of the relationship between socio-cultural effects and performance on two
measures that clinicians used to label ethnic minority students with mental
retardation. Mercer argued that the measures used to identify ethnic minorities with
mental retardation can not distinguish the person who fails adaptive behavior and
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests because he is not able to learn, from the person who
fails because he has had little opportunity to learn. According to Mercer, the lack of
opportunity to learn is experienced by ethnic minorities from low socioeconomic
levels that live in homes that are not assimilated to the societal norms of the
community; these students have not been exposed to the cultural materials and
knowledge needed to perform acceptably on an intelligence test and adaptive
behavior scales.
The historical evidence on the disproportionate representation presented by early
researchers such as Dunn and Mercer was sufficient to initiate legal or policy action
to reduce disproportionality (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000). Coutinho and Oswald
synthesized literature on the current state of knowledge about disproportionate
representation by exploring specific aspects of the issue. One of the aspects was
historic and recent responses to disproportionality. The Equal Protection Clause of
the 14
th
Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights

22
Act of 1974, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 were created to
prevent the discrimination of racial and ethnic minorities in all settings, not just
educational settings. In addition, the overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in
special education has prompted many famous court cases that continue to play an
important role on how ethnic and linguistic minority children are placed in special
education. The most notable are the cases of Larry P. v. Riles
(1972/1979/1984/1986) and Diana v. State Board of Education (1970).
In Larry P. v. Riles (1972/1979/1984/1986), the existence of overrepresentation,
and an over reliance on ability tests that were not sufficiently validated for use
among minority students, were important issues. The outcomes of this lengthy,
complex trial were to declare the disproportionate representation of African
American students in programs for students with mild mental retardation
discriminatory, to ban the use of IQ tests with African American students, and order
the elimination of overrepresentation of African American students in Educable
Mentally Retarded (EMR) programs (MacMillan & Balow, 1991). In Diana v. State
Board of Education, the court dealt with the administration of English language IQ
tests to students who were LEP, concerns about due process procedural safeguards,
and the training of evaluators and special educators. Decision in this case required
evaluators to test in the primary language, to use a variety of measures, including
ones assessing nonverbal adaptive behavior, and to implement a variety of due
process procedural safeguards, which refers to informing parents of their rights in
their primary language (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000). As a result of landmark

23
litigation, discussion and policy initiatives took place to respond to the
disproportionate representation of ethnic minority groups in special education. This
was most apparent when Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was
amended in 1991 and again in 1997 (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000). Laws, policies, and
amendments to federal law have been ways government has attempted to improve
the educational experience and success of ethnic and linguistic minority students in
special education. Since the seminal research by Dunn and Mercer, subsequent
research has found similar findings in the area of disproportional representation of
ethnic and linguistic minorities despite landmark litigation and policy changes.
Current Research with African American and Hispanic Students
Disproportionate representation of minority students, particularly the over
representation of African American students, has been discussed extensively (Artiles
& Trent, 1994; Hosp & Reschly, 2004) but remain a very controversial, unresolved
issue (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000). In a study of disproportionality in classes for
children with an Emotional Disturbance (ED) in Florida, Serwatka, Deering, and
Grant (1995) examined the extent of over representation of African American
students and looked at a set of predictors related to disability identification. They
examined the relationships between disproportionate representation of African
American students in Emotionally Handicapped (EH) (now known as ED) programs
and 15 variables. Factors examined for possible significant patterns were the size of
the district, rate of African American representation in the district, percentage of
African American representation in the district, the percentage of African Americans

24
employed by the district, and other variables. Significant relationships were observed
between disproportionate representation and percentage of African American
teachers employed at the elementary and secondary levels. They also reported that
overrepresentation was significantly inversely correlated with the percentage of the
enrolled student population that was African American. In other words, the higher
rates of African Americans enrolled at a district, the less over representation in
special education; the lower rates of African American students enrolled at a district,
the higher over representation in special education. Data collected by Serwatka,
Deering, and Grant also indicated that there was a decrease in the overrepresentation
of African American students in EH classes when there was an increase in African
American teachers. The overall conclusion from their study was the importance of
having African American teachers in general education classrooms; African
American teachers are less likely to misinterpret student behavior as compared to
non-African American teachers who raise first suspicions of EH characteristics in a
child and initiate the referral process (Serwatka, Deering, & Grant, 1995). Serwatka,
Deering, and Grant summarized that a pattern of discrimination suggests further
research is needed to determine why some districts are more, and some less,
successful in achieving proportional representation of African American students in
special education.
Coulter (1996) examined the issue of disproportion and related controversies of
ethnic representation within exceptionalities in special education programs using
1993-94 data on African American and White students. Data was analyzed for 66

25
local education agencies or districts in one southern state. He determined there was a
significant difference for a disability whenever the ethnic representation in a
disability category exceeded 10% range of the ethnic group’s representation for the
general public school population. The disabilities identified by Coulter included
traditionally socially determined disabilities such as learning disabilities, emotional
disturbances, and mental disabilities compared to biologically determined disabilities
such as visual and hearing impairments, autism, and orthopedic impairments. His
findings suggested that for the three “socially determined” disability categories,
African Americans were disproportionally overrepresented in sixty-two of the sixty-
six local educational agencies or districts. Low incidence disabilities such as
orthopedic, visual, and hearing impairment had far less disproportionate numbers of
ethnic minority children. Coulter’s data also suggested significant under-
representation of African American students in gifted and talented programs. Coulter
points out that the literature on disproportionate identification has never achieved
consensus on why disproportion exists. Some explanations examined ranged from
biased testing practices to deficiencies in African American culture without little
evidence or research to settle the debate. Researchers have supported perhaps the
most popular explanation: economic poverty (Coutler, 1996). Once more, a social-
cultural perspective has been taken in an attempt to appropriately explain and reduce
the societal problem.
Oswald, Coutinho, Best, and Singh (1999) conducted a descriptive study to
provide information on the extent of disproportionate representation of African

26
American students with mild mental retardation (MMR) and ED. Their study also
described the influence of economic, demographic, and educational variables on the
identification of minority students for special education. Researchers used analyses
of existing data on ethnicity, special education identification of students with MMR
and ED, and a range of educational, demographic, and economic factors that were
available at the district level for a representative national sample of school districts.
Oswald et al. found that as a whole, African American students’ were nearly 2 ½
times as likely to be identified with MMR and approximately 1 ½ times as likely to
be identified as ED, as compared to their non-African American peers. According to
Oswald et al., their nationally representative sample was both statistically and
practically significant. Demographic variables were also found to be significant
predictors of identification of students with MMR or ED. Researchers affirmed that
despite the litigation, regulatory provisions in IDEA, and emerging vision of holistic
multicultural education, there needs to be a concern that too many African American
children do not have the same learning opportunities as their peers, and are identified
as disabled in a disproportionate manner as compared to peers. Oswald et al. state
their study indicates the importance of studying effects of disability conditions and
ethnic groups separately. According to findings, quasi-experimental group and
single-subject designs are needed to test interventions at the points of pre-referral,
referral, assessment, and identification. Also, there is a need for analyses to describe
the representation by other ethnic groups, including Hispanic, Asian American, and
Native American, in each of the disability groups (Artiles & Trent, 1998).

27
Many studies of inequality in special education focus attention on the
overrepresentation of African American students, particularly boys, in certain
categories of special education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002). In these
studies, Hispanics are often said to be “under represented” in special education. For
instance, McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, Cutting, Leos, and D’Emilio (2005) conducted
a descriptive study to examine the complex issues of how to identify and teach ELs
with learning disabilities. Just like their non-language minority peers, some ELs
qualify as having a disability as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA, 1997). McCardle et al. report that until recently, the
prevalence of learning disabilities in ELs in the public school system had been
unknown. National data reveal that this population is underrepresented overall on
special education rosters, meaning that a smaller percentage of ELs are receiving
services than would be expected, given the proportion of the overall population that
they represent (McCardle et al., 2005). Specifically while data on EL students in
special education were not readily available, many districts do not routinely identify
these students as a distinct subgroup, through the efforts of many school district
personnel and those conducting a descriptive study for the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition, a high response rate was
obtained, and accuracy was confirmed through cross-referencing information with
school personnel and student files (Zehler & Fleischman, 2003). However, McCardle
et al. (2005) noted a frequently recurring interview comment was that district
personnel found it challenging to distinguish language differences from a disability

28
as the source of academic difficulties for ELs. This highlights the need for better
tools and methods for accurate identification of those with special needs, particularly
the English-language learner subgroup from the Hispanic population. Overall,
McCardle et al. (2005) found that while ELs appear to be underrepresented overall
on special education rosters, they tend to be overrepresented in certain special
education categories: Speech and Language Impairment (LAS), Mental Retardation,
and Emotional Disturbance.
Klingner and Artiles also reviewed some of the challenges in special education
for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Educators have been concerned for
more than three decades about the overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically
diverse students in certain special education categories such as learning disability,
mental retardation, and emotional disturbance (Klinger & Artiles, 2003). Although
nationally, Hispanic students are only slightly overrepresented in the learning
disabilities category and not at all in the mental retardation or emotional disturbance
categories (Donovan & Cross, 2002), national data do not reflect the wide variability
at the state and local school district level. There is significant variation within
individual states on how they determine eligibility for special education. Like
McCardle et al., Donovan and Cross (2002) explain that the nationally collected data
have been interpreted to suggest no overrepresentation of either Black or Hispanic
students in LD. However, state-level data demonstrate that, “for Black students, the
risk index ranges from 2.33% in Georgia to 12.19% in Delaware. For Hispanic
students, the risk index ranges from 2.43 in Georgia to 8.93 in Delaware. Clearly

29
there is overrepresentation for these two minorities in the LD category in some
states” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p.67). Although data is collected on the
representation of Hispanics in special education, the data about the ethnicity of
students in special education collected by state departments of education typically do
not accumulate information about students’ language proficiency (Klinger & Artiles,
2003). Thus, little is known about the representation of ELs in special education
programs. Emerging evidence from urban districts in California, however, suggests
that this population is overrepresented in high incidence disability categories, and
that those ELs classified as lacking proficiency in both their first language and in
English are heavily overrepresented (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005).
The number of Spanish speaking students is growing rapidly and the knowledge
base on the overrepresentation of ELs is almost nonexistent (Artiles et al., 2005).
Artiles et al. presented preliminary evidence about the contexts of English learner
overrepresentation in California’s special education programs. The purpose of their
study was to assess representation of English learners in various disability categories
and grade levels, to examine whether EL in various language programs and grade
levels are more likely to be overrepresented and/or more isolated in distinct special
education programs. Researchers used databases from eleven urban districts in
California that were currently undergoing major reforms, including in special
education. The data was aggregated to ensure the school districts’ anonymity. The
sample constituted heavily populated English learners, particularly of Latino descent;
“the student ethnic background for the eleven districts assessed were: 66% Latino/a,

30
13.6% African American, 10.5% White, 4.3% Asian, 1.9% Filipino, 0.4% Pacific
Islander, and 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native” (p.121). Artiles et al. compiled
data from databases that contained student demographic, achievement, English
proficiency, and program placement and conducted a descriptive analyses to
determine placement patterns for various student categories (e.g., by language
proficiency, special education service, disability category level, grade level). Their
study was based on the districts’ databases for the academic year 1998-1999; data
from the 1999-2000 as well as some longitudinal data were also collected.
Researchers focused on disability categories typically affected by overrepresentation;
they included MR, LAS, and LD. Artiles et al. also examined placement patterns in
special education programs with varying levels of restrictiveness (RSP; SDC), grade
levels (elementary, secondary), and three language programs (straight English
immersion, modified English immersion, bilingual).
Artiles et al.’s descriptive analysis of placement data found interesting trends.
First, English language learners with limited English proficiency showed the highest
rates of identification in the special education categories examined. This group was
found to be consistently overrepresented in elementary and secondary grades in LD
and LAS classes and had greater chances to be placed in special education programs
than other groups of students. Second, the results suggested placement patterns at the
elementary level indicated an absence of overrepresentation in special education,
although researchers detected overrepresentation at the end of elementary school that
continued through the high school years. Artiles et al. posited that it may be that

31
secondary settings offer less support for ELs than elementary settings. Next,
researchers found that ELs had considerable proportions (over 10%) placed in LD
secondary programs and small representation in MR programs. Overrepresentation
was also found in LAS classes. Finally, Artiles et al. found that ELs who were
receiving the least support in their primary language (i.e., straight English immersion
programs) had a greater chance of being placed in RSP and SDC programs than
placement in language programs with greater (i.e., English Language Development)
native language support. Although researchers have traditionally examined
disproportionality as it affects ethnic minority students, little is known about other
groups such as EL subgroups or students from low-income backgrounds. Artiles et
al. note the need for future studies that document the potential interactions between
level of program segregation (i.e., RSP SDC), type of language support, and
opportunities to learn. The need to design a comprehensive research program that
traces not only the dynamics of special education placement patterns, but also their
eligibility decision meetings, assessment practices, pre-referral/referral interventions,
and tracking in general education was noted by Artiles et al.
In sum, the historical trends discussed in this section give credence to an almost
forty year concern on the disproportionate representation of ethnically and
linguistically diverse students in high incidence special education programs. Even
though this issue has been studied by a National Research Council (NRC; Donovan
& Cross, 2002), had actions from major professional organizations such as the
Council for Exceptional Children, litigation (Larry P. v. Riles, Diana v. the

32
California Board of Education), policy and advocacy efforts, pressure from parent
groups, and efforts from researchers, it has not been sufficient to significantly reduce
the problem (Klingner, Artiles, Kozleski, Harry, Zion, Tate, Duran, & Riley, 2005).
Some of the literature discussed in this section noted possible causal factors such as
pre-referral interventions and assessment practices. The next section will review
pre-referral factors to consider and interventions and their implications for special
education referral.
Pre-referral Considerations/Interventions and its Impact on Special Education
Researchers (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Salend, Garrick-Duhaney, & Montgomery;
Serna, Fortness, & Nielsen, 1998) have strenuously urged the consideration of salient
factors and implementation of pre-referral interventions as a way to reduce
inappropriate referrals to special education. In general, the field of special education
has not adequately considered prevention and intervention strategies at the general
education level as a means of addressing disproportionate representation (Klingner et
al., 2005). Before a child is referred for formal evaluation, efforts should be made to
remedy a child’s learning and/or behavior problems in the general education setting.
This intermediate step has been called “pre-referral intervention” and utilizes a
variety of modifications/instruction designed to remediate any difficulties
(MacMillan, Gresham, Lopez, & Bocian, 1996). The pre-referral interventions are
generally mediated by a Student Success Team (SST) which is comprised of general
education teachers and other specialists. Only when a child fails to respond to pre-
referral interventions is he or she referred for formal evaluation to determine

33
eligibility for special education services (MacMillan et al., 1996). This process can
be effective if all involved buy in to the interventions, implement, and evaluate
improvements. However, the success of any pre-referral interventions in addressing a
wide range of student problems are based upon the result that teachers and
consultants regard it as worthwhile (Fuchs et al., 2003).
In 1992, the Intervention Based Assessment (IBA) began as a voluntary school-
based initiative under a special education waiver plan by the Ohio State Department
of Education (Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000). The purpose of IBA was to
create intervention plans for non-disabled students with behavior or learning
problems, or to be used as part of a comprehensive evaluation for children with
suspected disabilities. Its intervention components included collection of baseline
data, explicit goal setting, an intervention plan, evidence of fidelity of treatment
implementation, data of student responsiveness, and comparison of student
performance to baseline. Schools were invited to participate in the state’s initiatives.
Telzrow et al. (1996) conducted a statewide evaluation of the IBA program.
From the 329 identified IBA schools, 227 (69%) were selected for study. The
schools selected for the study were directed to submit best case documentation (i.e.,
products that would reflect their most complete and accurate implementation of the
problem-solving process), and had sole discretion over the selection of cases
submitted (p.449). Schools had two instruments to help with documentation; the
instruments had schools list each of their problem-solving components and to
describe their concerns, chosen interventions, how its implementation was

34
monitored, and their effectiveness. Researchers developed a five-point Likert scale
and scoring rubric to evaluate the fidelity of problem-solving implementation. Their
investigation found that “Ohio’s multidisciplinary team’s problem-solving
implementation was frequently inconsistent and below desired levels of fidelity”
(p.457). Telzrow and her colleagues reported an average rating of 2.6 (out of a
possible 5) for the problem-solving component requiring evidence of
implementation. Telzrow et al. concluded that their study suggested “reliable
implementation of problem-solving approaches in school remains elusive” (p.458).
Poor treatment integrity is not only a concern for the majority population; many of
the same concerns are documented with culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Carrasquillo and Rodriguez (1997) conducted an investigation of the schooling
characteristics of 46 Hispanic elementary students with limited English proficiency
referred to or participating in bilingual special education in New York City. Their
investigation found that few pre-referral interventions had been tried with students
prior to their placement. School personnel were inconsistent in their use of pre-
referral interventions designed to provide students with additional assistance before
evaluating them for special education. Researchers found that this step was not taken
seriously by teachers, many of whom felt it was simply a hurdle that they needed to
surpass to meet referral requirements. One can see how important it is critical for
school psychologists and SST members to be aware of pre-referral interventions and
determining factors that should be considered by the team.

35
Poon-McBrayer and Garcia (2000) examined the characteristics of Asian
American elementary students with learning disabilities in a school district in the
Southwest. The district identified and selected as the study site was a large, suburban
district with an enrollment of more than 34,000 students during the 1995-1996
school year. Many of the experiences of Asian American students with special
education were similar to those of Mexican American students. Researchers
collected multiple sources of information which included student special education
folders, and other school records regarding student characteristics. Relevant
information was also sought in referral characteristics, which included instructional
alternatives attempted prior to referral. Poon-McBrayer and Garcia’s review of
instructional alternatives attempted by classroom teachers were found in 24 of the 26
special education folders. The most frequent reported intervention was adjustment of
space, time, and checks for understanding. However, the data in student folders
suggested that the range of instructional modifications attempted prior to referral was
somewhat limited. Although teachers reported using strategies such as checking for
understanding, allotting more time, and modifying assignments, these interventions
form a rather limited range of interventions and do not necessarily represent a
comprehensive systematic intervention (Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000).
Generalization of the patterns to other school districts may be difficult and
inappropriate since the findings are particular only to the school district in the study.
Further replications of this study are needed before generalizations can be made to
other school districts.

36
For practice, Poon-McBrayer and Garcia noted that the integrity of
implementation of pre-referral interventions and the careful documentation of their
outcome can assist professionals in determining the appropriateness of the referral.
As is the case in efficacy and treatment integrity of pre-referral interventions, pre-
referral considerations that may help eliminate inappropriate referrals are critical. For
instance, culturally and linguistically diverse students may underachieve for a variety
of reasons other than a learning disability, including lack of opportunity to learn
(e.g., due to migrant status; poor instruction for many reasons, including teacher’s
lack of understanding of cultural differences; inappropriate programs, such as
bilingual education); difficulties associated with learning English as a second
language; dysfunctional home life; and poverty (Chamberlain, 2005). If teachers are
not able to discern the reasons for student underachievement of CLD students, they
are more likely to be referred for reasons other than a learning disability. Thus,
language and cultural differences between educators and CLD students are a reality
in today’s schools and can have negative effects on the education of CLD learners.
Disregard of research-based interventions prior to assessment can increase the
likelihood that cultural or linguistic differences are misunderstood as characteristics
associated with a learning disability. It is critical SST members consider the
existence of similar characteristics exhibited by culturally and linguistically diverse
students and students identified with LD (Ortiz, 1997). Two salient factors may
contribute to misunderstanding of culture and language with a disability: (1)
language, and (2) culture.

37
Language Proficiency
According to Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, & Breunig (1999), second-language
learners’ oral-language-related types of problems and problematic behaviors can be
associated with normal processes of second language acquisition. Since language is
the tool individuals use to communicate, naturally students who not understand the
language of the classroom will have great difficulty learning. Ochoa et al. (1999)
conducted a large-scale investigation of the reasons why EL students were referred
in eight states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, and Texas) with high EL student populations. Ochoa and colleagues
found that 1,384 school psychologists identified up to three most common referral
reasons note in referral packets of EL students: (1) “poor/low achievement,” (2)
“behavioral problems,” and (3) “oral-language related (i.e., acquisition delay). In
addition, 7 out of the 10 most frequent reasons for referral “have a plausible linkage
with language/and or culture” (p.7). Ochoa et al. (1999) suggest that if a student is
referred for an SST or formal assessment for oral-language related-type problems, it
is important to consider the child’s linguistic abilities and deficits in his or her native
and second languages. School practitioners need to determine if academic difficulty
is apparent in student’s primary and second language. If problems are apparent only
in English and not in the child’s native language, it is most likely due to factors
associated with second-language acquisition. Like students with LD, second-
language learners will exhibit severe discrepancies between their academic potential
and actual achievement; because they are likely to come from historically different

38
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, their observed learning difficulties can be
mistaken for deeper cognitive disability (Barrera, 2006). Another salient factor to
consider is that problematic behaviors can also be linked to learning a second-
language or culture.
Ochoa et al. (1999) reported that behavioral problems were one of the top three
reasons of referral. Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005) note that “second-language
learners may display ‘defensive,’ ‘withdrawn,’ and ‘disorganized’ behaviors; social-
emotional difficulties such as shyness, timid, and fearfulness when striving to
acquire a second-language; culturally and linguistically diverse students may display
a ‘heightened anxiety’ and ‘low self-esteem’ when place in environments that are
different from their home culture; and ELs may have low attention span from an
inability to understand and follow directions.” (p. 82). Aggregating all of the
information reported by Ochoa et al. (1999) and Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005),
one can conclude that common patterns in second language acquisition may be
misunderstood as a learning problem. This information sheds light on the influence
of culture and language on ELs academic performance and behavior.
The type of English-language instructional program the student received prior to
referral is also an important consideration. According to Cummins (1984), “Minority
language students are frequently transferred from bilingual to English-only
classroom when they have developed superficially fluent English communicative
skills. Despite being classified as ‘English proficient’ many such students fall
progressively further behind grade level in the development of English academic

39
skills” (p.131). The types of instructional programs for ELs vary from state to state
and district to district. The programs available to ELs vary in length but generally are
provided for 2-4 years (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Cummins (1984) noted that
CALP in English is best accomplished when EL students first attain CALP in their
native language. In other words, the greater amount of instruction received in a
student’s first language (L1), the greater the probability that the student will develop
a second language. Cummins (1984) proposed that it usually takes an EL around 2-3
years to acquire BICS and 5-7 years to acquire CALP.
Thomas and Collier’s (2002) research supported the existence of Cummin’s
BICS/CALP language constructs. They examined the amount of time it took ELs to
attain the 50
th
NCE score on standardized English-reading measures. They reported
that “it takes typically bilingually schooled students, who are achieving on grade
level in L1, from 4-7 years to make it to the 50
th
NCE in second language (L2). It
takes typical ‘advantaged’ immigrants with 2-5 years of on grade-level home country
schooling in L1 from 5-7 years to reach the 50
th
NCE in L2, when schooled all in L2
in the U.S. It takes the typical young immigrant schooled all in L2 in the U.S. 7-10
years or more to reach the 50
th
NCE and the majority of these students do not ever
make it to the 50
th
NCE, unless they receive support for L1 academic and cognitive
development at home” (p.36). Their results indicate that the strongest predictor of L2
achievement is amount of L1 schooling. It is then apparent that students who have
been transitioned or exited early from English-language development programs have
not sufficiently achieved CALP in their first language (Cummins, 1984). SST

40
members need to consider whether or not a student’s academic difficulties or failures
are attributed to his or her insufficient development of L1 and not having attained
CALP in English. Thus, the language proficiency factor needs to be considered when
an EL student is referred to the SST; this may help educational practitioners to
effectively differentiate language acquisition issues from a legitimate learning
difficulty. Not only is language proficiency an important factor to consider, the
understanding how cultural differences can influence the teaching, learning, and
referral process is paramount if educators are to respond to the educational needs of
CLD students with and without disabilities.
Cultural Factors
Although language is central to culture, culture is much broader than language;
culture clashes have considerable affect on the teaching/learning process in a variety
of ways (Chamberlain, 2005). According to Garcia and Guerra (2004), interactions
between teachers and students that result in misunderstandings can lead teachers to
make misattributions about the cause of a student’s poor academic achievement,
which in turn can lead to low expectations that may result in unchallenging and
inappropriate instruction. Cultural differences can affect both teaching and learning
in a variety of ways and until educators become privy to these affects, we cannot
respond in a culturally relevant way. Betsinger, Garcia, and Guerra (2000) identified
six domains that may influence the teaching and learning process: Communication,
cognition, language, behavior, individual or group, and relationship with authority

41
figures. Understanding of domains by educators is paramount for discerning when
CLD students may have been inappropriately referred.
Communication. There are many expectations that every culture has when
communicating with people within or from another culture. The “rules” that
accompany our expectations for appropriate communication are often covert, in the
sense that most people know how to act or communicate naturally. The rules of
communication are embedded in the socialization process whereby our particular
ways of doing and seeing is passed down by our social institutions (Gudykunst &
Kim, 1997). For example, one dimension of cultural variability pertains to the degree
of context embedded in communicative interactions (Hofstede, 1997). According to
Brislin (1999), individuals from “high-context” communication backgrounds tend to
live in tight knit in-groups; because the in-group is so close, much of what is
communicated does not have to be explained, therefore more implicit. In “low-
context” communication backgrounds, the in-groups are usually more spread out and
not as tight-knit; communicative messages tend to be more explicit. In practice,
students, and parents, from high-context cultures often attempt to describe the
context of a particular situation if there is no common understanding of the context.
These communications can take the forms of stories (Brislin, 1999). Individuals from
low-context communicative groups may perceive this “story-telling” as rambling
stories that include unnecessary information. Teachers may have clear expectations
for how a student should communicate; they may expect students to be direct and
explicit.

42
There also different expectations for nonverbal communication. For example,
parents may nod during teacher conferences, leading the teacher to believe they are
in agreement with the things discussed and are willing to do what the teacher has
asked them to do (Chamberlain, 2005). Nodding may mean different things in
different cultures. In Latin American countries, teachers are revered and respected as
individuals who know what is best for their child. Without understanding of
nonverbal communication of CLD families, teachers may then develop negative
perceptions about parents.
Cognition. As with communication, teachers may also have expectations how
students should cognitively process information. Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, and
Trumball (1999) observed interactions in one school in Los Angeles where most of
the students were Latino and teachers Caucasian. In one class, a kindergarten teacher
asked her class to describe an egg. “The first student she called on said, ‘Mi abuelos
[grandparents] come over on Sundays and we eat blanquillos [an egg dish].’ The
teacher replied, ‘No, I want you to describe the egg.’ A second student was called on,
who said, ‘It’s hard and white on the outside and wet and yellow in the inside.’ The
teacher then responds, yes, that’s an excellent description of an egg” (p.202).
In this observation, the teacher had a clear expectation for how the student would
respond and a particular way of thinking about a description of an egg; the
expectation was for an explicit, concrete, physical description of an egg. However,
the first student’s response could also be characterized in a specific way; the
student’s responses were functional and relational. One can argue that both responses

43
were equally valid ways of describing an egg, but the thinking processes are different
(Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Trumball, 1999). The consequences of such a
culture clash can be detrimental to CLD students. The teacher sent a clear message
that the second’s student response was a correct way of thinking, whereas the first
student’s response was wrong. It is not difficult to predict that students may
eventually withdraw from the educational process rather than risk rejection after
being consistently told their way of thinking is wrong several times a year for three
to four years (Chamberlain, 2005).
Language. Rothstein-Fisch et al. (1999) found a variety of ways cultural exists
in how oral language is taught at home, the value of the written word, and
differences in kinds of narratives. In Western culture, parents typically interact with
their children by asking them questions to test their knowledge, but in other cultures,
parents tend to interact only in functional ways. Similarly, in Western culture parents
engage their children verbally to a high degree and expect their children to verbalize
their comprehension of the task at hand. Parents from other cultures tend to teach
their children by modeling and expect their children to demonstrate comprehension
by doing, rather than by verbalizing their understanding of the task at hand (Heath,
1983).
The importance of the written word is given different levels of emphasis. Much
of these value differences on the written word originate from the needs of survival
(Heath, 1983). For example, to be financially successful in Westernized cultures, we
must be skilled at reading in writing. However, in non-Westernized cultures literacy

44
is valued less because it is not necessary for success in those societies; oral language
such as story telling receives greater emphasis. It is important to keep in mind that
language in both groups is not any less important, but simply the form of language is
emphasized differently (Heath, 1983).
One of the most apparent differences between mainstream and minority cultures
observed in the classroom is the form of narrative students communicate in. Form of
narrative is highly dependent on cultural background. Mainstream U.S. culture
favors topic-centered narratives (Delpit, 1995), characterized by a linear flow of
events with a clear beginning, middle, and end; a limited number of main characters;
a specific setting and time; a problem that occurs in the story; and a resolution to the
problem by the end of the story (Chamberlain, 2005). In contrast, some groups favor
topic-associative or episodic style of communication. These types of stories tend to
shift from setting to setting, are non-linear, typically include more characters, usually
provide a greater context for a story, and are longer than topic-centered narratives
(Delpit, 1995). When educators are unaware of these differences, students from non-
Westernized cultures may be inappropriately penalized for their narrative style.
Understanding differences in narrative style is essential if educators are to respect the
language abilities of their CLD students and build in the linguistic strengths they
bring to the classroom (Chamberlain, 2005).
Behavior. Every culture has different expectations of what they consider
appropriate behavior. Bauermeister (1995) illustrated how expectations for
appropriate behaviors can influence views about disability. Bauermeister conducted

45
a study in Puerto Rico where a representative group of children assessed for
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using U.S. norms. Researcher found
that approximately one third of students would be identified as having ADHD using
U.S. norms. The researcher concluded that there was a wider acceptance of out-of-
seat behavior, louder and more vocal classrooms, and a higher degree of expressive
communication in Puerto Rican classrooms than would be acceptable in most U.S.
classrooms, where students who exhibit such behaviors are often seen as inattentive
and hyperactive. Thus, a disability can be seen as a social construct; how much
inattention is too much, how much expressive exuberance is too much before it is
called a disorder (Chamberlain, 2003)?
Individual vs. Group. Mainstream U.S. culture is a considered a highly
individualistic society (Hofstede, 1997), that emphasizes self-reliance, individual
achievement, and competition (Triandis, 1995). Individuals from collectivistic
societies tend to place more importance on the well-being of the group, emphasizing
social relationships, group goals, group harmony, and cooperative learning
(Hofstede, 1997). Many individuals from Latin American countries are collectivistic
societies that value social relationships and cooperative learning. This is where a
major culture clash may exist between teacher and student from a collectivist culture;
teacher may emphasize independent work, but students from collectivist cultures
thrive and do well in cooperative learning activities.
Along those same lines, special education may also pose a culture clash for
teachers and students. A major emphasis placed in special education is on

46
individualized education programs. It is important to consider that such a highlight
on the individual may seem inappropriate to students and parents from collectivistic
cultures. For example, when planning for transition into the adult world,
independence and community living skills tends to be a major goal for students with
mental retardation or more severe disabilities. However, independent living may not
be the option of the parents of a young adult with disabilities from a collectivistic
culture. Many times the goal of that family is to have their child live at home with
them for the rest of their lives (Chamberlain, 2005).
Interaction with Authority Figures. Individuals from different cultures differ in
how they view and interact with authority figures. According to Hofstede (1997),
there is a “power distance” that varies among cultures. In high power cultural
backgrounds, members perceive a distinct separation where roles played by those in
authority and those considered subordinate are distinctly defined with little flexibility
of roles. Low power cultural backgrounds view greater flexibility and expectations
of roles played by authority figures and others (Hofstede, 1997).
A difference in views of authority figures has clear implications for interactions
between teachers and CLD student and parent interactions. For instance, U.S.
educators place a great emphasis on parent involvement in their children’s education
to supplement at home what is learned in school. However, parents from a high-
power distance background may have clear expectations about the role of the teacher
in school and their role as a parent at home that may differ greatly from teacher
expectations. In many Latin cultures, parents might expect that teachers educate their

47
children academics, while parents contribute in educating their children about
appropriate behavior and responsibility. With that in mind, CLD parents may feel
very uncomfortable with the emphasis in special education on including parents as
full members of the IEP committee. Some CLD parents may view this as a sign that
the teacher is incompetent, the logic being, “If teachers are the experts, why are they
asking me how to educate my child (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999).” This is not to
suggest that teachers should not try to involve parents, but teachers must be aware of
the cultural differences and not automatically interpret what appears as parent un-
involvement, as disinterest in their child’s education.
With the increase in CLD student population in our nations schools,
understanding the different ways cultural and linguistic differences influence the
education of CLD students is paramount if educators are to provide an appropriate
education for students with or without disabilities. Student Success Teams (SSTs)
can help facilitate the understanding of differences in language and culture.
The Student Success Team (SST)
Student Success Teams help teachers design and implement interventions that
improve performance of ELs, however teams must also accurately interpret data
unique to ELs, such as results of language proficiency assessments, and design
interventions that are culturally and linguistically relevant. Ortiz, Wilkinson,
Robertson-Courtney, and Kushner (2006) examined considerations in SST’s for ELs,
including team membership, the knowledge base needed by team members,
intervention design, and record keeping. First, Ortiz et al. recommend that SST

48
members should have some expertise on English-learners. Parents should also be
part of the team since they can provide valuable information about the child’s social,
linguistic, and developmental progress in the home. Second, SST’s should
recommend assessments to pinpoint the specific nature of the problem, develop
instructional or behavioral interventions, or refer students to alternative programs
and services. These assessments may include native language and English
proficiency levels, assessments that yield data that describes student academic
achievement in their native language and English for subjects or content taught in
English. Third, the success of any intervention depends on the quality and duration
of its implementation. The overall effectiveness of pre-referral interventions can be
ensured only through careful evaluation of teacher implementation and through
systematic measurement and documentation of academic results (Ortiz et al., 2006).
Finally, documentation should be a component of a comprehensive record-keeping
system that includes information over time describing language dominance and
proficiency, recommendations of English Language Development (ELD) support,
report cards, achievement test results, and the results of clinical teaching. This data
can prove invaluable to teachers determining the effectiveness of prior interventions
or if the student is referred for formal assessment. It is important to keep in mind that
research on SST’s and Response–to-Intervention (RtI) models is generally limited;
research on these processes as they involve ELs is even more limited (Vaughn,
Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005). Ortiz et al. recommend research should
begin with studying factors that influence the success of SST’s, team membership

49
and members’ expertise specific to ELs, nature and quality of interventions
recommended, fidelity of implementation, and the support provided to teachers as
they implement recommendation for ELs.
With the reauthorization of IDEIA in 2004 and ways professionals conceptualize
and define disabilities, the implementation of research based interventions is now
more critical than ever. The frequently used procedure for LD identification is the
use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy. Although not required by law, it is most
frequently used for documenting a severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability in one or more areas-oral expression, listening comprehension,
written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, math calculation
skills, and math reasoning (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). As the field matures,
recognition has grown that the conceptualization and definition of LD is fraught with
measurement and conceptual problems (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Prior to the
reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, the Office of Special Education Programs
convened a group of researchers from across the country to establish parameters for
discussions about LD and alternatives to the traditional testing method of identifying
students; a majority of the researchers rejected IQ-achievement discrepancy as a
valid LD indicator (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). One model for reconceptualizing LD is
in terms of a failure to respond to treatment. IDEIA 2004 suggests that school
systems do not have to use an intelligence testing to determine a severe discrepancy.
Instead, a problem solving approach whereby individuals with LD are defined as
learners who pass the exclusionary criteria (academic problems are not based on

50
cultural, linguistic, or socio-economic factors; lack of exposure to curriculum tested;
or another form of disability) for LD identification but then fail to respond to
successive tiers of research-based instruction. More specifically in RtI, all students
are screened on how well they are responding to the general education setting; if the
student is not responding to the general education program within the range of
classmates, student would receive an intensive standard protocol with the goal of
remediation of academic deficit; failure to respond to intensive intervention would
then prompt intervention synonymous with special education (Vaughn & Fuchs,
2003). The field of special education will soon begin to witness a paradigm shift in
how students are identified with LD. It focuses on a problem-solving and pre-referral
interventions that derive information that seeks to identify students at risk rather than
by deficit, identifying and treating students with LD early, and reducing the bias in
the identification process for LD.
In sum, the studies discussed in this section are specific examples that salient
factor considerations and reliable implementation of interventions is questionable.
However, with the increasing number of ELs, schools need to be prepared to provide
culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions for these students if
disproportionate representation is to decrease. Clearly, there is ample room for
additional research on effective interventions for ELs, but with considerations
highlighted in the latter article; SST’s can play an important role in determining a
true disability. Another possible causal factor of disproportionate representation of
ELs is assessment practices. In the following section, this review will examine the

51
literature regarding the assessment practices utilized by school psychologists when
determining eligibility for special education placement for English-language learners
and the recommended best practices designated by the National Association of
School Psychologists.
Implications of Assessment Practices on the Representation English-learners in
Special Education
As posited by Dunn (1968) over 40-years ago, the labeling process for cultural
and linguistic minorities was inadequate in determining a disability. Diagnostic
practices usually were conducted using one of two procedures instead of using a
multidisciplinary team in order to look at the complete child. Today, culturally
competent assessment continues to be highlighted in the education and psychology
literature (Paez, 2000). Distinguishing cultural characteristics and the characteristics
associated with learning a second language from the existence of some type of
learning and behavior difficulty can limit the extent to which disproportionate
representation occurs (Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000). Thus, the difficulty in
distinguishing this difference can lead to incompetent assessment practices. This
highlights the need for better tools and methods for accurate identification of those
with special needs, particularly the English-language learner subgroup from the
Hispanic population.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders vs. IDEIA 2004
The widespread variability across school districts in representation of students
who are EL in special education highlights the inconsistency and lack of coherence

52
in approaches to assessment and identification of children for special education
services (Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005). This variability questions whether it
might be simpler if students are found eligible via the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). However, the DSM-IV and IDEIA 2004
guidelines are quite distinct in their view of LD. Many professionals are involved in
the diagnosis of learning disability; the two most common professionals that are
clinical and school psychologists. However, it is important to keep in mind that
clinical and school psychologists view LD and MR from different perspectives.
Clinical psychologists view LD from the perspective of the DSM-IV. In general,
they do not do educational testing needed to diagnose a learning disability as defined
by IDEIA 2004. A clinical psychologist may conduct some academic assessments
and compare those results to DSM-IV criteria, which is not the same as the criteria
defined by federal law. Furthermore, clinical psychologists may not use multiple
sources of data and information in their diagnosis. Often times, when an assessment
is conducted by a clinical psychologist and given to public school personnel,
additional assessments are required. It is very rare that a clinical psychologist is
honored without supplemental assessments.
School psychologists provide assessment of learning and school related
problems. They are trained primarily to do both intellectual and educational testing,
conduct classroom observations, meet with teachers, and have access to student files.
School psychologists are also trained to determine whether a student has a learning
disability using IDEIA criteria. In order for a student to qualify for special education

53
services funded by the federal government, they need to meet the eligibility criteria
set forth by the government.
Thus, although the idea that use of the DSM-IV may appear to alleviate some of
the inconsistency and lack of coherence in approaches to assessment and
identification of children for special education services, the DSM-IV is a tool
designed to be used in a clinical setting by clinicians in private practice. On the other
hand, school psychologists are trained to use federal guidelines set forth by IDEIA
2004 to determine eligibility. If states and local educational agencies are to continue
to receive funding for special education services, federal criteria must be used to
determine the presence of a disability.
School Psychologist Training and Experience in Assessment of ELs
School psychologist experience and training in EL assessment is an important
factor that may influence the assessment and eligibility decision of culturally and
linguistically diverse students being considered for special education. According to
Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005), research clearly indicates that many school
psychologists are not trained to assess culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Ochoa, Rivera, and Ford (1997) surveyed school psychologists in eight states with
large Hispanic populations; the purpose of their study was to determine how school
psychologists assessed culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning
disabilities and mental retardation. Researchers found that 83% of the school
psychologists self-reported that they were less than adequately trained by their
university programs to conduct bilingual assessment. What was especially troubling

54
was that those same school psychologists indicated that they had actually conducted
assessment of EL students despite their less than adequate training. Additionally,
researchers found 56% of school psychologists also self-reported that they were less
than adequately trained to interpret the assessment results of EL students. They
concluded that these findings raised serious questions regarding the validity of test
results when EL students are assessed. Ochoa, Rivera, and Ford (1997) reported that
“the filed of school psychology must ask itself whether the lack of adequate training
by approximately 80% of school psychologists conducting bilingual psycho-
educational assessments has any bearing on the overrepresentation of minority
children in special education” (p.341).
In another study, Ochoa, Rivera, and Powell (1997) examined the psycho-
educational assessment practices of school psychologists. Researchers surveyed 859
school psychologists who had conducted psycho-educational assessments of
bilingual students. School psychologists indicated that they considered a variety of
factors in their efforts to be certain that students had had sufficient opportunity to
learn, but frequently omitted consideration of the student’s native language and the
number of years of English instruction that the student received. Their examination
yielded that only six percent of school psychologists reported asking about the
student’s home language, and only one percent attempted to determine whether a
learning problem occurred in both English and the student’s home language.
Researchers described these findings as “especially disheartening” (p.165); these are
crucial factors in distinguishing characteristics associated from learning a second

55
language from characteristics of a learning or behavioral disability. Disregard for the
potential influence of language and culture on students’ school performance can
increase the incidence of false positive diagnoses, with devastating consequences for
culturally and linguistically diverse students (Ochoa, Rivera, & Powell, 1997).
In 1996, Ochoa, Galarza, and Gonzalez examined language proficiency
assessment practices of school psychologist who assess culturally and linguistically
diverse learners. Researchers found that many school psychologists do not use best
practices in this area; without adequate and sufficient language proficiency
assessment, school psychologists will not be able to determine in which language
they should proceed when conducting intellectual and academic achievement.
Test bias and inappropriate assessment practices when assessing academic
achievement and intelligence have also been problematic (Valdes & Figueroa, 1996).
For example, testing is done primarily in English even though a student primary
language is Spanish. In a related study, Ochoa, Powell, and Robles-Pina (1996)
studied how school psychologists assess the intellectual functioning and academic
achievement of EL students and found examiners utilized inappropriate assessment
practices. Examiners used such practices as translating measures in English to
Spanish and intermixing two languages during administration of a particular test that
resulted in violating standardized test administration procedures.
Klingner, Harry, Sturges, Artiles, and Wimes (2003) (as cited in Klingner &
Artlies, 2003) conducted an ethnographic study of the referral processes in 12
schools. The researchers found that members of SST’s and IEP teams gave little

56
weight or attention to factors related to language acquisition when making decisions
about special education eligibility and placement. They also found that for students
who were not yet considered fully proficient in English and who had been tested in
their native language, only English test results were included in school
psychologists’ psycho-educational assessment reports or discussed at IEP team
meetings. In addition, teams did not address the possible influence of second-
language acquisition on the students’ performance (Klingner et al., 2003). The
ethnographic study also found that teams paid no attention to the ecology of the
classrooms from which students were referred. Researchers found that school
psychologists rarely conducted classroom observations. One particular school
psychologist was asked whether she observed students whom she assessed in their
classrooms, she said she rarely did. Some school psychologists did indicate that they
would like to conduct classroom observations but did not have the time in their busy
schedules to actually go into the classroom. Klingner et al. noted that without
classroom observations, evaluation teams cannot know whether a student has had an
opportunity to learn in an appropriate, culturally responsive environment.
As previously mentioned, Poon-McBrayer and Garcia examined the
characteristics of Asian American elementary students with learning disabilities in a
school district in the Southwest. Researchers not only examined information on
students’ pre-referral characteristics and instructional alternative attempted before
referral as previously discussed, they also sought information regarding assessment
characteristics, including language information at initial assessment, students’

57
language dominance, English proficiency and language testing, and criteria used for
determining learning disabilities. Researchers collected data using multiple sources
of information, including students’ special education folders, language proficiency
records, interviews, and other school records.
They found that district practices related to assessment as reflected in the types of
instruments used and in the language of testing, tend to reflect the challenges
associated with the implementation of quality assessment practices with language
minority students (Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000). The difficulty faced by the
district of study was that there was a wide range of languages represented in one
district and the accompanying shortage of appropriate assessment instruments and
trained bilingual professionals to evaluate students in their respective native
language. This was illustrated in their findings when, 18 of the 21 students who were
rated as English-dominant had below-average scores on measures of English
proficiency. Thus, tests that emphasized verbal skills such as basic reading skills and
reading comprehension, scores were expected to be lower, whereas performance on
nonverbal assessments would not have been affected. “A similar impact of specific
test selection on discrepancy scores was noted for Mexican-American LEP students
and highlights the difficulties associated with reliance on discrepancy scores to
operationally define a learning disability among culturally and linguistically diverse
students” (p.68). Overall, researchers found traces of the problematic identification
practices found in the studies of Mexican American and Asian American students,
mentioned earlier, resurface in their study. Recommended practices related to

58
assessment, including non-reliance on formal, standardized tests, involvement of
parents in the problem solving process, and use of professional judgment, were not
consistently evident from the information documented. As previously mentioned,
generalizations of the study are limited given that the results were only specific to
the district of study. In addition, the sample available for study was rather small,
which again makes generalization to other districts difficult. Researchers report that
there is much more that we need to know in order to effectively work with an
increasing number of Asian American students in schools. They also note that
appropriate identification of culturally and linguistically diverse students with LD
depends on adequate guidelines for referral, assessment, and placement.
The aforementioned studies highlight that assessment of culturally and
linguistically diverse students may be laden with theoretical misunderstandings and
flawed practices. Professionals who use the same few tests with most students and
fail to take language proficiency into account may be using invalid test results to
make placement decisions of ELs in special education. It is important to keep in
mind that test performance of culturally and linguistically diverse students may be
affected by their different interpretation of questions, lack of familiarity with
vocabulary, limited English language proficiency, and issues of language dominance
(Garcia & Pearson, 1994). As the study by Poon-McBrayer and Garcia illustrated,
even students who have demonstrated English fluency on oral language measures
may not be ready to demonstrate their achievement on tests at higher order levels in
English. Although there remains great concern about using norm-referenced tests on

59
ELs, school psychologists continue to adapt these instruments by using procedures
they consider non-biased (e.g., testing the limits, using interpreters, using nonverbal
instruments) (Paredes-Scribner, 2002). According to Paredes-Scribner, these
procedures can be insufficient in assisting the school psychologist in making
informed recommendation for appropriate identification of a disability. Furthermore,
it is critical that school psychologists have a theoretical understanding of second-
language acquisition in order to avoid reaching inappropriate conclusions or
recommendations.
Best Practice Approaches to Assessment of English-Learners
School psychologists are not only guided by ethical and professional standards,
but also by safeguards and guidelines provided by legislation that dictate how ELs
should be assessed (Paredes-Scribner, 2002). Court cases, statutes, and federal
legislation have dictated that English-learning students should be assessed in their
native language (Diana v. State Board of Education, 1970; Guadalupe Organization,
Inc. v. Tempe Elementary School District, 1978; IDEA 2004). Research studies,
investigations and publications that report successful programs for this population of
students (Paredes-Scribner, 1999; Samuda, 2000) suggest that assessment of English-
learners should be multi-varied and should be used to examine the extent of the
student’s knowledge and the manner in which the student learns.
According to Best Practices in School Psychology (2002) printed by the National
Association of School Psychologists, there are five necessary components in the
assessment of English-learners:

60
• Pre-referral documentation with an examination of instructional and
interventional programs, and dynamic assessment of skills and abilities.
• Language assessment that evaluates the level of native language skills and
English language skills.
• Assessment of literacy skills via oral and written skills in native and English
language skills.
• Formal assessment using reliable and valid psychometric measures and non-
psychometric measures such as observations.
• Careful consideration of test results within the context of the student’s
language, level of acculturation, and experiential history.
In addition to the five components, it is important to also incorporate alternative
assessment techniques such as systematic observation, mediated learning
experiences, and test-teach-test assessments in order to focus more effectively on the
process of learning, as opposed to the product of learning (Paredes-Scribner, 1999;
Samuda, 2000), and with the reauthorization of special education law, the use of RtI.
The National Association of School Psychologists’ Professional Conduct Manual
(2000) also represents ethical principles and standards of practice related to issues of
cultural and linguistic diversity. According to the manual, “School psychologists are
expected to incorporate their understanding of the influence of culture, background,
socioeconomic status, and language on learning and assessment; recognize in
themselves and others and in the techniques and instruments that they use for

61
assessment, the subtle racial, class, gender, and cultural biases they may bring to
their work and the way these biases influence their decision making.”
The American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002) also address ethical principles related to
cultural and linguistic diversity. According to the APA’s Code of Conduct,
psychologists are expected to provide services, teach, and work with populations
only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training,
supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience. School
psychologists should recognize their boundaries of competence with their sensitivity,
knowledge, and skills in validly evaluating culturally and linguistically diverse
students.
In sum, competent assessment of culturally and linguistically students requires a
multi-varied approach to assessment. School- based practitioners should have an
extensive knowledge of federal law, federal regulations, and state regulations before
assessing any student for eligibility determination (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).
According to Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005), it is important to remember that legal
requirements may not be sufficient enough to address the needs of culturally and
linguistically diverse students. That being said, it is necessary for school
psychologists to practice in an ethically responsible and professionally sound
manner. Three common guidelines for ethical practice are available to school
practitioners involved in the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse
students; it is up to the individual professional to actively incorporate these

62
guidelines in their daily work with children. In other words, school psychologists
have the responsibility to effectively and validly evaluate a student’s level of
language proficiency, understand how acculturation may affect achievement,
perform appropriate and fair assessments, and recommend effective instructional
procedures and recommendations for English-language learners. All of the
information presented in this review emphasized the importance of taking into
account the potential influence of language and culture on students’ school
performance.
Conclusion
This chapter and review of literature examined the influences of socio-cultural
experiences, pre-referral considerations and interventions, school psychologist
training and knowledge of adequate EL assessment, and assessment practices on the
disproportionate representation of ELs in special education. Socio-cultural theory
poses that learning is a product of the individual in interaction with the social context
(Weedon, 1997). This attention to culture and context will promote cultural
awareness and sensitivity in both researchers and practitioners who work with ELs.
Subsequently, the current dissertation study will take a socio-cultural theoretical
framework in order to understand the EL and the contextual factors affecting his/her
academic achievement. Seminal research by early researchers such as Dunn and
Mercer in the 60s and 70s, found how socio-cultural and linguistic differences in
children affect their educational experiences. Subsequent research also found similar

63
findings in the area of disproportional representation of ethnic minorities despite
landmark litigation and policy changes regarding placement practices.
Unreliable implementation of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices
of cultural and linguistic students found in the literature underscores the importance
of providing research-based interventions and pre-referral services that can decrease
disproportionate representation. This assists SST members in gathering information
about students to consider salient factors and/or devise and implement interventions
to address student needs prior to referral for formal assessment. Furthermore, the use
of competent assessment and use of culturally and linguistically instruments varied
in the current literature. School psychologists should have the appropriate
knowledge, skills, and training to be able to evaluate a student’s level of language
proficiency, understand how acculturation may affect achievement, perform
appropriate and fair assessments, and recommend effective instructional procedures
and recommendations for ELs.
Thus, although nationally, Hispanic students are only slightly overrepresented in
the learning disabilities category and not at all in the mental retardation or emotional
disturbance categories (Donovan & Cross, 2002), national data does not reflect the
variability at the individual states. Consequently, there is reason to question the
quality and consistency, and therefore usefulness of the data obtained in establishing
more accurate prevalence estimates (McCardle et al., 2005). What little data is
available on English-learners with disabilities reveals an apparent paradox in the
appropriate identification of this group. As a result, many English-learners may be

64
either over or under-identified as having a disability that qualifies for special
education (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & Leos, 2005). Given this paradox of over
and under identification that exists the nation’s schools, it seems clear that we are not
accurately identifying disabilities in English-language learners (McCardle, Mele-
McCarthy, & Leos, 2005).
Although research is sparse relating to learning disabilities in ELs, there is a
substantial knowledge base about the identification, assessment, and intervention of
disabilities in monolingual native English-speaking students. Important research is
needed to build upon that knowledge-base and inform the identification and
assessment of disabilities in ELs. Appropriate classification, identification, and
intervention methods have not yet been established for this growing population
(McCardle et al., 2005). We must combine this information with new methodologies
to determine the best ways of distinguishing between learning difficulties due to a
disability and those due to language differences that appear as these students are
learning English (McCardle et al., 2005).

65
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Given the over- and underreferral of English-learners (ELs) in special
education, school practitioners may not be accurately identifying disabilities. Thus,
problems in representation continue to exist in our nation’s schools (McCardle et al.,
2005). Both over- and underreferral of ELs in special education can have deleterious
effects on student’s academic progress and success. According to Patton (1998), the
overrepresentation of EL students in special education has raised serious concerns
about their placement on a separate and unequal track that denies them access to the
general education curriculum, a practice that frequently has a negative effect on their
academic performance, self-esteem, classroom behavior and interactions, educational
and career goals, and motivation. Similarly, the under-representation of English-
learning students’ may have a negative impact on students’ educational outcomes by
denying them valuable services and support that may help them with a genuine
disability (Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000).
The purpose of this dissertation was to explore and examine pre-referral
interventions, assessment practices, and placement of ELs in special education. This
study also sought to profile the representation of Spanish-speaking EL students
classified as having a Learning Disability (LD) or Mental Retardation (MR) in a
predominantly Hispanic California school district. Finally, this study will contribute
to the limited literature addressing ELs in special education by identifying several
areas where progress can be made in improving the understanding of English

66
proficiency classification, pre-referral process, interventions, assessment practices,
and identification methods; it will assist school psychologists, and other school
personnel in understanding how socio-demographic, school factors, pre-referral
process, and assessment practices have a bearing on disproportionate representation
(McCardle et al., 2005).
This chapter describes the methodological design, population, instrumentation,
data collection, and preliminary data analysis procedures of this dissertation study.
This chapter examines four key areas and how they addressed research questions:
• Review of research questions of this dissertation study.
• Introduction to the area of investigation and unit of analysis.
• Research design, suitability of design to research questions, and participants.
• Recruitment, Instrumentation, and data sets.
• Data Analysis, strengths and limitations of research design, and conclusion.
Research Questions
The literature examined in Chapter Two established that disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education
has been a constant and consistent concern for nearly four decades (Hosp & Reschly,
2004). Even though this issue has been studied by the National Research Council,
witnessed actions from major professional organizations, litigation, policy and
advocacy efforts, pressure from parent groups, and efforts from researchers
(Klingner, Artiles, Kozleski, Harry, Zion, Tate, Duran, & Riley, 2005), it continues
to be an unresolved problem. Data has been collected and analyzed that documents

67
ethnic disproportionate representation of ethnic groups in special education, however
little research has been collected on EL students (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).
Thus, little is known about the representation of ELs in special education programs
(Klingner & Artiles, 2003). More research is needed to add to the existing literature
on the proper referral and identification of English-learners in special education.
This dissertation study collected information on the profiles of EL students’
represented in special education, pre-referral teams and recommended interventions,
school psychologist training to assess EL students, assessment practices, and
placement. The following primary research question guided the research:
What is the profile of Spanish-speaking EL students with LD and MR at pre-
referral, assessment, and placement in special education in urban settings?
Additionally, the following sub-questions were addressed to further guide the
research:
1. Who are the pre-referral teams and what types of interventions are
recommended prior to assessment of EL students?
2. What are school psychologists’ assessment practices and knowledge,
experience, and training in assessing culturally and linguistically diverse
students?
3. What are the familial, linguistic, and academic characteristics of EL students
referred for special education?

68
4. What are assessment characteristics, such as language information included
at initial assessment, English proficiency and language testing, assessments
included in school psychologists’ reports, and placement characteristics?
Unit of Analysis
This dissertation study focused on elementary schools in the Bernardo Unified
School District (BUSD), a pseudonym for an urban midsized school district. BUSD
is located in a community in the Los Angeles-Long beach metro area. In evaluation
of the representation of English-learners in special education, the researcher
collected data on characteristics of EL Spanish speaking student with LD or MR at
pre-referral, assessment, and placement stage. Thus, the unit of analysis was each
Student Success Team (SST) who works with students in grades kindergarten to
fifth- who are Spanish-speaking, and have been referred for assessment or classified
as having learning disabilities or mental retardation.
Research Design
Although there is extant information on the disproportionate representation of
ethnic minorities, however the review of literature presented in Chapter Two
documents a limited amount of research collected on English-learners representation
in special education (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Thus, little is known about the
representation of ELs in special education programs (Klingner & Artiles, 2003).
Because the focus of this dissertation study was to explore in-depth the referral and
assessment process of ELs in special education, a qualitative case study was chosen

69
as the most suitable method of inquiry to better understand practices and procedures
used at BUSD.
According to Creswell (2003), if a concept or phenomenon needs to be
understood because little research has been done on it, then it merits a qualitative
approach. The intent of this dissertation study was to examine and understand
procedures, personal experiences, and develop a pattern of practice to provide
advocacy for change in special education. Furthermore, this type of approach was
needed because the topic was new and had not been adequately addressed with this
particular sample. Existing theories do not directly apply to the particular sample
under study (Morse, 1991). Utilizing a qualitative research design allows in-depth
understanding of the unique qualities and types of pre-referral considerations and
interventions implemented; review of prior practices and representation of ELs in
special education; and examination of experiences by school psychologists in
assessing and identifying ELs. According to Merriam (1998), a qualitative approach
is well suited for examining educators’ experiences with educational practices with
diverse details. In other words, this study illuminated the impact of best practice
procedures in identifying EL students with a disability.
Population
Given that the qualitative case study sought to help the researcher explore and
understand referral, assessment, special education practices and procedures at
BUSD, purposeful sampling strategies were utilized. The district identified and
selected is a midsized, urban district with an enrollment of approximately 11,900

70
students during the 2004/2005 school year. The district includes 12 elementary
schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and one adult school. All K to
fifth-grade elementary schools with special education populations will be included in
this study due to the districts small size. Kindergarten through fifth-grade students
will be selected to examine since the initial placement of students in special
education tends to occur at the primary grades; given the focus of the study on
referral, assessment, and initial placement, it is important that multiple sources of
information be included in the study. The ethnic demographic breakdown of each
school involved in the study is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Percentage of School Ethnic Representation at Bernardo Unified School District
School Hispanic
European
American
African
American Filipino
Pacific
Islander
Asian
American
Native
American
Pa 93.3 3.7 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.7 .2
El 77.6 13.1 3.5 2.6 0.6 1.7 0.9
Le 92.0 5.6 1.50 0.6 _ 0.4 _
Mu 95.0 2.1 0.9 1.2 _ 0.5 0.3
Gl 86.1 8.5 0.8 2.5 _ 1.7 0.4
Da 89.0 6.7 1.4 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.2
Ma 83.9 10.3 2.6 1.9 _ 0.9 0.5
Mv 90.2 5.8 0.5 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.5
Va 91.9 3.3 1.7 2.5 _ 0.6 _
Ho 77.9 13.9 3.2 2.9 0.2 1.7 0.2

Po 80.9 13.2 4.6 1.3 -- -- --

Note. Dashes indicate ethnic group is not represented at school site.

71
Participants
To gain an understanding of characteristics of Hispanic/Latino students with a
Learning Disability (LD) or Mental Retardation (MR), multiple sources of
information, including observations, interviews, and file analysis were examined.
The following groups were included in the study:
Student Success Team. Participants at the school site included all members that
comprise the Student Success Team (SST). Team members consisted of one or more
of the following: teachers, administrators, school psychologists, and parents, and
other related personnel. The presence and participation of members varied at each
school site. Teams met once to twice a week to discuss student concerns brought
before the team by referring teacher.
School Psychologists. Six school psychologists that service schools in BUSD
were also included in the study. The following information was obtained on
participants: ethnicity, gender, level of training, estimated level of Spanish
proficiency, and years of experience. Among the six school psychologists, three are
Mexican American and three are European American, all of whom are female.
Mexican American participants are self-reported fluent Spanish readers, writers, and
speakers. All participants have Master’s level degree in Counseling or Education and
their years of school psychology experience range from two to twenty-two years.
The purpose of including bilingual and monolingual school psychologists was to
examine their assessment practices and procedures. All school psychologists are

72
responsible for assessing ELs, thus, it was believed their assessment practices and
procedures of ELs provided rich information for the dissertation study.
Students. Additional participants were Kindergarten through fifth-grade Spanish
speaking EL students identified with LD or MR and receiving special education
services. EL students are those who indicate a language other than English on the
home language survey, and have been assessed at the Beginning, Early Intermediate,
and Intermediate levels on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT). Only student files were explored. No students were observed or
interviewed. Student files contain student qualifying eligibility criteria, assessment
reports, Individual Education Plan’s (IEPs), and other pertinent information related
to student’s special education services.
Recruitment, Instrumentation, and Data Collection Procedures
Several recruitment procedures were followed to gain access to SST participants
and appropriate documents necessary to complete the study. An information sheet
was sent to the assistant superintendent of educational services to receive verbal
consent for the current dissertation study. Access to the 11 elementary schools,
special education records, and school psychologist participation took place as
follows. First, elementary school principals were contacted in person or by phone
and asked permission to allow the researcher to observe SST meetings. Second, the
Senior Director of Pupil Personnel was contacted in person to inform her and receive
verbal consent to review special education records at the Pupil Personnel Services
Annex. Last, school psychologists were contacted in person and asked for their

73
voluntary anonymous participation in the dissertation study. There were three
sources of data collection.
Instrumentation and Data Sets
Interviews. Since school psychologists can not be directly observed during their
assessment of ELs, thus interviewing was necessary (Creswell, 2003). School
psychologists were interviewed in person through semi-structured individual
interviews. Interviews were scheduled during a time and location convenient to the
participant. Interviews were completed during the first semester of 2006-2007 school
year and lasted approximately 45 minutes. Participants were asked the same pre-
written questions from an interview protocol (see Appendix B). Responses were
hand written directly on the protocol. Although “….verbatim transcription of
recorded interviews provides the best data base for analysis” (Merriam, 1998, p.88),
interview questions are direct and intend to elicit views and perspectives on
assessment practices. Broad or unclear responses were queried by the researcher.
Observation. The second source of data was collected through structured non-
participant observations during school site SST meetings. The researcher attended
five meetings that involved only Hispanic EL students throughout the 2006/2007
school year. Student names were recorded or identified. In addition, team members
were not identified by name but by area of expertise or position (i.e., referring
teacher, school psychologist, nurse, etc.). An observation checklist (See Appendix C)
was used to record members present, student profile characteristics, and
observational data grouped by questions pertaining to ELs. Member attendance and

74
student profile information were hand-written in the space provided at the beginning
of each meeting. Team discussions and questions observed pertinent to EL students
were marked as Observed or Not Observed in the following categories: (a) Student
characteristics including age, current grade, CELDT scores, language dominance,
and type of English-language development instruction program; (b) reasons for
referral including poor reading and/or comprehension; poor spelling, grammar, and
written expression; poor math reasoning, calculation skills, or low math schools; in-
school behavior, including inattentiveness, concentration, self-esteem, hyperactivity,
and incompletion of class work; fine-motor skills, including printing, writing
organization, or graphomotor skills; and speech difficulty; (c) general educational
history including country where formal schooling began, number of years student
attended school in his or her native country if applicable, student attendance, and
preschool experiences; (d) instructional interventions/modifications prior to referral
for SST discussion; and (e) recommendations by team, including referral for a
psycho-educational assessment or instructional interventions/modifications
recommended for further implementation.
File and document Analysis. The third source of data collection included file
and document analysis. In order to get an accurate representation of EL students
enrolled in special education at each school, 40 student files were selected for
review. For example, the number of files selected from each school site was based on
its proportion of ELs by the total number of ELs enrolled at the 11 schools selected
for the present study. A review of 40 files and records was completed during the

75
2006/2007 school year at the district office. The researcher reviewed kindergarten to
fifth-grade student files with Spanish surnames. A standard protocol (See Appendix
D) was used to record information in the following areas: (a) student demographic
information, (b) pre-referral and referral characteristics, (c) assessment practices, and
(d) placement characteristics.
Data Analysis Procedures
Qualitative categories based on the review of literature were designed to address
study research questions. The researcher collected data based on previous research
by Poon-McBrayer & Garcia (2000) in the subject area, developed a description and
thematic analysis, represented the findings, and interpreted the data comparing
findings with review of the literature. Data was aggregated and coded in the
following categories:
1. Student demographic information, including familial background.
2. Pre-referral and referral characteristics, including types of pre-referral
interventions, instructional interventions/ modifications, and pre-referral team
membership.
3. Assessment practices, including language information at initial assessment,
student language dominance, English proficiency and language testing, types
of intelligence and academic achievement assessments used, and examiner
training, perceptions and experiences in assessing EL students.

76
4. Assessment characteristics, such as language information included at initial
assessment, English proficiency and language testing, assessments included
in school psychologists’ reports, and placement characteristics.
The dissertation study was an explanatory study. Therefore, the results were
presented in descriptive narrative form to convey findings. The researcher described
patterns and themes from observations, interviews, and files analysis, then
interpreted data by comparing findings with information gleaned from the literature
review. This allowed the researcher to examine whether or not current findings
confirmed or diverged from past information and attempted to explain and find
rationale for the phenomenon that had occurred (Creswell, 2003).
Strengths of Research Design
A qualitative strategy of inquiry lent itself well to the exploratory nature of this
study. Observation of SST meetings allowed the researcher to observe the group
dynamic in its natural setting and develop a level of detail of team discussions.
School psychologist interviews allowed the researcher to collect data on assessment
practices because it was not feasible to directly observe during assessments of
students; this may have affected the validity of assessment results. Furthermore, they
were able to provide historical information and their perspectives on procedural
practices. Finally, record analysis enabled the researcher to access data in an
unobtrusive manner; provides data that was thoughtful, in that participants had given
attention to compiling, and it saves the researcher the time and expense of
transcribing (Creswell, 2003).

77
Limitations of Research Design
Given the nature of a qualitative research design restrictions due to small sample,
findings are subject to the following limitations. First, the variance in educational
conditions, demography, available resources, and practices across school districts,
states, and regions make generalizations of these findings to school districts other
than the participating school district difficult and inappropriate. Further replications
of this study are needed before such broad generalizations can be made. Second,
conclusions about district practices should be made with caution, due to the inherent
limitations of record keeping; cautious consideration of accurate and comprehensive
documentation of student information in archival files should be taken.
In insuring internal validity, triangulation of data and repeated observations will
be employed. Multiple sources of data collection provide the basis for triangulation
of findings (Patton, 2002). Data will be collected through multiple sources to include
interviews, observations, and file analysis. Examining evidence from these different
data sources and using it to build a coherent justification for themes will allow
researcher to check and verify accuracy of the findings. In addition, repeated
observations will be conducted at school sites to develop in-depth understanding and
convey meeting details. Repeated observations also allowed a decrease in team
reactivity to the observer.
Conclusion
This chapter described the methodological design, sample, instrumentation, data
collection and proposed analysis of the current dissertation study. The focus was to

78
illuminate the intervention, assessment, and identification process for special
education of BUSD, a Southern California school district and its impact on
representation of ELs in special education.
This study employed a qualitative research design that focused on ten elementary
schools in BUSD. BUSD is located in a community in the Los Angeles-Long beach
metro area with a predominantly Hispanic or Latino population. A qualitative design
was suitable for the present because a qualitative approach is well suited for
examining educators’ experiences with educational practices (Merriam, 1998).
Furthermore, qualitative designs are exploratory and explanatory to the extent that
the research takes place in real-world settings and the researcher does not attempt to
manipulate the phenomenon of interest, rather only tries to find explanations for the
research findings (Patton, 2002).

79
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The purpose of this investigation was to examine pre-referral interventions
and assessment practices with English-learners (ELs) and the impact on their
representation in special education. Observations of Student Success Team (SST)
meetings were conducted to examine characteristics of students referred to SSTs,
members present at meetings, the consideration of pertinent cultural, linguistic, and
educational information, and actions/strategies recommended by the team. In
addition, school psychologist educational and professional experiences and
knowledge working with culturally and linguistically diverse students were
examined via interviews. Specifically, their understanding of influence of cultural
factors on performance, and their respective assessment practices working with
culturally and linguistically diverse students were also examined. Finally, file
analysis and review of language and assessment characteristics of EL students
currently in special education were also examined in the study. The primary research
question was to identify the profile of Spanish-speaking EL students with LD and
MR at pre-referral, assessment, and placement in special education in urban settings.
Research findings are presented by sub-questions.
Findings by Research Sub-Questions
The pre-referral team and the types of interventions recommended prior to
assessment of EL students. This study proposed to conduct four Student Success
Team (SST) meeting observations at each school site for a total of 44. However, one
site did not having a functioning SST and therefore not available for observation.

80
Prior to observations, student EL status was verified via review of student bilingual
and cumulative file.
Student Success Team Members
Observations began with member self-introductions by name and title. SSTs
varied in function and member composition at each school site. Each meeting had a
note taker that documented team discussion in four areas: student strengths, known
information, areas of concern, and actions/interventions. In regards to member
composition, some teams were exclusively comprised of teachers representing the
different grade levels. Other teams had additional team members present such as an
administrator, school psychologist, and parent. At most, meetings included the
referring teacher, additional teachers from the school site, resource teacher in charge
of tracking EL students, administrator, school psychologist, and parent. At minimum
meetings included at least a referring teacher and additional teacher from the school;
Table 2 details SST membership composition and frequency of member presence at
meetings.
Table 2
Student Success Team (SST) Member Composition (N=40)
Member n
a

Referring Teacher 40
Other Teachers 39
Parent 26
Administrator 18
School Psychologist 11
Resource Teacher (EL school site coordinator) 10
a
Column totals exceed the number of observations because more than one member was observed at
SST meetings.

81
It should be noted that two school sites purposely did not include parents in SST
meetings. When team members were asked why parents weren’t invited, they stated
team members felt more comfortable discussing student concerns without the parent
present at the meeting. However, this is in stark contrast to what is suggested by
Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney, and Kushner (2006) who suggest parent
participation on SSTs is critical. Parent can provide valuable information about
social, linguistic, and cultural contexts in which students are being reared (Anderson
& Pellicer, 1998; Garcia & Dominguez, 1997; Ortiz, 1997) and can help educators
understand family socialization practices that may have influenced the student’s
development and possibly affected classroom performance and behavior.
A large (75%) percentage of teams did not include a resource teacher with EL
expertise and a knowledge base of cultural, linguistic, and instructional factors that
impact students’ performance and/or behavior. These findings were similarly
obtained by Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, and Breunig (1999) where a professional
with EL expertise (e.g., teacher from bilingual education) was reported to be a
member in only half of the pre-referral teams across eight states with large Limited
English Proficient (LEP) student populations. This practice can lead to inaccurate
attributions of EL difficulty to poor motivation, lack of effort, and possible existence
of a disability.
Observational data revealed that 36 of the 40 teams did not have clearly defined
member roles. In addition, the degree of member contribution and participation
varied at each site. One member was consistently observed directing the topic of

82
discussion during the entire meeting with very little input from other members.
During these meetings, level of positive and collaborative support was not observed.
For instance, the amount of student information gathered and discussed was minimal.
The follow through with recommended modifications or interventions usually fell on
the referring teacher without additional member support. However, according to
Marston (2002) and Rock and Zigmond (2001), the success of SSTs depends on the
knowledge and skills of all team members. Input by only one member jeopardizes
the shared knowledge affect of the entire team. For example, four of the 40 team
observations did have a somewhat structured process and were observed to have
increased member participation and input. In addition, team discussions were
positive and collaborative. That is, members collectively determined proprieties for
intervention; helped teachers select the methods or strategies they will use; and
assigned responsibility for carrying out the team’s recommendations. Also, defined
member roles allowed time for each member to share their perspective, questions, or
experience in working with a similar student. Follow-up meetings to discuss progress
were scheduled at conclusion of the meeting.
A possible interpretation to the aforementioned findings is there are currently no
established district guidelines as to SST member composition and participation. Each
school site decides who will take part and how meetings will be carried out. The lack
of defined roles and active participation by all involved impacts member buy in and
how teachers view the pre-referral process at their site; teachers may begin to view
the SST process as just another hurdle to jump to get their student assessed.

83
According to Fuchs et al. (2003) the success of any pre-referral interventions are
based upon the result that team members regard their presence and participation as
worthwhile and buy in to the effectiveness and purpose of pre-referral interventions.
Reason for Referral
Characteristics associated with referral of students to SSTs were documented
during observations. Reasons for referral were grouped into broader categories of
related skills as follows:
• Reading, including poor reading, word attack skills, reading comprehension,
letter/sound identification, and poor fluency;
• Writing, including poor grammar, spelling, and written expression.
• Math, including calculation, reasoning, number recognition, and number
identification.
• Behavior, including withdrawal, inattentiveness, hyperactivity,
aggressiveness, and incompletion of class work and homework.
• Oral language, including limited vocabulary, English/Spanish confusion,
expression, and articulation.
Table 3
Characteristics Associated with Students Referred to SST (N=40)
Referral Characteristics f %
Reasons for referral
a
Reading 38 95
Writing 22 55
Oral Language 20 50
Behavior 18 45
Math 14 35
a
Column totals exceed the number of academic areas because more than one reason for referral was
reported. Note. f= frequency

84
Table 3 details the most frequent reasons for referral to SST. Overall, poor
reading (95%) was the most frequent reason for referral, followed by difficulties in
oral language (50%), writing (55%), behavior (45%), and math (35%).
Three of the four most frequent reasons for referral noted above were similar to
findings obtained by three studies that also investigated reasons why ELs were
referred. Two of these studies were small-scale investigations that included three
school districts in Texas (Ortiz & Polyzoi, 1986) and four school districts in
California (Rueda, Cardoza, Mercer, & Carpenter, 1985). The third study examined
by Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, and Breunig (1999) was a large-scale investigation
of reasons for referral in eight states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas) with high EL student populations. The
top most frequent reasons given for EL student referrals were (1) “poor/low
achievement,” (2) “behavioral problems,” (3) “oral-language related,” and (4)
“reading problems” (Ochoa et al., 1999). Ochoa et al. (1999) concluded that the four
reasons for referral, noted above, could have a plausible link or related to language
and/or culture. Furthermore, all three studies yielded consistent findings: Poor
academic performance, behavioral problems, low attention, and oral language factors
were noted to be common reasons for referral across all studies (Rhodes, Ochoa, &
Ortiz, 2005).
Linguistic Considerations
The consideration of schooling, language, and family culture have been
recommended in the literature as important factors that may reduce the likelihood of

85
mistaking cultural and language differences from an actual learning disability.
Consequently, SST discussion of a student’s primary language, home language,
language proficiency, schooling, and English Language Development (ELD)
instructional program were topics of particular interest to the present study. The
district offers three ELD instructional programs designed to develop proficiency in
English; they are defined as follows:
• Mainstream, is when instruction is entirely in English; ELs may be provided
with ELD and Specialized Designed Academic Instruction in English
(SDAIE) strategies as needed.
• Structured English Immersion (SEI), is when students in kindergarten
through mid 3
rd
grade receive Spanish Language Arts (40% of instruction in
primary language), however instruction is primarily in English; 60 to 100%
of instruction is in English in Math, Science, Social Studies, and ELD.
Transition for EL students to all English (SDAIE) begins in mid 3
rd
grade.
• Waiver/Dual Immersion, are classrooms in which bilingual instruction
occurs for the purpose of developing biliteracy. This program requires an
appropriate ratio of English-only and Fluent English Proficient students.
Of the 40 SST observations, 11 (27%) teams discussed student ELD instructional
program during the meeting; student primary language was noted in 35 (87%) of the
observations; family and student home language was discussed in 10 (25%) of the
observations; and English-language proficiency (CELDT level) was discussed in 15
(37%) of the observations. Additional observational data revealed that student

86
English proficiency level was guessed in at least one of the meetings; four of the
teams reported English as the student’s primary language however, a review of
student bilingual and cumulative files reported Spanish as the primary language; and
one team did not mention the student was an EL student and subsequently proceeded
with the meeting as if the student was an English speaking student. The limited or
appropriate discussion of a student’s primary language, home language, English
proficiency, and instructional program by pre-referral teams is consistent with
previous research findings (Klingner & Artiles, 2003). In their study Klingner and
Artiles found student pre-referral teams did not consistently consider the influence of
student’s native language, ignored the ecology of the student’s regular education
classroom, and only sporadically implemented culturally and linguistically
appropriately pre-referral strategies. Consideration of schooling, language, family,
and culture is critical if pre-referral teams are to reduce the likelihood of mistaking
cultural and language differences from an actual learning disability. If teachers are
not able to discern the reasons for student underachievement of EL students, they are
more likely to be referred for special education for reasons other than a learning
disability.
Recommended Modifications/Interventions
A wide variety of instructional modifications and interventions were
recommended by SST members. As detailed in Table 4, number of interventions
exceeded the number of observations because more than one intervention was
recommended at each SST observation. The most frequently recommended

87
intervention was small group instruction (47%), followed by after school tutoring for
homework (33%) and one-to-one assistance by a parent volunteer (27%). However,
the range of research-based direct interventions designed to remediate a deficit prior
to referral was somewhat limited. Although teachers reported using small group
instruction and one-to-one assistance by parent volunteer and/or aide, they used
strategies such as checking for understanding, allotting more time, and modifying
assignments. These interventions form a rather limited range of interventions and do
not necessarily represent a comprehensive systematic intervention (Poon-McBrayer
& Garcia, 2000). It should be noted that of the 40 observations, five of the SSTs
recommended student’s for a psycho-educational assessment.
Table 4
Recommended Pre-referral Interventions/Modifications (N=40)
Interventions/Modifications n
a
%
Small group instruction 19 47
After school tutoring 12 30
One-to-one support 11 27
Cross-age tutor 9 22
Multi-sensory instructional technique 9 22
Summer School 9 22
Modification of assignments 8 20
Change of seat 8 20
Retention 7 17
Refer to speech and language 6 15
Behavior contract 6 15
Adjustment of time/space 5 12
Counseling 5 12
Peer Tutor 5 12
Referred for assessment 5 12
Parent conference 4 10
Below grade level classes 2 5
Parenting classes 2 5
Transfer to mainstream class 1 2
a
Column totals in this category exceed the number of observations because more than one
intervention/modification was reported.

88

In regards to integrity of implementation and careful progress monitoring,
observational data indicated discussion of duration, implementation, and progress
monitoring of recommended interventions were not mentioned in any of the
observations. This is in stark contrast to what the literature recommends for overall
effectiveness of pre-referral interventions. According to Ortiz, Wilkinson,
Robertson-Courtney, and Kushner (2006) effective interventions can be ensured only
through careful evaluation of teacher implementation and through systematic
measurement and documentation of academic results. These procedures can ensure
that ELs who do not respond to the suggested recommendation are rapidly identified
and provided with more appropriate interventions.
School psychologists’ knowledge, professional experience, training, and
assessment practices in assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Appropriately trained examiners and best practice assessment have been
recommended in the literature as factors that may help reduce the disproportionality
of ELs in special education (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Consequently, school
psychologist interviews regarding university training, experience, and assessment
practices were a topic of particular interest to this study. Table 5 displays school
psychologist interview responses to questions regarding demographic characteristics.
Table 5
School Psychologist Demographic Characteristics (N=6)
Demographic Characteristics n
Ethnicity
Caucasian 3
Hispanic 3

89
Table 5, Continued
School Psychologist Demographic Characteristics (N=6)
Demographic Characteristics n
Gender
Male 0
Female 6
Language Dominance
English 3
Spanish 1
Both (Bilingual) 2
Spanish Proficiency
Native Speaker (Primary Language) 1
Fluent (Speak, Read, Write) 2
Limited (Understand Basic Communication) 2
Poor (Understanding is Minimal to Non-existent) 1
Confidence in Administering and Evaluating EL Performance
Very Confident 3
Somewhat Confident 1
Not Confident 2
Assessed EL Students
Yes 6
No 0

Demographic Characteristics of School Psychologists
As demonstrated on Table 5, all (100%) school psychologists were female; three
were Caucasian (50%) and three Hispanic (50%). All of the Caucasian school
psychologists reported English as their primary language, rated their Spanish
proficiency as limited to poor and confidence in validly administering and evaluating
EL student performance as somewhat confident to not confident at all. Despite these
self-ratings all reported completing assessments with EL students. One of the three
Hispanic school psychologists reported Spanish as her primary language and the
remaining two considered themselves proficient in both English and Spanish.
Hispanic school psychologists rated their Spanish proficiency as fluent to native

90
speaker, and rated their confidence in validly administering and evaluating EL
student performance as very confident and regarded themselves as bilingual school
psychologists. Their familiarity and own experience as members of the same cultural
and linguistic background may explain their high levels of confidence. All were
raised in Spanish speaking homes and are first, second, or third generation Latinas in
this country.
Training and Professional Experience of School Psychologists
As demonstrated on Table 6, data related to university training/preparation and
experience demonstrates all school psychologists (100%) hold at least the minimum
degree and credential required to work in the state of California (i.e., a Master’s
degree and Pupil Personnel Services (PPS) credential). In addition to the minimum
requirement, one school psychologist held a special education credential, and two
held multiple subjects credentials for elementary school teaching. Their years of
experience working as a school psychologist ranged from two to 18 years.
Table 6
School Psychologist Training and Experience (N=6)
Training and Experience n
a

Level of Educational Training

Master’s Degree 6
Special Education Teacher Credential 1
General Education Teacher Credential 2
University Program Preparation
Good (Strong Emphasis, Multiple Courses) 1
Poor (One Course or less) 5
Number of Years as a School Psychologist
0-5 Years 3
6-10 Years 2
11 + Years 1
a
Column totals in this category exceed the number of school psychologists because more than one
area of educational training was reported.

91
School psychologists were asked how well their university program prepared
them for conducting non-discriminatory assessments. Only one of the six school
psychologists reported receiving good training and preparation. However, it should
also be noted that this school psychologist held two Master’s degrees in special
education and had over 20 years experience working as a Resource Specialist
Program (RSP) teacher when she returned for school psychology university training.
Thus, additional course work and preparation in working with culturally and
linguistically diverse students was part of her special education Master’s degree
training program. The remaining school psychologists reported receiving less than
adequate training in conducting non-discriminatory bilingual assessments and
interpreting assessment results of bilingual and/or EL students. They reported
completing one course that briefly reviewed multi-cultural diversity; however the
course did not teach appropriate EL assessment practices and the affects of cultural
and linguistic factors on student achievement. Furthermore, two school psychologists
reported their university program seemed to “gloss” over the need of learning non-
discriminatory assessments with ELs. This is in stark contrast to U.S. Department of
Education (2003) estimates that report more than 3.5 million students in U.S. schools
have limited English proficiency. It should be noted once again that all (100%)
school psychologists reported conducting assessments with EL students.
Overall, one of the most frequently cited concerns by school psychologists at
Bernardo Unified School District (BUSD) was the lack of adequate training received
by their university program in conducting and evaluating EL student performance.

92
Their concerns were not only with the proper administration of assessments but also
interpretation of performance and results. These findings are consistent with research
conducted by Ochoa, Rivera, and Ford (1997), Amado, Sines, and Garza (1999), and
Ochoa, Garza, and Amado (1999) where a great majority of school psychologists
also felt they did not receive the proper instruction and training in conducting and
interpreting assessment results of EL students. For example, at least 70% of school
psychologists self-reported they were less than adequately trained by their university
program in conducting bilingual assessments.
School Psychologist Self-Reported Assessment Practices of English-learners
School psychologists were asked to identify sources of information used for
determining language proficiency and instruments they most commonly used in their
assessment with EL students. Overall, all (100%) school psychologists reported
using scores from both district sources and their own language assessments to
determine language proficiency (see Table 7). Language proficiency assessment data
obtained from the district includes the Home Language Survey, which identifies a
home language other than English, and California English Language Development
Test (CELDT, California Department of Education, 2004), an oral language based
assessment used to measure a students working knowledge of English. Students who
do not test as orally English proficient are classified as EL and categorized into one
of five proficiency ELD levels.

93
Table 7
School Psychologist Self-Reported Assessment Practices of English-learners (N=6)
Assessment Measure n
a

Language Proficiency
Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey (CALP) 6
CELDT Scores 6
Parent/Child Interview 2
Teacher Input 2
Intelligence Tests Used
Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI) 5
Non-verbal Portions of the WISC-IV, WPPSI-IV, or WASI 4
Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children-IV Spanish Version 1
Language Measures used to Determine Presence of a Disability
CELDT Scores 3
CALP Level 3
Teacher Input 1
Language Measures used to Determine Presence of a Disability
Student Oral Language Communication 3
Consider Student Family Background 1
Use of Spanish Interpreter during Assessment
Yes 2
No 4
a
Column totals in this category exceed the number of interviews because more than one assessment
tool was reported.

School psychologists were asked measures they used to assess language
proficiency, all (100%) reported using the Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-
Revised (WMLS-R, Woodcock, Munoz-Sandoval, Ruef, & Alvarado, 2005). The
WMLS-R is an instrument used to measure a student’s Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP) English and Spanish oral language, reading-writing,
and broad ability. These findings are consistent with recommended best practices as
well as legal mandates (IDEA, 2004) that state school practitioners who assess
second-language learners must obtain information about students’ language abilities
in both their native and English language (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). In
addition to legal requirements, ethical guidelines, and policy statements, it is

94
important that EL students’ proficiency in both native and English language be
assessed because it provides an indication if whether educational setting, with
respect to language needs, is appropriate for the EL student. Second, dual language
assessment enables the school psychologist to determine which language or
languages further testing should proceed with (Figueroa, 1990) and if areas of
concern are a result of a disability or simply a reflection of the normal process of
second-language acquisition (Chamberlain & Medinos-Landurand, 1991). In
addition to district and individual assessments of language proficiency, two school
psychologists reported using nonstandardized/informal methods, and two considered
teacher input and parent and student interviews, respectively. Accordingly, all
(100%) school psychologists considered a variety of factors such as CELDT scores,
CALP level, and student oral/basic communication skills observed during testing.
In regards to intellectual assessment, instruments most frequently used for
assessment of intelligence included the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal
Intelligence (CTONI- Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholt, 1997), nonverbal portions of
the Wechsler Intelligence tests; the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
Intelligence, 3
rd
Edition (WPPSI-III, Wechsler, 2002) used with preschool aged
children; the Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence , 4
th
Edition (WISC-IV,
Wechsler, 2003) used with school children aged 5 to 15 ½ years; and the Wechsler
Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI, Wechsler, 1999), a four subtest
abbreviated intelligence test for individuals 5 to 90 years of age. The nonverbal
portions of the WASI, WISC-IV, and WPPSI-IV assessments include scripted

95
directions in English. Bilingual psychologists in the present study reported
translating the directions into Spanish as needed. However, this practice is not
recommended in the research literature. Ochoa, Powell, and Robles-Pina’s (1996)
study found that translating measures in English to Spanish and intermixing two
languages during administration of a particular test results in violating standardized
test administration procedures. Only one of the three bilingual school psychologists
reported occasionally using the Spanish version of the WISC-IV. This assessment
includes scripted directions in Spanish and provides information on an EL student’s
processing speed, working memory, nonverbal, and verbal performance.
Monolingual psychologists also reported administering non-verbal portions of the
WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, and WASI only when EL students demonstrated basic English
oral language skills as determined by student interview. If students did not possess
these basic listening and speaking skills, they administered the CTONI using
pantomime to communicate directions. However, Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005)
state that although non-verbal tests reduce the oral-language requirements expected
of the student, the need for communication and receptive nonverbal comprehension
remains unchanged. Thus, although non-verbal tests reduce the oral-language
requirements expected of the student, the need for communication and receptive
nonverbal comprehension remains unchanged (Rhodes et al., 2005). In other words,
the EL student still needs to understand test directions and if the examiner cannot
effectively communicate directions in pantomime, the validity of their performance
is compromised. In addition Salvia and Ysseldyke (1991) state that bias in testing

96
will occur whenever a test of intelligence or ability that was developed and normed
in the United States is given to an individual whose cultural background, experience,
or exposure is not comparable to the individuals who comprised the majority group.
In other words, the validity of results will be in question for any individual who is
culturally different from the dominant culture for which they are being compared to.
In addition to the aforementioned language proficiency and intelligence
assessments, data revealed all (100%) school psychologists reported assessing in
both languages, including achievement and auditory processing assessments in
English and Spanish, and visual processing and visual-motor assessments either
translated or pantomimed as part of their EL assessment battery.
Familial, linguistic, and academic characteristics of EL students referred for
special education. Data on familial, linguistic, and academic characteristics of EL
students referred for special education were collected from student special education
folders, language proficiency records, and other school records regarding student
characteristics to verify English language status. In order to get an accurate
representation of EL students enrolled in special education at each school, 40 student
files were selected for review. For example, the number of files selected from each
school site was based on its proportion of ELs by the total number of ELs enrolled at
the 11 schools selected for the present study. Student familial, linguistic, and
academic data was collected from school psychologist psycho-educational
assessment reports at time of initial special education placement.

97
Academic Characteristics
As data in Table 8 demonstrates, data reviewed in psycho-educational reports
revealed 85% of students began kindergarten in the United States. Of these students,
all were born to first generation immigrant parents. However, 5 of the 40 reviewed
assessment reports did not report any information on student educational history.
This is in contrast to research literature recommending that evaluation of EL students
extend to include careful examination of the language of instruction in order to
develop a fully informed picture of the skills the student has had an opportunity to
learn and what these skills will contribute to the student’s acquisition of English
(August & Hakuta, 1997).
The referral of boys and girls were equally represented and as a group the
greatest number of referrals occurred at Grade 3, followed by Grades 2 and K,
respectively (see Table 8). One possible interpretation is all EL students begin a
mandatory transition into English-only instruction during their 3
rd
grade year
regardless of English-language proficiency. However according to Cummins (1984),
EL students who are prematurely transitioned before attaining Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP) in their primary language may fall progressively
further behind grade norms in the development of English academic skills. Cummins
proposed CALP can be attained by EL students within 5 to 7 years. In order for EL
students to make academic progress in English instruction, they need to have gained
the language skills necessary for academic instruction (Cummins, 1984).

98
Table 8
Academic Characteristics of Students Referred to Special Education (N=40)
Referral Characteristics f %
Country where formal schooling began
United States 34 85
Other 1 .02
Not reported 5 12
Grade at referral
K 5 12
1
st
4 10
2
nd
10 25
3
rd
15 37
4
th
4 10
5
th
2 5

In regards to ELD instructional programs, research indicates the different types
of bilingual programs ELs receive yield substantially different achievement
outcomes when examined over a long-term period (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991;
Thomas, & Collier, 1997; Thomas, & Collier, 2002). Based on these findings,
Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005) suggest school psychologists should ascertain the
degree to which instruction in student’s native language is provided and amount of
content-based instruction in English is provided. Consequently, the consideration and
reporting of student ELD instruction in assessment reports was of particular interest
to this study. Of the 40 initial psycho-educational assessment reports reviewed in
special education files, 34 (85%) of the psycho-educational assessment reports did
not reference, report, or even consider ELD instruction when determining language
dominance, proficiency, and whether adequate instruction in students’ native and
English-language development had occurred. Only six (15%) made a reference to the
type of ELD instructional program the student had received prior to referral.

99
Familial and Linguistic Information
Information regarding family background reported in assessment reports was
found in 33 (82%) of the 40 special education files. Data collected revealed the
majority of students live with both parents, a small percentage (10%) had extended
family living in the home, and approximately 75% of students had siblings.
Information regarding home language was reported in 33 (82%) of the 40 special
education files. Data indicated that Spanish was reported as the primary language in
half of the assessment reports. Twelve of the assessment reports indicated both
Spanish and English were spoken in the home; students reportedly spoke Spanish to
parents and English with older and younger siblings. Two assessment reports
indicated student lived in a bilingual home and primary language was English;
however verification of files indicated home and primary language was in fact
Spanish.
Assessment characteristics, such as language information included at initial
assessment, English proficiency, and language testing included in school
psychologists’ reports, and placement characteristics .Of the 40 assessment reports,
all students were designated English-learners according to CELDT level scores.
However at the time of initial assessment, CELDT level was reported for only 33 of
the 40 student files. The district uses CELDT performance on listening, speaking,
reading, and writing measures to determine an overall English-proficiency level. As
can be seen in Table 10, the majority of students assessed for special education had
an overall CELDT score at the Beginning level. Students performing at a Beginning

100
level demonstrate little to no receptive or productive English skills. In addition they
may be able to respond to some English communication tasks.
Table 9
Student English Proficiency at the time of Initial Assessment (N=33)
CELDT Overall Level f %
Beginning 17 51
Early Intermediate 10 30
Intermediate 6 18
Early Advanced 1 .03

Language Proficiency Assessment

Data indicated that 21 (52%) of the 40 psychological reports included assessment
of student language proficiency in both native and English language. The only
instrument reportedly used was the WMLS-R. Six psychological reports also noted
using student interviews in conjunction with the WMLS-R to assist in ascertaining
language proficiency. In two separate psychological reports, additional language
proficiency assessments were not given since the student was at Beginning level on
the CELDT, lived in a Spanish speaking home, and only communicated in Spanish.
In these two cases, the entire assessment was conducted in the students’ native
language. The remaining psychological reports (45%) did not conduct additional
language proficiency assessment and report student CELDT level or English
proficiency. However it should be noted that these findings are inconsistent to what
school psychologists self-reported during the interview portion of this study. All
(100%) school psychologists reported using the WMLS-R. However, data collected
during file review and analysis indicated the WMLS-R was used in only 52% of the
sample psychological reports. This is not recommended best practices (Ortiz, 2002)

101
and in contrast to legal mandates (IDEA, 2004) that state school practitioners who
assess second-language learners must obtain information about students’ language
abilities in both their native and English language (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).
Language Dominance Determination
Student language ability information in both native and English language is
critical for school psychologists for several reasons. First, it enables school
psychologists to ascertain which language(s) assessment of achievement and
intelligence is more appropriate. Second, it provides the degree to which language
proficiency in the both the first and second language influences or possibly explains
test performance on cognitive and achievement measures (Ochoa, Galarza, &
Gonzalez, 1996). Last, it enables school psychologists’ to determine if the areas of
concern are in fact due to a real disability or simply a reflection of the normal
process of second-language acquisition (Chamberlain & Medinos-Landurand, 1991).
Thus, the determination of language dominance, assessment, and eligibility were of
particular interest to this study. Data indicated only 10 of the 40 assessments
reported the determination of language dominance and assessment. One report
indicated language of assessment was based on student oral language abilities. Two
others reported students’ primary and home language as Spanish, negligible language
ability in both languages, yet English was determined to be the language of
assessment because students’ “preferred” English. These findings were inconsistent
with information gathered during school psychologist interviews where all (100%)

102
reportedly considered a variety of factors such as CELDT scores, CALP level, and
student oral/basic communication skills to determine language of dominance.
Language of Assessment
Data indicated 19 (47%) of the 40 psychological reports indicated assessment
occurred in both English and Spanish. An additional 17 (42%) of the 40 reports
indicated ELs were assessed only in English. Interestingly 13 of those 17 reports
reported student CELDT at a beginning or early intermediate level, home language
as Spanish, no additional language proficiency testing was conducted, yet the entire
assessment was conducted in English. One report completely left out language
information, did not report additional language proficiency testing, and conducted
the entire assessment in English. It should be noted that all psychological reports
chosen for review were of students identified by the district as ELs with overall
English-language proficiency ranging beginning to intermediate. Only three
psychological reports administered all assessments in Spanish. Although 66% of the
monolingual psychologists reported using interpreters during assessment, data from
the students’ special education reports did not indicate that interpreters were
involved in any of their assessments.
Assessment Characteristics
School psychologists used five intelligence tests to assess EL students at BUSD
(see Table 11). Each student was given one intelligence test. The most frequently
used intelligence test included the CTONI, followed by the WISC-IV and the WASI.

103
It should be noted that all portions of the WISC-IV and WASI were administered
including verbal portions of the instrument.
As can be seen in Table 10, half of the students were administered at least two
achievement instruments. The two mainly used were the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement-3
rd
Edition and its Spanish version, the Woodcock-Muñoz. Five of the
assessments included the Brigance Inventory (Brigance, 1999). The Brigance
Diagnostic Inventory is a criterion-referenced inventory designed primarily for use in
elementary and middle schools. Instruments most frequently used for assessment of
processing skills included the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-3
rd
ed., the Test of
Auditory Perceptual Skills-3
rd
Ed., and the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration. Only 17 of the 40 assessments included the Test of Auditory Perceptual
Skills-Revised, Spanish version. Two reports included the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales, Classroom Edition to assess personal and social sufficiency.
Table 10
Assessment Characteristics of Sample Reports (N=40)
Assessment Characteristic n %
Intelligence tests used
Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 25 62
Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence for Children-IV 13 32
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence 13 32
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-3 5 12
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-III 3 .07
Achievement batteries used
Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement-III 30 75
Woodcock-Munoz Bateria-III 20 50
Brigance Diagnostic Inventory 5 12
Processing tests used
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration 37 92
Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills-3, English Version 31 77

104
Table 10, Continued
Assessment Characteristics of Sample Reports (N=40)
Assessment Characteristic n %
Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-3 31 77
Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills-Revised, Spanish Version 17 42
Adaptive behavior scales used
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, Classroom Ed. 2 .05
Eligibility criteria
Specific Learning Disability 34 85
Mental Retardation 4 40
Other Health Impaired 1 .02
Emotional Disturbance 1 .02
Major weaknesses in achievement
Reading comprehension 26 65
Oral expression 18 45
Listening comprehension 18 45
a
Column totals in this category exceed the number of school psychologists because more than one
area of educational training was reported.

Placement Characteristics
The California Department of Education (2006) operationally defines specific
learning disability as a significant discrepancy (i.e., at least two and half standard
deviations, 22.5 points or more) between IQ and achievement scores, resulting from
a processing deficit in the areas of attention, visual-motor, visual, and auditory
processing, and that the discrepancy is not primarily the result of poor attendance or
limited school experience; and rule out that the discrepancy is not the result of
factors such as visual, hearing, motor impairment, mental retardation, emotional
disturbance, environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantages.
As demonstrated in Table 11, the majority of students were identified as having a
Specific Learning Disability (SLD). All reports provided a statement assuring that
test results did not appear to be primarily the result of economic, cultural, or
environmental disadvantage nor primarily the result of limited school experience or

105
poor attendance however data necessary to meaningfully support this statement were
not reported. As noted earlier, 27 (67%) of the 40 psychological reports did not
discuss how language of assessment was determined or what language achievement
scores were used to determine a discrepancy. Thus it is not known what language
assessment results were used to determine the presence of a learning disability. Only
eight reports discussed whether English or Spanish achievement scores were used to
find a discrepancy from IQ. In addition, the three most frequently reported domains
of achievement in which scores were significantly discrepant from IQ scores were
reading comprehension, oral expression, and listening comprehension.
The definition of Mental Retardation is operationally defined as significantly
below intellectual functioning (IQ below 70) existing concurrently with deficits in
adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period that adversely
affects educational performance (California Department of Education, 2006). Of the
40 psychological reports, four EL students were identified as having mental
retardation. One psychological report indicated using two, non-verbal subtests of the
WASI to assess intellectual ability, with no developmental or health history reported.
A second report indicated use of the WISC-IV full scale IQ score obtained by a
student with a Beginning CELDT level to determine overall intelligence. In addition,
no developmental or health history was reported. The third report did not assess
adaptive behavior skills, had no developmental or health history reported, student
CELDT level was Early Intermediate, and primary language was Spanish, however
student was assessed in English. Thus, at least 3 of the 4 psychological reports that

106
identified students as having mental retardation had not considered all the criteria
necessary to support this diagnosis. These eligibility determinations were
inconsistent to the California Department of Education’s (2006) definition of an
individual with mental retardation.
Conclusion
This chapter presented results from the data collected and aggregated during SST
meeting observations, school psychologist interviews, and file review and analysis of
special education folders. The focus was to illuminate the intervention, assessment,
and identification process of ELs for special education and its impact on
representation of ELs in special education.
Observations revealed that the district does not have clearly defined and
established guidelines for SSTs. There was no consistency in team membership and
degree of participation by each member. Data revealed the most frequent reason for
referral to the SST was poor reading, followed by difficulties in oral language,
writing, and behavior. Furthermore, important information such as student ELD
instructional program, family and student primary language, and English language
proficiency was only discussed in 11 (27%) of the 40 team observations. Finally the
most frequently recommended interventions were small group instruction and after-
school homework help. However, data also indicated discussion of duration,
implementation, and progress monitoring of recommended interventions was not
observed in any of the SST observations.

107
Interview data revealed school psychologists at BUSD were all female, 50%
Caucasian (monolingual) and 50% Hispanic (bilingual). One of the most frequently
cited concerns by school psychologists was the lack of adequate training received by
their university training program in conducting non-discriminatory EL assessments.
However all reported conducting assessments with EL students despite their
inadequate training. Accordingly, all reported considering a variety of factors such as
CELDT scores, CALP level, and student oral communication skills when
determining language proficiency. In addition, all reported assessing EL students in
both languages including intelligence, achievement, and processing assessments.
Interestingly, file review and analysis of student special education files found
inconsistencies with school psychologists self-reported assessment practices and data
collected from psycho-educational assessment reports. A review of psycho-
educational assessment reports indicated that only half (52%) of the assessment
reports included assessment of student language proficiency in both languages. Only
10 of the 40 assessments reports included the determination of language dominance
and assessment. Furthermore, 17 of the 40 assessment reports indicated that ELs
with a Beginning CELDT level were only assessed in English. Lastly, 3 of the 4
reports that identified students with mental retardation had not considered all the
criteria necessary to support this diagnosis. These practices raise concern to possible
misdiagnosis of EL students and definitely merit attention. There are various
possible interpretation is that school psychologists have extremely high case loads.
Each is responsible for serving three school sites. Furthermore, when students need

108
to be assessed in Spanish, all (100%) psychologists, including bilingual school
psychologists, utilize the time of one bilingual instructional aide responsible for
conducting language proficiency assessments, academic and processing assessments
in Spanish. With legal deadlines, school psychologists may bypass a comprehensive
bilingual assessment in order to meet those deadlines.
The following chapter will present a synthesis of key findings, research
implications and generalizability of results. Additionally, the proceeding chapter will
present recommendations for professional practice and family involvement and
education.

109
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Review of the Problem
Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education
programs has been clearly recognized and documented in the literature. However,
very little research has been conducted regarding the ethnic representation of ELs in
special education programs (Klingner & Artiles, 2003; Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz,
2005). Consequently, the lack of research in this critical area has resulted in poorly
informed assessment practices regarding English-learners (ELs). Unfortunately, this
continued problem has long-term adverse affects on ELs and their school
performance (Patton, 1998). According to Patton (1998), the overrepresentation of
EL students in special education has raised concerns their placement on a separate
and unequal track that denies them access to the general education curriculum, a
practice that frequently has a negative effect on their academic performance, self-
esteem, classroom behavior and interactions, educational and career goals, and
motivation. Similarly, the under-representation of EL students can also have a
negative impact on students’ educational outcomes by denying them valuable
services and support that may help them with a legitimate disability (Poon-McBrayer
& Garcia, 2000).
The widespread variability across school districts in the representation of EL
students in special education highlights the inconsistency and lack of coherence in
approaches to pre-referral interventions, assessment, and identification of children
for special education services (Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005). This variability

110
has led to a paradoxical existence in some communities of overrepresentation of ELs
in disability categories of special education, and the under-representation in other
categories. Specifically, the complex evolution of this paradox stems from research
documenting a tendency to inappropriately refer large numbers of EL students for
special education (Mercer & Rueda, 1991). On the other hand, a fear of legal action
as well as the lack of valid assessment tools, has led to a tendency toward under-
referral of these students for special support services (Gersten & Woodward, 1994).
Researchers and practitioners continue to express concern that ELs are
disproportionately represented in special education (Klingner & Artiles, 2003). Since
the disproportionate representation continues to be an unresolved problem, it is
important for educators to understand factors that may be contributing to this
problem.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to profile the representation of Spanish-
speaking EL students classified as having a Learning Disability (LD) or Mental
Retardation (MR) in a predominantly Hispanic California school district by
examining pre-referral interventions, assessment practices, and placement of ELs in
special education. In particular, this study examined the pre-referral team and types
of recommended interventions, school psychologists’ knowledge, experience,
training, assessment practices in assessing culturally and linguistically diverse
students, familial, linguistic, and academic characteristics of EL students referred for
special education, and assessment characteristics, such as language information

111
included at initial assessment, English proficiency, and language testing included in
school psychologists’ reports, and placement characteristics.
Lastly, the present study sought to contribute to the limited literature addressing
ELs in special education by identifying several areas where progress can be made
and assist school psychologists and school personnel in understanding how socio-
demographic, school factors, pre-referral process, and assessment practices have a
bearing on disproportionate representation (McCardle et al., 2005).
Key Findings
Key issues related to the disproportionate number of referrals for special
education identified in the literature were of specific interest in the present study.
Specifically, research has documented the presence of bias in the pre-referral and
assessment process has been noted to influence disproportionality (Artiles & Trent,
1994). This bias can be manifested in two ways: (1) pre-referral team function and
lack of effective interventions, and (2) inadequately trained school psychologists and
assessment practices.
Research involving pre-referral interventions and ELs indicates that success of
Student Success Teams (SSTs) depends on the knowledge and skills of the team
members, their ability to recommend quality academic and behavioral interventions,
the fidelity of implementation of team processes and classroom interventions, and a
system for monitoring the effects of intervention (Marston, 2002; Rock & Zigmond,
2001). Results of present study revealed this was not the case for a great majority of
elementary school SSTs at Bernardo Unified School District (BUSD). The district

112
does not have general guidelines for its SSTs and subsequently had considerable
variability in how teams were constituted and functioned across schools.
Results of the present study revealed the degree of member contribution and
participation varied at each site. However, according to Marston (2002) and Rock
and Zigmond (2001), the success of SSTs depends on the knowledge and skills of all
team members. Input by only one member jeopardizes the shared knowledge of the
entire team. Furthermore, parents and professionals with EL expertise were excluded
and/or not consistently part of SST meetings. These findings were similar to findings
obtained by Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, and Breunig (1999), where professionals
with EL expertise (e.g., teacher from bilingual education) were reported to be
members in only half of the pre-referral teams across eight states with large Limited
English Proficient (LEP) student populations. Without valuable cultural and
linguistic parent and EL expert participation, discussion of student’s primary
language, home language, language proficiency, schooling, and English Language
Development (ELD) instructional program is even more critical.
The consideration culture, along with linguistic factors, have been recommended
in the literature as important factors that may reduce the likelihood of mistaking
cultural and language differences from an actual learning disability. However, data
revealed inconsistent discussion and consideration of important student language,
cultural (e.g., communication, cognition, language, behavior, individual or group,
and relationship with authority figures), and instructional factors. In addition, data
revealed that student English proficiency level and primary language was often

113
guessed and inaccurately documented. This poses a concern because SST’s do not
consistently include the presence of parents and EL professionals that can help
clarify EL students’ family and cultural background, language proficiency, ELD
instructional programming and how these critical factors affect academic
performance. These findings were consistent with Klingner and Artiles (2003) where
they found student pre-referral teams did not consistently consider the influence of
student’s native language, ignored the ecology of the student’s regular education
classroom, and only infrequently implemented culturally and linguistically
appropriate pre-referral strategies.
The results of this study reveal the most frequently recommended intervention
was small group instruction, followed by after school tutoring for homework, and
one-to-one assistance by a parent volunteer. However, the range of research-based
direct interventions that remediate deficits attempted prior to referral was limited.
These interventions form a rather limited range of interventions and do not
necessarily represent a comprehensive systematic intervention (Poon-McBrayer &
Garcia, 2000). Furthermore, SST recommended strategies were not culturally and
linguistically responsive in addressing the needs of ELs. According to Ortiz and
colleagues (2006), effective instructional and behavioral interventions for ELs
should be based on data describing student’s native and English language
proficiency; academic achievement in both languages; and the collection of parent
data to determine whether presenting problem is pervasive. Thus, most SSTs
observed were not including critical student language, cultural, and ELD

114
instructional information necessary to recommend and implement high-quality
culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions.
Problem identification, intervention design and implementation and systematic
progress monitoring was not part of the SSTs at BUSD. Observational data indicated
discussion of duration, implementation, and progress monitoring of prior
recommended interventions were not mentioned at any of the team observations.
This is in stark contrast to what the literature recommends for overall effectiveness
of pre-referral interventions. According to Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney,
and Kushner (2006) effective interventions can be ensured only through careful
evaluation of teacher implementation and through systematic measurement and
documentation of academic results. These procedures can ensure that ELs who do
not respond to the suggested recommendation are rapidly identified and provided
with more appropriate interventions.
In summary, the results obtained in the present study revealed a great majority of
SST processes had problems related to knowledge and skills of team members, their
ability to design quality academic and behavioral interventions, fidelity of
implementation of team and classroom interventions, and a system for monitoring
the effects of interventions responsive to students’ linguistic, cultural, and other
background characteristics. With the dramatically increasing numbers of ELs in U.S.
schools, SSTs can be effective vehicles for helping teachers select and implement
interventions to improve the academic performance of ELs experiencing school-

115
related difficulties. However, ineffective SSTs may inadvertently refer ELs
inappropriately to special education.
Another key factor examined by this study were assessment characteristics, such
as language information included at initial assessment, English proficiency, language
testing included in school psychologists’ reports, and placement characteristics.
However, prior to discussing the results, a look at school psychologist training,
experience, and self-reported assessment practices collected during interviews merits
attention. The results of the interviews revealed that one of the most frequently cited
concerns by school psychologists at BUSD was the lack of adequate training
received in their university program in conducting and evaluating EL student
performance. Their concerns were not only with the proper administration of
assessments but also interpretation of performance and results. It is noteworthy to
mention that despite inadequate training, all reported conducting assessments with
ELs. These findings are consistent with research conducted by Ochoa, Rivera, and
Ford (1997), Amado, Sines, and Garza (1999), and Ochoa, Garza, and Amado (1999)
where a great majority of school psychologists also felt they did not receive the
proper instruction and training in conducting and interpreting assessment results of
EL students. Lack of consideration to linguistic, cultural, and other background
characteristics in EL evaluations may be related to poor training and knowledge
regarding second-language acquisition.
In addition to reported training and experience, interviews revealed that all
school psychologists reported assessing EL students in both languages including

116
intelligence, achievement, and processing assessments and considering a variety of
factors such as CELDT scores, CALP level, and student oral communication skills
when determining language proficiency. This is consistent with recommended best
practices as well as legal mandates (IDEA, 2004) that state school practitioners who
assess second-language learners must obtain information about students’ language
abilities in both their native and English language (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).
However, file review and analysis of student special education files found
inconsistencies with school psychologists’ self-reported assessment practices and
data collected from psycho-educational assessment reports. File review indicated
school psychologists were not consistently considering student cultural and linguistic
background, ELD instructional program, language proficiency assessments, and
student’s native and English language assessments. The break down between what is
reportedly done and what is actually practiced may be due to the shortage of
appropriate assessment instruments and trained bilingual school psychologists to
evaluate students in their respective native language. These practices raise concern to
possible misdiagnosis of EL students and definitely merit attention.
Given these characteristics, school psychologist practices related to assessment,
as reflected in the types of instruments used and language of testing, tend to reflect
the challenges associated with the implementation of quality assessment practices
with ELs (Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000). For instance, the most frequently used
instruments by school psychologists at BUSD were nonverbal intelligence
assessments developed and normed in the United States. This raised a concern

117
because over-reliance on nonverbal assessments may further affect test bias and
validity of results. Thus, no one type of assessment should be used to determine
intelligence of EL students.
Another practice that raised concern was the translation of assessment directions
into Spanish as needed. This practice is not recommended in the research literature.
Ochoa, Powell, and Robles-Pina’s (1996) study found that translating measures in
English to Spanish and intermixing two languages during administration of a
particular test results in violating standardized test administration procedures. Thus,
it is critical that communication is held and assessments are conducted in the
student’s dominant language. To accomplish this, school psychologists should be
able to communicate in the student’s native language and have a theoretical
understanding of the effects of culture, familial background, and second-language
acquisition process to properly evaluate an EL student.
An overall examination of pre-referral and assessment practices in the study
reveals that improvement is needed on both fronts. Present study results indicated
SSTs did not consider critical cultural, linguistic, and educational factors, leading to
the recommendation of ineffective interventions not culturally and linguistically
appropriate for ELs. It is a matter of great concern that these critical factors are not
consistently considered by a comprehensive psycho-educational assessment. Despite
multi-leveled intervention and support by school personnel and specialists (e.g.,
SSTs, school psychologists), EL students may be improperly placed in special

118
education due to flawed practices by SST pre-referral interventions and school
psychologist assessment practices and placement.
Generalizability of the Study
This study was exploratory in nature and designed to primarily to increase
understanding of the factors associated with pre-referral, assessment, and placement
of EL students in special education. Given the nature of the methodology and the
restrictions due to the small sample, the findings are limited to the following
limitations. First, generalizations of findings to other districts may be difficult and
inappropriate. Although the patterns in the present study were similar and consistent
with earlier studies related to pre-referral interventions, school psychologist training,
and assessment practices, the variance in educational settings, demographics,
available resources, school psychologist personnel, and practices across districts,
further replications of this study are needed before broader generalizations can be
made. Second, the sample in the present study was relatively small. Although the
participating district served a high number of Hispanic students designated as ELs,
the sample size further prevented generalizations beyond those appropriate for the
participating district. Third, conclusions about district practices must be viewed with
caution, due to the inherent limitations of file review in accurately and
comprehensibly documenting professional practice and the subjective nature of
interviews. Although triangulation of file review with a small number of school
psychologist interviews was included in the study, the lack of consistency and
information overlap further decreased the validity of information. Thus, implications

119
for practice are most relevant to the participating district and may only apply to
districts with similar student population, size, and demographics.
Implications of Current Research
The problems associated with disproportionate representation and the special
education referral process for culturally and linguistically diverse students remains a
complex and challenging task for school practitioners. First, teachers of ELs, special
education teachers, and school psychologists should have a theoretical understanding
of the second-language acquisition process and have knowledge base on socio-
cultural and language influences on student academic performance and behavior.
Furthermore, it is important that these practitioners examine their own cultural views
and experiences and how they influence their views of EL students (Craig, Hull,
Haggart, & Perez-Selles, 2000) and learn to acknowledge, respect, accommodate
cultural differences in the context of schooling and in the design of interventions and
assessment (Garcia, 2002). Understanding the impact of linguistic, cultural, and
other background characteristics on EL performance and behavior is particularly
critical if school practitioners are to reduce misattributions.
Second, in the context of pre-referral interventions, SSTs can be effective
vehicles for helping teachers select and implement interventions to improve the
academic performance of ELs experiencing school-related difficulties (Ortiz et al.,
2006). There is no widespread agreement to how pre-referral teams should be
constituted and function. However, any effort to create national guidelines may
ensure teams comply with recommended practices. Ultimately, when pre-referral

120
teams are effective, they can also help address inappropriate referrals of ELs to
special education by providing documentation that students did not make adequate
progress despite well-designed, evidence-based interventions and that school-related
problems cannot be explained by special factors, such as limited English proficiency
or cultural differences (Ortiz et al., 2006).
Third, research clearly indicates that many school psychologists are not trained to
assess culturally and linguistically diverse students (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz,
2005).The implications of these findings are disheartening and raise concern to
possible misdiagnosis/over-identification of EL students. The existing literature, as
well as the present study, reveals a common concern by school psychologists is poor
training. The field of school psychology must step back and examine why there is an
overwhelming consensus by most school psychologists who report receiving poor
training and how that may contribute to the overrepresentation of ELs in special
education. That is, inadequately trained school psychologists and their use of
inappropriate assessment practices may inappropriately influence the eligibility
decision of ELs being considered for special education.
Last, the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students continues to
be fraught with theoretical problems and flawed practices (Klingner & Artiles,
2003). Many standardized tests may yield valid scores for most students but tend to
highly underestimate the potential of EL students (Abedi, 2002). Thus, school
psychologists must expand their assessment focus beyond finding a “discrepancy”
via standardized assessments (e.g., intelligence, processing, and achievement) and

121
consider dynamic models of assessment that are based on response to intervention
(Donovan & Cross, 2002; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). Reauthorization of IDEA in 2004
and the inclusion of Response-to-Intervention (RTI) methods may decrease the over-
reliance on using IQ tests and discrepancy formulas for disability determination
(Fletcher, Lyon, Barnes, Stuebling, Francis, & Olson, 2002). Although the paradigm
shift toward RTI has begun, status quo practices will take some time to change. Until
districts fully embrace RTI, schools need to find alternative procedures for
conducting culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments.
Recommendations for Practice
Pre-referral intervention was endorsed most often and ranked as the most
recommended remedy to address disproportionality (Project Forum, 1995). Thus, a
uniform national standard of what constitutes effective pre-referral teams needs to be
determined. This standard will reduce and eliminate the current haphazard pre-
referral practices. Marston (2002) recommends a three-stage problem-solving
approach that includes problem identification, research-based intervention design
and implementation, and systematic progress monitoring. The NRC (2002) provides
empirical support that early intervention efforts result in positive gains for culturally
and linguistically diverse learners. In addition, school personnel need to ensure
parent involvement by eliminating obstacles to participation. Personnel should help
family members understand the purpose of meetings, give them time to share their
perceptions of their child’s performance, and solicit their responses or questions
about the information being shared (Garcia, 2002).

122
Second, identification of ELs with a disability is hampered by a lack of
adequately trained school psychologists. Given the paucity of school psychologists
who are adequately prepared to assess culturally and linguistically diverse students,
university training programs and credentialing boards should require additional
training and credentialing if school psychologists are going to work with EL
students. The additional credential should require dual-language competency as well
as knowledge base of cultural and linguistic factors (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).
The separate licensing bilingual examiner credential will ensure that EL students are
assessed in their native language when appropriate and necessary.
Third, school psychologists need to expand and look beyond their typical
standardized battery of assessments. The inclusion of appropriate language
proficiency, culture, family, and educational background will provide additional
critical information to consider when determining the presence of a disability. It is
also recommended that the school psychology field lobby for funding to develop and
evaluate assessment models/methods for use with culturally and linguistically
diverse students. Thus, it is recommended that school psychologists develop an
understanding of nondiscriminatory assessment practices. By becoming
knowledgeable of different ways that assessments may be biased toward ELs, school
psychologists can determine when student difficulty is a result of a disability and
when it is a result of faulty assessment.

123
Recommendation for Families
The participation of families offers numerous advantages. The participation of
parents is recommended because they can provide valuable information about the
social, linguistic, and cultural contexts in which students are being raised (Anderson
& Pellicer, 1998). In addition, in working with families of ELs, school personnel
must be sensitive to cultural differences in family structures, childbearing practices,
and decision making authority (Ortiz et al., 2006). Thus, it is recommended for
parents to be active participants in all aspects of their child’s schooling. If parents do
not feel comfortable asking their child’s teacher questions regarding pre-referral and
assessment, the community liaison typically can be a cultural and linguistic mediator
between parents and school personnel.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although state departments of education gather data about Hispanic students in
special education, information regarding a student’s language proficiency is not
typically included (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Therefore, it is important to explore
how more accurate information on the representation of ELs in special education
programs can be accumulated. Research should begin with response to intervention
processes as they involve ELs. Thus, additional research in this area can provide key
information on what problem-solving processes and interventions are successful,
under what conditions, and how ELs respond to them. Factors that influence the
success of pre-referral teams must be studied, including teacher perceptions of the
mission and effectiveness of SSTs, team membership and members’ expertise

124
specific to ELs, professional development provided to team members, quality
interventions, and treatment integrity (Ortiz et al., 2006). Finally, for the successful
assessment of ELs, researchers must develop methodologies that account for factors
critical to understanding ELs performance. Dynamic models of assessment that are
based on response to intervention have been recommended (Donovan & Cross, 2002;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998) and should be further explored. With the reauthorization of
IDEA (2004), increased efforts are needed now more than ever to evaluate the
effectiveness response to intervention with EL students.
Conclusions
Understanding the different ways culture, language, and educational differences
can influence the academic achievement and behavior of EL students are key if
educators are to provide a culturally and linguistically appropriate education for EL
students with and without disabilities. The problematic pre-referral and assessment
practices with ELs encountered in the present study further substantiate the common
multifaceted and challenging tasks faced by educators in the field. The position
stands that there is much more we need to know in order to work effectively with the
increasing number of ELs in schools.

125
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners:
Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231-257.

Amado, A. J., Sines, M., & Garza, S. (1999). School psychology training:
Psychological assessment of Hispanic English proficient students. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association,
& National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for
educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and
code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, L.W., & Pellicer, L.O. (1998). Toward an understanding of unusually
successful programs for economically disadvantaged students. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 237-263.

Artiles, A.J., & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special
education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 410-
437.

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1998). Predicting placement in learning disabilities
programs: Do predictions vary by ethnic group? Exceptional Children, 64,
543-559.

Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J.J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-Language
learner representation in special education in California urban school
districts. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special
education (117-136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

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. Council for Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.

Artiles, A.J., & Zamora-Duran, G. (1997). Disproportionate representation: A
contentious and unresolved predicament. In A.J. Artiles & G. Zamora-Duran
(Eds.), Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse
students in special and gifted education (pp.1-6). Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.

126
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification
of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 142-156.

Bauermeister, J.J. (1995). ADD and Hispanic (Puerto Rican) children: Some
thoughts and research findings. Attention, 2, 16-19.

Bell, D.A. (1996). Gospel choirs: Psalms of survival for an alien land called home.
New York: Basic.

Betsinger, A.M., Garcia, S.B., & Guerra, P.L. (2000). Research report for the
organizing for diversity project. Austin, TX: The Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.

Brigance, A. H. (1999). Brigance diagnostic comprehensive inventory of basic skills-
revised. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.

Brislin, R. (1999). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior (2
nd
ed.). Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

California Department of Education. (2004). California English language
development test. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

California Department of Education. (2006). California special education programs:
A composite of laws, 28
th
Ed. Sacramento, CA: California Depart of
Education.

Carrasquillo, A.L., & Rodriguez, J. (1997). Hispanic limited English-proficient
students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
8(3), 167-174.

Chamberlain, S.P. (2003). An interview with Evelyn Green and Perry Green.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 297-306.

Chamberlain, S.P. (2005). Recognizing and responding to cultural differences in the
education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 40(4), 195-211.

127
Chamberlain, P., & Medeiros-Landurand, P. (1991). Practical considerations in the
assessment of LEP students with special needs. In E.V. Hamayan & J.S.
Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 111-
156). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Cherryholmes, C.H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructuralist investigations in
education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Civil Rights Project. (2000). Executive summary: Conference of minority issues in
special education. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from www.law.harvard.edu.

Coulter, W.A. (1996). Alarming or disarming: The status of ethnic differences within
exceptionalities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 257).

Countinho, M.J., & Oswald, D.P. (2000). Disproportionate representation in special
education: A synthesis and recommendations. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 9(2), 135-156.

Craig, S., Hull, K., Haggart, A.G., & Perez-Selles, M. (2000). Promoting cultural
competence through teacher assistance teams. Teaching Exceptional Children,
32(3), 6-12.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1995). (Eds.). Critical race
Theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York: The New Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. San Diego: College-Hill.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: The New York Press.

Diana v. State Board of Education, C. a. No. C-70-37 (N.D. Cal., July 1970) (consent
decree).

Donovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special education and
gifted education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 23, 5-21.

128
Farley, A.P. (2002). The poetics of colorlined space. In F. Valdes, J.M. Culp, & A.P.
Harris (Eds.), Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory (pp.97-
158). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Figueroa, R.A. (1990). Best practices in the assessment of bilingual children. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-II (pp. 93-
106). Washington, DC: The National Association of School Psychologists.

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebling, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K.
(2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence based evaluation.
In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp.185-250). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for
reconceptualizing identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research and practice, 13, 204-219.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-
intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-
171.
Garcia, S.B. (2002). Parent professional collaboration in culturally sensitive
assessment. In A. J. Artiles & A.A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners
with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp.
87-103). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Garcia, S.B., & Dominguez, L. (1997). Cultural contexts that influence learning and
academic performance. In L. B. Silver (Ed.), Child and adolescent
psychiatric clinics of North America: Academic difficulties (pp.621-655).
Philadelphia: Saunders.

Garcia, S.B., & Guerra, P.L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with
educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and
Urban Society, 36(2), 150-168.

Garcia, S.B., & Ortiz, A.A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language
minority students to special education. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Educaiton.

Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1994). Assessment and Diversity. In L. Darling-
Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, 20 (pp.337-391).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Associates.

129
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special
education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 310-
322.
Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An
approach to intercultural communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hammill, D.D., Pearson, N.A., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1997). Comprehensive test of
nonverbal intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Inc.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Hosp, J.L., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority
students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic
predictors. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 185-199.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997, 2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et. seq.
(Statute). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Regulations)
Available at http://www.edlaw.net/service/ideacont.html.

Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal
family professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Katz, M.B. (1971). Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational
change in America. New York, NY: Praeger.

Kaufman, J., Hallahan, W.H., & Ford, D.Y. (Eds.). (1998). Disproportional
representation of minority students in special education [Special section]. The
Journal of Special Education, 32, 3-61.

Klingner, J.K., & Artiles, A.J. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special
education? Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66-71.

Klingner, J.K., Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Zamora-
Duran, G., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special
education through culturally responsive educational systems. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38), 1-42.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68.

130
Larry P. v. Wilson Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972) (preliminary
injunction), aff’d 502 F. 2d 963 (9
th
cir. 1974); 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal.
1979) (decision on merits); aff’d (9
th
cir. No. 80-427 Jan. 23, 1984); order
modify judgment, C-71-2270 RFP (Sept. 25, 1986).

Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education
for all. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Lopez, G.R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race
theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.

Lynn, M., & Adams, M. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical
race theory and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 35(2), 87-92.

MacMillan, D.L., & Balow, I.H. (1991). Impact of Larry P. on educational programs
and assessment practices in California, Diagnostique, 17, 57-69.

MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., Lopez, M.F., & Bocian, K.M. (1996). Comparison
of students nominated for prereferral interventions by ethnicity and gender.
Journal of Special Education, 30, 133-151.

MacMillan, D.L., & Reschly, D.J. (1998). Overrepresentation of minority students:
The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined.
The Journal of Special Education, 32 (1), 15-24.

Markowitz, J. (1996a). Disproportionate representation: A critique of state and local
strategies (Policy Forum Report). Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Directors of Special Education.

Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to
establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley,
L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice (pp. 437-447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., & D’Emilio, T. (2005).
Learning Disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 1-5.

McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). English language learners and
learning disabilities: Research agenda and implications for practice. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 68-78.

131
Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J.L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped:
Decision making in students’ educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.

Mercer, J.R., & Rueda, R. (1991). The impact of changing paradigms of disabilities
on assessment for special education. Paper presented at The Council for
Exceptional Children Topical Conference on At-Risk Children and Youth,
New Orleans, LA.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Monzo, L.D., & Rueda, R. (2006). A sociocultural perspective on acculturation:
Latino immigrant families negotiating diverse discipline practices. Education
and Urban Society, 38(2), 188-203.

Morse. J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological
triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(1), 120-123.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2002). Best Practices in School
Psychology, Volume IV. Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Professional conduct manual.
Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to
Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA:
Author.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.

Ochoa, S.H. (2005). Disproportionate Representation of Diverse Students in Special
Education: Understanding the Complex Puzzle. In R.L. Rhodes, S.H. Ochoa,
& S.O. Ortiz (Eds.), Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Students. (pp. 15-41). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ochoa, S.H., Galarza, A., & Gonzalez, D. (1996). An investigation of school
psychologists assessment practices of language proficiency with bilingual
and limited-English-proficient students. Diagnostique, 21(4), 17-36.

132
Ochoa, S.H., Garza, S., & Amado, A. (1999). School psychology training pertaining
to psychological assessment of African Americans. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston.

Ochoa, S.H., Rivera, B.D., & Ford, L. (1997). An investigation of school psychology
training pertaining to bilingual psycho-educational assessment of primarily
Hispanic students: Twenty-five years after Diana v. California. Journal of
School Psychology, 35(4), 329-349.

Ochoa, S.H., Rivera, B.D., & Powell, M.P. (1997). Factors used to comply with the
exclusionary clause with bilingual and limited-English proficient pupils:
Initial guidelines. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 161-167.

Ochoa, S. H., Robles-Pina, R., Garcia, S. B., & Breunig, N. (1999). School
psychologists’ perspectives on referral of language minority students.
Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 3(1), 1-14.

Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic
differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321-332.

Ortiz, S.O. (2002). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In A Thomas &
J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp.1321-1336).
Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Ortiz, A.A., & Polyzoi, E. (1986). Characteristics of limited English proficiency
Hispanic students in programs for the learning disabled: Implications for
policy, practice, and research-Part 1: Report summary (ERIC Reproduction
No. ED 267578). Austin, TX.

Ortiz, A.A., Wilkinson, C.Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M.I. (2006).
Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support
English-language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 53-63.

Oswald, D.P., Countinho, M.J., Best, A.M., & Singh, N.N. (1999). Ethnic
representation in special education: The influence of school-related economic
and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 194-
206.

Paez, D. (2000). Culturally competent assessment of English-language learners:
Strategies for school personnel. In A. S. Canter & S.A. Carroll (Eds.),
Helping children at home and school II: Handouts for families and educators
(pp. 1-4). Bethesda, MD: The National Association of School Psychologists.

133
Paredes Scribner, A. (1999). High-performing Hispanic schools: An Introduction. In
P. Reyes, J.D. Scribner, and A. Paredes Scribner (Eds.), Lessons from high-
performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Paredes Scribner, A. (2002). Best assessment and intervention practices with second
language learners. In A. Thomas, and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in
school psychology IV. (Vol. 2). Bethesda, MD: The National Association of
School Psychologists.

Patton, J.M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in
special education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding and
solutions. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 25-31.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
Ed., Rev.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Poon-McBrayer, K.F., & Garcia, S.B. (2000). Profiles of Asian American students
with LD at initial referral, assessment, and placement in special education.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 61-71.

Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, S.D., & Ramey, D.R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study
of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional
bilingual education programs for language-minority children: Executive
summary. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

Richarson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, P., & Guilfoyle, K. (1989). School children at-
risk. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S.O. (2005). Assessing culturally and
linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.

Rock, M. & Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or
symbolism? Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 153-161.

Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P.M., & Trumball, E. (1999). Bridging cultures with
classroom strategies. Educational Leadership, 56(7), 64-66.

Rueda, R., Cardoza, D., Mercer, J., & Carpenter, L. (1985). An examination of
special education decision making with Hispanic first-time referral in large
urban school districts: Longitudinal study I report, final report (ERIC
Reproduction No. ED 312 8100).

134
Salend, S.J., Garrick-Duhaney, L.M., & Montgomery, W. (2002). A comprehensive
approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate
representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 289-299.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1991). Assessment (5
th
ed.). New York: Houghton
Mifflin.

Samuda, R.J. (2000). Cross cultural assessment. In R.J. Samuda, R. Feuerstein, A.S.
Kaufman, J.E. Lewis, and R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Advances in cross-cultural
assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scheurich, J.J., & Young, M.D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research
epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-16.

Serna, L.A., Forness, S.R., & Nielsen, M.E. (1998). Intervention versus affirmation:
Proposed solutions to the problem of disproportionate minority representation
in special education. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 48-51.

Serwatka, T.S., Deering, S., & Grant, P. (1995). Disproportionate representation of
African Americans in emotionally handicapped classes. Journal of Black
Studies, 25, 492-506.

Skrtic, T.M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence.
Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148-206.

Tate, W.F. (1997). Critical race theory: History, theory, and implications. Review of
Research in Education, 22, 195-247.

Tatum, B.D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?”
And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Telzrow, C.F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C.L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving
implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology
Review, 29(3), 443-461.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority
students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students’ long-term academic achievement: Retrieved July
13, 2006, from www.crede.uscu.edu/research/llaa1.html.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: West-View
Press.

135
Tyson, C. (1998). Coloring epistemologies: A response. Educational Researcher,
27(9), 21-22.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003).
National Assessment of Educational Progress: The Nation’s Report Card.
Retrieved on March 19, 2006 from
http:/nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2003/.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.

Valdes, G., & Figueroa, R.A. (1996). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of
bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D.J. (2005). Teaching
English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting
research to practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58-67.

Wagner, R.K., Francis, D.J., & Morris, R.D. (2005). Identifying English-language
learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 6-15.

Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence-III. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-IV. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.

Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory, 2
nd
edition,
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Woodcock, R. W., Munoz-Sandoval, A.F., Ruef, M.L., & Alvarado, C.G. (2005).
Woodcock-Munoz language survey-Revised. Chicago, IL: Riverside
Publishing.

136
Zehler, A.M., & Fleischman, H.L. (2003). The Descriptive study of services to LEP
students and LEP students with disabilities. Office of English Language
Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement of LEP
students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.

137
Appendix A
School Psychologist Interview Protocol
Demographic Information
1. What is your ethnicity?

2. Are you bilingual? In what languages?

3. How would you rate your Spanish proficiency? Native speaker (primary
language), Fluent (speak, read, and write), Limited (understand basic
communication only), or Poor (Understand some words but almost non-
existent).

Training
1. What is your level of educational training?

2. Do you have a teaching credential or any other educational specialist
training?

3. How well has your university program prepared you in conducting non-
discriminatory assessments?

138
4. How comfortable are you in your linguistic competency to administer
assessments in a student’s native language fluently enough to properly
evaluate performance?

Experience
1. How many years have you been school psychologist?

2. How many years have you worked for BUSD as a school psychologist?

Assessment
1. Have you completed assessments on EL students?

2. What measures do you use to assess language proficiency?

3. What do you consider when determining language of assessment?

4. What measures do you use to assess intellectual and cognitive ability?

5. What does your assessment battery of EL students typically look like?

6. Have you used an interpreter in the assessment process?

139
Appendix B
Student Success Team (SST) Meeting Observation Protocol
Members
School Psychologist:______; Referring Teacher: ______;
Teachers: _________; Administrator: _________;
Parent: _______; Other:_____________.
Student Information
Age and Grade:____________: Primary Language:_________;
Home Language: _________; Homework: ________________________;
SST Meeting #:______; CELDT Scores:__________________________;
Language Dominance: _________; ELD Program: _________________.
Reasons for Referral
Reading: Word Attack: _______; Reading Comprehension: _____;
Fluency:______: Slow Progress in English/Spanish:_____.
Writing: Spelling: _____; Grammar: _______; Written Expression:_______.
Math: Calculation: _______; Reasoning: _______.
Behavior: Inattentiveness: _____; Hyperactivity: _____;
Incomplete Work: _____.
Fine-Motor: Penmanship: _____; Organization in Writing: ______;
Graphomotor Skills: ______.
Oral Language: Vocabulary: _____; Expression: _____; Articulation: _____;
English Acquisition: _______.

140
School History
Country where student began formal schooling: _________________
Years of schooling in native country: ____________
School Attendance: _________.
Pre-school Experiences: __________.
English-developemnt instructional program: ___________________.
Instructional Interventions/Modifications Prior to Referral
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________.
Recommendations
Referral for psycho-educational assessment: ________________.
If not, interventions and modification recommended: ______________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________.
Additional Information
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________.

141
Appendix C
File and Document Analysis Protocol
Student Information
Age:______: Grade:______: Gender: _______; School: _________
Grade schooling began in U.S.: _______ ; ELD Program: ___________
Birthplace: _________: # of schools attended: ________:
Retention History: ________
Age appropriate for grade: Over Age/ Under age/ Appropriate age for grade.
Health/developmental history: _________________________________
__________________________________________________________
School History: ______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Family Background: ____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Referral Characteristics
Grade at referral: ____________________________
Prereferral interventions:________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

142
Instructional modifications: _____________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Number of SSTs held prior to referral: __________
Reason for referral: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________.
Assessment
Language information at initial assessment: __________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
English proficiency and language testing: ____________________________
______________________________________________________________
Language dominance determination:_________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Language used to administer tests:__________________________________
Was an interpreter used? __________: Procedures used with interpreter: ___
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Types of intelligence and achievement testing:_________________________
______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________.

143
Other assessments used: _________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Scores used for eligibility determination: ____________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Major weaknesses in achievement: ________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Placement
Disability:_______________________
Instructional setting at initial placement: ____________________________
Language of instruction: _________________________________________
Documentation to support English-language development: _____________
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Disproportionate representation of English-learners (ELs) in special education has been a longstanding challenge and concern. Researchers and practitioners express concern with the appropriateness of the referral, identification, and placement process of ELs. This study examined pre-referral interventions and assessment practices with ELs and representation in special education in an urban school district in Southern California selected because of its large EL population. Variables of interest included observations of Student Success Team (SST) meetings, school psychologist interviews, and file review of special education files. Observations examined characteristics of students referred to SSTs, members present at meetings, the consideration of pertinent cultural, linguistic, and educational information, and actions/strategies recommended by the team. Interviews examined school psychologist educational training and knowledge in working with culturally and linguistically diverse students and assessment practices. File analysis and review of special education files were conducted to examine language and assessment characteristics of EL students currently in special education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners

PDF

The role of student study team members in the special education referral process for English Learners

PDF

Effective reading instruction for English learners

PDF

Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

Staff perceptions of critical challenges faced by Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) during the transition to junior high school

PDF

The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

A case study in promising practices in anti-hazing education training for fraternity advisors

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

An evaluation of the effective engagement of English-language students’ parents in UTK-8th grade schools

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

Asset Metadata

Creator del Rio, Veronica (author)

Core Title English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2007

Defense Date 03/26/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag asessment practices with English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Ragusa, Gisele (committee chair), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member), Pensavalle, Margo T. (committee member)

Creator Email vdelrio@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m400

Unique identifier UC1406392

Identifier etd-delRio-20070416 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-480992 (legacy record id),usctheses-m400 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-delRio-20070416.pdf

Dmrecord 480992

Document Type Dissertation

Rights del Rio, Veronica

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu