University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Role of Student Study Team Members in the Special Education Referral Process for
English Learners

Shehnaz Wadhwania

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Shehnaz Wadhwania 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Shehnaz Wadhwania certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Brenda Carrillo
Monique Datta
Morgan Polikoff, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The landscape of the school system in the United States is changing with a rise in numbers of
English Learners (ELs). Even with laws in place to support the EL integration in the core
instructional program, these students’ learning needs are not being met. This has led to
underperformance on state assessments, as compared to native-speaking peers. There is a rising
trend, particularly in upper elementary grade levels through high school, where ELs are
disproportionately represented in special education across schools within the United States. The
present research examines the role of student study teams (SSTs) in the referral process of ELs
for special education services. Using a case study approach, I examine how SST members’
understanding of the problem, their mindset, and sense of self-efficacy as well as their
knowledge and understanding of the challenges faced by ELs, influence the decision to
recommend ELs for special education services. Through qualitative semi-structured interview
process, the study sought to explore the following research questions: What role do the student
study team members’ personal and general efficacy beliefs play in determining the eligibility of
ELs for special education services? How do the student study team members’ knowledge and
understanding of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), and the second language acquisition
continuum impact the referral of ELs for special education services, particularly for specific
learning disabilities? Thirteen participants from seven elementary schools were interviewed
using 21 open-ended questions. Study findings identify factors that directly influenced the role
and competency of SST members. Based on the findings, I offer recommendations to mitigate
the technical and adaptive challenges with the hopes for positive outcomes for the educators and
the ELs in this district and across the U.S.

v
Dedication
To all the girls who have fought and continue to fight for their right to attend school. Education
is true freedom.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my family for their unwavering support in helping me attain
this milestone. Thank you, Murad Wadhwania for being my anchor and my life-saver. Thank
you, Ruhee Wadhwania and Fahim Wadhwania for being my ardent cheerleaders for life.
This achievement would not have been possible without the support of the staff and
students of the USC Rossier School of Education. Wednesday Cohort, thank you for making our
classes exciting, fun and meaningful. Special thank you to all the professors of the K −12 EDL
(online) program. Fight on!
Thank you, Dr. Morgan Polikoff, for being my dissertation chair. I appreciate you for
giving me enough space to juggle life events and for ensuring that I get to the finish line on time.
Dr. Monique Datta, I am grateful for your tough love and for ensuring that my work meets USC
standards. Dr. Brenda Carrillo, I value your support and thought-partnership. Your calm
assertiveness inspires me every day. I would not have been in this program without Dr. Stella M.
Kemp’s guidance and mentorship. Thank you, Dr. Kemp, for lighting my path and for being my
helpline.
Last, but not the least, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for all the
participants who volunteered to interview for this study. I am grateful for your generosity of
time, knowledge, and thought ⎯not just for this study, but for everything you do everyday to
serve teachers, students and their families. Your passion and commitment are awe-inspiring!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement and Context ................................................................................................. 2
Context of the Case Study .......................................................................................................... 4
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 7
Research Question and Methodology ......................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................. 11
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
Changing Demographics of the Student Population and Role of Teachers .............................. 13
Targeted Language and Literacy Instruction ............................................................................ 16
State and District-wide Policies and Systems ........................................................................... 19
Pre-referral, Referral, and Assessment Methods .......................................................................... 24
Theoretical Lens ....................................................................................................................... 26
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 29
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 34
Context, Sample and Population ............................................................................................... 35

viii
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 44
Interview Participants ............................................................................................................... 44
RQ1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 46
RQ2 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 57
Language Acquisition vs. Learning Disability ......................................................................... 72
Chapter Five: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 76
Discussion on the Findings ....................................................................................................... 76
Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 80
What do ELs Need? .................................................................................................................. 82
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 84
Limitation and Delimitation...................................................................................................... 85
Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 87
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 88
References ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix A: CA Ed. G. E. Code of Regulations and Education Code ........................................ 96
Appendix B: Stages of Second Language Acquisition ................................................................. 98
Appendix C: Interview Protocol Chart ....................................................................................... 100
Appendix D: Recommendations Suggested by the Participants ................................................. 104

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Descriptvie Characteristics of Interview Participants..................................................... 45
Table 2: Self-Reported Score for Competency in Assessing Language Acquisition vs. A
Learning Disability ..................................................................................................................... 555
Table 3: States of Second Language Acquisition ......................................................................... 98
Table 4: Interview Questions with RQ Concepts ....................................................................... 101

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: MTSS Tiered Support ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 30

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The landscape of the school system in the United States is changing, with an increase in
students of color ⎯many of whom are English learners (ELs). Increasingly, U.S. students speak
languages other than English at home (Orosco et al., 2016). Between 2010 and 2019, the
population of ELs increased from 9.2% to 10.4 % nationwide. At the state level, Texas (19.6%)
and California (18.6%) maintain the largest EL populations (National Center for Education
Statistics, n.d.). ELs are a complex, heterogeneous population comprising many nationalities and
languages (Artiles et al., 2006), alongside diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and life
experiences, such as migrants, refugees, and second-generation Americans (Sugarman, 2016).
Behind English, Spanish is the most common language spoken in the United States, and Hispanic
students comprise 76.8% of EL students (National Center for Education Statistics).
Demographers project that by 2025, ELs will comprise 25% of students in U.S. schools (Hoover
et al., 2016); and by 2050, the largest school-age population in the United States will be Latinx
students (Becker & Deris, 2019). With this shift in student population, there is a strong need to
examine the current systems and processes, which were designed to serve mainly White, middle-
class, native speakers of the English language.
Classroom teachers play an essential role in the success of all students, particularly ELs.
While the population of students of color and ELs is growing, nearly 80% of the teaching force is
White (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Teacher preparation programs play a
critical role in training teachers to meet the needs of students. Yet, in many states, teachers lack
the training to teach EL students, and only 58% possess any formal credential in teaching ELs
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Learning gaps occur when teachers are unable
to adequately and equitably support different types of learners (Orosco et al., 2016). Thus,

2
teachers’ personal and professional experiences and preparation programs impact all student
learning experiences, including ELs.
Problem Statement and Context
In the 2021 −2022 school year, California had the second largest EL population, with
approximately 1.1 million English learners, constituting 19% of the total enrolment in public
schools. Among this group, 82% were Spanish-speaking, followed by Vietnamese-speaking
students at 1.92% (California Department of Education, 2023). The California teacher
credentialing process requires that candidates satisfy the Developing English Language Skills
requirement to earn a teaching certificate (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, n.d.).
California Department of Education also outlines several education codes to identify, support,
and fund EL programs. Section 11309, included in Appendix A, specifically outlines the
requirements for the language acquisition programs to be offered by districts and schools to
support English language development (ELD).
Even with laws in place to support integration of ELs in the core instructional program,
ELs tend to underperform on state assessments, when compared to their native-speaking peers. A
majority of the ELs who struggle academically exhibit reading difficulties. Since reading is one
of the core skills for academic success, it impacts other areas of learning, leading to low
academic achievement and high drop-out rates (Klingner et al., 2006). Teachers and support staff
may provide several interventions to mitigate the academic challenges of ELs. If ELs do not
show progress, they are referred to the student study team who determines next steps for
academic intervention.
There is a rising trend, particularly in upper elementary grade levels through high school,
in overrepresentation of ELs in special education programs across the United States (Barrio,

3
2017). Disproportionate representation is when a particular culturally and linguistically diverse
population is over or under-represented in a specific disability category (Klingner et al., 2005).
As Spanish-speaking students comprise a large percentage of the student population in some
states, it is natural that a large percentage of ELs identified for special education services are also
Spanish-speaking. Even so, research shows that ELs, particularly Hispanic males, are
disproportionately referred for special education services. (Samson & Lesaux, 2008). The
number of school-age ELs with disabilities in the United States grew by nearly 30% between
2012 to 2020. ELs with disabilities were more likely to be classified as having a specific learning
disability or speech or language impairment (Office of Special Education Programs, 2022). It is a
concern that even though states have statutes and laws meant to provide equal access to the
general education curriculum for ELs, the systems and teaching practices in many states have led
to the exclusion of this population from mainstream classes as early as elementary school.
ELs do not perform well on the state accountability measures in many districts in
California. California Department of Education (CDE) has identified several districts for
mandatory planning and resource allocation to improve the academic achievement of ELs on
state tests. This initiative is called the Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services
(CCEIS) Plan. Districts identified for this intervention have shown a 3-year trend of low
achievement of ELs on state assessments. CCEIS districts must develop a comprehensive plan
and expend 15% of their IDEA Part B formula allocation on CCEIS-funded activities (California
Department of Education, 2022). Referral of ELs for special education is one of the
accountability measures, and the disproportional rate of such referral flags the districts for state-
mandated interventions. ELs, particularly Latino boys, are disproportionately referred for special
education services, mainly for specific learning disabilities (Sullivan, 2011). Disproportionate

4
suspensions or expulsions, placement in a more restrictive environment, and placement in special
education in general or within a specific disability category are other reasons for the state to
identify districts for CCEIS interventions (California Department of Education, 2022).
Context of the Case Study
The school district identified for this study is a mid-sized unified school district in
northern California, with a population of about 14,000 students in grades pre-school to adult
education. This district has a 20% EL population. Hispanic boys are 2.5 times more likely to be
identified for special education services and four times more likely to be identified for specific
learning disability (SLD) in reading in this district. Therefore, this district was identified for
CCEIS intervention in 2019 −2020. Though the root cause analysis conducted by the district’s
steering committee outlines several reasons for this disproportionality, the main reason identified
by the district is variation in implementation of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). In this
district, student study teams (SSTs) form Tier 3 of the MTSS framework. This study examines
the role of SSTs in the referral process of ELs for special education services.
Schools consider SSTs to be gatekeepers for special education services. In most cases,
their involvement is a final step for special education classification for students referred for Tier
3 intervention. Special education placement is considered the final option for Tier 3 support for
struggling students, and the SST often assumes that Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions have been
implemented with fidelity (Klingner et al., 2006). The decision to refer ELs for special education
services is a complicated process and requires expertise and understanding of multiple aspects of
learning. Educators’ mindsets and beliefs also play an essential role in this decision-making.
Additionally, their knowledge and understanding of the systems and processes has a direct
impact on the educational outcomes for students.

5
A lack of English language proficiency does not mean a student has a learning disability;
rather, it is a barrier to accessing learning. Therefore, special education may not be a proper
placement. Conversely, in order to make an informed decision for students struggling with
reading, SSTs must determine whether the reading challenges are due to language acquisition or
a learning disability. This determination requires in-depth knowledge and understanding of how
language and literacy develop in language learners. This study examines SST members’
mindsets, beliefs, sense of self-efficacy, their knowledge and understanding of the MTSS and the
nature of challenges faced by the students in determining ELs’ eligibility for special education
services ⎯particularly for specific learning disability in reading.
Background of the Problem
The disproportionality of ELs in special education has been an ongoing issue in the
United States (Klingner et al., 2005; Sullivan, 2011). Researchers have conducted numerous
studies and made several recommendations. However, ELs exhibit lower academic achievement,
particularly in reading. Data show similar negative trends in other education outcomes, such as
grade repetition and school drop-out (Klingner, 2006). The disproportionality in special
education referrals of ELs has plagued educators for decades. It will continue to be challenging
as demographers project that by 2025, one in every four students will be an EL (National
Education Association, 2020). Thus, it is crucial to focus on this problem of practice, as
recommended solutions have not been effective.
Nationally, ELs are generally under-represented in special education. However, in the
absence of a transparent data reporting system nationwide, the extent and scope of this problem
of practice is difficult to determine. ELs comprise about 16% of the total special education
population in districts with relatively smaller overall EL populations (National Education

6
Association, 2007). In particular, schools with limited resources to support ELs may over or
under-identify them for special education services (Keller-Allen, 2006). A study conducted by
Samson et al. (2009) found that first-grade students were under-represented and third-grade
students were over-represented in special education services across all disability groups. They
found that teacher assessments of students’ language and literacy skills, and reading proficiency
were significant predictors for placement in special education. Another study found that the
disproportionate representation of ELs was mostly in subjective categories such as speech-
language disorders and specific learning disabilities in reading (Harry & Klingner, 2014). A
study by Artiles et al. (2005) examined placement patterns in special education programs in
eleven urban school districts with a high proportion of ELs and high poverty levels in California.
The authors found that ELs were overrepresented in grades five and higher (Artiles et al., 2005).
According to this Artiles et al. (2005), ELs were under-represented in elementary grades and
twice as likely to be placed in special education in grades 6 −12. Reports are not readily available
in some states, and many do not have consistent procedures, mechanisms, and policies that link
ELs and special education data (August & Hakuta, 1997). Yet, in the absence of reliable data
(Barrio, 2017), it is difficult to determine a trend nationwide; however, there is a consensus
among researchers that this disproportionality does exist and that there is a high level of
subjectivity involved in identification of ELs for special education services.
States, districts, and schools continue to struggle with uncertainty regarding how to
provide the best instruction and access to ELs. They need clarification about the role of special
education in remediating their learning difficulties. In the absence of the knowledge and
availability of other interventions, special education services have become “go-to” resources for
ELs. Several factors contribute to disproportionate referrals of ELs. Some factors are “limited

7
implementation of prereferral strategies” (Klingner et al., 2006. p. 114), confusion between the
learning behaviors for emergent English proficiency and learning disability (Artiles et al., 2006),
the subjectivity of the referral process (Sullivan, 2011), a lack of culturally responsive
assessment processes (Klingner & Harry, 2006), a lack of multi-tied support systems for ELs
(Wilkinson et al., 2006), and other factors discussed later in this dissertation. These multiple and
systemic factors make it difficult to identify and solve this complex problem.
Ongoing disproportionality indicates systemic inequities, prejudice, and marginalization
of a vulnerable student population. It is necessary to investigate the extent to which language
support, preservice training, and professional development contribute to the identification,
placement, and patterns of disproportionality at various levels of education systems ⎯given the
potential effect of these factors on student educational experiences (Sullivan, 2011). The present
study explores some aspects of the problem of practice (PoP), such as the mindset of educators,
their training and professional development, their understanding of the reading challenges faced
by ELs, their knowledge of appropriate interventions, and the impact of these aspects on the
educational experiences of ELs in this district.
Purpose of the Study
This case study is a replication of a study conducted by Becker and Deris (2019) in a
school district in northeast United States. Their study was designed to identify the impact of
staff member efficacy on proper determination of ELs for special education services. Staff
members’ sense of efficacy includes their beliefs about language learning, their attitude
towards ELs, their understanding of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), their
understanding of the appropriateness of the assessment tools, and their confidence in their
ability to determine the presence of a language difference versus a learning disability (Klingner

8
et al., 2006). A lack of self-efficacy may lead to improper placement of ELs in special
education programs resulting in over-representation of marginalized students in some districts.
This study focuses on understanding SST members’ role in determining special education
placement for ELs. SSTs are the final step before educators decide on special education referral,
and they directly influence educational outcomes of ELs. The validity of the practices is the
criterion for determining the appropriateness of identification and the services provided to any
student or group of students (Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). If the practitioners ensure the
validity of educational decisions, the relative risk of identification for special education
eligibility would be less of a concern (Sullivan, 2011). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that if
practices such as implementing MTSS, and using appropriate instructional strategies to support
ELs are not valid, then the outcome (identification of ELs for special education services) is not
valid either. This study examines SST members’ sense of self-efficacy and their knowledge and
understanding of the different aspects of MTSS to recommend some of the immediate steps the
school district could take to solve this PoP.
Since this PoP is directly related to my role as a school administrator, the opportunity to
study this organization and its people was valuable. It allowed me to acquire a deeper
understanding of the context that shapes my work and has the potential to directly impact my
community (Lochmiller & Lester, 2020). The findings from this study can improve
understanding of the PoP more broadly, and have already had an impact on my day-to-day
practices. The findings and recommendations can also potentially enhance the self-efficacy,
knowledge, and understanding of those involved as participants, and help the district to focus on
some of the components of this complex problem.

9
Research Question and Methodology
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What role do student study team members’ personal and general efficacy beliefs play
in determining the eligibility of ELs for special education services?
2. How do the student study team members’ knowledge and understanding of MTSS
and second language acquisition continuum impact the referral of ELs for special
education services, particularly for specific learning disabilities (reading)?
The present study used a qualitative case study model to examine the given PoP at a mid-sized
district with early learning to adult education programs. Since the research sought to examine the
systemic and mindset-related causes of the disproportionate referral of ELs for special education
services, a qualitative methodological approach was appropriate (Creswell, 2013). Lochmiller
and Lester (2020) highlight that qualitative research focuses on context-rich and context-specific
phenomena of interest and describes them with tremendous insight and depth. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) espouse that case studies share some of the aspects of qualitative research, such as
“the search for meaning and understanding, the researcher as a primary instrument of data
collection and analysis, an inductive investigative strategy, and the end product being richly
descriptive” (p. 37). The search for meaning is to understand the factors that have led to the
disproportionate referral of ELs for special education services in this district. The end product is
a thematic analysis of the findings that shed light on immediate and long-term practices that
could be improved across the district.
Semi-structured interviews assessed the SST members’ understanding of the nature of the
problem, what they believe about the EL students, and their understanding of the difference
between language acquisition and learning disability. It also assessed their knowledge of the

10
MTSS for EL, their understanding of the assessment tools, and its limitations. The interviews
helped in gathering qualitative data on the role of SSTs and other factors such as the fidelity of
implementation of Tier 1 curriculum for ELs, efficacy of teacher trainings in supporting ELs in
the classroom, and the overall culture of the school district. Thus, this study had the limited
scope of examining the role SSTs play in the special education referral process and, therefore,
did not consider other factors that may have contributed to this outcome. Further research needs
to be done to understand the long-term effects on ELs already placed in special education
programs and assess if such a placement has led to improved academic achievements and better
learning opportunities for students.
Significance of the Study
Educators do their best to support the learning of all students. Informed by this core
belief, this study examines how educators’ beliefs about ELs, their knowledge and understanding
of the nature of language learning, their ability to identify the challenges, and their knowledge of
systems influence their practices and impacts the outcomes for ELs. This research is vital to all
school professionals because staff members must have strong pedagogical skills, confidence in
their ability to teach all students, and feel empowered when making important decisions
regarding eligibility for special education services (Becker & Deris, 2019). As the number of
ELs continues to grow rapidly, it is more important than ever for schools to address
misconceptions about how best to meet their needs as the lack of clear understanding impacts
ELs adversely (Hoover et al., 2016). Special education placement decisions have long-term and
often detrimental effects on ELs leading to restrictive programs and limited options with the
potential of resulting in low graduation rates or dropouts. Per the CDE, in 2021 −2022, 73.8% of
ELs graduated within five years, compared to 89.5% of native speakers. As such, the

11
disproportionate representation of ELs in special education is an ongoing and inequitable
problem of practice.
The findings of this study highlight the practices that may have led to the over-referral of
ELs, particularly Hispanic boys, for special education services in this district. The semi-
structured interview process engaged SST members in reflecting upon their knowledge and
understanding as well as the effectiveness of the district’s systems and practices that have led to
such inequitable outcomes for ELs. Though the findings are specific to a particular context, the
study can be extended to include other aspects of the MTSS framework or be replicated in a
different context as this one is a replication of the original study conducted by Becker and Deris
(2019).
Definition of Terms
• English learners (ELs) are students who speak a language other than English as their
first language and who are in the process of acquiring English as a second or
additional language (Orosco et al., 2016).
• Language acquisition is the product of a subconscious process that requires
meaningful interaction in the target language (i.e., natural communication) in which
speakers are concentrated on the communicative act (Hoover et al., 2016).
• Disproportionality refers to the unequal representation of students within an area, in
this case, special education, compared with students of caucasian backgrounds
(Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). Often, EL students are underrepresented or
overrepresented in special education, depending on the disability category (Barrio,
2017).

12
• Multi-tiered system/s of support (MTSS) is a systematic, continuous improvement
framework designed to provide effective education to all learners, along with early
intervention for students who show signs of struggling (Hoover et al., 2016).
• Student study team is a multi-disciplinary team that plans, and assesses general
education interventions and supports for students experiencing academic,
speech/language, and social-emotional/behavioral difficulties. (El Dorado Charter
SELPA, SST Handbook 2017)
Organization of the Study
This case study focuses on the PoP of over-referral of ELs for special education services
at a suburban school district in northern California. It is organized into five chapters which are
guided by the two research questions. Chapter 1 includes an introduction and background
information on the PoP. Chapter 2 reviews existing research and the theoretical and contextual
framework. Chapter 3 covers research methods, instrumentation, and data collection. Chapter 4
shares the findings in the form of themes and patterns. Chapter 5 discusses the findings, their
implications, and recommendations for future research.

13
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to review literature related to the problem of practice of
disproportionate referrals of ELs for special education services and the factors that contribute to
this problem. The present literature review is comprised of seven parts. The first part discusses
the challenges associated with the changing demographics of the public school system in the
United States. The subsequent sections review the literature on the complexity of language
acquisition, literacy instruction, and learning disability. Next, I discuss the state and district
systems and policies that immediately impact the educational experience of ELs. This follows an
overview of the MTSS framework and the role of SSTs within it. The review of research on the
prereferral, referral, and assessment process comes next, followed by the description and analysis
of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that inform this study. This study is a modified
replication of a study conducted by Becker and Deris in 2019 in a school district in the northeast
United States.
Changing Demographics of the Student Population and Role of Teachers
ELs are one of the largest and fastest-growing school-age populations in the United
States. The EL population is heterogenous and includes students born within and outside the
United States with varying academic skills and English proficiency, and they could also belong
to some vulnerable immigrant groups such as refugees, unaccompanied minors, or unauthorized
immigrants with varying degrees of integration (Sugarman, 2016). Thus, a lack of proficiency in
English may not be the only challenge in their life. With the increase in the number of students
of color who are also primarily ELs, educators face different kinds of issues, and their lack of
awareness, skills, and resources to meet EL needs has led to learning gaps and other challenges
(Orosco et al., 2016). Many school districts are struggling to build their capacity to meet the

14
needs of students from immigrant and refugee backgrounds (Sugarman, 2016) because their
needs are complex and, at times, intense. Thus, besides facing academic challenges due to
limited English proficiency, ELs exhibit several other needs which the school districts are
struggling to meet.
While the student population in U.S. schools has changed drastically, the diversity of the
teaching population is not consistent with these changing demographics. Based on a 2018 U.S.
Department of Education report, as of 2017−2018, 79.3% of public-school teachers were White
and between 2010 and 2021, the percentage of White students decreased from 52 to 45 percent.
White middle-class educators form a large majority of public-school staff, whereas there is an
increase in the number of students of color from different cultures and linguistic backgrounds
(Orosco et al., 2016). Many teacher-preparation programs do not prepare teachers to respond to
the growing diversity in the schools, and many white teachers have a limited understanding of
their white privilege and systemic issues of racism (Kumar & Lauermann, 2018). Educators are
at varying stages of their awareness of systemic discrimination and if, in a few cases, the topic of
white privilege, race, or racism comes up, these teachers either cry or act aggressively (Matias,
2013), thus either acting as a victim or denying the existence of racism; many a time, in the guise
of color blindness. These studies show the disparity between the racial, economic, and cultural
makeup of the educators and students in U.S. public schools. This has created a mismatch
between the needs and the resources to meet those needs (Orosco et al., 2016). Thus, educators’
relative lack of diversity has led to limited or no understanding of students' racial, cultural, and
linguistic challenges and needs.
The curriculum and instructional methods have not changed to meet the needs of this
changing student demographic. Students of color do not see their identities represented in the

15
curriculum nor their culture and heritage reflected in their learning spaces, thus denying them the
opportunity to use their funds of knowledge (Orosco et al., 2016). Many immigrant families
come to the United States hoping to realize their American Dream and see education as one of
the ways to achieve it (Ladson-Billings, 2009). White teachers may not understand their
students’ cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, and may exhibit a deficit mindset for their
poor and minority students, viewing their diversity as a roadblock to academic success. As such,
teachers with a deficit mindset (including teachers of color) are less likely to modify their
instruction for culturally diverse students (Kumar & Lauermann, 2018). The deficit mindset of
the teachers shows through a lack of resources and support for the students of color, particularly
ELs. Without these supports, ELs struggle academically and are deemed to be intellectually
challenged, thus making them suitable candidates for special education referrals.
ELs and their families depend on the teachers’ mindset and ability to meet their needs
and help them succeed in school. When placed in general education classrooms, ELs struggle to
learn when teachers provide instruction with little or no first language support (Becker & Deris,
2019). A quantitative study by Lou and Noels (2020) found that how teachers communicate their
feedback about the learners’ ability to learn English shapes learners’ motivation through their
perception of teachers’ beliefs. If a teacher provides encouraging growth-oriented feedback,
learners perceive that the teacher believes in their ability to improve. The absence of any
feedback has the potential for adverse learning outcomes. When teachers’ mindset toward ELs is
evident through language support and consistent feedback, the presence of which leads to high
academic gains while the absence has the potential to create learning gaps (Lou & Noels, 2020).
ELs tend to show lower academic growth, particularly in reading, than native English speakers
due to the lack of language development support (Zehler et al., 2003, as cited by Klingner,

16
Artiles & Barletta, 2006). The deficit mindset of teachers and the absence of language
development support are some of the causes that ELs underperform and experience adverse
educational outcomes.
Targeted Language and Literacy Instruction
Acquiring a second language takes time and varies depending on a student’s proficiency
in their first language and the extent of exposure to the new language. Krashen and Terrell
(1998) outline different stages of second language acquisition: pre-production, early production,
speech emergence, intermediate, and advanced fluency. The stages, learner behaviors and the
time it could take for each stage are included in Appendix B. A study conducted by Hakuta et al.
(2000) in four California school districts found that even with robust language support and
interventions, it could take 3 to 5 years to develop oral language proficiency and 4 to 7 years to
develop academic English proficiency. This outcome aligns with earlier studies conducted by
Krashen and Terrell (1983) and Thomas and Collier (2002), whose studies present the times it
could take for ELs to become proficient depending upon the rate of exposure to the language and
instructional supports available to them.
Literacy instruction is essential from preschool to third grade. There are different models
of literacy instruction, and a well-known among them is called, the science of reading. This
framework includes explicit instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, reading
fluency, and comprehension (Hudson et al., 2021). Teachers’ knowledge of this framework
influences the reading outcomes for the students. These components are standard among most
frameworks with some variations and are designed to support early literacy development. Most
frameworks assume the understanding of sociocultural contexts, and teachers design classroom
instruction considering the needs of middle-class native English speakers (Hoover et al., 2016).

17
Most ELs do not have the same socio-cultural background as native speakers and struggle with
all or some aspects of literacy instruction (Klingner et al., 2006). They may not be accustomed to
certain sounds and some alphabets common to their first language may be associated with a
different sound in English. Moreover, grammatical issues, syntax conventions and reading
comprehension challenges due to lack of understanding of the socio-cultural context exacerbate
the problem for ELs (Klingner & Geisler, 2016). Thus, literacy instruction, by itself, is
inadequate for ELs to gain proficiency in English if they are not provided with any language
development support.
One of the factors responsible for disproportionate referrals is that some of the educators
do not understand the difference between language acquisition and learning difference. In
California, teachers must provide designated and integrated language development instruction
(Ed. Code. Section 11309, CDE). The lack of appropriate and intentional language development
instruction could lead ELs’ to struggle with reading (Orosco et al., 2016). Moreover, if teachers
are not familiar with the stages of language acquisition and the time it takes to be proficient, the
reading challenges exhibited by some ELs can give a false impression that student has a learning
disability or a cognition issue, but in reality, the student may be going through normal stages of
language acquisition (Klingner & Geisler, 2016). ELs who struggle to read fall in the gray area,
and deciding an appropriate course of action is often tricky (Klingner et al., 2006). They may be
underachieving due to compounded factors, and educators are often unable to determine if it is
because of limited English proficiency or because they have a learning disability (Orosco et al.,
2016). Therefore, teachers who cannot discern the difference are likely to recommend ELs for
special education leading to misplacement and over-representation of these students for reading
disabilities (Hoover & Barletta, 2016). Therefore, they end up referring students for special

18
education services for specific learning disability in reading when it could be a language
acquisition issue.
Specific learning disability is one of the categories of disability. The scarce data on ELs
with special needs suggests that 56% of the ELs are identified under this category, followed by
speech-language impairment at 24%. (Klingner et al., 2006). California Ed. Code defines
Specific Learning Disability (SLD) as follows:
(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or
written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
aphasia. (ii) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning
problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage. (Individual with Disabilities Education Act, Sec. 300.8 (c) (10))
It is ironic to note that the above definition of SLD describes the exclusion criteria, which
include environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantages that provide the safeguards for
ELs, yet, studies show that most ELs are classified under SLD. This is a cause for concern
because SLD is subjective as the SST decides, not medical professionals, that the student has a
learning disability (Klingner et al., 2005). The SST uses their knowledge, understanding, and
experience to determine the outcome for struggling ELs through a subjective process (Harry &
Klingner, 2014) that involves educators who may or may not work or know the students well
enough and solely rely on the information that is provided to them.

19
Thus, when educators commonly confuse the language acquisition process with learning
disability, particularly with reading, and refer students to be assessed for special education
services for SLD in reading (Klingner & Harry, 2006), it leads to misdiagnosis. They may
mistakenly assume that the struggles that ELs exhibit are due to a learning disability rather than a
normal time-consuming process of language acquisition (Orosco et al., 2016). It is unclear if ELs
struggle to develop literacy because of their limited proficiency in English or if they have a
learning disability that interferes with their language acquisition (Klingner, Artiles & Barletta.,
2006). There is a lack of research on the intersectionality of language learning and reading
disability, and this is one of the areas that researchers need to explore further.
State- and District-Wide Policies and Systems
District, state, and school systems have an immediate impact on how ELs receive
education in U.S. schools. Second language acquisition is a complex process, and the problem of
underachievement of ELs has become more difficult due to the variations in different state and
national level policies. There are different policies for the identification of ELs and their
placement. There is a lack of systematic data collection at the state and national levels,
inconsistencies in practices within school districts, and a lack of agreement on common
indicators for success for ELs (August & Hakuta, 1997). These factors are complex; variations
and inconsistencies in the systems directly and adversely impact ELs.
The identification process for EL and special education services adds another layer to this
PoP. Generally, students are identified for EL services through a home language survey which is
similar across the states. However, the special education identification for ELs, particularly the
specific classification of disabilities, varies across states (Sullivan, 2011). Disability
identification procedures for ELs vary substantially across the nation’s school districts (Samson

20
& Lesaux, 2009). Such variability has consequences for referrals for special education,
assessment, and eligibility procedures, and the provision of specialized instruction (Klingner et
al., 2006). Barrio (2017) cited a report by Keller-Allen (2006) that most districts do not have
procedures, mechanisms, or policies that connect EL students and special education data. As
such, it is challenging to understand the scope of how many ELs are receiving special education
services, and under what categories. August and Hakuta (1997) shared that the differences in the
state and district policies complicate the lack of collection of data at the national level. These
complications lead to numerous issues such as inconsistent definitions, different indicators for
identifying disabilities and the lack of clarity on how and by whom the data needs to be
collected. Without reliable ways to access and compare data, practitioners cannot understand the
causes and the scope of PoP.
Due to state accountability measures, ELs are required to participate in state testing.
However, due to the limitations of data tracking and reporting systems, researchers have not been
able to obtain an accurate picture of how ELs perform on these tests. The variability in data
collection methods does not provide a clear picture of how ELs perform on state assessments.
Generally, publicly available data include information on students who receive special education
services but does not specify how many of them are ELs (Samson & Lesaux, 2009). A study by
Zehler et al. (2003) found that the outcome data for non-EL special education students were
more accessible than the ELs receiving special education as the data was not desegrated by their
level of English proficiency. There is barely any data available on the former ELs who have been
reclassified and are no longer eligible for EL services (Zehler et al., 2003) and therefore, there is
no way to understand how ELs perform after they have been reclassified. The sheer lack of

21
reliable data does not enable researchers and practitioners to identify specific issues and patterns
to understand the academic performance of ELs across the nation.
While there is variation at the national level, researchers have also found a high degree of
variability within the districts and schools. An ethnographic study conducted by Klingner and
Harry (2006) found a great deal of variability across schools within the same district. Schools
varied in how policies were implemented, how assessments were conducted, and how student
placement decisions were made within a given district. Some states have policies for sheltered
English immersion of ELs for varying lengths of the school day. Implementation of this
requirement depends on the resources and circumstances of individual schools and districts
(Sullivan, 2020). In the study conducted by Sullivan (2020), the method for determining EL
status varied throughout the state for the first 6 years of the duration of their study, and many
data sets confounded race and language ability, thus making it difficult to track ELs’
performance and placement in special education. This lack of consistency and alignment has
made it challenging for educators, practitioners, and policymakers to figure out the focal points
and metrics that would help them identify priority areas and indicate that their efforts are having
an effect.
Implementation of a Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS)
MTSS is an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on Common Core State
Standards, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized
student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and
social success (California Department of Education, n.d.). This framework has three tiers. Tier 1
is universal instruction and is provided by the classroom teachers. Tier 2 is a small-group
intervention for some students who need additional support, and Tier 3 is individualized support

22
for a few students who need intense support (California Department of Education, 2023). At their
best, these intervention systems are proactive and timely. They involve experts specializing in
different aspects of education, such as literacy, math, EL, behavior, counseling, and social-
emotional support. The process includes a periodic review of student progress, identification of
the needs, selection of appropriate intervention strategies, implementation plan, review, and
ongoing monitoring through school-level and grade-level teams. Therefore, theoretically, the
MTSS is supposed to provide strong universal education and supports for all students. However,
using MTSS to identify learning disabilities is a relatively recent phenomenon and, as such, is
not an established practice in many districts (Hoover et al., 2016). In the case of ELs, MTSS is
only effective if they are provided with culturally and linguistically responsive reading
instruction at the universal level (Orosco et al., 2016). Thus, MTSS is a structured way to
monitor student learning and identify appropriate interventions for students who struggle in one
of more areas.
The SST is a component of the MTSS framework and is a multi-disciplinary team that
considers, plans, and assesses general education interventions and supports for students
experiencing academic, speech/language, and social-emotional/behavioral difficulties (El Dorado
Charter SELPA, SST Handbook 2017). Within this framework, students who show progress are
believed to have responded to universal or targeted instruction. If implemented with fidelity,
students who make minimal or no gains after receiving evidence-based instruction and
interventions are considered for the next intervention tier (Hoover et al., 2016). Theoretically,
SST members should have the expertise to diagnose the academic challenges faced by struggling
students and identify appropriate interventions.

23
While being highly structured and organized, the MTSS framework makes certain
assumptions that can be detrimental to ELs. Some of these assumptions include the belief that
evidence-based reading instruction is appropriate for all students, including ELs, and the second
language acquisition process is similar to the first language. Therefore, if ELs fail to respond to
this evidence-based instruction, SST assumes that the students have a learning problem or a
reading disability (Hoover et al., 2016). Another assumption is that the core instruction and
intervention strategies are implemented with fidelity but that is not usually the case (Klingner, et
al., 2006). Further, the MTSS framework assumes SST members are competent and motivated to
support struggling students, but that may not be the case. It also assumes that the members have
a growth mindset and a high sense of self-efficacy in understanding Els’ problems and
identifying appropriate supports (Becker & Deris, 2019). The reliance on educators’ growth
mindset, asset-based beliefs and knowledge of the MTSS is at the core of the systems
effectiveness and the variability in these components has led to different outcomes for ELs.
Becker and Deris (2019) conducted a qualitative study to identify the role of SST
members’ efficacy in determining ELs for special education services. They found that
overwhelmingly, SST members did not feel competent when making decisions regarding ELs’
eligibility for special education services. Their low self-efficacy resulted from their lack of
understanding second language acquisition process and the time it takes to reach different
proficiency levels. In the absence of other intervention options, the obvious path for educators
was to refer ELs for special education services. An ethnographic study conducted by Klingner
and Harry (2006) to examine the SSTs’ decision-making process revealed that while some
members were aware of the difference between language acquisition and learning disability,
majority of them were confused. The SSTs were also unclear about when to refer a child for

24
special education assessment, and they misinterpreted the lack of English proficiency as a sign of
low IQ or a learning disability. Their over-reliance on the test scores ignored environmental,
cultural, and social factors that may have impacted student learning. The study also found that
although teachers were responsible for implementing intervention strategies, the quality and
fidelity of these interventions varied by teacher and school. In many cases, teachers’ beliefs
about Els’ academic capability and their lack of motivation undermined the need for evidence-
based interventions (Klingner et al., 2006). Thus, theoretically, SSTs situated within the MTSS
appears to be a structured and well-aligned system, but it does have some deficiencies, and these
deficiencies show up in the self-efficacy and knowledge of the educators who work within this
system.
Prereferral, Referral, and Assessment Methods
Classroom teachers are essential in identifying students exhibiting learning difficulties
and in providing them with evidence-based interventions. Their beliefs and the fidelity with
which they implement the curriculum and interventions influence the outcome of the referral
process (Samson & Lesaux, 2009). Though MTSS relies on pre-referral interventions to reduce
disproportionate referrals for special education, the few studies that have been conducted suggest
the limited implementation of pre-referral strategies (Klingner & Harry, 2006). In a study
conducted by Carrasquillo and Rodriquez and cited by Klingner et al. (2006), most referrals of
ELs for special education assessment were from teachers concerned about low academic,
reading, and language achievement of ELs. However, the teachers did not collect or provide any
data on pre-referral intervention, which shows that they did not understand its importance or
knew how to collect them. In the ethnographic study by Klingner and Harry (2006), SSTs did not
generally ask for pre-referral intervention data, nor did the teachers bring it up in the meetings.

25
Thus, teachers’ understanding and ability to provide pre-referral interventions are important in
managing the disproportionate referral of ELs for special education services.
The composition of the SST as a multi-disciplinary team is also crucial because they are
the ones who make the final decision in the referral process. This team generally includes second
language acquisition experts who can review the pre-referral intervention data and suggest
additional intervention strategies to support second language acquisition before deciding to refer
for special education services (Klingner et al., 2006). In many cases, the school psychologist
makes the final recommendation for special education placement, many of whom are not trained
in instructional practices (Klingner & Harry, 2006). The SST must consider contextual features,
sociocultural factors, school and program characteristics, and students' learning opportunities in
all instructional, referral, and assessment phases (Hoover et al., 2016). One of the findings in the
study conducted by Becker and Deris (2019) is that there is a unanimous need for cultural
competency in the staff, as the lack of cultural competency leads to poor decisions and lower
self-efficacy. Participation of a second language acquisition expert can mitigate the challenge of
the lack of cultural competency in the team and encourage a holistic assessment of the challenges
faced by ELs.
The assessment process for special education services also acts as a barrier for ELs.
Numerous studies have examined the linguistic and cultural appropriateness of the assessments
used to identify the need for special education services and found that these are generally
inappropriate for ELs. When Klingner and Harry (2006) studied the assessment process for ELs
referred for special education services, they found that most students were assessed in English
regardless of their first language and without any language-based accommodations. The tests
were also culturally biased and linguistically inappropriate. ELs were often not familiar with the

26
contextual meaning of some terms and were not able to understand the questions due to their
limited English proficiency. Spanish assessments were infrequently used. In their study, even
though the psychologists knew that the validity of the test (WISC III) was questionable for ELs,
many still preferred it over other tests. Another study reviewed by Klingner et al. (2006) and
conducted by Maldonado-Colon (1986) found that the interpretation of the test results
disregarded language differences, and the determination of student placement was done based
solely on teacher referral and perception. Thus, pre-referral, referral, and assessment methods
were implemented inadequately and with bias against ELs. Their identification for special
education services is usually a foregone conclusion without appropriate assessment tools and
reliable data.
Theoretical Lens
The present study integrates Bandura’s (2002) social cognitive theory (SCT) to
understand a social aspect of the individuals involved: the self-efficacy of SST members. SCT
posits that much of human learning occurs in a social environment and is highly context-
dependent. Bandura (2002) discussed human behavior within the framework of triadic
reciprocality, or reciprocal interactions among behavioral, environmental, and personal variables
such as cognition, motivation, and environmental predispositions. These interacting determinants
influence the sense of self-efficacy, which is one’s beliefs about one’s capabilities to organize
and implement actions necessary to learn or perform behaviors such as the choice of tasks,
persistence, effort, expenditure, and skill acquisition (Bandura, 2002). Per Bandura (1977), if an
individual believes in their ability to complete a task, they demonstrate a higher level of
motivation to perform that task. This aspect was incorporated in assessing the sense of self-
efficacy of the participants in understanding the learning needs of ELs and in identifying

27
appropriate intervention strategies and semi-structured interview questions were used for this
purpose.
In the context of this case study, the theoretical lens of SCT works in two ways. The first
application of SCT is at the student level. ELs depend on their teachers for academic success in a
classroom environment, and their ability to learn a new language depends upon the targeted
language support provided to them by their teachers. Lou and Noels (2020) have analyzed the
role of student perception of their teacher’s belief in their ability to learn the English language
and their actual performance. They found that ELs are sensitive to subtle interpersonal signals
that indicate whether other people in their social and learning environments believe in their
ability to learn a new language, which can impact their motivation to learn English. Schunk
(2020) presented similar outcomes from research on students with learning disabilities, where he
examined the interactions between environmental factors and their self-efficacy. In this study,
students who felt their teachers had low expectations of them performed at a lower level,
irrespective of their capabilities. Therefore, it is clear that students' learning environment is
predominantly impacted by their teacher’s attitude and mindset towards them as learners, and
impacts their motivation and self-efficacy.
Besides creating a safe and conducive learning environment, teachers exhibit their
mindset and beliefs about ELs by providing language development instruction and interventions.
SCT emphasizes modeling as an integral form of teaching and plays an essential role in language
acquisition. Intentional language development instruction includes modeling and feedback. Per
Lou and Noels (2020), teacher feedback may be most effective in encouraging growth, as
teachers can make learners feel that they believe in the learner’s potential to improve their
English proficiency. The presence of language models, including teachers, enhances the efficacy

28
of ELs. Thus, teacher mindset regarding a student’s ability to learn and the presence of positive
language models impacts EL mindset and self-efficacy.
The second application of the SCT is the educators’ mindset and self-efficacy beliefs in
their ability to understand the needs and identify evidence-based interventions for struggling
ELs. Becker and Deris (2019) conducted a study to assess the self-efficacy of SST members and
shared that their self-efficacy had a direct impact on the outcomes for ELs. They referred to
Bandura’s SCT, which posits that if a school professional conceals or is unaware of their
inability to perform a task, they will do what they know, allow someone else to address the
problem, work within a group for the desired outcome, or avoid the task. On the other hand, Zee
and Koomen (2016) studied teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and its effects on the classroom
environment. They found that teachers who had a strong sense of self-efficacy set the tone for a
high-quality classroom environment by planning lessons that advance students’ abilities, were
able to manage student behaviors better, and perceived themselves as capable of teaching
students with disabilities. These teachers also felt comfortable accepting responsibility for their
students' difficulties. Some of Zee and Koomen’s (2016) findings also show that teachers with a
higher sense of self-efficacy were less likely to perceive students as problematic, refer them less
for special education services, and seek more consultation for assistance. They were also more
likely to accept and implement interventions suggested by the coaches. Thus, teachers with a
growth mindset and a strong sense of self-efficacy have high expectations for their students,
enhancing their students’ self-efficacy. Teachers with low self-efficacy adversely impact the
students’ motivation and self-efficacy.

29
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study is an adaptation of the MTSS (see Figure 1),
which is depicted as a pyramid with three tiers of instructional support. Tier 1 forms the base,
which is universal instruction provided to all students. In the middle, Tier 2 represents the small
group support, generally provided to 15 −20% of students and Tier 3 is intense support provided
to 1 −5% of individual students who have failed to show progress with Tier 1 and 2 interventions
(Buffam et al., 2009).
Figure 1
MTSS Tiered Support

30
The conceptual framework for this case study is an inverted pyramid (see Figure 2)
depicting a funnel through which ELs pass. When some do not benefit from Tier 1 or 2, they
reach Tier 3, where SSTs are the gatekeepers for special education services. In theory, these tiers
work in synergy where a student who receives Tier 3 support also receives Tier 1 and 2 support.
In reality, that is not often the case.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

31
The inverted triangle acts as a funnel through which EL students “fall through the
cracks,” if not served at the previous tier. Since the EL population is growing, the existing
systems and processes are unprepared to support their academic and social-emotional needs. If
the system fails them at all tiers, ELs end up at Tier 3, where SST decides their future by
gathering relevant information, reviewing data, and consulting with the parents. Whatever
decision the team makes has long-term effects on EL academic trajectory; therefore, their
mindset and knowledge has a long-term effect on EL academic outcomes.
Several reasons exist for the failure of tiered interventions under the MTSS framework.
Each tier has some limitations and, if not implemented with fidelity, pushes the students to the
next tier. SSTs form Tier 3 support. If they are not able to impact student learning, then the team
explores other options including the appropriateness of the student’s placement in the general
education program.
At the Tier 1 level, ELs go through the same learning experiences as their native speaking
peers but without language-development support. If students do not progress through the
universal instruction, the SST expects teachers to implement pre-referral interventions in the
classroom or a small group setting. Several studies have suggested a limited or lacking
implementation of intervention strategies prior to the referral for special education (Klingner &
Harry, 2006). When students struggle in general classroom setting, and the appropriate language
support as well as other interventions are not provided then ELs fail to show progress. This
pushes them to the next level of intervention as educators are left with limited options assuming
ELs have a learning disability (Becker & Deris, 2019).
Tier 2 interventions comprise small-group instruction, and ELs are generally identified
for this support when Tier 1 instruction does not work for them. However, at this tier, the focus

32
is more on acquiring reading skills through pull out groups (Klingner et al., 2006). Moreover, it
is also assumed by the SST that classroom teachers know the difference between language
development and learning disability, which may not be the case. Klingner and Harry (2006)
found in a study that the pre-referral strategies were not aligned with what the students needed
leading to mismatched interventions. Systemic constraints such as scheduling, class sizes, and
teacher capacity may create additional barriers at this level. Usually at this tier, other staff
members are also enlisted to provide interventions to the struggling students. Harry and Klingner
(2006) found that there was not much planning and collaboration among the staff providing this
level of support to struggling readers, and it is unlikely that ELs get the language development
support. Therefore, even after Tier 2 interventions, an EL may not show progress due to
mismatched interventions or insufficient language development support.
Usually, SSTs at Tier 3 comprises of educators who are experts in different aspects of
teaching and learning. These teams assess student needs and determine the next steps. When a
student is referred for Tier 3 intervention, it is assumed that the classroom teacher and other
support personnel have implemented all the strategies to support the English literacy of ELs
(Orosco et al., 2016). Consequently, students’ lack of progress is attributed to their cognitive
ability (Becker & Deris, 2019). In addition to the general lack of understanding of language
development and learning disability, the assessment tools used to identify the learning disability
may not be linguistically and culturally appropriate for ELs and have the potential to
misdiagnose (Klingner & Harry, 2006). The SSTs may not consider these limitations or, even if
they are aware of these limitations, may not know what else they can do to support ELs and may
choose to refer them for special education services in reading disability or speech impairment
(Park, 2007, as cited by Samson & Lesaux, 2008).

33
With loopholes at every tier, ELs get pushed to the next tier for several reasons, primary
among them is the role of educators with the decision-making ability, and the subjectivity of the
disability category. Educator mindset and self-efficacy beliefs play a vital role in the decisions
made for ELs. Thus, ELs fall through the cracks at every tier and end up in special education
services, which may not be an appropriate placement for them. In this way, a system like the
MTSS, which is set up to prevent disproportionate referrals of ELs for special education services,
ends up contributing to this problem of practice.
Aligning Bandura’s (2002) social cognitive theory and the conceptual framework for this
study, SST members may or may not be aware of their deficiencies and lack of knowledge of
appropriate interventions and tools for ELs. This lack of self-efficacy at the Tier 3 level has an
adverse impact on struggling students. ELs do not receive the language development and tiered
support they deserve due to their teachers' deficit mindset, which impacts their learning
motivation and self-efficacy. While SSTs are supposed to determine the appropriate support for
struggling students, they expect ELs to read on par with the native speakers of English and
assume that the problem is within the child and not in the environment (Klingner & Harry,
2006), paving their path towards special education services.

34
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, sample population, instrumentation used
to conduct the study, data collection, and analysis. This research is a case study to examine the
role of SSTs in a district where ELs have been over-referred for special education services,
particularly for specific learning disabilities (SLD) in reading. The study seeks to understand the
role SST members’ mindset and self-efficacy, and how their understanding of the MTSS as well
as the second language acquisition impacts the referral of ELs for special education services. The
research questions are as follows:
1. What role do the student study team members’ mindset and efficacy beliefs play in
determining the eligibility of ELs for special education services?
2. How do SST members’ knowledge and understanding of the multi-tiered system of
support and second language acquisition continuum impact the referral of ELs for
special education services, particularly for SLD in reading?
This study is a modified replication of a study conducted by Becker and Deris (2019) in a district
in northeast United States.
Research Design
This study is qualitative in the form of a case study of a problem of practice at a suburban
K −12 school district in northern California. This case study focused on understanding the SST
members’ role in determining ELs’ eligibility for special education services. The qualitative
approach is appropriate for the study sought to uncover the meaning of the phenomenon for
those involved (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The case study method is a qualitative inquiry that
uncovers the interaction of significant factors and identifies characteristics of the phenomenon,
which, in this case, is the disproportionate referral of EL students for special education services.

35
This method also allows for a “description and analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 37), demonstrating how the systems impact the learning experiences of ELs. It
also demonstrates how the SST members’ beliefs about the ELs, their sense of self-efficacy, their
knowledge and understanding of the MTSS, and the process of acquiring a second language
impact the outcomes for the ELs.
This study used a semi-structured interview protocol with open-ended questions followed
by probing questions as needed. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest that interviewing is
necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the world around
them. According to them, interviewing is also the best technique for conducting intensive case
studies for a few selected individuals. Since the information collected pertains to the events that
have already taken place, this study examined the beliefs and thoughts of the participants through
semi-structured interviews. In this particular case, the questions focused on SST members’
thought process, their knowledge and understanding of the nature of the problem, their belief
about ELs, and their sense of self-efficacy in the process of determining the interventions needed
for ELs who are struggling to meet the grade level expectations.
Context, Sample and Population
The setting is a suburban school district in northern California with approximately 14,000
students, 20% of whom are ELs. Sixty-percent of the teachers are White, and 65% are students in
this district are students of color. This district is identified by the California State Department of
Education for disproportionate referral of ELs and has been mandated to develop a
comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS) plan to address the
disproportionality. Though the disproportionate referrals of ELs for special education are mainly

36
in upper primary and secondary grades, in order to keep it manageable and contained, this study
focused on elementary grades only.
Snowball Sampling
Since this is a case study where the findings may not be generalizable, it sought “to study
experiences, views, and everyday practices in an in-depth manner” with a small group of
intentionally selected individuals (Lochmiller & Lester, 2020, p. 140). Given the sensitive nature
of the study, which examines the impact of personal and general efficacy beliefs as one of the
components impacting the outcomes for ELs, it was important that the participants felt
comfortable and safe in sharing their perspectives and opinions. Therefore, “snowball sampling
(or chain referral sampling)” was used to identify the participants, and it is one of the sampling
options per Lochmiller and Lester, 2020 (p. 142).
Participants
The student study teams in this district usually comprise of the instructional coach, school
psychologists, SST team lead, school administrator, classroom teacher, literacy coach, speech-
language pathologists, and parents. However, this study is limited to interviewing district
employees only. The sample population was selected based on the following criteria:
1. Participants must be current educators employed by the district.
2. Participants must have at least 1 year of experience supporting ELs at different tiers
of MTSS (Tiers 1, 2, and 3).
3. Participants are preferably serving at a CCEIS school.
District MTSS coaches who support different school sites assisted in identifying potential
participants. Being familiar with site-level teams, they recommended 33 possible candidates
based on the above selection criteria. Nineteen candidates were invited to participate in this

37
study, and 16 candidates accepted the invitation. Thirteen candidates were interviewed, which is
when the saturation point was reached. All individuals invited to be part of this study were sent
an email that included information on the purpose of the study, measures of confidentiality, and
their rights as participants.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
As a qualitative researcher, I am the primary instrument of data collection, and “whether
or not a bit of information becomes data in a research study depends solely on the interest and
perspective of the investigator” (Merriam & Tisdell 2016, p. 105). I am interested in
understanding a small but critical component in the referral process where important decisions
about the academic future of ELs are made. The SSTs have the power to influence short-term
and long-term outcomes for the most vulnerable students, including ELs, and I wanted to get a
sense of their thinking process, which I was able to do through semi-structured interview
protocol.
The SSTs are, in a way, gatekeepers for special education service referrals, and I wanted
to understand their thought process, knowledge of the systems and procedures, and
understanding of the second language acquisition continuum. Since this is a qualitative study, a
semi-structured interview format allowed for interview consistency and flexibility to respond and
probe in situ (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, semi-structured interviews, with the option
of asking probing questions, were appropriate in this context. The interview protocol is included
in Appendix C, and the questions align with the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of the
research.
The conceptual framework for this study is based on the MTSS framework with three
levels of tiered support and intervention. Tier 1 is universal instruction reaching 100% of the

38
students, Tier 2 is small group instruction generally for about 20% of the population, and Tier 3
is intense individual intervention usually provided to 5%. I hypothesized that ELs end up at the
SST level (Tier 3) when the previous two tiers have proven ineffective in supporting their
learning experiences.
The theoretical framework of this study is based on Bandura’s (2007) social cognitive
theory, which states that learning is context-dependent and happens in a social environment. The
underlying belief in using this theoretical framework is two-fold. The first is the educators’ belief
in ELs’ efficacy in learning a new language and the factors that influence this ability. The second
belief is their sense of self-efficacy and ability to understand and assess ELs’ specific challenges
within district systems. The unstructured interview questions assessed SST member knowledge
and understanding of the MTSS, language acquisition, learning disability and their sense of self-
efficacy in adequately understanding ELs’ academic challenges. The probing questions, when
asked, were used to gain further clarity and depth for some of the responses.
Interview Protocol
Interviews were conducted in a one-on-one setting at a place and time convenient to the
participants. There were 21 interview questions which took anywhere from 35 −58 minutes to
complete. Nine questions focused on understanding self-efficacy and the mindset of the
participants, eleven questions sought to assess their knowledge, skills and understanding of the
PoP, and one question was an over-arching question. Prior permission was sought to record the
interviews, and I also took handwritten notes for reference and cross-check. I asked probing
questions as needed and contacted a couple of participants after the interview with a few follow-
up questions.

39
The interview focused on RQ1 and RQ2 and included some basic demographic questions.
Questions were designed to move from a general understanding of the supports available for
struggling students and narrowed down to the specific supports provided to ELs. The questions
assessed participants’ understanding of the second language acquisition process and sought their
perspective on the issues of the over-representation of ELs for special education services. In the
end, the participants were asked to offer their recommendations to solve this problem of practice.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making meaning by identifying commonalities and
differences and of examining different components that relate to the research questions,
conceptual and theoretical frameworks (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Responses to the interview
questions in the form of recording, transcripts, notes and my informal observation formed raw
data, which I analyzed for themes and categories. I developed codes for identifying and tracking
major themes and looked for broad patterns in the responses offered by the participants. As in the
original study by Becker and Deris (2019), the qualitative data is presented in Chapter 4 as
vignettes and verbatim statements made by the participants, where applicable, as evidence of the
findings of this study.
This study focuses on understanding the role SST members’ knowledge and their sense
of efficacy play in the referral of ELs for special education services. Therefore, I analyzed the
themes related to their beliefs, knowledge of the process, and understanding of the ELs’ learning
challenges. Since “qualitative design is emergent” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 105), I began
identifying categories and themes. I updated the list as and when new themes and categories
emerged after each interview. When I found that the themes became repetitive after the eleventh

40
interview, I still interviewed two more participants to ensure that I had reached a saturation
point.
Qualitative data analysis involves moving from individual statements to interpretations
that are more abstract but directly relate to or address [the] research question (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2020), and this process has to be simultaneous to data collection becoming more intense
as the study progresses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used an analysis map (Lochmiller & Lester,
2020) to code the categories and arrive at the themes related to the conceptual framework by
forming a thematic cluster. Once the saturation point was reached, I began articulating the
analysis.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To be credible in qualitative research, “it is important to understand the perspectives of
those involved in the phenomenon of interest, to uncover the complexity of human behavior in a
contextual framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is happening” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 244). As a language learner, I harbor a perspective that ELs are often
underserved and that the systems in this district pose extreme challenges to these students
leading to inequities in opportunities and access. Therefore, my personal biases may have
influenced how I listened and understood the participants’ perspectives in order to make holistic
and evidence-based interpretations. Secondly, my positionality as a school administrator and as a
primary researcher who is knowledgeable about the MTSS and the second language acquisition
continuum had the potential to influence the responses of the participants, particularly those who
had an emerging understanding of the framework. They would have either felt comfortable using
educational jargon and relied on my expertise to interpret them or felt overwhelmed by the

41
specificity of the interview questions. As such, they may have provided responses that seemed
appropriate for the setting but may not have been authentic.
Another way the credibility of this study was ensured was that all participants had a clear
understanding of the purpose, the process of data collection, and how I planned to ensure their
privacy and confidentiality. Since the context of this study involved SST members from within
the district, many of whom support multiple schools, I triangulated the data from individual
interviews with that of the school-based team to ensure consistency and reliability of the data
collection process.
Data Validation
To ensure that the data was valid and reliable, I used some of the strategies outlined by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016, p. 259), including triangulation, member checks, respondent
validation, and the researcher’s position of reflexivity. I used the process of “memoing”
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2020, p. 173) to capture my observations and initial interpretations,
including my biases and assumptions. This was followed by a thematic analysis of the responses
for each interview question captured in a log book.
A few ways I practiced self-reflection and self-awareness were by catching myself in the
moments of possible biased analysis, by seeking help of peers and mentors, and by sharing the
preliminary outcomes with some of the participants, so they could validate the findings or help
me identify potentially biased interpretations. Along with sharing the results, I also shared how I
had arrived at them (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) by sharing the process through the log book of
themes, cluster codes, and conceptual analysis.

42
Ethics
One of the guiding principles of this study is that educators want the best for their
students and will do what they know in a given context. They make decisions based on
information available to them and their understanding of the nature of the academic challenges
faced by ELs. As such, every effort was made to ensure that the interview process did not make
the participants feel incompetent nor their ideas were challenged in any way. Participants had
several opportunities to ask clarifying questions and were provided with sufficient time to
respond to the interview questions. Participants were protected from experiencing any harm, and
this study was conducted in alignment with the ethical guidelines of the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board.
Participants were informed of the purpose of the study and that participation was
voluntary. Moreover, they were informed of their right to rescind their consent or disengage from
participation anytime during this study. Their permission was sought before recording the
interview, and they were offered an opportunity to review the transcript. The identity of the
participants has been protected by using unique codes assigned to each one of them, and the
notes, as well as the recordings, have been kept in a secure place under lock and key.
Reflective notes, emerging thematic and conceptual topics, and verbatim quotes from the
participants have been included to ensure that the findings are accurate and that the data is not
misrepresented, concealed, or suppressed (Creswell, 2013). All the documents will be destroyed
after 5 years of submitting this report to the University of Southern California.
Conclusion
Disproportionate referral of ELs for special education services is one of the wicked
problems that several districts in the United States have faced for decades. Many factors have led

43
to this disproportionate referral of ELs for special education services. Since SSTs are involved at
a micro-level, it would be beneficial to understand their thought process, their understanding of
the problem, and how they try to find solutions within what they believe and know about ELs so
that we can mitigate this PoP. Thus, a qualitative study using a semi-structured interview
protocol is one of the ways to understand this issue.

44
Chapter Four: Findings
This case study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What role do the student study team members’ mindset and efficacy beliefs play in
determining the eligibility of English Learners for special education services?
2. How do SST members’ knowledge and understanding of the multi-tiered systems of
support and second language acquisition continuum impact the referral of ELs for
special education services, particularly for specific learning disabilities (reading)?
Chapter 4 outlines the thematic analysis of the interview responses to the questions that examine
the mindset, efficacy beliefs, knowledge, and understanding of the SST members in assessing
ELs for special education services. Responses to the 21 interview questions aligned with the two
RQs were analyzed thematically based on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks presented
in Chapter 2.
Interview Participants
This qualitative case study was conducted by interviewing 13 educators who serve on
SSTs in different capacities at a suburban school district in northern California. All participants
are tenured employees of this district and come from seven out of 18 elementary schools. Table 1
demonstrates participant demographic data. The participants identified for this case study have
been employed by the district between 2 and 29 years; they perform different roles to support
students and coach teachers, and they support multiple sites. Over 50% of the participants
identify as White, and over 75% are bilingual.

45
Table 1
Demographic Characteristic of Interview Participants
Code name Position Years in
district
Role on SST Language
profile
Racial
identity
Participant A CCEIS/ELD
coach
16 Tier 1 intervention
coach
Bilingual
(non-
Spanish)
Bi-racial
Participant B Instructional
coach
16 Tier 1 and 2
intervention coach
English only White
Participant C Instructional/E
LD coach
2 Tier 1 coach Bilingual
(Spanish)
Latina
Participant D Wellness
coordinator
10 Tier 1, 2, and 3
intervention −social
Emotional
Bilingual
(non-
Spanish)
Asian
Participant E CCEIS/ELD
coach
3 Tier 1 and 2 coach Multilingual Asian
Participant F Site principal 25 Site admin English only White
Participant G Site principal 3 Site admin English only White
Participant H Instructional
coach
29 Tier 1, 2, and 3
intervention coach
English only White
Participant I Special
education
teacher
6 Tier 1 and 2 coach
for special
education services
Bilingual
(non-
Spanish)
White
Participant J Wellness
coordinator
7 Tier 1, 2, and 3
intervention −social
emotional
Multilingual Asian
Participant K Instructional
coach
10 Tier 1, 2, and 3
intervention coach
English only White
Participant L Literacy
interventionist
5 Tier 1 and 2
intervention,
literacy and English
language
development
Bilingual
(Spanish)
Hispanic

46
Participant M School
psychologist
3 Tier 3 intervention Bilingual
(Spanish)
Latina

RQ1 Findings
Interview questions that were designed to understand the mindset and efficacy beliefs of
the participants included questions on their thoughts on working with culturally and linguistically
diverse populations, professional development they have received to serve these students, their
understanding of the needs of ELs, challenges in identifying appropriate support for them and
their recommendations to mitigate these challenges. The findings for RQ1 include themes related
to the deficit mindset of the participants, alignment and direction of the district, adult-centered
culture, sense of ownership and accountability, need for training and professional development
for all staff and analysis of self-efficacy score of the participants.
Deficit Mindset of the Participants
Some participants attributed the academic challenges faced by ELs to the students and
their families while others attributed to the deficit mindset among teachers and staff. The aspects
varied among the participants. Six participants attributed the challenges ELs face at schools in
this district to the students, their families, and their cultural background. According to them, it is
challenging to communicate with the teachers and staff due to students and their families lack of
proficiency in English. This perceived language barrier is attributed to be the reason for their
limited participation in school-related activities. Participant G shared, “…depending on the
culture you are working with, sometimes there is a reluctance to engage in school may be due to
fear or not knowing how to engage due to the language issues.” This particular concern was
brought up frequently. Other perceived challenges for ELs include a lack of a print-rich

47
environment at home, different cultural expectations for education, different priorities for the
families, and different expectations from the school staff. Participant F shared that:
[ELs] have been in our school since maybe Pre-K or kindergarten at least, and they're still
having a very hard time with language acquisition just because no English is happening
outside of school, you know, and maybe their family just does not speak it, maybe their
family isn't educated but that they're not getting even just like having any English books
or picture books to look at when you are a little kid.
Participant H also echoed these concerns:
Another reason they might struggle with reading is that they are immersed in the English
language here at school, but do they have books in their language that they can practice
reading at home? Are parents able to help them with reading at home? Are parents’
literate? Sometimes, that’s the struggle with EL kids. The parents might be working two
to three jobs and do not have any time to help their students at home or meet with the
teachers and staff.
Thus, the reading challenges faced by ELs in school were attributed to the family environment
and parent's lack of involvement in the education of their student.
However, nine participants attributed the EL challenges to the teacher mindset and the
lack of systems and processes in the district. Participant A stated that “Another challenge is,
from my perspective, a little bit of teacher mindset about whose job it is to support a student who
is struggling in academics and who is also an EL”. Two other coaches echoed this concern and
shared that many classroom teachers in this district are reluctant to support ELs and, according to
them the reasons range from deficit mindset to lack of skills to support these students.
Participants acknowledged these challenges and expressed their inability to overcome them due

48
to factors beyond their control. These systemic barriers include adult-centered culture and
deficiencies in multiple areas such as alignment of vision and direction for the EL programs,
staff accountability, and training & professional development for all staff members
Alignment and Direction
Participants expressed concerns for lack of vision, sense of direction, and understanding
of the PoP at the district level. Those who have been in the district for over 5 years shared that
academic year 2022 −23 was the first year when something formal and systematic is being done
to support ELs. The focus of the districtwide professional development (PD) this year is on
implementing Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), which is a “research-based and
validated instructional model that has proven [to be] effective in addressing the academic needs
of English learners” (Center for Applied Linguistics, n.d.) and the PD is being offered on four
separate days spread throughout the school year. While this PD is offered at the beginning of
every trimester, teachers are expected to provide ELD instruction to support ELs throughout the
year. This lack of alignment between the schedule of PD and the expectations from the teacher
has caused some confusion and frustration among educators in this district. Moreover, teachers
and coaches do not feel prepared to offer this kind of support as they are still being trained and
have not had any dedicated time to design lessons to incorporate this training. Participant B who
has been in the district for 16 years, shared that this is the first year that systemwide PD is being
offered, and she is struggling to coach teachers in incorporating ELD as she “is just one-step
ahead” of the teachers and does not feel confident of her skill level. Staff in this district cannot
figure out how they can support ELs when they do not have a clear understanding of how SIOP
works within the context of the district and what specific expectations are from them. Participant
C shared:

49
There is SIOP, but we’re getting the training [along] with the teachers. So, we don't get to
talk about that in a way it’s specific -what does that look like in a [district’s name]
classroom? What should we be looking for when we go out to coach? What are the top
three things I want to make sure my classroom teachers are doing? We do not have that
type of vision yet. So, everybody’s kind of shooting in the dark for supporting ELs. But
nobody knows what that looks like or has a vision of it. We haven't defined it as a
district.
Several other participants also echoed similar observations that there is a lack of a unified
approach in defining the strategy and planning to provide relevant support for ELs in the district.
Adult-Centered Culture
Participants shared that the district culture is highly adult-centered, and some of the major
decisions are centered around what works for the adults in the system. Participant E raised a
concern that “there is a mindset towards the convenience of teachers and adults in this district,”
which adversely impacts the students. This culture particularly impacts ELs as they rely on
competent, committed educators to meet their significant needs. Participants repeatedly
mentioned that teachers find it challenging to have ELs in their classrooms and expect other
adults in the building to “fix” the students (Participant H). “Instead of reviewing classroom
procedures and the environment” (participant I), “teachers want parents to know how school
works in this teacher’s classroom” (participant H), and expect students and families to adapt to
their teaching style and expectations. Most of the teaching is “listen and learn” (Participant L),
which can overwhelm ELs. The “onus of underperformance is put on the students, and the time it
takes to learn a language proficiently is not acknowledged” (Participant H). Adult needs and

50
preferences have been prioritized over student needs, leading to significant and long-term
challenges for ELs in this district.
This lack of ownership and adult-centric approach has led to a trend where newcomer
ELs are referred to other adults for interventions as early as kindergarten and first grade. In a
couple of cases, participants mentioned that if they provide the “intervention to ELs, sometimes
that may be the only support [ELs] get throughout the day” (Participant L). Two coaches
reported that teachers at their schools request them to conduct reading benchmark assessments
for their ELs and they oblige as they want to support their teachers. This is contrary to the best
practices as without a clear understanding of the student’s performance level and academic
challenges, teachers may not be able to help ELs in the class where they spend most of their
time. Several participants reported that if ELs are referred for intervention and do not show
significant progress, teachers expect them to be assessed for special education services. Thus,
this “out-sourcing” of interventions for ELs makes them prime candidates for special education
referrals.
An adult-centered mindset is also demonstrated at the district level while selecting the
curriculum and instructional strategies. Participant E stated,
There is a mindset towards the convenience of teachers and adults, whereas elsewhere
I've been, the mindset is really in the best interest of students. So I see that as very
problematic in [District’s name] because very rarely do I see questions about, like, what's
going to be best for our English Learners? Usually, [they ask] what do [teachers] like
better? Even in the pilot process, when we're piloting the ELD curriculum, the question is
like voting, which one do you like, as opposed to which one worked better for your
students?

51
Adult-centered choices have proven detrimental for struggling students, particularly ELs when
they need extra support and resources, which may require more time and effort. Teacher
preference and convenience is being prioritized over student needs.
Ownership and Accountability
There is a general lack of ownership, buy-in for the EL initiatives, accountability, and
lack of direction at various levels. Designated and integrated ELD instruction is required per the
California Code of Regulations, Title 5 [5 CCR] Section 11309[a]) and is the primary
responsibility of the teachers. District expects teachers to provide designated ELD instruction 30
minutes daily but there is no mechanism to ensure that designated ELD is being provided to ELs.
Almost all participants shared that designated ELD is not happening at their site either fully or
partially, and there are no measures to ensure that it is being implemented with fidelity.
Lack of ownership for ELs was a concern shared my several participants. “There is a
general lack of ownership for ELs” (Participant C), and “teachers rely on other adults to support
them (Participant H). Participant A shared that “I am not convinced that right now our site is as
welcoming to families of students who are learning English and come from different cultural
backgrounds.” Moreover, if and when students are identified for special education services,
“they become the responsibility of the special education service provider/teacher and they get
less classroom support” (Participant I) whereas special education services are provided in
addition to the core instruction. The district does not have a culture of ownership for struggling
students and families, so their needs are unmet in this environment.
While teachers lack ownership for supporting ELs, some coaches shared that the site
administrators who are responsible for ensuring that designated ELD instruction is provided to
the ELs do not hold teachers accountable. Site admins who participated in this study seemed to

52
justify that the teachers do not provide Tier 1 instruction because they are still being trained in
ELD and their master schedule does not allow for grade-level planning and collaboration during
workday. Therefore, teachers do not have time to collaborate or plan for ELD instruction.
Collaborative planning time would allow them to form small groups across grade levels so that
students with similar needs can be clustered to provide targeted language instruction. Thus, lack
of clear expectations and collaboration time has impacted the instruction that ELs receive in this
district.
The ELD framework adopted by the district is also facing implementation challenges.
SIOP® recommends several ELD strategies that can be integrated into various subjects to be
taught throughout the day. There is some push-back from coaches and teachers for SIOP
strategies, as shared by Participant B “Where the struggle is happening is that at my site, and a
lot of other sites, there’s no accountability or even a clear expectation that the teachers are doing
what SIOP has trained us to do.” Coaches feel that SIOP strategies are outdated and far too many
to make it work for ELs. Staff in this district consider SIOP strategies as “just good teaching
practices” (Participant B) and not something that is “culturally and linguistically sensitive”
(Participant C). According to some participants, teachers at their site find SIOP strategies to be
“too much work. It’s easier for them just to refer [students] for intervention and say ‘can you
please help this kid?” (Participant H). Thus, the program adopted for ELD instruction is not
being implemented with fidelity, if it is being implemented at all.
District has provided additional support for teachers through instructional coaches, who
are available 3 days a week on-site to help teachers with planning and interventions for
struggling students. However, these coaches are unclear of the expectations from them and from
the teachers. They are also struggling to perform their job. Participant B shared:

53
One of the focuses of why we, the [coaches], were placed at the school sites 60% was to
support and coach into this role. Where the struggle is happening is that at my site, and at
a lot of other sites, there is no accountability or really even clear expectations that the
teachers are doing what SIOP has trained us to do. And so … I have no power to push
that.
Participant A shared that she coaches her teachers for literacy interventions rather than ELD
because that is “what the teachers are comfortable with.” As she is new to the school, she wants
to “ensure smooth and easy collaboration.” Coaches feel that they are being under-utilized due to
lack of accountability and clear expectations at different levels.
Teacher buy-in and participation in PD are also a challenge. Several participants reported
that their teachers do not attend SIOP training, which implies that their EL students are not
getting the support they deserve. Many teachers take the PD Day off, and no make-up sessions
are offered. There are no accountability measures to integrate and implement SIOP framework in
their lesson design. Participants also reported that some teachers and grade-level teams do not
engage with the coaches that the district has hired to support them. Coaches feel that it is not
their place to advise their colleagues on expectations for collaboration, and site administrators
fear labor union grievances if they enforce these expectations outside of their once-a-month
collaboration time. Thus, PD provided for ELs is not yielding a desired outcome due to several
inter-personal dynamics.
Training and Professional Development
Almost all participants shared that the only time they have had any formal training to
serve their culturally and linguistically diverse students was when they got their California
Teaching Credential or a Master’s degree. For majority of the participants, this was more than a

54
decade ago. Some participants mentioned engaging in optional diversity and social justice
workshops that were offered last year, but these were not specifically targeted towards ELD. The
2022 −2023 school year is the first one where the district has provided formal training for ELD. It
is being offered due to state and federal mandates on the district for historically low performance
of ELs on state assessment and for overidentification for special education services.
The training for implementation of MTSS is also at different stages of implementation in
the district. MTSS was introduced in 2019 −2020 through a “giant document” (Participant J) and
that was the only resource provided for its implementation. There has been no training or
ongoing monitoring to provide targeted and timely support to all struggling students.
Coordinators and school administrators are also not trained to lead the SSTs. They all rely on the
document and use aspects that make sense to them. Therefore, each school has its own version of
MTSS with varying levels of implementation and understanding. As such, there is no uniform
way to provide interventions and track them across the district.
At the school level, SSTs follow the same process for all students. There is no
differentiation based on students’ needs. As such, ELs are help to the same standards of
academic proficiency as their native English peers. Every SST member plays a vital role in the
decision-making process for special education referrals. Several coaches reported being
unprepared to serve their diverse student population due to a lack of training in ELD. Their
knowledge and understanding of the issues faced by ELs impacts their self-efficacy. They “want
to act as gatekeepers and monitor/reduce the over-referral of ELs, but they are not trained to
identify the problem and select appropriate strategies correctly” (Participant H). While the
teachers and coaches struggle to figure out strategies to support ELs, site principals and other
support staff such as wellness coordinators and school psychologists, have not been trained to

55
support academic needs of their students. Moreover, they are not familiar with EL acquisition
process and these gaps in their knowledge and understanding leads SST members to explore
special education services as it is something they know and understand. Thus, lack of
differentiated approach in assessing students’ needs has led to special education referrals for
ELs.
Self-Efficacy Score
One of the questions asked participants to rate themselves on a scale of 1 −5 (5 being
highly competent) in accurately assessing their ability to discern between language acquisition
and learning disability in ELs. Table 2 shows the self-rated score of each participant.
Table 2
Self-Reported Scores for Competency in Language Acquisition Versus Learning Disability

Participant Score
A 4
B 2
C 4
D 2
E 1
F 2
G 2.5
H 3
I 4
J 3
K 1.5
L 2
M 2

56
As Table 2 shows, 8 of 13 participants rated themselves below the midpoint, and zero
indicated they were “highly competent.” This demonstrates that they are aware of their lack of
competency in supporting teachers and students in ELD strategies. This lack of self-efficacy
impacts ELs’ referral process when they are being assessed for Tier 3 support. It is important to
highlight those five participants paused and thought about this question for a few minutes and
shared that they have never considered the difference between language and literacy
development prior to this interview.
RQ1 Findings Summary
The themes that emerged from the interviews demonstrate the deficit mindset towards
ELs and their families, lack of ownership and accountability, and the overall adult-centered
culture that has paved the path toward special education referral for ELs in this district. Lack of
training and professional development is impacting the sense of self-efficacy of the SST
members who want to be the “gatekeepers” and monitor the overidentification of ELs for special
education services but are not able to do so because they do not feel competent to make an
informed decision in this matter. The SST members are aware of this lack of self-efficacy and
struggle in the absence of resources and guidance to support their teachers and students.
All participants acknowledged that the overidentification of ELs for special education
services is a significant problem of practice in this district. As much as they are trying to support
teachers in implementing ELD strategies, there are gaps in their knowledge. The lack of training
and professional development for all these years has adversely impacted the teachers, coaches,
and school administrators' overall sense of self-efficacy in understanding and supporting ELs'
needs in this school district.

57
RQ2 Findings
Even if people have the right mindset, their knowledge and understanding of the systems
and processes has the potential to impact their decisions. Their understanding of the nature of the
problem of practice is also crucial in identifying and implementing the appropriate solutions. The
interview questions meant to assess the knowledge and understanding of the tiered interventions
within the MTSS framework included questions on the referral process for ELs, the data used by
the team for decision making and some of the challenges they face in supporting ELs who further
interventions. Participants were also directly asked if they were familiar with the second
language acquisition process and how do SSTs determine if there is a language acquisition issue
or a learning difference when an EL is referred for Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention.
Two themes emerged from the responses to these questions: first, knowledge and understanding
of the MTSS; and second, an understanding of the difference between language acquisition and
learning disability.
Knowledge and Understanding of the MTSS
The overall understanding of the MTSS process is at the emerging level for most of the
participants. The MTSS framework is relatively new to the district. Those familiar with the
process are newer to the district and know MTSS from their previous school districts. A common
theme that emerged in this study is that, in the absence of specific direction from the district,
each site is “figuring out the system of their own” (Participant H) and what it might look like at
their site. All participant shared that this was the first year their school is implementing MTSS,
and some common implementation patterns are as under:

58
SST Composition and Scope
Every school site had its own system of interventions for struggling students. The teams
also have different names, and ‘SST’ is used for varying tiers of intervention. The other names
for Tier 3 level teams include problem solving team, special education team, and in one case,
professional learning community (grade level team). For ease and consistency in reporting the
findings of this study, SST will be used for the Tier 3 level team that makes the final
recommendations for special education assessment. The members of SST include
• site administrator
• school psychologist
• school nurse
• speech pathologist
• wellness coordinator
• special education teacher
Depending upon their availability and involvement with the students, the variable members are:
• English language support/assessment technician (ELSAT)
• instructional coach
• classroom teacher
• interventionist
• school support teacher on special assignment (TOSA)
These teams meet anywhere from once every other week to once a month. The English language
development specialist does not participate in these meetings even when EL students are being
considered for special education services. Classroom teacher participation depends on the
schedule of the meetings and the availability of a substitute. SST assumes that Tier 1 and 2

59
interventions have been provided to the struggling student, and these interventions have not had
a significant impact. The team does not evaluate the appropriateness, validity, and fidelity of Tier
1 and 2 interventions. Moreover, Tier 1 and 2 support team members may be different from Tier
3 teams, and there is no overlap or continuity of members.
Consistency, Uniformity, and Integration of Efforts
Several participants mentioned having a different SST process for different needs of their
students. For example, different teams review academic, social-emotional, and behavior supports
for students, and each team is led by different individuals. Generally, the academic support team
is led by the site instructional coach or the school support TOSA; the administrator provides
behavior support, and the wellness coordinator oversees social-emotional interventions. These
teams do not communicate or coordinate their efforts and miss out on addressing the needs of the
whole child.
Within this variability within a school site, systems across the district are also not
aligned. In the absence of a districtwide process and expectations, each site “admin team is
trying to figure out [the process] on their own” (Participant H), and this could look like the
referrals would pass on to the different teams for tiered support such as:
• PLC → Cycle of Inquiry (CoI) → PST → SST
• SST → PST → SPED Team
• CoI → SST → PST
This district’s PLCs usually consist of grade-level teams collaborating for Tier 1 instructional
planning. Cycles of onquiry (CoI) meetings are led by coaches where the team reviews student
data and identifies interventions. This process takes place every 4−6 weeks. At some schools, a
problem solving team (PST) is formed by inviting literacy, math, or behavior experts, depending

60
on the data. The SPED team is the special education team comprising special education teachers,
a psychologist, a program coordinator, and a school administrator. This team generally reviews
students who are in the process of getting special education referrals.
Thus, the findings suggest that there is no consistency in team configuration, and each
school has its own process of referring students for tiered interventions. Members usually do not
overlap, and each team has a different purpose. This lack of consistency in teams has led to
communication gaps; and given the demands on people’s schedules, some crucial stakeholders
may be left out.
The documentation process for interventions also varies immensely across each site.
Some participants shared that the district-recommended paperwork was “too intense”
(Participant H). They have either adapted, modified, or re-created the documents to track the
interventions. Given this huge variability, the site-based teams cannot tap into each other’s
knowledge and competency or share best practices. This variability has also impacted the
district’s ability to collect and review districtwide data on interventions to learn what is effective
and what further resources and supports are needed districtwide.
Several competing initiatives, particularly at CCEIS schools (identified for over-referral
of ELs for special education services), have led to initiative fatigue and confusion. Staff
members do not have an understanding of how to integrate different initiatives, such as SIOP,
universal design for learning (UDL), designated ELD and integrated ELD into a cohesive
product so that ELs could benefit from these interventions. There is a perception that the district
priorities change every year, and there is rarely any connection to the previous years’ initiatives.
Therefore, staff members have “this too shall pass” (Participant C) approach and are not invested
in the current initiatives.

61
Use of Data
The data trend reflected the above variation where each site uses different data points to
assess students’ needs and identify relevant support. There were some common data sources,
such as:
• English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC)
• Fountas and Pinnell Literacy Continuum (F&P) Score
• I-Ready Learning (Reading and Math) Score
• Literacy intervention data
• Teacher created assessment
• Parent interview/questionnaire
Several participants included classroom observation data, and one of the sites included Devereux
Student Strength Assessment (DESSA), a social-emotional competency screener and a
diagnostic tool.
The only data point relevant for ELs is their ELPAC score, and there are several
challenges in using that score. Several participants shared ELPAC test is administered once a
year in spring, and the scores are available in the following school year. Therefore, the score
does not reflect EL proficiency in real-time. Moreover, the data provides composite score in the
four domains of language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and does not
delineate specific skills under each domain. Therefore, the team may have a general sense of the
EL student's performance but may not know what specific skills to assess and target for support.
Another relevant data point for EL students is Lexia® ELD which is an adaptive blended
learning program that supports emergent bilingual students’ English language acquisition
through academic conversations (Internal communication, September 2022). Not all school sites

62
use Lexia for ELD support. Even though their website claims that Lexia is computer adaptive,
the coaches find that it does not adapt for emergent bilinguals and is almost inaccessible to the
newcomers as it relies on English listening skills which the newcomers are still developing. ELs
also find it challenging to navigate the Lexia website. As such, the data gets obscured as it is
difficult to determine if the low scores are due to the lack of language skills or the challenges in
navigating the website. Thus, Lexia data is not useful in assessing the needs of ELs.
Several participants shared that the data used by the SST “may not be appropriate or
current” (Participant J) as different assessments have different timelines, and most of the
benchmarks are over 12 weeks/trimester. In several instances, when probed further on what data
points are used to assess language acquisition, the participants listed reading comprehension
assessments, highlighting the gap in their understanding of the language acquisition process. It
became apparent that the SST members rely heavily on literacy assessments to evaluate the
language development in ELs. They do not use any assessment to assess language development
on an ongoing basis. Thus, the lack of current and appropriate assessment tools has impacted the
timeliness and relevance of the data used to support ELs.
SSTs do not consider the fidelity and the effectiveness of Tier 1 universal instruction and
interventions. In the case of ELs, “district leaders assume that ELD strategies are being
implemented at the classroom level, which is mostly not the case” (Participant B). The reality is
that for ELs and other students as well, “there is no Tier 1 interventions in place” and “nor there
is any data that is being collected for this level” (Participants C, K, and L). SST members assume
that Tier 1 instruction was provided with consistency and fidelity (Participant M), and it has not
had any impact on the students; therefore, the teacher has recommended them for Tier 3

63
interventions. This assumption of strong Tier 1 instruction expedites the special education
referral process for ELs.
Several participants shared that they do not track the number of ELs referred to SST for
Tier 3 reading intervention. Only a couple of participants provided specific data on how many
ELs were referred to SST. Those who shared the exact data, and when others were probed to
guess or give a ballpark number, their responses ranged from 66% to 95%. On an average, 80%
of the ELs were referred for Tier 2 literacy intervention, and about the same percentage were
referred to SST for Tier 3 intervention. The lack of tracking ELs being referred to SSTs for
reading intervention has led to a lack of ‘big picture’ understanding of ELs experience in this
district. This PoP became the focus when the State and Federal requirements were imposed on
the district for under-performance and over-referral of ELs.
Parental Involvement
Participants shared that the parents are usually invited once it is determined that the
student will be referred to the SST, where there is a high likelihood of recommending them for
assessment for special education services. Parents are either interviewed or asked to fill out a
questionnaire that is generally in English. This interaction seeks information on developmental
milestones, life-altering experiences, or past trauma. A couple of participants shared that the
parents are only involved at this stage because their permission is needed to conduct the
assessment for special education services. In most cases, parents attend one meeting where
students’ strengths and areas of growth are discussed, student performance data is shared, and the
next steps are determined by the team. Sometimes, depending on their ability, parents are
enlisted to provide reading support at home. Several participants shared that teacher are not
expected to inform or involve the parents at the beginning of the intervention process nor share

64
their student's challenges at school. Teachers are also not required to keep the parents,
particularly of those struggling, updated on their progress outside of the report cards at the end of
each trimester. One participant shared that “When they start to do the [SST] paperwork, I ask
them: Have you met with the family yet to talk about your concerns? And the answer, most often
is [negative]” (Participant A). Thus, parents are only involved when the decision is made to refer
EL students to the SST.
Tiered Interventions
The participants’ understanding of Tier 1 interventions varied tremendously as the district
does not have a uniform protocol. In general, instructional coaches clearly understood tiered
interventions for reading skills. They shared that they use these reading interventions to support
the language development needs. They were not familiar with Tier 1 language support strategies.
Tier 1
Classroom teachers are expected to provide Tier 1 instruction and interventions for ELD.
There is no formal curriculum for ELD in grades K −3. The district is piloting three different
curricula for Grades 4 −5. Staff are not clear on how to provide the designated ELD support in the
absence of an adopted EL curriculum. The district recommends that teachers provide 30 minutes
of ELD instruction daily, but the resources, planning, collaboration time, and guidance on
executing this initiative are not in place. As such, designated ELD, a strong Tier 1 instruction for
ELs of all levels, is not being fully implemented in elementary schools across the district. Some
sites have attempted to implement it and are relying on teacher buy-in, site-based resources, and
the expertise of instructional coaches.
The district has adopted the SIOP framework to support integrated ELD as Tier 1
universal instruction and the training for it was offered on 4 separate days spread throughout the

65
trimester. Several participants shared that although “mandatory,” these sessions were not well
attended. Make-up sessions were not offered, nor was there any follow-up with the staff that
missed the sessions. Additionally, there is a lack of buy-in for SIOP as many participants felt that
these are just good teaching practices and there is nothing specific that just supports ELs. Some
believe ELs need “something more and something different” (Participant H) to succeed in this
district. Four participants shared that their site has attempted to implement some of these
strategies based on teacher buy-in and preference. For example, a few sites are working on
incorporating content and language objectives which is one of the 30 recommended strategies.
Similarly, the coaches shared that they are not sure if the objectives are being written correctly or
taught intentionally. Several coaches shared that classroom teachers do not teach embedded EL
strategies in their core language arts curriculum, Units of Study®, as they do not understand the
importance of it. Thus, based on the interview responses, Tier 1 ELD instruction is not being
consistently provided to ELs in this district.
There are no EL pathways for elementary school students. EL pathways are designed to
help students move through different levels of language acquisition and are offered as a series of
courses. The pathways define the levels such as newcomer, beginner, intermediate and advance.
Their integration into general education classroom is progressively designed through these
pathways and by the advanced level, ELs are fully integrated into general education coursework.
The pathways allow ELs scaffolds, language support and the time they need to learn a new
language. In the absence of EL pathways, students of all language levels, including newcomers
with zero language ability in English, are placed in general education classrooms. In such
scenario, teachers are expected to provide Tier 1 instruction, and a lot depends on their skill and
their ability to design ELD support for ELs. Since teachers have not received ELD training, they

66
“don’t know how to work with Els … there is just little or no support for them in the classroom.
It’s not intentional. Teachers just don’t know how to do it and how important those pieces are for
ELs” (Participant B). Thus, lack of EL pathways in elementary school have left the teachers and
the site teams to solve this PoP on their own.
Some principals have invested their site funds in hiring a part-time literacy
interventionist. The district has provided all elementary schools with 60% coaches for
implementing ELD strategies through SIOP. These resources depend on funding and district
priority and cannot be relied on for multiple years. Several sites have funded interventionists for
the newcomer EL groups for grades 3 −5 as they have a considerable influx of beginner ELs.
Thus, sporadic interventions are managed based on short term funding to serve intense needs.
ELs in grades K −2 have no language development support. Newcomer ELs get literacy
instruction from their teachers and it is deemed to be adequate for them. In the absence of
language development support, ELs struggle with reading. All sites also have a half-time
ELSATs responsible for administering state test (ELPAC) and tracking data. ELSATs are not
trained to provide instruction. The literacy interventionists and ELSATs are providing reading
intervention to ELs through pull-out groups, and they may not necessarily understand the
language needs of ELs. In the absence of collaboration among the teacher, interventionists, and
ELSAT, this intervention is not effective. Thus, Tier 1 instruction for ELs is being supplanted by
Tier 2 interventions provided in small group pull-out sessions by staff not trained in ELD.
Lexia Learning® is also being used as Tier 1 support for emerging bilinguals. Teachers
allocate time for ELs to work on this program, usually during small group literacy rotation. This
program has videos and interactive activities. A few participants, who have expertise in this
program, shared that Lexia Learning is more beneficial for extended practice in combination

67
with one-on-one teaching or small group sessions. Moreover, according to one participant, Lexia
Learning is not a curriculum and it does not provide “authentic learning opportunities to practice
language skills” (Participant L). In addition to this limitation, Lexia data is not consistently
tracked to monitor student progress.
Thus, Tier 1 strategies such as SIOP®, designated and integrated ELD, and to some
extent, Lexia ® that are available for ELs’ language development are not being implemented
consistently and with fidelity. Systems, resources, and personnel constraints impact the learning
experience of ELs in this district, leading to considerable gaps in their knowledge and
understanding, making them prime candidates for Tier 2 interventions. As mentioned earlier,
over 80% of students recommended for Tier 2 are ELs.
Tier 2
In a general education setting, Tier 2 interventions are provided in same-ability small
groups either in the classroom or by a specialist. Almost all participants shared that over 80% of
students referred for interventions are ELs. When there is a large number of ELs who struggle
with reading and there are no trained personnel at the site level, school administrators rely on
support staff and after-school programs to get “some help for these students” (Participant H). In
most cases, these interventions are not ELD focused and are not implemented consistently and
with fidelity. Several participants shared that they have multiple teams that provide different
interventions to students. The teams formed to provide academic, behavioral, and social-
emotional support are led and managed by different individuals. In general, they do not
coordinate their efforts or communicate with each other. This lack of coordination has led to
disconnected and disjointed efforts that, at times, have been counterproductive.

68
Sometimes, staff who provide ELD intervention at Tier 2 do not plan or collaborate with
the classroom teachers. Therefore, the interventions provided at Tier 2 does not align with Tier 1
instruction and does not offer ELs an opportunity to transfer their language skills. Almost all
participants listed the same type of Tier 2 interventions for ELs available at their sites and these
were:
• SOAR: an after-school literacy intervention program offered by a couple of teachers at
some school sites.
• RISE Reading Intervention for Success Everyday: a literacy intervention program for
students in Grades 1 and 2 who are below two grade levels in reading.
• Small group pullout intervention provided by ELSAT or a support staff.
• Reading interventionists for students in grades 3 −5.
• Reading recovery: a 6 −12 week one-on-one tutoring to first-grade students struggling in
reading and writing (U.S. Department of Education). This intervention is usually
considered a Tier 3 intervention.
Most of these interventions are based on a strategy designed by New Zealand literacy researcher
Marie Clay. One of the interventions, Reading Recovery, relies on using context clues to guess
the meaning of an unfamiliar word. However, some concerns have been raised over Reading
Recovery’s long-term effect on all learners (Sparks, 2022). It is interesting to note that all of the
above interventions are for developing reading skills, mainly for native speakers, and research
suggests that they are insufficient for supporting ELs (Klingner & Geisler, 2016). English
language development support is needed, along with explicit instruction in reading, for ELs to
develop decoding skills and reading comprehension.

69
Participants highlighted another concern with Tier 2 interventions. They shared that the
reading interventions provided by the district are a mismatch for ELs. As most of these strategies
“rely on the use of context clues to decode [which] are not helpful for ELs as they lack
contextual information in most cases, and are unable to use these strategies” (Participant E). ELs
lack background knowledge, vocabulary, and oral language fluency, so they struggle with
reading despite robust interventions at Tier 2. If they do not show growth through these
interventions, they are recommended for Reading Recovery. Participant E shared that if an EL
does not show progress in Reading Recovery,
They are assumed to have a reading disability…And so I think at my particular school,
that's been the biggest causal factor of overidentification was that once they received
Reading Recovery, if they did not make growth, that is what was being sent to referral. It
was only this year that we started having discussions about some structured literacy and
having my interventionists do that kind of work.
Thus, Tier 2 interventions are mismatched and funnel ELs toward special education referral.
Tier 3
At the Tier 3 level, a formal group of experts review the data and determine the next
intervention strategy. This team, usually the SST, usually has the members from special
education services department and it does not consult with an ELD specialist in the case of ELs.
Due to the absence of an ELD specialist, “there is no EL advocate on the team. There is not one
someone who understands language acquisition … there is a lack of the whole picture of the EL
experience, especially when it comes from another country” (Participant C). Moreover, the SST
process is not differentiated for ELs and native speakers. The focus is generally on the low

70
reading level of the students and the focus is on getting them the intervention they need to reach
grade level expectations.
Most of the data points reviewed pertain to reading intervention. Except for ELPAC,
which has its limitations discussed earlier, there are no other tools in this district to measure the
development of language acquisition. When participants were asked about their familiarity with
the referral process for special education, except for the school psychologist or special education
teachers, none of the participants were familiar with it. Those familiar with the assessment tool,
Wechster Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) 4 or Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of
Achievement, shared that it measures academic skills and cognitive ability, and not reading and
language skills. According to Participant I, due to “language difference or cultural difference,
sometimes academic scores [on these tests] can be heavily impacted, not because of anything
they do not know conceptually, but maybe just the language piece.” These assessments are
available in English and Spanish only. Thus, ELs who speak a different language end up taking
the test in English. Almost all participants expressed their concerns for the appropriateness, and
cultural and linguistic relevance of these assessment tools, particularly in assessing ELs.
The staff conducting the assessment for special education have limited to no prior contact
with the students. In some cases, they may consult with the speech and language pathologist if
they believe there is a language development issue. Based on the responses of some of these
individuals, it was clear that they are not familiar with the language acquisition process and lack
a holistic perspective on the abilities and learning environment of the students they assess.
Students may also not be familiar with these individuals, and that has the potential to impact the
outcomes of the tests. In most cases, assessors evaluate academic skills and rely on the test

71
scores which, in the case of ELs, are usually low for reading, thus qualifying them for specific
learning disabilities (reading).
Eighty percent of the participants shared that when students are referred to the SST,
teachers expect a special education referral as a final outcome. As Participant H shared:
The teachers come to me already expecting like they've already made the decision that
this child should be in special education. And that is what they say to me clearly, “the
result I am expecting from this meeting is that we get assessment for special education.
The SST members try to push back on the special education assessment option, and, according to
Participant M:
A lot of teachers or adults do get upset that at times, we don't go towards or move
forward for assessment just because of their EL status. And they get upset about that
because they want to see the help or they want the students to get the help, but
unfortunately, they cannot be identified as [special education] students if they do not have
those English foundation skills at that time.
Thus, many teachers consider the SST referral process as a final step towards assessment for
special education services, and once a student is referred to the SST, a special education referral
is a foregone conclusion.
In the absence of some of the basic components such as a Tier 1 curriculum, EL
pathways and interventions, ELs get referred for Tier 2 interventions where they mainly get
reading support when they need language development support. With such mismatched
interventions, they struggle to show progress and are funneled to the SST, which has experts
from the special education services. SST members use tools that have cultural and linguistic
limitations to assess ELs, and ELs generally do not perform well on these assessments due to

72
their limited English proficiency. The outcome of these assessments is used to determine the
eligibility of ELs for special education services in specific reading disabilities (reading).
Language Acquisition vs. Learning Disability
Two questions directly addressed the distinction between language acquisition and
learning disability. One of the questions asked the participants if they were familiar with the
language acquisition process, and another asked how SST members determine if a struggling EL
has language acquisition issues or a learning disability. Several themes emerged from these
interview questions that sought to assess the educators’ knowledge of this distinction.
The Role of Instructional Coaches.
Most of the coaches providing ELD coaching and support to the teachers in the district
have expertise in reading interventions. In light of the state and federal mandate to provide ELD
instruction to ELs, the district has re-assigned all coaches, irrespective of their expertise, to coach
teachers in ELD. However, several participants who are coaches admitted that they do not have
expertise in ELD and are learning the strategies alongside their teachers. Teachers are not
comfortable in implementing ELD strategies, and therefore, the coaches have decided to focus on
reading strategies which is their area of expertise. Participant A shared that
I will be fully transparent and say that designated ELD is not happening well at our site
right now. It has not been an expectation from the top. And in my coaching role, I've
chosen to lean more heavily on early literacy practices because I cannot mandate my
peers to do something [that they are not ready to do]. So literacy is the easier entry point
for supporting academic growth here.

73
Given their expertise and comfort level, instructional coaches use literacy intervention strategies
to support ELD at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 level. Thus, the coaches are aware of the need and are
working with what they know and what is acceptable to the teachers.
Language Learning Continuum
Participants were not familiar with the stages of second language acquisition. Based on
their response to question 13, two participants had a clear understanding of the process of
language acquisition, three had a partial understanding, and eight admitted that they had no
understanding of the difference between language acquisition and learning disability. Most
participants shared that SSTs do not assess ELs for language proficiency. They do not have any
tools to assess where an EL is on the language learning continuum. In a couple of instances,
when the participants were asked to provide examples of for strategies used to support ELs, the
participants listed strategies for reading interventions, thus demonstrating that they do not
understand the difference between language acquisition and reading skills. Staff members
providing support for ELD are yet to be trained, and the gap in their knowledge and
understanding is adversely impacting the outcomes for ELs in this district.
Second, participants were also not familiar with the time it takes to learn a language
proficiently. Though there are a lot of variables, such as being literate in their home language,
rate of exposure to the target language, opportunities to practice the language, and supports
available, it could take, according to Hakuta, Butler and Witt (2000) between 5 −7 years for a
child to be working on par with native speakers as far as academic language is concerned.
Therefore, ELs who are in grades K −5 are within the time period it takes to learn a language. It is
possible that the educators, who are not familiar with the time it takes to learn a new language,
rush to refer ELs for Specific Learning disabilities in reading as early as kindergarten.

74
Mismatched Interventions and Tools
Since most of the coaches are experts in literacy interventionists, most interventions are
literacy interventions that require context clues to decode a text. ELs lack this contextual
knowledge and struggle at all tiers of interventions. The number of ELs referred for reading
interventions in elementary grades ranges from 66 −80%. Subsequently, the pattern continues
when the time comes for referral for special education services. Students are being funneled for
special education services while developing their language skills. Mismatched interventions
speed up the referral process for ELs.
Assessment tools used to track data and the effects of interventions also lean towards
literacy development. There are no tools to measure language development. ELPAC data is only
available once a year, which does not help conduct cycles of inquiry that last anywhere from 4 to
8 weeks at a time. Thus, the need for timely and relevant data aggravates the problems for ELs.
Several sites consult with special education teachers to get help for ELs. Moreover, most
SST members are also from the special education department. As such, the team is predisposed
to special education services without an ELD specialist. As discussed earlier, the special
education assessment tools are also not appropriate to assess ELs as they test academic and
cognitive abilities in a language-based format, which is challenging for them.
RQ2 Findings Summary
In the absence of a formalized implementation of MTSS, several SST members were
familiar with Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions rather than with Tier 1 interventions. Their responses
showed that ELD instruction for ELs is almost nonexistent. Tier 2 intervention strategies are
focused on literacy development which is a mismatch for ELs. Teacher expectations, team
configuration, and the relevance of data determine the outcome for Tier 3 interventions, and if

75
that outcome is a referral for special education services, then it is difficult to stop ELs from
getting identified for special education services due to the nature of the assessment tool.
A lack of understanding of the difference between language acquisition challenges and
learning disabilities has led to mismatched interventions and data. The lack of ELD specialists on
SST has led to the over-referral of ELs in elementary grades for SLD in reading. Teachers in this
district do not take advantage of the coaching and professional development provided to them,
and depend on other adults to serve EL students. The overall adult-centric mindset and practices
have had an adverse impact on the self-efficacy of the SST members.

76
Chapter Five: Discussion
The present study explored the role SST members play in EL student outcomes in a
northern California district where EL students are over-identified for special education services.
The study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What role do the student study team members’ mindset and efficacy beliefs play in
determining the eligibility of English learners for special education services?
2. How do SST members’ knowledge and understanding of the multi-tiered system of
support and second language acquisition continuum impact the referral of ELs for
special education services, particularly for specific learning disabilities (reading)?
Information and insights were gleaned on this problem of practice through semi-structured
interviews. Interview data was recorded, analyzed, and presented as themes. In addition, it is
essential to consider what was not being said about this problem of practice. Acts of omission
also conveyed participant mindset, knowledge, and understanding of the topics under
consideration. Following is the discussion of the findings from this study, its implications,
limitations of the study, recommendations to solve this problem of practice, and suggestions for
further research.
Discussion on the Findings
SSTs do not exist in a vacuum. Though SST members act as gatekeepers, several cultural
and systemic factors affect their sense of efficacy and ability to make informed decisions. Based
on participant responses to interview questions, the following factors appear to significantly
impact SST member mindset and efficacy beliefs. Moreover, their knowledge and understanding
of the systems as well as the second language acquisition continuum contributes to
disproportionate referrals for special education among ELs.

77
Adult-Centered Mindset and the Overall Culture of the School District
Adult-centered mindset and practices emerged as a major theme. This was evident in the
absence of Tier 1 ELD instruction. Such instruction requires extra time and effort, which can
elicit push back from teachers. Furthermore, ELD services are only made available, when there
is teacher buy-in, even when it is mandated by the California Code of Regulations 11309 (see
Appendix A). Secondly, even though 80% of students referred for Tier 2 reading interventions
are ELs, fidelity of Tier 1 instruction and the classroom environment are not being examined.
Thirdly, teacher expectations that a referral to SST is a step towards qualifying a student for
special education services is, in fact, a “pre-determination” without due process. It violates the
ethical code of the referral process. Thus, the adult-centered culture is evident in many of the
systemic components that have led to the over-referral of ELs for special education services.
Families Perceived as a Challenge
A deficit mindset toward EL students and their families also emerged in the findings.
More than half of participants attributed the challenges faced by ELs to students and their
families. Lack of English proficiency, job situation, and overall lack of engagement were some
of the reasons cited. The onus of not making progress in reading, even with intense interventions,
was attributed to student cognitive ability without factoring the absence of fidelity in Tier 1
instruction, mismatched Tier 2 interventions, and the time it takes to develop proficiency in the
second language. This deficit mindset towards EL students and their families has also led to the
lack of ownership for the challenges faced by ELs.
Lack of Vision and Systems of Support
Teachers are primary sources of support for all students. Struggling students, particularly
ELs, rely on their teacher’s mindset, expertise, and commitment to be successful at school.

78
Teachers expect support from principals and coaches, who are guided by district vision and
policies. Without district-level understanding and vision for the EL programs, there is a
cascading effect down subsequent levels. Likewise, classroom realities become more challenging
when an influx of students with high needs is coupled with a district or site administrator who
provides no support. Lack of training and the absence of systems has led to the lack of Tier 1
support for ELs. Additionally, there was a perception among participants that the district’s
current focus on ELD is because of the state and federal mandate through CCEIS and Federal
Monitoring Program requirements which mandate a plan to intervene in the disproportionate
referral of ELs. According to participants, the district might have a different priority next year, so
there is a reluctance to engage with ELD initiatives this year.
Absence of Data
Another interesting observation is that with the exception of two participants, everyone
provided anecdotal data or shared a ballpark number on how many ELs were referred for
intervention or special education services. Participants who offered ancillary services could not
even guess the numbers as no one is tracking data at the research site. In the absence of
monitoring the EL referral data, a high number of ELs were unintentionally funneled to special
education. These behaviors suggest a limited understanding of how actions of individual sites
have collectively led to the over-referral of ELs for special education services in this district.
Training and Professional Development
There is a clear consensus that principals, coaches, and teachers have not received ELD
training until this academic year. The district adopted the SIOP framework for ELD instruction
at the elementary school level, but the coaches and teachers have not received the framework
well. Reasons for pushback include an overwhelming number of strategies and a lack of

79
dedicated time to collaborate across grade levels. ELD experts in the district also believe that the
SIOP strategies are not just specific to ELs but also good teaching practices. Teachers’ lack of
interest in ELD and lack of participation in SIOP training has adversely impacted ELs. Even with
multiple training and professional development initiatives, the academic needs of ELs are not
being met.
Emerging Understanding of the MTSS
MTSS is a comprehensive framework and requires extensive training to implement with
fidelity. Lack of training and coaching for MTSS has resulted in different sites recreating
systems based on their understanding, needs, and capacity. Such disorder led to duplication and
gaps, resulting in inconsistent provision and tracking of interventions. Moreover, the sites cannot
collaborate or share best practices because they are on different paths. Therefore, an evidence-
based system with a strong potential to make a difference for struggling students is, at best, in the
emerging state of implementation.
The lack of training and professional development in critical areas of the teaching
profession seems to have had a direct impact on the SST members’ sense of efficacy in
supporting ELs. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Becker and Deris (2019, p. 2) posit:
If a school professional conceals or is unaware of their inability to perform a task,
according to Bandura’s social cognitive theory, they will do only what they know, allow
someone else to address the problem, work within a group for a desired outcome, or
avoid the task.
Without aligned systems, professional development, and training to understand the needs of ELs,
educators in this district do not feel efficacious, and special education services appear tangible
and available to them. Therefore, educators with a strong desire to help their struggling students

80
steer towards something they know and can access, thus leading to higher-than-average EL
referrals for special education services in this district.
Implications and Recommendations
This study considered the direct implications of educator efficacy, their knowledge, and
understanding, as well as their mindset on the learning experiences of ELs. Depending on their
background and legal status, ELs face multiple challenges ⎯academic struggle is just one of
them. To understand the learning experience of ELs and the barriers they encounter in the school
system, we need to examine the impact of systems, culture, and adult decisions on these students
and their families.
Impact on ELs
The lack of vision, systems, and training has not only had an adverse impact on staff
members, it also has a long-term adverse effect on ELs. In general, ELs cannot access Tier 1
instruction, impacting their ability to access quality education and graduate high school. It is a
critical equity issue and can adversely affect ELs’ sense of self-efficacy in acquiring a new
language and having a successful experience in schools.
Lack of understanding of the difference between language acquisition challenges and
learning disability, mismatched interventions, and absence of a holistic approach to teaching ELs
has led to the over-referral of ELs in elementary grades for SLD in reading when all they need is
strong Tier 1 instruction, opportunities to practice the language in an authentic environment, and
time (usually 5 to 7 years) to master the English language. Premature special education referrals
could be the result of misdiagnoses and have a long-term effect on ELs.

81
Long Term ELs (LTELs)
Traditionally, ELs in grades K −12 have performed poorly in this district. ELs comprise
20% of its student population; 70% of these students are at risk of becoming long-term ELs
(LTELs) (Internal Communication, August 2022). In the current school year, on average, 70% of
ELs in high school are LTELs. The classification as LTELs means that, depending on their
ELPAC scores, they must take one or two ELD courses in middle or high school until they pass
the ELPAC and exit the ELD program. The additional ELD classes impact their ability to take
core and elective courses required for graduation; therefore, they cannot graduate high school on
time, if they graduate at all.
Lack of Holistic Approach
EL population in this district is diverse, and some segments of ELs need more support
than others. ELs may already have a lower sense of self-efficacy due to a lack of proficiency in
English. In the absence of EL pathways in elementary schools, newcomers rely heavily on
teacher support and expertise. Tier 1 instruction and interventions have the potential to provide a
strong academic foundation; however, these students are referred for interventions provided by
other staff members, such as ELSAT and non-certificated staff who are not trained. Data show
that these interventionists provide 30 −45 minutes of reading support 2 −3 days a week. Since
these interventions are not connected to classroom instruction, ELs do not get meaningful
opportunities to practice and transfer these skills in the classroom. As literacy interventions are
conflated with language support, it is assumed that explicit reading instruction should help if ELs
struggle with reading. Other factors such as contextual knowledge, social interactions, ELD
strategies, opportunities to practice oral language and work with peer language models in the
language development of ELs are not taken into consideration. Thus, the lack of understanding

82
of language development needs has led to a mismatch of interventions for ELs, making it
difficult for them to show progress.
Mismatched Interventions
Lexia Learning, an online program for ELD instruction, has its challenges, primarily
lacking an authentic social experience to practice language skills. Social context is crucial in
acquiring language, as is the importance of social language development in bilinguals
(Roseberry-McGibbin & Brice, as cited in Farnsworth, 2018). Therefore, even if Lexia is used
for Tier 1 and 2 in some cases, it is not an appropriate tool for learning a language. ELs find the
digital platform challenging to navigate, and Lexia data is unreliable as it is impossible to
delineate language development challenges from website navigation skills. Other interventions,
such as Reading Recovery, focus heavily on contextual knowledge, which ELs lack. ELs do not
get ELD instruction, and when they struggle with reading, they get reading intervention which
don’t work for them. At Tier 3, SSTs refer them for an assessment for special education services
based on prior failed interventions.
What do ELs Need?
ELs come from different backgrounds and have diverse needs. This section discusses
some of the basic needs that directly impact their academic growth and how these needs can be
met. Oral language development, social-emotional support, and adequate time to learn are crucial
for ELs’ long-term success.
Oral Language Development Support
ELs need literacy instruction, language support within the context of culturally
responsive teaching and time to show academic progress. Language is a resource for reading, and
when instructional reading methods value language as a resource, students are provided

83
opportunities to engage with spoken and written language in ways that enhance their literacy in
both languages (Boelé, 2016). The contextual knowledge that ELs come with can be transferred
to the new setting through language support. Several EL experts, such as Cummins (2012) and
Klingner and Geisler (2016), have proposed that oral language development should be
considered an important component of effective instruction for ELs. The components of reading
instruction need to be taught within the context of supporting oral language development.
Social-Emotional Support
Learning a new language is difficult, especially if the ELs are immigrants and lack
literacy in their home language. The diversity of cultures and languages can be very challenging
for teachers, and it takes a high level of skill to differentiate instruction. Moreover, ELs may
have low self-efficacy due to their lack of English skills. Their fixed or growth mindset directly
impacts their language acquisition skills (Lou & Noels, 2020). Educators often focus on
academic support and disregard the need for social-emotional support that can be provided by
creating a welcoming and supportive classroom community. Lou and Noels (2020) suggest that
educators at all levels need to “go beyond one-shot interventions and build an environment that
helps [ELs] reduce anxiety and supports their growth and social engagement regardless of their
baseline language competency” (p. 14). Thus, a welcoming and supportive classroom
environment plays an important role in creating a safety for ELs to practice the new language
and develop a sense of belonging.
Time to Learn and Practice the English Language
Much research is available on the time it takes to gain mastery of the English language.
The stages of language acquisition are discussed in Chapter 2. According to a quantitative study
by Hakuta et al. (2000), it takes 3 −5 years to develop oral proficiency and 4 −7 years to develop

84
academic English proficiency. However, this is more complex than it appears. A lot depends on
EL age; proficiency in their home language; social and economic status; parent’s education level;
and, most importantly, oral language development support provided at school. Thomas and
Collier (2002) reviewed several longitudinal studies and presented different scenarios for the
time it takes for an EL to acquire academic language. In general, if their home language skills are
strongly developed, and the school provides robust language development support, it may take
5−7 years for an EL to become proficient. Considering the time it takes to develop academic
language skills in the best-case scenario, educators need to add more years if one or both
components are missing. Moreover, it raises the question of whether ELs need to be assessed for
special education services in elementary grade levels, K −5, when this time is within the normal
range of time it takes to learn English.
Recommendations
Study findings can be used to develop the vision, systems, training, and professional
support for ELD. Likewise, the people who are closest to the problem usually have strong
recommendations, since they are managing the problem day-to-day. Thus, participant
recommendations are included in Appendix D.
It is easier to implement technical solutions such as setting up systems and processes,
training staff members, and providing ongoing support through coaching for EL. However, a
core component of this work is to develop a student-centered approach and a lens for equity.
This type of adaptive work takes time, and a few immediate steps that the district could take are
as follows:
1. Conduct a comprehensive program evaluation and audit of the services offered to ELs
to assess their impact.

85
2. Conduct equity walks and equity audits through the lens of ELs to understand how
they are being served in this district.
3. Prioritize and invest in training related to racial equity, implicit bias, and anti-racist
pedagogy for all staff members.
4. Emphasize and prioritize data-based decision-making, explicitly focusing on the
underserved population, and provide relevant data to all stakeholders.
5. Explore the adoption of curriculum and teaching practices that are culturally
responsive.
6. Identify and collaborate with other districts that have developed expertise in meeting
EL needs.
Limitation and Delimitation
As a researcher, I am the primary instrument in this qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Therefore, my biases, limited research experience, and the design of the data collection
process may have impacted study outcomes. Moreover, how I asked the interview questions,
particularly the consistency in asking probing questions that were not scripted, and how I
interpreted the data played an essential role in my findings and analysis. Secondly, this study was
conducted in the context of a suburban school district. Therefore, the findings are not
generalizable as the systems, teacher demographics, and student profiles are unique to this
district. Participants in this study work in a context specific to their community, and this context
is influenced by the systems and processes designed by the district. This lack of generalizability
may not contribute to the accumulation of knowledge on this topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016);
however, it has the potential to be used as a model, as I did using Becker and Deris (2019).

86
Participants were generally very forthcoming and responded to all questions. However,
they may have their own limitations and some responses depend on participant self-awareness.
Secondly, all self-reported data has the potential to be influenced by social desirability. SST
members are expected to be knowledgeable and competent; therefore, they may have felt the
need to give a socially correct and acceptable response. All participants were eager to share their
site-specific information and were also open to sharing their experience on this problem of
practice. Some of the interview questions asked for a specific type of understanding and
knowledge. Only a couple admitted that they did not know the answers to those questions,
whereas others attempted to answer these questions to the best of their knowledge. It was
difficult to determine how much of their responses were based on their understanding of the
issue versus the “buzzwords” they have heard about this PoP.
Some participants may have been cautious of the outcomes, concerned that their privacy
may be compromised, or worried about their perception as professionals and these reservations
have the potential to impact the reliability of their responses. Moreover, the district is in the
different stages of implementing MTSS at different sites, and this variability in implementation
has the potential to influence the participant knowledge and understanding of MTSS. This aspect
is not under their control.
I countered these and other limitations by preparing well for the interviews, seeking help
from experts in the field, consulting peers and my colleagues, and continuing to refine the data
collection process. I also used probing questions to understand participants’ understanding of the
issue and allowed them several opportunities to ask clarifying questions. Moreover, I was
transparent with participants about the data collection process, emphasized the confidentiality
and privacy of their responses, and ensured that they had all the necessary information to engage

87
meaningfully in this study. Though the outcomes of this study may not contribute to the
accumulation of knowledge in the field, the district could still use it to support their schools and
review or reassess their current practices that have led to the disproportionate outcomes for ELs.
This study is limited to a specific district in northern California; as such, findings cannot
be generalized. Their intervention structure is fluid, and therefore, participants may have relied
on their understanding and interpretation of the role of SST, which besides needing to be aligned,
has the potential for some misunderstanding or misperception. Additionally, the classroom
teachers who were invited to participate in this study declined to be interviewed or had schedule
conflicts; therefore, their perspective is not included. As in the original study by Becker and
Deris (2019), it is possible that bilingual participants may have perceived themselves as more
efficacious than their monolingual peers and may have rated themselves higher on the self-
efficacy score. Lastly, my limitations as a novice researcher with a preconceived notion that ELs
are generally not served well in this district have the potential to influence the findings. I have
tried to overcome this by using verbatim quotes from participant transcripts and have engaged in
self-review and reflection on themes for which I have strong opinions. I have also sought input
and feedback from my peers to ensure a balanced perspective.
Future Research
Recommendations for further research on this topic include a study to explore classroom
teacher perspectives, sense of self-efficacy, and challenges in meeting needs of ELs in this
district. Further investigation can be undertaken on how ELs, who have been already identified
for special education services, are performing in this district and whether the special education
services are effective in meeting their needs. There is also a possibility of investigating the
appropriateness of assessments at different tiers of support.

88
Conclusion
Educators want to do what is best for their students. They work with what they know
about their students’ needs and make the most of the resources available to them. Every student
is different; so too are their needs and strengths. With a changing U.S. student population, there
is a need to examine the systems and structures, and the roles educators play in this system, both
individually and collectively. This qualitative case study examined the role of SST members in a
school district in northern California. The study shows how SST members’ mindset, self-
efficacy, knowledge, and understanding of MTSS and the second language acquisition
continuum impact outcomes for ELs in this district. Study findings help identify the factors that
directly influence the role and competency of SST members and present some recommendations
to mitigate the technical and adaptive challenges with the hopes of positive outcomes for the
educators and the ELs in this district.

89
References
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority
disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100305
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A
research agenda. National Academy Press.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–
290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Barrio, B. L. (2017). Special education policy change. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(2),
64–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517707217
Becker, G. I., & Deris, A. R. (2019). Identification of Hispanic English language learners in
special education. Education Research International, 2019, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2967943
Boelé, A. L. (2016). Select reading methods for teaching English learners. In J. Allan & K.
Greenberg (Eds.), Why do English Learners struggle with reading: Distinguishing
language acquisition from learning disabilities (pp. 101−116). Corwin Press.
Buffum, A. G., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2012). Simplifying response to intervention: Four
essential guiding principles. Solution Tree Press.
California Department of Education. (2022). Disproportionality in CA public schools.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/qa/disproportionality.asp
California Department of Education. (2023). Facts about English learners in California.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/cefelfacts.asp

90
California Department of Education. (2023). Definition of MTSS.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomprti2.asp
Center for Applied Linguistics (n.d.). Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol.
https://www.cal.org/siop/faqs/#:~:text=The%20Sheltered%20Instruction%20Observation
Coelho, E. (2004) Adding English: A guide to teaching in multilingual classrooms. Pippin
Publishing.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2021). Teacher Credential Requirements.
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/req-teaching
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
El Dorado Charter SELPA (2017). Student study team: Guidelines and resources.
http://charterselpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SST-Handbook-2017-10-6-
FINAL.pdf
Farnsworth, M. (2018). Differentiating second language acquisition from specific learning
disability: An observation tool assessing dual language learners’ pragmatic competence. Young
Exceptional Children 21(2), 92 −110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250615621356
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? The University of California Linguistics Minority Research Institute Policy.
https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/(2000)%20-
%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20
TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf

91
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education?
Understanding Race & Disability in Schools. Teachers College Press.
Hoover, J. J., Barletta, L. M., Klingner, J. K (2016). Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) and
English learners. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English
learners struggle with reading: Distinguishing language acquisition from learning
disabilities (pp. 25−55). Corwin.
Hoover, J. J. & Barletta, L. M. (2016). Special education assessment of ELs. In J. J. Hoover, L.
M. Baca, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English learners struggle with reading:
Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (pp. 117 −139). Corwin.
Hudson, A. K., Moore, K. A., Han, B., Binks-Cantrell, E., & Joshi, R. M. (2021). Elementary
teachers’ knowledge of foundational literacy skills: A critical piece of the puzzle in the
science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S287−S315.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.408
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2022). OSEP Fast Facts: Students with disabilities
who are English learners (ELs) served under IDEA Part B. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-
fast-facts-students-with-disabilities-english-
learners#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20students%20with,while%20eight%20saw%2
0a%20decrease
Keller-Allen, C. (2006). English language learners with disabilities: Identification and other
state policies and issues. National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
https://www.colorincolorado.org/research/english-language-learners-disabilities-
identification-and-other-state-policies-and-issues

92
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Duran, G. Z., & Riley,
D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically
diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n38.2005
Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process
for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences.
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(11), 2247–2281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610801109
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle
with reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020101
Klingner, J. K. & Geisler, D. (2016). Helping classroom reading teachers distinguish between
language acquisition and learning disabilities. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca, & J. K.
Klingner (Eds.), Why do English Learners struggle with reading: Distinguishing
language acquisition from learning disabilities (pp. 83−100). Corwin.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1998). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Prentice Hall.
Kumar, R. & Lauermann, F. (2018). Cultural beliefs and instructional intentions: Do experiences
in teacher education institution matter? American Educational Research Journal, 55(3),
419−452. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217738508
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3 −12.

93
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2020). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
Methods to practice. Sage.
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A., (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of language anxiety: Growth
language mindsets improve lower-competence ESL students’ intercultural interactions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101847
Matias, C. E. (2012, November 30). On the "Flip" side: A teacher educator of color unveiling the
dangerous minds of white teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2013.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1014366.pdf
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS):
2017−18. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Racial/Ethnic enrollment in public schools. In
The condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2023/cge_508.pdf
National Education Association (2020). Toolkit: English language learners.
https://www.nea.org/resource-library/english-language-
learners#:~:text=By%202025%2C%201%20out%20of,mentor%2C%20and%20inspire%
20these%20students.&text=NEA%20believes%20all%20students%20deserve%20the%2
0tools%20and%20support%20to%20flourish
Orosco, M. J., de Schonewise, E. A., de Onis, C., Klingner, J. K., & Hoover. J. J. (2016).
Distinguishing between language acquisition and learning disabilities among English
Learners. In J. J. Hoover, L. M. Baca & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Why do English Learners

94
struggle with reading: Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (pp.
7−23). Corwin.
Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learner, LD, and over-representation:
A multi-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 99−107.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020801
Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326221
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Sparks S. D. (2022, April 29). Concerns raised over reading recovery’s long-term effects.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/surprise-finding-suggests-
reading-recovery-hurts-students-in-the-long-run/2022/04
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Sugarman, J. (2017, April 7). Funding an equitable education for English learners in the United
States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/funding-
equitable-education-english-learners-united-states
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700304
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students’ long term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education,
Diversity, and Exellence. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65j213pt

95
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Table 209.42: Percentage of public and private school
teachers who teach English learner students and students with disabilities and percentage
with selected qualifications or coursework, by selected teacher and school characteristics:
2020−21 [Table]. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 3, 2023 from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_209.42.asp
Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language
learners with reading related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility
determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 129−141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020201
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom
processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher wellbeing: A synthesis of 40 years
of study. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981 −1015.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003).
Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students. National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. https://ncela.ed.gov/resources/report-
policy-report-summary-of-findings-related-to-lep-and-sped-lep-students

96
Appendix A: CA Ed. G. E. Code of Regulations and Education Code
The following text is reproduced from Section 11309 of the California Education for a
Global Economy (CA Ed. G.E.) discussing language acquisition programs:

(a) LEAs shall provide language acquisition programs for English learners consistent
with these regulations.
(b) Whenever an LEA establishes a language acquisition program, the LEA shall confer
with school personnel, including teachers and administrators with authorizations required
to provide or oversee programs and services for English learners, regarding the design
and content of the language acquisition program.
(c) Any language acquisition program provided by an LEA shall:
(1) Be designed using evidence-based research and include both Designated and
Integrated ELD;
(2) Be allocated sufficient resources by the LEA to be effectively implemented,
including, but not limited to, certificated teachers with the appropriate authorizations,
necessary instructional materials, pertinent professional development for the proposed
program, and opportunities for parent and community engagement to support the
proposed program goals; and
(3) Within a reasonable period of time, lead to:
(A) Grade-level proficiency in English, and, when the program model includes
instruction in another language, proficiency in that other language; and

97
(B) Achievement of the state-adopted academic content standards in English, and, when
the program model includes instruction in another language, achievement of the state-
adopted academic content standards in that other language.
(d) At a minimum, an LEA shall provide a program of Structured English Immersion for
English learners, which includes Designated and Integrated ELD.
(e) An LEA may provide language acquisition programs, including programs that
integrate instruction for native speakers of English and native speakers of another
language and meet the requirements of subdivision (c).
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 305, 306,
44253.3, and 44253.4, Education Code; 20 U.S.C. Sections 1703 and 6311.

98
Appendix B: Stages of Second Language Acquisition
Table 3 captures the stages of language acquisition for language learners, as articulated
by Coelho (2004).
Table 3
Stages, Learner Behavior and Timeframe

Stages of second
language acquisition
Learner behavior Timeframe
Pre-production This phase is often referred to as the Silent Period
because learners may not speak at all. It is a
receptive phase where learners are, for the most
part, absorbing the language. Learners may
repeat what is being said (parroting) and may
have up to 500 words in their receptive
vocabulary. In addition to parroting, they can
offer non-verbal responses to questions and,
sometimes, responses with high-frequency words
(Yes/No). They are not generating their own
spontaneous language.

0 to 6
months

Early production Learners continue to add to their receptive language
and are more regularly offering one and two-
word responses to questions. They are able to
identify key words and ideas in the language.
During this stage, learners have the ability to
produce a limited number of words. They use
familiar phrases that may or may not have been
memorized. They generally use the present verb
tense when communicating. Learners in the early
production stage have a vocabulary of about
1000 words.

6 to 12
months

Speech emergence Learners are more actively balancing their receptive
and expressive language. Students can follow the
general gist of texts and can identify certain
details within those texts. Spontaneous language
production is becoming easier, but still may
require teacher prompting. Learners in this stage
can use short sentences and can produce
questions. They have also expanded their
receptive and expressive vocabulary to roughly
3000 words. They make errors when
1 to 3 years

99
communicating, but the errors generally do not
interfere with comprehension.

Intermediate fluency Learners are working with more complex
dimensions of language, grammatically, in terms
of vocabulary, and in meaning. Their spoken
language is increasingly smooth, and they can
attend to big ideas and details within a text.
These learners use more complex sentences
when communicating. They are also able to think
in the target language and have a working
vocabulary (receptive and expressive) of about
6000 words.

3 to 5 years

Advanced fluency To a large degree, these learners resemble students
who have been using the target language as a
first language. Advanced language learners can
navigate with ease a variety of social and
academic situations. They are comfortable
communicating in the target language. They may
have errors in some aspects of language,
particularly with less common structures and
words.

5 to 7 years

Note. Adapted from Coelho, E. (2004) Adding English: A guide to teaching in multilingual
classrooms. Pippin Publishing.

100
Appendix C: Interview Protocol Chart
The following sections contain participant informed consent and a list of questions was
shared with participants before their interviews.
Informed Consent
Thank you for agreeing to do this interview with me. I am a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California and my dissertation is a case study of a suburban school
district which has been identified by the state of California’s Education department for
disproportionate referral of Hispanic boys, who are also ELLs, for special education services,
particularly in Specific Learning Disability (reading). In this district, Hispanic boys are 2.5 times
likely to be referred for SPED services. My study is focused on the MTSS (multi-tiered systems
of support) when student support team evaluates the need for additional interventions for
students who have been provided with Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports, yet have not demonstrated
significant progress.
Your responses will provide me with insights into this process and assist me in
understanding systemic issues that have led to such disproportionate outcomes. Since this is a
qualitative study, your responses will be used to identify a broad pattern in the district’s practices
and systems. As mentioned earlier, the identity of all the participants will remain confidential
and the data will be presented using the participant number only. I will be taking copious notes,
and if I have your permission, I would like to also record this interview so that I can ensure that
the data is as accurate as possible.
I will be asking you 21 questions. Please answer these questions to the best of your
ability and please do not hesitate to ask for clarification or elaboration, if the question is not clear
to you.

101
Thank you so much for your time and engagement through this interview. I appreciate
your support. I may reach out to you again, if I have any follow up question or if I need further
clarification for what you have shared with me today. Please reach out to me at
smwadhwa@usc.edu if you have any questions or would like to follow up. Thank you again.
Demographic Information
The following demographics were collected from each participant:
• name
• position
• time with the district
• time with the school
• role on the SST
• number of years served on the SST
• languages (fluent)
• racial identity
Interview Questions and RQ Concepts
Participants were asked 21 questions. Table 4 captures the questions and related RQ
concepts for each.
Table 4
Interview Questions with RQ Concepts

Question RQ concepts
1. (B&D) What are your thoughts about working with culturally and
linguistically diverse students and their families? Have you faced any
challenges in working with diverse students and families? If so, what
were they?
Personal efficacy

102
2. Tell me about coursework or in-service training you have received
regarding culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Personal efficacy
3. (B&D) What is the process at your school for referring students for
academic/behavior interventions and support?
Knowledge &
understanding
4. What intervention and support systems (MTSS, RTI, etc.) does your
school have in place for EL students?
Knowledge &
understanding
5. How are student support teams formed at your school? Who are the
members? How often do they meet to discuss each student?
Knowledge &
understanding
6. What do you know about the second language acquisition process? Knowledge &
understanding
7 What are some of the pathways and supports available for ELLs while
they develop their language skills in English?
Knowledge &
understanding
8 (B&D) What kind of professional development/coaching support is
provided to the classroom teachers to meet the needs of ELs?
Personal efficacy
9 What kind of training/coaching have you received as a member of SST
to understand and support the needs of ELs?
Personal efficacy
10 How often have you assessed or are being asked to assess an EL student
for special education services?
Knowledge &
understanding
11 (B&D) What is the process of assessing ELs for special education
services?
Knowledge &
understanding
12 What are some of the challenges you have experienced, either
individually or as a team, in the SST process for ELs?
Personal efficacy
13 Are there any additional challenges the team confronts in assessing
ELs? What are they?
Knowledge &
understanding
14 What information/data does the SST collect/review in order to assess
the needs of an EL student?
Knowledge &
understanding
15 (B&D) How does the SST make a decision regarding a language
disability or a learning difference?
Knowledge &
understanding
16 What role, if any, do the parents of an EL student play in the SST
process?
Knowledge &
understanding
17 (B&D) What do you think contributes to the misidentification and
overrepresentation of ELs in SPED programs?
Personal efficacy

103
18 (B&D) What do you believe is necessary to assess Els's academic and
language skills?
Personal efficacy
19 (B&D) On a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest), how competent do you
feel in assessing and making a decision regarding a language
acquisition versus a learning disability?
Personal efficacy
20 What are some reasons ELs struggle with reading? Personal efficacy
21 What are some of the strategies you would recommend to avoid such
overidentification, yet provide support to ELs?
Overarching
question

104
Appendix D: Recommendations Suggested by the Participants
The following 18 items represent recommendations that emerged from interviews with
participants.
1. Avoid assessing ELs for special education in grades kindergarten to second.
2. Provide additional, regular and ongoing professional development and coaching
support for English Language Development (ELD).
3. Compile resources for tiered ELD interventions.
4. Track the foundational components of language acquisition.
5. Hire more ELD specialists.
6. Develop an integrated plan to support for newcomer ELs.
7. Set up systems for continuous data monitoring.
8. Assess EL populations representation in that staff and the curriculum.
9. Design systems and structures to support team collaborations
10. Design and align MTSS across the district.
11. Provide training in trauma-informed practices.
12. Provide clear guidelines for the Student Study Team process (for alignment and
consistency).
13. Design EL pathways for elementary schools.
14. Implement and track interventions for fidelity.
15. Increase parental involvement.
16. Allocate adequate staffing to support ELs.
17. Identify appropriate assessment tools to assess ELs for special education services.

105
18. Coach teachers and members of the student study team to differentiate between
language acquisition and literacy development.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The landscape of the school system in the United States is changing with a rise in numbers of English Learners (ELs). Even with laws in place to support the EL integration in the core instructional program, these students’ learning needs are not being met. This has led to underperformance on state assessments, as compared to native-speaking peers. There is a rising trend, particularly in upper elementary grade levels through high school, where ELs are disproportionately represented in special education across schools within the United States. The present research examines the role of student study teams (SSTs) in the referral process of ELs for special education services. Using a case study approach, I examine how SST members’ understanding of the problem, their mindset, and sense of self-efficacy as well as their knowledge and understanding of the challenges faced by ELs, influence the decision to recommend ELs for special education services. Through qualitative semi-structured interview process, the study sought to explore the following research questions: What role do the student study team members’ personal and general efficacy beliefs play in determining the eligibility of ELs for special education services? How do the student study team members’ knowledge and understanding of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), and the second language acquisition continuum impact the referral of ELs for special education services, particularly for specific learning disabilities? Thirteen participants from seven elementary schools were interviewed using 21 open-ended questions. Study findings identify factors that directly influenced the role and competency of SST members. Based on the findings, I offer recommendations to mitigate the technical and adaptive challenges with the hopes for positive outcomes for the educators and the ELs in this district and across the U.S.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Overrepresentation among students of color in special education programs

PDF

A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports

PDF

Disproportionate exclusionary discipline for special education‐identified students: an improvement study

PDF

The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program

PDF

The (mis)education of emotionally disturbed/emotional behavior disorder students in exclusionary settings

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

Qualitative study of barriers that impacted school attendance for migrant farmworker students

PDF

Monolingual and biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools

PDF

Identifying early academic and behavioral indicators predictive of future referral to alternative education in a large K-12 urban school district

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

PDF

Using mastery learning to address gender inequities in the self-efficacy of high school students in math-intensive STEM subjects: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

PDF

Early literacy intervention

PDF

Black@: using student voices to dismantle colorblindness and inspire culturally relevant pedagogy in southern independent schools

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Examining mathematics anxiety and mathematics teaching self-efficacy of elementary school teachers in a Hawaii school district

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Asynchronous online education and introductory statistics: The role of learner characteristics

Asset Metadata

Creator Wadhwania, Shehnaz Murad (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 07/17/2023

Defense Date 05/02/2023

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

Tag disproportionate,English learners,language acquisition,literacy intervention,multi-tiered systems of support,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,special education referral,specific learning disability,student study teams,tiered interventions

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Polikoff, Morgan (committee chair), Carrillo, Brenda (committee member), Datta, Monique (committee member)

Creator Email smwadhwa@usc.edu,swadhwania16@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113281391

Unique identifier UC113281391

Identifier etd-WadhwaniaS-12095.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WadhwaniaS-12095

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Wadhwania, Shehnaz Murad

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230719-usctheses-batch-1069 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu