English Language Learners Who Struggle With Reading: Language Acquisition or LD?

http://ldx.sagepub.com/Journal of Learning Disabilities

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/00222194060390020101

2006 39: 108J Learn DisabilJanette K. Klingner, Alfredo J. Artiles and Laura Mendez Barletta

English Language Learners Who Struggle With Reading: Language Acquisition or LD?

Published by:

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Learning DisabilitiesAdditional services and information for

http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 2006Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on April 3, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on April 3, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ldx.sagepub.com/


http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108

http://www.hammill-institute.org/

http://www.hammill-institute.org/



http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108.refs.html

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108.refs.html

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108.full.pdf

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/2/108.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIESVOLUME 39, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2006, PAGES 108–128

English Language Learners WhoStruggle With Reading:Language Acquisition or LD?

Janette K. Klingner, Alfredo J. Artiles, and Laura Méndez Barletta

Abstract

We review empirical research on English language learners (ELLs) who struggle with reading and who may have learning disabilities(LD). We sought to determine research indicators that can help us better differentiate between ELLs who struggle to acquire literacy be-cause of their limited proficiency in English and ELLs who have actual LD. We conclude that more research is warranted to further elu-cidate the strengths and learning needs of subgroups of underachieving ELLs, to help us determine who should qualify for specialeducation, and to clarify why some ELLs who do not have LD still struggle with language and literacy acquisition. Future research shouldaccount for the complexities involved in becoming literate in another language and focus more on cultural and contextual factors thataffect student achievement.

In this article, we review empiricalresearch about English languagelearners (ELLs; see Note) who ex-

perience reading difficulties and ELLswith learning disabilities (LD). ELLsare rapidly gaining visibility in schooldistricts around the country. Accord-ing to the U. S. Department of Educa-tion (USDOE) and the National In-stitute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment (NICHD), 20% of peoplebeyond the age of 5 speak a languageother than English at home, and it is es-timated that by the year 2030, about40% of the school population willspeak English as a second language(ESL; USDOE & NICHD, 2003). Demo-graphic evidence has suggested thatthis population already has a presencein many of the nation’s school dis-tricts—in 2002, 43% of the nation’steachers had at least one ELL in theirclassrooms (USDOE & NICHD, 2003).Nevertheless, the majority of ELLswere enrolled in a small number of dis-tricts (Zehler et al., 2003). Although themajority of ELLs (77%) speak Spanishas their first language (Zehler et al.,2003), ELLs are a heterogeneous popu-lation in terms of ethnicity, nationality,

socioeconomic background, immigra-tion status, and generation in theUnited States, among others (August &Hakuta, 1997).

ELLs tend to exhibit lower aca-demic achievement (particularly in lit-eracy) than their non-ELL peers, andsimilar negative trends are observed inother educational outcomes (e.g., graderepetition, school dropout; Abedi, 2002;August & Hakuta, 1997; Zehler et al.,2003). Due to accountability regula-tions, a sizable proportion of districtsreport that ELLs are participating instatewide testing efforts; however, it isdifficult to obtain an accurate portraitof ELL achievement due to limitationsin data collection and reporting prac-tices (e.g., how to interpret data fromELLs who received test accommoda-tions, and how to determine how re-cently reclassified ELLs previouslyperformed, given that many districtsdo not track outcomes for former ELLs;Zehler et al., 2003).

The scarce data on ELLs with spe-cial needs suggest that the majorityhave LD with reading difficulties as thecore problem (56%); the second mostprevalent disabilities category among

the ELL population in special educa-tion is speech–language impairment(24%; USDOE & NICHD, 2003). Inter-esting enough, compared to ELLswithout disabilities, ELLs with disabil-ities are more likely to receive fewerlanguage support services and to be in-structed only in English. Moreover, themajority of ELLs with disabilities (55%)tend to receive special education ser-vices in segregated contexts (Zehler etal., 2003). Compared to their non-ELLpeers in special education, the instruc-tional programs for ELLs with disabil-ities are not “as aligned with Statecontent/performance standards” (Zeh-ler et al., 2003, p. viii). Unfortunately,Zehler et al. (2003) found that outcomedata for this population were not dis-aggregated by level of English lan-guage proficiency.

ELLs Struggling to Learn: An Emerging Knowledge

Base

We know that increasing numbers ofELLs are enrolling in schools and thata large proportion struggle to learn or

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on April 3, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from



VOLUME 39, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2006 109

are underachieving, but what does re-search say about the causes of theseproblems or about effective interven-tions? A question commonly raised is,“Do ELLs struggle to develop literacybecause of their limited proficiency inEnglish or because of learning disabil-ities (LD)?” Unfortunately, the researchaddressing this issue is inadequate, asis the research focusing on many otherbasic questions, such as,

what is the nature of the relationshipbetween language proficiency and lit-eracy skill? Is that relationship thesame across and within languages? Isthere a level of oral language knowl-edge that is prerequisite to success-ful literacy acquisition? Is the level the same for learners of different first-language backgrounds, of differentages, of different levels of first-language literacy? . . . Is literacy knowl-edge represented the same way formonolingual and bilingual popula-tions? Are literacy skills and deficitsacquired in the first language directlytransferred to the second, and, if so,under what conditions? (August &Hakuta, 1997, pp. 71, 128–129)

Systematic reviews of the researchin child development, psychology, andspecial education have suggested thatresearchers have rarely focused on theintersection of learning, language back-ground, race, and disability; hence, ed-ucators cannot rely on a sound re-search knowledge base to address theneeds of ELLs who struggle to learn(Artiles, Trent, & Kuan, 1997; Graham,1992; McLoyd & Randolph, 1985).

ELL Special Education Placement in Changing

Policy Contexts

ELL placement in special education isarguably a more complex issue thanthe placement of culturally and lin-guistically diverse students more gen-erally, mainly because linguistic andimmigration factors are added to thecomposite of cultural, socioeconomic,and ethnic influences. These added fac-tors force us to consider not only the

problem of overrepresentation but alsoof underrepresentation in special edu-cation (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Gen-eral education teachers sometimes hes-itate to refer ELLs to special educationbecause they cannot determine if ELLs’difficulties with learning to read aredue to second language acquisition is-sues or LD (USDOE & NICHD, 2003).Many educators are confused aboutdistrict policies regarding the timing ofreferrals and about whether ELLs musthave acquired a certain level of Englishproficiency before the referral processcan be initiated (Harry & Klingner, in press). This apparently paradoxicalsituation reminds us that educatorsshould be concerned with a failure toaddress the special education needs ofstudents as well as with their inappro-priate placement in special education.

It is important to examine the ex-tent to which ELL placement trends inspecial education are being shaped bycurrent policy developments. Indeed,multiple (often contradictory) reformsand initiatives are unfolding that com-plicate the education of ELLs. For in-stance, language support and bilingualeducation programs have been abol-ished in some states with large ELL en-rollment. On the other hand, account-ability demands placed on schools andteachers to increase the academicachievement of ELLs and non-ELLswith and without LD are increasing ata time when limited support is pro-vided to fulfill such expectations.

Similarly, the recent reauthoriza-tion of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA; 2004) includessignificant changes that affect educa-tion for ELLs. First, the new IDEA hasstrengthened requirements to trackdisproportionate representation pat-terns at the district and state levels.Unfortunately, the infrastructure forcollecting placement data on ELLs re-garding a host of critical variables (e.g.,generational status, language profi-ciency, opportunity to learn) remainsweak. Moreover, disability identifica-tion procedures for ELLs vary substan-tially across the nation’s school dis-tricts (USDOE & NICHD, 2003), and

such variability has important conse-quences for referrals to special educa-tion, assessment and eligibility proce-dures, and the provision of specializedinstruction.

Second, under IDEA 2004, statesmay now choose to discontinue the useof the IQ–achievement discrepancyformula and eliminate the requirementfor IQ tests as part of the special edu-cation identification process. Stateshave the option of using response to in-tervention (RTI) criteria as part of theidentification process. With this dra-matically different system, studentswho show signs of struggling to learnare provided with intensive early in-terventions. Those students who donot respond to evidence-based instruc-tion are then considered possible can-didates for special education. This mo-mentous change has the potential toconsiderably change the way ELLswho struggle with reading are assistedand identified for special education.Yet we know little about how thisprocess should be carried out so that itbest supports ELLs.

In conclusion, we face significantchallenges in the education of ELLs ata time when their representation in theschool-age population is increasing atan accelerated pace. Policy, technical(e.g., identification procedures), andinstitutional forces (e.g., data collectioninfrastructures) are complicating theway we address the already complexneeds of this population. Thus, it is ur-gent that we make systematic efforts tosynthesize and critique the emergentempirical knowledge base on ELLswho are struggling to learn to read.

The purpose of this article is to re-view empirical research on ELLs whostruggle to learn to read and who mayor may not have LD. ELLs who strug-gle to read seem to fall into a gray area,and it is often difficult to make eligibil-ity decisions about them. The over-arching question we sought to addressis, “What can we learn from research tohelp us better differentiate betweenELLs who struggle to acquire literacybecause of limited proficiency in En-glish and ELLs who have actual LD?”




JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES110

Method

Selection of Studies

We selected the studies presented inthis synthesis based on a two-stepprocess that involved

1. conducting a comprehensivesearch for all articles that might beappropriate, and

2. applying selection criteria to deter-mine which articles should be in-cluded (Artiles et al., 1997;Klingner & Vaughn, 1999).

We attempted to locate all of theexisting research on ELLs who arestruggling readers and ELLs who weredetermined to have LD using fourmodes of searching: (a) searches insubject indexes, (b) citation searches,(c) consultation, and (d) browsing.

Step 1: Initial Selection

Searches in Subject Indexes. Weconducted several computer searchesusing the Educational Resources Infor-mation Center (ERIC), first consultingthe ERIC Thesaurus to determine ap-propriate descriptors for students whoare ELLs. Many terms have been usedover the years to describe studentswho are in the process of acquiringEnglish as a second or additional lan-guage, including language minority stu-dents and limited English proficient.Searches included sets of descriptorssuch as, “reading AND learning dis-abilities AND second language learn-ing,” “limited English proficient ANDreading,” and “learning disabilitiesAND limited English proficient.”When the first set of studies were iden-tified using these descriptors, majorand minor descriptors found in thesestudies were examined to find addi-tional articles. A second set of searcheswas then conducted with several com-binations of descriptors, such as, “cul-turally diverse students AND learningdisabilities,” “minorities AND disabil-ities AND reading,” “second languagelearning AND disabilities,” “readingAND English (second language),” and

“bilingualism AND literacy AND lim-ited English speaking.”

Citation Searches. We examinedlists of citations from relevant studiesto ensure that every article cited wasconsidered for possible inclusion in thesynthesis. This approach helped us toidentify articles we had not locatedthrough our searches in ERIC.

Consultation. We attempted tolocate additional studies by contactinga number of researchers who had pub-lished articles on ELLs with LD in thepast. We sent them letters asking ifthey had any articles on distinguishingbetween language acquisition and LDthat were in press or in progress, or ifthey were aware of any other re-searchers who had written articles fo-cused on the topic.

Browsing. We also conductedhand searches or online searches of thefollowing journals: Exceptional Chil-dren, Journal of Learning Disabilities,Bilingual Research Journal, TESOL Quar-terly, Reading Research Quarterly, andthe Journal of Literacy Research (for-merly Journal of Reading Behavior). Webrowsed through these journals’ tableof contents. This process allowed us tolook for articles not identified throughour searches in the ERIC database.

Step 2: Criteria-Based Selection

To determine which studies to includein this review, we established severalcriteria. We opted to include only thosestudies that

1. reported original data;2. concentrated on a K–12 popula-

tion;3. focused on students acquiring En-

glish as a second or additional lan-guage rather than English as aforeign language; and

4. targeted ELLs with LD or ELLswho were struggling readers.

We included studies conducted inother countries than the United States

as long as they otherwise fit our crite-ria. We opted to include investigationson ELLs with LD even when the spe-cific focus of the study was not literacy,given that the majority of studentsidentified as having LD struggle withreading. We did not limit our search bydates. The earliest study we found waspublished in 1971, and the most recentwas in press. We did not include opin-ion pieces or reviews in which the au-thors offered suggestions for how bestto distinguish between language ac-quisition and LD or how best to pro-vide instruction, although there weremany of those. We excluded researchconducted on pre-K or college students.Furthermore, we did not include gen-eral studies about the overrepresenta-tion of culturally and linguistically di-verse students in special education.

We eliminated studies about bi-lingual students who were reported bythe authors to be fully proficient inEnglish and their first language ratherthan in the process of acquiring En-glish (e.g., G. E. Garcia, 1991; Jiménez,García, & Pearson, 1996). In caseswhere the status of students’ languageproficiency was not stated explicitly,we looked for other clues about stu-dents’ proficiency levels rather than re-jecting the study outright, particularlywhen the participants had been identi-fied as having reading disabilities anda goal of the study was to inform eligi-bility decision making with studentswho spoke a first language other thanEnglish (e.g., Miramontes, 1987). Whenit appeared that the participants in astudy reflected a range of proficiencylevels, we included the study. The phe-nomenon of underreporting profi-ciency information about participantswas most apparent with older studies(e.g., Jorstad, 1971; Mathewson &Pereyra-Suarez, 1975).

Another challenge was decidingwhich reading studies to include, be-cause some authors did not describestudents as “struggling,” “at risk,”“low achieving,” or “with LD” in theirdescription of participants, but did or-ganize their findings in this way. Whenthis was the case, we included the





study (e.g., Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey,2003). When a study included multiplecomponents, we included only rele-vant components that fit our criteria.

Analysis Procedures

After we assembled the target studies,our next step was to read each one andidentify the purpose, participants,methodology, and key findings (see Ta-bles 1–7). This was done by two of thepresent authors who met semiweeklyto compare notes. We then categorizedthe studies according to broad themes.Within some categories, we then iden-tified subcategories. Our final catego-rization system included (a) subpopu-lations of ELLs who struggle to read,(b) the role of context in helping us un-derstand ELLs’ struggle to read, (c) re-ferral issues with ELLs who struggle to read, (d) assessment practices withELLs who may have LD, (e) predictorsof reading achievement, (f ) instruc-tional interventions for ELLs whostruggle to read or who have LD, and(g) ways in which the process of be-coming literate in a first and a secondlanguage can inform LD eligibility de-cisions. This categorization scheme be-came the structure for presenting ourfindings, as described next.

Results and Discussion

What Do We Know About Population Characteristics and Subtypes?

In this section, we describe researchstudies in which the authors examinedthe characteristics of subpopulations ofELLs identified for special educationor, similarly, in which the authors de-veloped profiles of ELLs identifiedwith LD. Given the heterogeneity ofELL populations, this type of workseems particularly important for help-ing us understand differences amongELLs who struggle to read in school.The studies discussed in this sectionare presented in Table 1.

Findings. In an early study, Jor-stad (1971) developed composite pro-files of Mexican American studentswith severe reading disabilities, usingthe Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abili-ties. Students showed strengths in vi-sual processing but weaknesses in au-ditory processing. All scores fallingbelow average were in auditory areas:grammatic closure, auditory closure,auditory association, auditory recep-tion, sound blending, and auditorymemory. Whether these students wereexperiencing difficulties in auditoryprocessing and reading because oftheir limited proficiency in English orhad actual LD was not clear. Yet thefinding that they all had a similar pro-file would seem to indicate that secondlanguage acquisition played a key role.

Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Hi-gareda (2005) conducted research onsubpopulations of ELLs in 11 urbandistricts in California during the 1998–1999 school year. This research alsopointed to the importance of looking atsecond language acquisition. ELLswho tested as limited in their nativelanguage as well as in English showedthe highest rates of identification forspecial education. Another importantinsight obtained was the need to ex-amine placement data at multiple lev-els. Although special education place-ment patterns at the district level didnot reflect any problems, significantoverrepresentation was observed whenthe data were examined by grade, spe-cial education and language program(straight English immersion, modifiedEnglish immersion, or bilingual), andsubgroup of students. For instance,overrepresentation emerged in fifthgrade and continued through highschool. ELLs in English immersionclassrooms were more likely to receivespecial education than their peers inmodified English immersion or bilin-gual programs. Artiles et al. raisedquestions about the theoretical viabil-ity of the districts’ subgroups and con-cluded that we need to know moreabout the specific characteristics ofELLs, particularly for students whotest as limited in multiple languages.

Schiff-Myers, Djukic, McGovern-Lawler, and Perez (1994) described achild who had been misclassified ashaving a language learning disabilitywho seemed to have suffered from lan-guage loss or arrested development ofher primary language (Spanish) andwho was delayed in learning English.The child’s difficulties turned out to betemporary, and she eventually mas-tered English. This case highlightedthe challenge in trying to distinguishbetween temporary difficulties in anew language versus persistent lan-guage learning disorders. It also exem-plified the type of student who ap-pears to be limited in both the first andsecond language whom Artiles et al.(2005) identified as most likely to beplaced in special education.

Figueroa and Sassenrath (1989)completed a longitudinal study of 60%of the 2,100 students from the tri-ethnicnorming sample for the System of Mul-ticultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA).They found that Hispanic studentswho in 1972 had scored at or below themean on the Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children–Revised (WISC-R) weremore likely than their European Amer-ican counterparts to show higher thanexpected school grades and achieve-ment. Of interest, among the Hispanicgroups, those students who used moreSpanish in the home were more likelyto show higher than expected achieve-ment than students from bilingualEnglish/Spanish homes (who weremore likely to show less than expectedgrowth). This study is important inshowing the value of a strong nativelanguage foundation and providesunique insights into the characteristicsof ELLs who are more and less suc-cessful in school.

Argulewicz (1983) examined theeffects of ethnic membership, SES, andhome language on LD, mental retarda-tion (MR), and emotional handicap(EH) placements in a large sample ofMexican American students and foundthat the students most likely to beplaced in special education (particu-larly as having LD) were MexicanAmerican ELLs in mid-SES schools





who spoke Spanish rather than Englishat home. These results seem to contra-dict those of Figueroa and Sassenrath(1989). Argulewicz speculated that themid-SES schools may have had higherexpectations for student achievementand noted that the low-SES schoolswere more likely to offer bilingual ed-ucation programs. The findings fromthis study suggest that placement inspecial education is affected by schooland program characteristics.

Barrera (2003) reported the resultsof two pilot studies in which he used

alternative assessment procedures toexplore the differences among bilin-gual students and ELLs with and with-out school-identified LD. In Study 1,109 educators examined the students’processing skills by looking at theirhandwritten class notes. They consis-tently ranked the notes of bilingualstudents higher than those of ELLswith LD, who tended to write in dis-jointed fragments and to write verba-tim. This type of study is important inhelping us understand the characteris-tics of ELLs who seem to be struggling

in school and the ways in which theymight differ from their higher achiev-ing peers. In Study 2, Barrera mergedcurriculum-based measurement anddynamic assessment for assessing ELLsfor possible LD. He found that ELLswith LD scored lower on all measuresthan ELL students without LD andbilingual students, and that theydemonstrated growth after the dy-namic assessment procedures. Bar-rera’s findings not only help us under-stand the characteristics of adolescentELLs with LD, but they also offer an al-

TABLE 1Studies Included in the Review That Provide Data on Population Characteristics and Subtypes

Study Purpose Participants

Argulewicz, 1983

Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005

Barrera, 2003

Figueroa & Sassenrath, 1989

Jorstad, 1971

Schiff-Myers, Djukic, McGovern-Lawler, & Perez, 1994

Note. LD = learning disabilities; MR = mental retardation; EH = emotional handicaps; SES = socioeconomic status; SE = special education; ELLs = English lan-guage learners; LAS = Language Assessment Scales; WISC-R = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised; GPA = grade point average; SOMPA = Systemof Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment; CST = Child Study Team.

To examine effects of ethnic membership,SES, and home language on LD, MR, andEH placements.

To examine placement patterns across SEprograms, grade levels, and three lan-guage programs in 11 urban districts. Datadisaggregated by language proficiency andother factors.

Study 1: To examine students’ processingskills by looking at their handwritten classnotes. Study 2: To examine merging cur-riculum-based measurement and dynamicassessment for assessing ELLs for possi-ble LD.

To determine the number of incorrect deci-sions when using WISC-R Full Scale IQscores to predict school achievement. Stu-dents’ GPAs and standardized reading andmath scores in 1982 compared with their1972 Full-Scale WISC-R scores.

To develop composite profiles of studentswith severe reading difficulties using theIllinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities.

To present the case of a child who was mis-classified as having communicationdisabilities.

9,950 K–6 students (all of the White, Black, andLatino students in one district): 1,527 MexicanAmerican (538 w/ English and 989 w/ Spanishas their home language), low and mid SES.

11 urban school districts in California, each with anaverage of 64,000 students: 42% ELLs (>90% ofLatino descent, majority not recent immigrants, > 70% from low-income backgrounds).

Study 1: 109 educators blindly ranked the handwrit-ten notes of 38 students (12 were bilingual stu-dents without LD; 26 were ELL students with LD;of the LD group, 11 had LAS scores of 3 to 5and were called Type 1; 15 had LAS scores of 1or 2 and were called Type 2. Study 2: 21 Mexi-can American students (7 ELL w/ LD, 7 ELL only,and 7 bilingual).

60% of the 2,100 students (Anglo, Hispanic Span-ish speakers, Hispanic Spanish/English speak-ers, and Hispanic English speakers) from the tri-ethnic norming sample for the SOMPA.

20 Mexican American students with severe readingdifficulties in a rural elementary school in Cali-fornia (no mention of language dominance, al-though it appears students were ELLs).

One ELL child was classified as having a languagelearning disorder by a CST. She had startedschool speaking only Spanish but was taught inEnglish.





ternative and potentially more validway of determining the upper limits ofstudents’ school potential.

Discussion. It appears that somesubpopulations of ELLs are particu-larly vulnerable to placement in spe-cial education. However, the studieswe reviewed only sampled a smallproportion of the ELL population, andmuch more descriptive work is needed.We still have a great deal to learn aboutpopulation subtypes and about thecharacteristics of ELLs with LD. Al-though the U.S. Census Bureau andother data sources provide informationabout overall categories of culturallyand linguistically diverse individualsand the percentages of students whoare ELLs, we lack precise informationabout students’ levels of language pro-ficiency in English and in their native

language. In part this is because westill do not have adequate measures oflanguage proficiency, and also becausestates have kept incomplete data.

As August and Hakuta (1997) il-lustrated, second language acquisitionis a complicated process, influenced by many factors, including but not lim-ited to the sociocultural environment,language proficiency in the first lan-guage, attitudes, personality, and per-ceived status. August and Hakuta la-mented the lack of a systematic datacollection process at the national level,complicated by variations in state anddistrict policies and numerous “obsta-cles” (p. 276) such as inconsistent defi-nitions, lack of agreement on commonindicators, lack of data, and lack ofconsensus on how or by whom datashould be collected. These problemsremain today.

What Do We Know About the Role of Context in Understanding ELLs’ Struggles?

In another type of study, the re-searchers focused on the critical medi-ating role of context in helping us un-derstand ELL traits and performance.All of these studies included observa-tions in students’ classrooms. Thesestudies are important in that they pro-vide another lens through which toview students’ school experiences.They are summarized in Table 2.

Findings. Arreaga-Mayer andPerdomo-Rivera (1996) and Harry andKlingner (in press) observed the op-portunities to learn that were affordedto ELLs in general education class-rooms. Arreaga-Mayer and Perdomo-Rivera described an ecobehavioral

TABLE 2Studies Included in the Review That Provide Data About the Role of Context in Understanding ELLs’ Struggles


Arreaga-Mayer & Perdomo-Rivera, 1996

López-Reyna, 1996

Ruiz, 1989

Ruiz, 1995

Trueba, 1988

Note. LD = learning disabilities; GE = general education; SE = special education; ELLs = English language learners; ESL = English as a second language; LAS =Language Assessment Scales.

To describe an ecobehavioral analysis sys-tem used to assess students’ opportuni-ties to learn in GE and ESL classrooms.

To describe a bilingual SE class over a 2-year period as it transitioned from a skills-based approach to a whole-language model.

To present the case study of a bilingualstudent in a self-contained, bilingual SEclass. To observe how students andteachers used language for learning.

To examine a bilingual SE classroom anddiscuss those events that revealed theupper limits of students’ skills.

To describe the learning difficulties amongELLs w/ LD in Grades 1–5. Studentswere followed across home and schoolsettings in an 18-month ethnographicstudy.

24 ELL students in GE and ESL classrooms in 3schools (w/ LAS scores of 1–3, indicating begin-ning to intermediate English proficiency). Deter-mined to be at risk in reading with scores at least 1 year below grade level on the Iowa Test of BasicSkills.

14 students w/ LD, ages 7 to 10 (2 students proficientonly in Spanish, 10 at various levels of bilingual-ism, 2 in English only). Reading levels in Englishranged from prereading to 2nd grade.

11-year-old girl who was born in Mexico and came tothe United States when she was 2; she only spokeSpanish when she started school and then was in-structed in English.

10 linguistically and culturally diverse students, ages 6 to 11, in a self-contained, bilingual SE class-room. Spanish and English proficiency varied considerably—some spoke very little English.

12 ELLs (4 Hispanic, 3 Laotian, 3 Hmong, 1 Viet-namese, and 1 Sudanese) considered “the mosteducationally needy” among students w/ LD at aschool in California.





analysis system used in studying gen-eral education and ESL classrooms tounderstand the opportunities affordedto at-risk ELLs to acquire and negotiatea second language and academic con-tent. They found that minimal atten-tion was paid to language develop-ment, student engagement was low,and teachers emphasized lectures anda whole-classroom format. Arreaga-Mayer and Perdomo-Rivera concludedthat instructional environments andteacher variables have a profound im-pact on students’ academic behaviorsand language use. Harry and Klingnerobserved a similar phenomenon inprimary-level classrooms across 12schools. Instructional quality in gen-eral, and the extent to which teacherssupported the language developmentof ELLs in particular, varied widelyacross schools. Harry and Klingnerwere quite concerned that despitethese variations in students’ opportu-nities to learn, no consideration seemedto be given to classroom ecology bymembers of referral or placementteams.

Trueba (1988) conducted an 18-month ethnographic study of thelearning difficulties of 12 ELLs with LDin Grades 1 to 5. Students’ learningproblems were manifested in (a) a lackof participation in class activities; (b) alack of academic productivity; and (c) the presence of stress, fear, confu-sion, and other signs of ongoing emo-tional turmoil. Trueba noted that cul-tural conflict may help explain thedifficulties that students experiencedin the acquisition of English literacy.School activities seemed to presupposecultural knowledge and values thatthese children and their families hadnot acquired. Although cultural con-flict and affective considerations ap-pear to be of critical importance, theyhave been studied infrequently and re-ported rarely.

Ruiz (1995) conducted an in-depthstudy of students in one classroom toascertain more about the characteris-tics of different profiles of studentswho are placed in special education.She examined the contextual features

of the events in a self-contained, bilin-gual special education class that in-cluded 10 culturally and linguisticallydiverse students ages 6 to 11. She dis-cussed the events that revealed theupper limits of students’ language andacademic skills and identified threeprofiles of students, ranging from se-vere language LD to typical abilities.Similarly, Ruiz (1989) described Rose-mary, a student in a bilingual specialeducation classroom, whose perfor-mance on standardized tests was quitelow, but who, in other contexts, wrotewell, was a leader, and used specific,detailed language, This body of re-search highlights the role of the in-structional context in revealing therange of students’ communicative andacademic competencies and has signif-icant implications for those makingeligibility decisions. Students may ap-pear to be competent in one setting butnot in another and, thus, should be ob-served across settings and in variedcontexts to obtain a truer picture oftheir abilities.

López-Reyna (1996) described aself-contained, bilingual special educa-tion class as it transitioned from askills-based approach to a whole-language model. During skills-basedinstruction, the students completedworksheets and focused on discreteskills. Although they were on task andseemingly engaged, in the whole-language class, students focused moreon making meaning and were muchmore actively involved in learning.They learned to apply comprehensionstrategies and appeared to make moreconnections to their own lives. Thisstudy made an important point abouthow different children look in differenteducational contexts. These implica-tions are similar to those of the Ruiz(1995) study dabout how students canappear very competent in one instruc-tional setting but not in another.

Discussion. It is imperative thatwe examine context when consideringwhy a student may be struggling tolearn. Cultural conflict and affectiveconsiderations appear to be of critical

importance. We know that sociocul-tural factors play a central role in in-fluencing students’ school experiences.Collier and Hoover (1987) argued thatsome behaviors that appear to indicateLD might be typical for the child’s cul-tural background or a by-product ofthe acculturation process. They sug-gested that educators involved in re-ferral and placement decision makingconsider various characteristics in rela-tion to a child’s culture, language, andacculturation. Similarly, Estrin (1993)emphasized the social context of as-sessment, the influence of culture onstudent assessment performance, andthe role of language and culture in in-struction and assessment. More re-search is needed in these critical areas.

What Do We Know About Prereferral and Referral Issues?

Few research studies have focused spe-cifically on referral issues with cultur-ally and linguistically diverse students(see Table 3). We included these stud-ies to help us understand why ELLs arereferred for special education and towhat extent those involved in the refer-ral process follow recommended guide-lines. Although a handful of scholars(Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Ortiz &Yates, 2001; Serna, Forness, & Nielsen,1998) have urged the implementationof prereferral interventions as a way toreduce inappropriate referrals to spe-cial education, the few studies of thereferral process that have been carriedout have suggested a limited imple-mentation of prereferral strategies.Rather, children seem to be pushed to-ward a formal evaluation.

Findings. Most recently, Harryand Klingner (in press) used ethno-graphic techniques to investigate thereferral process in 12 schools in a large,diverse metropolitan school district.They found that although teacherswere responsible for implementingspecified “alternative strategies” de-signed to address the needs of childrenthey had referred to their schools’Child Study Teams, the quality of these




strategies varied both by teacher andby school. In many cases, it seemedthat the requirement for strategies wasundermined by teachers’ beliefs thatthey had already done all that wasneeded and that the child should beformally evaluated as soon as possible.

Carrasquillo and Rodriguez (1997)found a similar pattern in their exami-nation of the characteristics of 46 His-panic elementary-level ELLs referredto or participating in bilingual specialeducation in a large urban school dis-trict. Most referrals were due to teach-ers’ concerns about general academicdeficits and low reading or languageachievement. They noted that few pre-referral interventions were tried withstudents prior to their placement inspecial education.

Discussion. It has already been20 years since Mehan, Hartwick, andMeihls (1986) published their study ofthe referral and placement process, or,as Mehan later described it, the“school’s work of sorting students”(Mehan, 1991). Mehan et al. concludedthat the referral process most fre-quently started in the classroom with areferral from the teacher, continuedthrough psychological assessment,and culminated in an evaluation by theplacement committee. The decision tolabel students seemed to have less todo with the children labeled than witha multitude of other factors. The forcesthat led to special education placementseemed very similar to those observed

in the schools studied by Harry, Kling-ner, Sturges, and Moore (2002) in a dif-ferent part of the country several yearslater.

It seems we know more aboutprereferral practices that do not workor, at least, are not implemented inschools than we do about prereferralpractices that prove to be effective atreducing inappropriate referrals andare feasible for schools to put into prac-tice. The timing of referrals and specialeducation placement for ELLs alsoought to be studied more systemati-cally, because it is possible that teach-ers may be postponing referral deci-sions due to a lack of understanding ofthe intersection of second language de-velopment and LD.

Harry and Klingner (in press) andSalend and Salinas (2003) offered sug-gestions for enhancing the referralprocess. They recommended diversify-ing Child Study Teams and multidisci-plinary teams to ensure that experts insecond language acquisition are in-cluded, offering training, and consid-ering factors associated with secondlanguage acquisition. They also be-lieved that prereferral strategies mustbecome a more central and meaningfulpart of the referral process. Anotherway to think about this is that thereshould be more options within generaleducation for supporting studentswho show initial signs of struggling tolearn (see Ortiz, 1997; Ortiz & Yates,2001). Barrera (2003) advocated forusing curriculum-based assessment

and testing students on material theyare exposed to in class as a way ofmonitoring their progress and deter-mining who should be referred.

What Do We Know About Assessment Practices?

A great deal has been written aboutbias in testing, particularly regardingmeasures of potential. We know thatintelligence tests tend to underestimatethe potential of culturally and linguis-tically diverse students (Abedi, 2002;Figueroa, 1989; Gonzalez, Brusca-Vega,& Yawkey, 1997; MacSwan, Rolstad, &Glass, 2002; Rueda, 1997; Valdés &Figueroa, 1994). Regrettably, diagnosti-cians and educators often misinterpreta lack of full proficiency in English as asecond language as a widespread in-telligence deficit (Oller, 1991) or as alanguage or learning disability (Am-bert, 1986; Langdon, 1989). Psycholo-gists have erroneously concluded thatbilingualism retards verbal intelligence,despite evidence to the contrary (Au-gust & Hakuta, 1997; Hakuta, 1990).We will not review the body of workon intelligence testing; instead, weonly review research studies that fo-cused specifically on assessment issuesconcerning ELLs with possible LDwho are struggling with reading (seeTable 4).

Findings. One important line ofresearch has focused on the practices of

TABLE 3Studies Included in the Review That Provide Data About Prereferral and Referral Issues


Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1997

Harry & Klingner, in press

Note. SE = special education; ELLs = English language learners; LEP = limited English proficient; CST = Child Study Team.

To examine the characteristics of HispanicELLs referred to or participating in bilin-gual SE.

To investigate the referral process in alarge, diverse school district and to un-derstand factors that contribute to dis-proportionate representation.

46 Hispanic LEP elementary students in New YorkCity who were referred to SE.

21 observations of CST meetings and multidisciplinaryteam meetings for 19 ELLs (12 culturally and lin-guistically diverse schools: 4 w/ predominantlyBlack school populations, 4 w/ predominantly His-panic populations, and 4 w/ mixed populations).






assessors. Several studies of this naturehave been conducted over the years,with similar findings. Maldonado-Colon (1986) noted several problematicpractices. Most students were tested inEnglish, regardless of their home lan-guage, and without accommodations.Spanish language measures were in-frequently used. The interpretation ofresults disregarded issues of languagedifference. Test performance in Englishand teacher referral were the most sig-nificant variables determining specialeducation placement. Similarly, thepsychologist Barrera Metz (1988) foundhome language information to berarely considered when making place-ment decisions.

Ochoa and colleagues (Ochoa,González, Galarza, & Guillemard, 1996;Ochoa, Powell, & Robles-Piña, 1996;Ochoa, Rivera, & Powell, 1997) sur-veyed 859 National Association ofSchool Psychologists (NASP) membersfrom eight states who indicated theyhad prior experience conducting bilin-

gual psychoeducational assessments.They published several articles withdata from this survey. Ochoa et al.(1997) determined which factors thepsychologists used to comply withIDEA’s exclusionary clause for bilin-gual students and ELLs. They identi-fied 17 factors that were overlooked,including consideration of the stu-dent’s native language and the numberof years of English instruction that thestudent had received. Only 1% at-tempted to determine if a discrepancyoccurred in both English and the stu-dent’s home language. Ochoa, Gon-zález, et al. (1996) compared the testsused in English-only and bilingualpsychoeducational assessments andfound that curriculum-based assess-ments were used more often with ELLsthan with English-only students, andthat overall there was more diversity inthe tests used with ELLs. Ochoa, Pow-ell, and Robles-Piña (1996) examinedthe use of interpreters by the sameschool psychologists and found that al-

though more than half had used inter-preters, only 37% of the interpretershad received any formal training.

Harry, Klingner, and colleagues(Harry & Klingner, in press; Harry etal., 2002) focused on factors that af-fected the assessment process and thedecision to identify a student as quali-fying for special education. Althoughschool personnel expressed confidencein the ability of the assessment processto discern who truly met eligibility cri-teria and who did not, Harry et al.found several influences on the pro-cess that would suggest otherwise, in-cluding teachers’ informal diagnosesof children’s problems, the influence ofschool personnel’s impressions of thefamily, external pressures for identifi-cation and placement, the exclusion ofinformation on classroom ecology, thechoice of assessment instruments, thearbitrary nature of placement deci-sions, and a disregard for establishedcriteria. Like others, they found that as-sessors seemed to overly rely on the re-

TABLE 4Studies Included in the Review That Provide Data About Assessment Practices with ELLs Who May Have LD


Barrera Metz, 1988

Harry, Klingner, Sturges, & Moore, 2002

Maldonado-Colon, 1986

Ochoa, González, et al., 1996

Ochoa, Robles-Pina, et al., 1996

Ochoa, Rivera, & Powell, 1997

Note. LD = learning disabilities; SE = special education; ELLs = English language learners; NASP = National Association of School Psychologists.

To examine the relative importance of linguisticand cultural information in assessment deci-sions about Hispanic students referred toSE.

To understand factors that affected the assess-ment of students referred for a formal SEevaluation and qualification decisions.

To describe the characteristics of Hispanic chil-dren identified as having language LD. Qual-itative and quantitative data collected fromstudents’ files.

To identify school psychologists’ assessmentpractices w/ bilingual and ELL students.

To determine how school psychologists whohad conducted bilingual psychoeducationalassessments used interpreters.

To determine how psychologists complied w/ the exclusionary clause when assessingbilingual and ELL students.

7 psychologists, of whom all but 1 rated themselvesas having native or near-native Spanish profi-ciency, w/ a mean of 9.3 years testing Hispanicstudents.

Culturally and linguistically diverse students, includ-ing ELLs, in 12 diverse schools; also, teachers,psychologists, and other support staff.

73 randomly sampled Hispanic children in the 3–12age range (41 ELLs from homes where Spanishwas spoken), w/ comparison groups of Anglos (n = 24) and Blacks (n = 28).

859 NASP members from 8 states who indicatedthey conducted bilingual assessments.

859 school psychologists who indicated they con-ducted bilingual assessments

859 school psychologists who indicated they didbilingual assessments





sults of English-language testing, tothe exclusion of native language testresults, and to give inadequate atten-tion to language acquisition issues as a possible explanation for students’struggles to learn.

Discussion. These studies havesuggested that in many cases, psychol-ogists and others involved in evaluat-ing ELLs for possible special educationplacement tend to ignore or give in-sufficient attention to the native lan-guages of the children they are testing.English-language tests are often usedeven when the student’s backgroundwarrants bilingual testing. Whetherthe unexpected underachievement ofELLs can be explained by their limitedEnglish proficiency is not given ade-quate consideration. This phenome-non of paying insufficient attention tostudents’ native languages appears tobe a theme that runs across studiesconducted over the last 20 years.

What Do We Know About Predictors of Reading Achievement?

A somewhat new line of research withELLs focuses on finding the best pre-dictors of their reading achievement.Given the numerous studies that havedemonstrated the influence of phono-logical awareness on reading achieve-ment among young native Englishspeakers (e.g., National Reading Panel,2000), it is not surprising that research-ers would seek to determine if similarpatterns would emerge with ELLs, andthat they would test the validity ofphonological assessment measureswith ELLs. Some studies have focusedon native language predictors of nativelanguage reading, others on the pre-dictive power of native language mea-sures for English reading, and still oth-ers on English predictors and Englishreading, or a combination of these. It isimportant to note that not all of these

studies focused on identifying readingdisabilities. Given the challenges indistinguishing between generic lowreading ability and actual LD, weopted to include studies that focusedon low-achieving or struggling readerswhen we felt that the study could in-form the larger question about distin-guishing between language acquisi-tion and LD (see Table 5).

Findings. In a relatively earlystudy of its type, Durgunoglu, Nagy,and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) studied thevariables that affected the Englishreading skills of Spanish-dominant,ELL beginning readers in a transitionalbilingual program. They found thatSpanish word recognition and Spanishphonological awareness were betterpredictors of English pseudoword andword reading than English or Spanishoral proficiency or English word recog-nition. A qualitative analysis of errorsindicated that incomplete decoding,

TABLE 5Studies Included in the Review That Provide Data About Predictors of Reading Achievement


Chiappe, Siegel, & Gottardo, 2002

Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993

Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003

Oh, Haager, & Windmueller, 2004

Note. SE = special education; ELLs = English language learners; CELDT = California English Language Development Test.

To examine whether English phonologicalprocessing, syntactic awareness, and ver-bal memory measures used to identify chil-dren at risk for reading difficulties are ap-propriate for children from differentlanguage backgrounds.

To study the variables that affect the Englishreading skills of Spanish-dominant, bilin-gual beginning readers using Spanishtests of phonological awareness and letternaming and Spanish and English tests ofword recognition and oral proficiency.

To determine how well Spanish-speaking chil-dren at risk for reading difficulties could beidentified w/ a battery of Spanish mea-sures administered in K (as part of a studyinvestigating cross-language transfer).

To determine the beginning kindergartenreading skills that best predicted end ofkindergarten reading for ELLs.

659 kindergarten students in 32 schools in NorthVancouver (540 native English speakers, 59 bilin-gual students, and 60 ELLs at beginning levels ofproficiency) from diverse ethnic and linguisticbackgrounds.

31 Spanish-speaking, 1st-grade ELLs in a transi-tional bilingual program identified by their teach-ers as beginning, nonfluent readers (11 girls, 16boys; 90%–95% eligible for free or reduced-pricelunch). All considered ELLs as determined bystate guidelines. Most instruction in Spanish, withsome oral English.

249 Spanish-speaking ELLs, tested at 3 points dur-ing K and 1st grade (w/ very limited English skillsat the beginning of kindergarten); students wereinstructed and tested in Spanish and EnglishMore than 98% of the students qualified for freelunch.

600 ELL students (330 boys and 268 girls at begin-ning to intermediate levels of English proficiencyaccording to the CELDT). 28 SE students insample.





guessing, and lack of response madeup the majority of the errors for thelowest readers. Durgunoglu et al. rec-ommended developing native lan-guage phonological awareness as away to improve reading in English.

In two other studies, the research-ers examined the extent to which Span-ish testing predicted English and Span-ish reading proficiency. Using a batteryof measures, Lindsey, Manis, and Bai-ley (2003) found that predictions fromSpanish to English were generally asstrong as predictions within Spanish.Children with the lowest reading abil-ities in both languages tended to havethe slowest rapid naming times andprint awareness. Letter knowledgewas one of the strongest predictors.

Oh, Haager, and Windmueller(2004) also looked at the predictiveability of a battery of tests with ELLs,but their study differed from others inthat their focus was only on Englishliteracy. Letter naming fluency andphoneme segmentation fluency werefound to be significant predictors ofnonsense word fluency. Languagevariables were not significant predic-tors over and above the reading vari-ables. Word use fluency stood alone asa language predictor and supersededall reading variables in predicting orallanguage production at the end ofkindergarten.

In a Canadian study of ELLs withdifferent native languages, Chiappe,Siegel, and Gottardo (2002) examinedwhether measures used to identifychildren at risk for reading difficultieswere appropriate for children from avariety of language backgrounds. Al-though the bilingual students andELLs performed lower than the nativeEnglish speakers on most measures ofphonological and linguistic process-ing, the acquisition of basic literacyskills for children with different lan-guage backgrounds developed in asimilar manner. Alphabetic knowledgeand phonological processing were im-portant contributors to early readingachievement for all three groups. Chi-appe et al. concluded that for ELLs, al-

phabetic knowledge may precede andfacilitate the acquisition of phonologi-cal awareness in English.

Discussion. In sum, the factorsthat correlated with later readingachievement, whether in English or inthe native language, included phono-logical awareness, print awareness,and alphabetic knowledge. Rapidnaming speed also played a role. Yetmore research is needed to better un-derstand the interactions of these fac-tors with other aspects of first and sec-ond language acquisition and to findthe most valid ways of assessing lan-guage and literacy skills in both lan-guages. Assessments of phonologicalawareness, print awareness, alphabeticknowledge, and rapid naming provideearly predictors of reading and showpromise for identifying students whomay benefit from additional literacyinstruction before they are referred tospecial education. This research repre-sents an important shift in thinkingaway from the identification of within-child deficits and placement in specialeducation toward a focus on identify-ing children who can benefit fromearly intervention within a general ed-ucation framework.

What Do We Know About Interventions for ELLs Struggling With Reading?

We located surprisingly few researchstudies that described interventionsfor ELLs with reading disabilities orELLs who showed signs of strugglingto acquire literacy in school (see Ta-ble 6). In one type of study, researchersstudied reading comprehension strat-egy instruction. In another, researchersinvestigated intensive early reading in-terventions for ELLs. Some of these in-terventions were implemented in thestudents’ native language, and othersin English.

Reading Comprehension StrategyInstruction. Jiménez (1997) taught read-ing comprehension strategies to five

low-literacy Latina/o readers in mid-dle school. Students were successfullyable to learn and apply the strategies.Klingner and Vaughn (19969) also taughtcomprehension strategies to middleschool Spanish-speaking ELLs withLD, using a modified version of Re-ciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown,1984). Students read English text butwere encouraged to use Spanish aswell as English in their discussions. Animportant finding was that a contin-uum of students—not just studentswho initially had been adequate de-coders but poor comprehenders—ben-efited from comprehension strategy in-struction.

Intensive Reading Interventions.De La Colina, Parker, Hasbrouck, andLara-Alecio (2001) studied Read Natu-rally, an intensive reading interven-tion that combines repeated reading,teacher modeling, and progress moni-toring, using Spanish materials, in first-and second-grade Spanish–Englishbilingual classrooms. Read Naturallyled to measurable improvements influency and, to a lesser extent, compre-hension. Students who were highly en-gaged improved the most. Denton, An-thony, Parker, and Hasbrouck (2004)also investigated the effectiveness ofRead Naturally, but in English. Theyfound no statistically significant differ-ences and only minimal effect sizes fa-voring Read Naturally over a controlcondition on word identification, wordattack, and passage comprehensionmeasures. One can only speculate as towhy the students in Denton et al.’sstudy did not show significant gains inEnglish, whereas the students in De LaColina et al.’s (2001) study, who wereinstructed in Spanish, did.

Denton et al. (2004) also investi-gated the effectiveness of Read Well onELLs’ English reading. Read Well com-bines systematic, explicit phonics in-struction with practice in decodabletext and contextualized vocabularyand comprehension instruction. Incomparison with matched studentswho did not receive this extra inter-





vention, the Read Well students showedsignificantly more growth in wordidentification, but not in word attack(i.e., nonword reading) or comprehen-

sion. Denton et al. speculated that stu-dents’ lack of growth in comprehen-sion could have been because the pro-gram’s informal rather than systematic

instruction in English vocabulary wasinsufficient.

Three studies investigated the ca-pacity of phonological interventions

TABLE 6Studies Included in the Review That Provide Data on Interventions for ELLs Struggling with Reading


Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction

Jiménez, 1997

Klingner & Vaughn, 1996

Intensive Reading Interventions

De La Colina, Parker, Hasbrouck, & Lara-Alecio, 2001

Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004

Haager & Windmueller, 2001

Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2003

Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, & Buckley, 2003

Note. LD = learning disabilities; SE = special education; ELLs = English language learners; ESL = English as a second language; LAS = Language AssessmentScales.

To examine the strategic reading abili-ties and potential of low-literacyLatina/o readers.

To determine the effectiveness of amodified version of reciprocal teach-ing w/ middle school students whowere ELLs and had LD.

To study an intensive reading interven-tion (Read Naturally) that combinedrepeated reading, teacher modeling,and progress monitoring, in Spanish,in 1st- and 2nd-grade bilingual class-rooms.

To examine the effectiveness of twoEnglish reading tutoring interventionsfor Spanish-dominant ELLs (ReadWell and Read Naturally) in compari-son to nontutored comparisongroups. The two interventions werenot compared to one another.

To assess a professional developmentprogram’s capacity to improve earlyreading instruction for 1st- and 2nd-grade ELLs not reaching bench-marks.

To examine the effectiveness of an in-tervention involving ESL strategiesand effective reading practices for at-risk ELLs.

To determine if students who are strug-gling w/ reading in a nondominantlanguage will respond better to aphonological intervention or to onethat addresses oral proficiency.

5 low-literacy Latina/o middle school students, with varyinglevels of Spanish and English proficiency: 3 w/ LD in SE; 2 Spanish-dominant “at risk..” All receiving free or re-duced-price lunch. Up to 4 grade levels below norm inreading.

26 seventh- and eighth-grade students w/ LD who wereELLs. LAS scores ranged from 1 to 5 (beginning to ad-vanced levels of English proficiency).

53 Spanish–English bilingual 1st- and 2nd-grade studentsfrom 4 classrooms, all at beginning levels of English profi-ciency and all considered low-achieving and “at risk.” Mostwere Mexican American.

93 Hispanic ELLs (22 in 2nd grade, 37 in 3rd grade, 28 in 4thgrade, and 6 in 5th grade), ranging in age from 7 to 12years (48 boys and 45 girls), in bilingual classrooms andtransitioning to English. All spoke Spanish as their 1st lan-guage and were nominated by teachers as struggling withEnglish reading.

335 Hispanic 1st and 2nd graders, more than 70% of whomwere ELLs according to district criteria, including 31 w/ LD(80% of sample spoke Spanish as 1st language)

26 second-grade ELLs (identified as limited in English and atrisk for reading difficulties); 18 in early transition bilingualprograms; 8 receiving ESL support (only); all receivingreading instruction in English (those in bilingual programspreviously received Spanish reading instruction). > 70% onfree or reduced-price lunch.

118 multilingual 7- to 9-year-olds (90 with reading difficultiesin English and 28 without reading difficulties), randomlyassigned to a phonological intervention, a language expo-sure intervention, or a control group, in India. All studentshad been studying English since Grade 1, had not beenintroduced to any other script prior to English, reporteduse of at least 3 languages at home, and rated Kannada





with or without other instruction to improve English reading. Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, and Buckley (2003)compared the outcomes of a phono-logical intervention and an oral profi-ciency intervention and found that thegroup of students who received ex-plicit phonological instruction showedsignificantly higher gains in readingthan language proficiency instructionand control groups—particularly chil-dren who began the study with thelowest word reading scores. The ELLsin Linan-Thompson et al.’s (2003)study who received intensive supportin English reading in combination withESL strategies made significant gainson word attack, passage comprehen-sion, phoneme segmentation fluency,and oral reading fluency. Haager andWindmueller (2001) examined the out-comes of an intensive professional de-velopment program designed to im-prove early reading instruction for first-and second-grade ELLs and found thatstudents who initially did not reachbenchmarks made steady progresswhen they received supplementalsmall-group instruction in phonologi-cal awareness and ESL strategies. Thisline of research shows the potential ofearly interventions to ameliorate fu-ture reading difficulties.

Discussion. Research studies thatinvestigated intensive interventionswith ELLs who showed early signs ofstruggling have shown encouragingresults, as have studies of reading com-prehension strategy instruction. Earlyintervention programs that combinephonological awareness and otherreading activities with ESL strategiesmay be the most promising, yet furtherresearch is warranted. We still need toknow more about the role of native lan-guage instruction and about what spe-cific approaches work best with whomand under what circumstances. Futureresearch efforts should take into ac-count the sociocultural contexts inwhich students learn as well as affec-tive variables such as motivation. Ad-ditional research is also needed in spe-cial education classrooms that serve

culturally and linguistically diverse ex-ceptional learners.

What Do We Know That CanInform Eligibility Decisions?

Others have written reviews about ef-fective instructional practices for ELLswith special needs (Artiles et al., 2004;Gersten & Baker, 2000) and second lan-guage reading (Fitzgerald, 1995; Gar-cia, 2000). However, our review differsin that we focus exclusively on stu-dents with identified reading disabili-ties or students who seem to be strug-gling with reading, and we includestudies of school-age students only.Also, we incorporate research con-ducted outside the United States if itotherwise meets our requirements. Thestudies reviewed in this section arepresented in Table 7.

Early Studies. Two early studieswere prescient in their findings. Bothpointed to the importance of Englishvocabulary and phonological and otherlanguage skills in learning to read in asecond language. Lucas and Singer(1975) studied the relationship be-tween dialect and oral reading abilityand found that the ability to infer pic-tured relationships and to understandspoken English vocabulary was signif-icantly related to oral reading in firstgrade, and the ability to process En-glish syntactical structures and mem-ory for auditory sequences were re-lated to reading in third grade. Lucasand Singer hypothesized that inGrades 1 to 3, the changes in the rela-tionship between language processingability and reading were a function notof phonological but of syntactical abil-ities, which become significantly re-lated to oral reading achievement asthe child progresses in school and en-counters more complex reading tasks.Mathewson and Pereyra-Suarez (1975)found that ELLs earned lower auditoryconceptualization scores on an inter-ference test (using English sounds notpresent in Spanish) than on a noninter-ference test (using sounds present inSpanish and English), and those audi-

tory conceptualization scores werestrongly related to reading. Yet Math-ewson and Pereyra-Suarez urged cau-tion in interpreting auditory concep-tualization scores, given their strongrelationship with socioeconomic levels.

Relationships Among First andSecond Language Oral Proficiency,Native Language Reading, and ESLReading. English second languageoral proficiency, native language read-ing, and English second languagereading are positively related (Fitzger-ald, 1995; E. Garcia-Vazquez, 1995;Gottardo, 2002). However, predictorsvary by grade level and by whetherstudents are proficient readers in theirfirst language.

Gottardo (2002) studied the rela-tionships among first and second lan-guage oral proficiency and readingskills and found that reading andphonological processing were relatedboth within and across languages. Thestrongest predictors of English wordreading were native language and En-glish phonological processing, nativelanguage reading, and English vocab-ulary. Gottardo suggested that an oralvocabulary measure should be in-cluded in addition to measures of pho-nological processing when screeningELLs for early reading difficulties. Thisseems like a valuable recommenda-tion, and one that is supported byother research.

Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, andSpharim (1999) determined how ELLs’native and second language proficien-cies were related to their metalinguis-tic development in both languages andtheir achievement in English readingcomprehension. Even though the stu-dents tended to have limited vocabu-laries in both languages and to be un-derachieving as a group in Englishreading comprehension, a significantportion of the variance in their readingcomprehension was explained by theextensiveness of their vocabularies inthe two languages and by their phono-logical awareness. Carlisle et al. con-cluded that vocabulary developmentin both the native language and En-




TABLE 7Studies About the Process of Becoming Literate in a First and a Second Language That Can Inform Eligibility Decisions


Early Studies

Lucas & Singer, 1975

Mathewson & Pereyra-Suarez, 1975

Relationships Among L1 and L2 Oral Proficiency and Reading

Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999

Gottardo, 2002

Differences Between More and Less Proficient L2 Readers

Ammon, 1987

Avalos, 2003

Hardin, 2001

Langer, Bartholome, Vasquez, & Lucas, 1990

To examine the relationship betweendialect and oral reading ability forMexican American children.

To measure the interference of auditoryconceptualization in Spanish and to de-termine the relationship of this interfer-ence with reading in English, as as-sessed with the WRAT and COOP.

To determine how ELLs’ L1 and L2 profi-ciencies were related to their metalin-guistic development in both languagesand to their English reading compre-hension.

To determine the relationships among firstand second language oral proficiencyand reading skills in Spanish–Englishbilingual students.

To investigate the effects of students’ vo-cabularies, schema, and level of accul-turation on reading achievement inEnglish on the ITBS.

To examine the comprehension “errors” ofELLs in a transitional bilingual educa-tion program learning to read in En-glish. Also, to determine the level oforal language proficiency needed tocomprehend English texts.

To examine how fourth-grade, Spanish-dominant students use cognitive read-ing strategies to enhance comprehen-sion of English and Spanish texts; todetermine how native language readingability influences second languagereading.

To study the ways in which Mexican Amer-ican students tried to make sense ofEnglish and Spanish texts.

60 Mexican American 1st–3rd graders, all born in the UnitedStates, “randomly chosen from children of Spanish surname.”English proficiency assessed with Language Background Scale;some in the sample were ELLs, although it is not clear howmany.

80 second graders in 2 schools (34 Mexican Americans; 46 fromother ethnic backgrounds), from a range in SES levels. No at-tempt made to ensure that the Mexican American studentsspoke Spanish, but authors reported this was “unnecessary” be-cause census data showed that Spanish was the L1 of almostall students. No information about proficiency levels provided,but it appears from the results they were ELLs.

57 Hispanic (mostly Mexican American) ELLs w/ below-averagereading achievement (19 first graders, 19 second graders, 19third graders). More than 80% receiving free or reduced-pricelunch.

85 first graders w/ Spanish as their L1 (6 had received someschooling in Mexico; 79 had received all schooling in the UnitedStates), with varying English proficiency and reading levels.

100 third- to fifth-grade ELLs (36 Hispanic, 64 Cantonese) at differ-ent achievement levels (some struggling readers), with 2 to 3years exposure to English in school; all identified as non–English speaking or LEP when they started school.

22 fourth-grade ELLs in a transitional bilingual education program(93% on free or reduced-price lunch), representing varying lev-els of oral English proficiency (beginning to intermediate) andEnglish reading. All had initially received Spanish literacy in-struction.

50 fourth-grade, Spanish-dominant ELLs, all age 9 or 10 (20 able,14 average, and 16 less able readers). English proficiency levels (according to the LAS) ranged from 1 (beginning) to 4 (intermediate).

12 Mexican heritage fifth graders who had been in U.S. schools forat least 3 years (7 orally proficient in English and Spanish; 2proficient in neither; 2 proficient in Spanish, not English; 1 profi-cient in English, not Spanish; 6 born in Mexico, 6 in UnitedStates). Mean reading score at the 25th percentile in English, at the 42nd percentile in Spanish.

(Table continues)






glish and metalinguistic developmentat the word level should be importantpriorities because of their effects onEnglish reading comprehension.

Differences Between More andLess Proficient Second Language Read-ers. Research in this area has takentwo general directions: One line of re-search has focused on the “errors” ormiscues made by ELLs when readingin English as a second or additionallanguage. In a different line of re-search, several researchers have stud-ied comprehension processes usingthink-alouds.

Examinations of the miscues ofELLs with LD have been conducted byMiramontes (1987, 1990) and Avalos(2003). Miramontes (1987) analyzedoral reading miscues to determine sim-ilarities and differences between suc-cessful readers and readers with LD inboth their first language and Englishand found that the strategies that

students used depended on theirlanguage dominance. Significant dif-ferences were found for graphic simi-larity, sound similarity, grammaticalfunction, comprehension, and gram-matical relationships in Spanish, andfor the last three of these categories inEnglish. Similarly, Miramontes (1990)found that mixed-dominant studentsdid not differ significantly from goodEnglish readers in several areas, in-cluding story retelling and use of com-prehension strategies, yet performedsignificantly lower in fluency. Mostmixed-dominant students exhibitedareas of strength, yet were perceivedby teachers to be similar and weak inall skills. Avalos (2003) found that stu-dents’ “errors” involved limited knowl-edge of phonetics, graphemes, seman-tics, syntax, and vocabulary (includingfalse cognates) and that oral languageproficiency in English was an inade-quate predictor of “correct” compre-hension of English texts. These studies

suggest the need for more considera-tion of primary language reading inthe determination of LD and for acloser look at students’ limitations aswell as their strengths.

Think-alouds have been used ef-fectively to examine students’ usage ofcomprehension strategies (Ammon,1987; Hardin, 2001; Langer, Barthol-ome, Vasquez, & Lucas, 1990). Hardin(2001) examined how fourth-grade,Spanish-dominant students used cog-nitive reading strategies to enhancetheir comprehension of expositorytexts in English and Spanish and foundthat students increased their strategyusage during English reading. Lessable readers focused on surface aspectsof reading rather than on meaning-making and used fewer strategies. Stu-dents’ level of second language profi-ciency played a less prominent role insecond language reading than did thelevel of their strategy usage in theirfirst language. Langer et al. (1990)

(Table 7 continued)


Miramontes, 1987

Miramontes, 1990

Differences Between L2 and Native English Readers

Knight, Padrón, & Waxman, 1985

Padrón & Waxman, 1988

Note. LD = learning disabilities; SES = socioeconomic status; ELLs = English language learners; WRAT = Wide Range Achievement Test; COOP = CooperativePrimary Reading Test; ITBS = Iowa Test of Basic Skills; LAS = Language Assessment Scales; ESL = English as a second language; LEP = limited English profi-cient; L1 = first language; L2 = second language.

To analyze oral reading miscues to deter-mine similarities and differences be-tween successful readers and readersw/ LD in their first language and Eng-lish.

To examine the patterns of oral readingmiscues, retellings, and fluency ofmixed language dominant, bilingualMexican American students to developa better understanding of their readingstrategy use.

To determine how students used strate-gies in both English and Spanish andhow these facilitated their comprehen-sion and recall.

To investigate the cognitive reading strate-gies used by Hispanic ESL studentsand the effect of students’ use of strate-gies on their reading achievement.

40 Hispanic 4th- to 6th graders: 20 native English speakers, 20 na-tive Spanish speakers in a bilingual program (10 strong readers,10 w/ reading disabilities identified with a discrepancy formula—only 4 assessed in Spanish). No other info on language profi-ciency.

40 Mexican American 4th- to 6th graders (10 “good” native Englishreaders; 10 “good” native Spanish readers; 20 mixed-domi-nance students 2 or more years below grade level in Englishreading or below grade level in Spanish. Students had receivedlimited, inconsistent ESL support services. No other languageproficiency data, except that “district-administered oral languageproficiency and dominance assessments . . . were used as sup-portive data.”

38 third and fifth-grade students (23 Spanish-speaking ELLs, 15native English speakers)

82 Hispanic 3rd- to 5th-grade students randomly selected from thepopulation of Hispanic ESL students. Data were not disaggre-gated for struggling readers, but it appears they were repre-sented in the sample.





achieved similar results. They foundthat ELLs’ comprehension of both En-glish and Spanish texts depended ontheir ability to use comprehensionstrategies. Better readers were distin-guished more by their use of strategiesthan by their fluency in English, andstudents who did well in one languagegenerally did well in the other. Stu-dents’ language competence in Span-ish enriched their meaning-making inboth languages. Ammon (1987) admin-istered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills(ITBS) to 100 third- to fifth-grade ELLsand found that unknown vocabularyand a lack of schema were main factorsaffecting students’ achievement testscores.

In sum, less proficient readersseem to differ from more proficientreaders in that they focus more on thesurface aspects of reading, use fewercomprehension strategies, tap less intoschematic knowledge, and have morelimited vocabularies. Yet it is signifi-cant that ELLs were able to transferstrategies from their native language toEnglish reading. Miscue analysis andthink-alouds illuminated more aboutstudents’ reading processes than waspossible with traditional tests.

Differences Between Second Lan-guage Readers and Native EnglishReaders. In another line of research,investigators have compared first andsecond language reading. Similaritiesand differences between these twoprocesses have important implicationsfor instructional planning and assess-ment decisions. The first two studieswe review in this section focus onword recognition and comprehension.The others concentrate exclusively oncomprehension and students’ use ofmetacognitive and cognitive strategies.

Third- through fifth-grade ELLsused fewer metacognitive strategiesthan native English speakers in twostudies by Padrón and colleagues(Knight, Padrón, & Waxman, 1985; Pad-rón & Waxman, 1988). Knight, Padrón,and Waxman found that ELLs selectedstrategies with different relative fre-quencies than native English readers

did. Padrón and Waxman noted thatstudents’ perceptions of the cognitivestrategies they used had predictive va-lidity for their reading comprehension.Negative (counterproductive) strate-gies were found to be negatively re-lated to students’ gains in reading com-prehension. Padrón and colleaguesconcluded that the use of inappropri-ate cognitive strategies may be an ad-ditional reason why ELLs generallyscore lower than English monolingualstudents on reading achievement tests.These findings are similar to those ofthe studies contrasting more and lessproficient second language readers de-scribed in the previous section.

To summarize, it would appearthat there are key differences betweenlearning to read in one’s first languageand a second language. A significantfinding seems to be the importance notonly of phonological awareness, butalso of vocabulary in predicting secondlanguage reading achievement. Thisfinding was replicated across severalstudies. Vocabulary knowledge isstrongly related to effective text com-prehension and appears to be a highlysignificant variable in second languagereaders’ success (Fitzgerald, 1995; Na-tional Reading Panel, 2000).

Discussion. We still need to bet-ter understand how students with andwithout LD differ as they become bilin-gual and biliterate. As noted in the ex-ecutive summary of the National Sym-posium on Learning Disabilities in ELLs,it is important to “identify impedi-ments to normal development forthose who are not disabled” (USDOE& NICHD, 2003, p. vi). This is an areaabout which we have little research,although work by scholars such asTrueba (1988) has provided importantinsights into the effects of cultural con-flict on learning. How can we provideELLs with literacy instruction that ismore culturally and linguistically re-sponsive to their interests and needs?What does instruction look like whenit is grounded in a cultural theory ofhuman learning and development (Ro-goff, 2003)?

Conclusions

Our review of the literature stronglysuggests that additional research iswarranted to help us understand thecharacteristics, development, and learn-ing processes of ELLs who struggle tolearn to read or who have LD. Re-searchers face significant challenges re-garding the theoretical assumptionsand methodological approaches usedto investigate the aforementioned areas.Lessons can be derived from this re-view for research in various domains.

To begin with, it is imperative tointensify research efforts to better de-fine population and subpopulation pa-rameters in ELLs who may or may nothave LD. It is essential that researchersinform their work with a deep under-standing of the cultural, social, politi-cal, and historical processes that shapeviews of LD. Disabilities are sociallyconstructed. That is not to say that theyare not sometimes “real,” but that whatis considered a disability varies de-pending on which definition and iden-tification criteria are used and on thecontexts in which such decisions aremade. Students are placed in specialeducation as the result of a series of so-cial processes that reflect a set of soci-etal beliefs, values, political agendas,and historical events that combine toconstruct students’ identities. “Dis-abled” becomes the official version ofwho these children are, and LD be-comes the construct by which differ-ences in students’ school achievementare explained, to the exclusion of otherexplanations (Harry & Klingner, inpress). This is particularly problematicas applied to distinct populations oflearners. The procedures used to de-termine LD in the United States giveinsufficient attention to the environ-mental and institutional factors thathelp explain variations in individualperformance and development. Wemust be mindful that schools are stilltoo focused on finding the “deficit” inthe child rather than on looking at stu-dent performance as the result ofstrong interactions between the indi-vidual and cultural contexts.





Such a theoretical shift will enrichexplanations for students’ strugglesand will force us to focus on factorssuch as a lack of opportunity to learn.The associations between students’ so-cioeconomic status (SES) and schoolinfrastructural forces (e.g., teacherquality, school climate, resources) arestrong. Yet why have researchers em-phasized the study of the impact ofSES on student achievement at the ex-pense of examining the role of oppor-tunity to learn?

These issues are confounded whenthe student is also an ELL. We note thatour broader focus on students who arestruggling conveys our underlying be-lief that students in general are over-identified for high-incidence specialeducation categories and that schoolsshould shift from a focus on locatingthe problem within the child to one offocusing on what can be done to pro-vide support for students with differ-ent profiles, based on their needs. Forthis reason, we are encouraged by RTImodels. At the same time, it is neces-sary to conduct additional research onthe regularities of second language de-velopment for both ELLs with andELLs without LD; the role of culturalfactors related to first language devel-opment should be a key component ofsuch studies (e.g., to account for thecomplexities involved in becomingliterate in another language). Such nor-mative profiles would inform investi-gations of literacy acquisition trajecto-ries within each of these populations aswell.

We argue that population researchmust rest on interdisciplinary theoreti-cal frameworks to account for individ-ual, interpersonal, and institutionalforces. This requires the adoption offrameworks of human developmentthat account for culture, institutionalpractices, and history (Artiles, 2003;Rogoff, 2003). In turn, as theoretical in-sights to study populations broadenthe unit of analysis from individuals topeople using artifacts in goal-orientedactivity located in institutional con-texts, multimethod approaches will berequired (Cole, 1996). A direct implica-

tion of these recommendations is toimprove significantly the descriptionof sampling strategies and the samplesand contexts in which studies are im-plemented (Bos & Fletcher, 1997).

The insights obtained from popu-lation research, in turn, will assist theresearch community to develop moreaccurate identification tools and proce-dures. It is critical that future investi-gations on referral, assessment, andidentification processes not only ad-dress the accurate differentiation be-tween subgroups of ELLs with andwithout LD (e.g., who should qualifyfor special education, and why somestudents who do not have LD stillstruggle with literacy and language ac-quisition), but also enhance our under-standings of the social, cultural, and in-stitutional contexts of professionals’practices. Furthermore, it is urgent todevelop alternative assessment mod-els. We welcome the emergent researchthat transcends traditional approachesand rests on distinct premises regard-ing the role of assistance in unveilingstudent potential. Research from edu-cational anthropology and the sociol-ogy of education has the potential tosignificantly enhance the theoreticalinsights and methodological resourcesavailable to the next generation of as-sessment, identification, and referralresearchers (Mehan, 1991; Varenne &McDermott, 1999).

Additional research is also neededto understand the potential impact ofmultiple contradictory policies and re-forms on practitioners’ work duringassessment and intervention efforts.Now that IDEA has been reauthorized,examples include policies concerningthe disproportionate representation ofculturally and linguistically diversestudents, accountability procedures,discipline measures, regulations aboutteaching literacy, and the identificationof LD. With the move away from a dis-crepancy formula as the sine qua nonof LD eligibility determination, thefield of LD is at a crossroads, whilealternative identification proceduressuch as RTI models are considered(Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).

We see promise in RTI models asa way of providing students with ad-ditional support within general educa-tion before they have a chance to failand as a means for determining whomay need special education services.Potentially, such models provide a wayto address the disproportionate num-ber of ELLs being referred for specialeducation by reducing inappropriatereferrals (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). How-ever, it is essential that we continue toconduct research to determine whichinterventions are associated with im-proved outcomes for ELLs and that wedo not assume that research conductedwith mainstream populations appliesto them. Historically, ELLs have beenleft out of research samples in specialeducation (Artiles et al., 1997). Criticalfactors such as language proficiencyand ethnicity have not been disaggre-gated in these studies, leaving manyunanswered questions for strugglingELLs. Like previous eligibility criteria,the RTI model presumes that if a childdoes not make adequate progresswhen provided with research-basedinstruction, he or she must have an in-ternal deficit of some kind. We mustmake sure that the child has in factreceived culturally responsive qualityinstruction designed for ELLs beforemaking this determination. The exclu-sionary criteria in the LD definitionstill apply—identification of LD shouldbe based on students having receivedan adequate opportunity to learn.

Thus, the success of RTI modelsfor ELLs will be dependent on severalfactors, such as designing interven-tions that rely on a view of literacy associocultural practice in which readingskills are embedded (Artiles, 2002),creating a supportive learning envi-ronment in which students’ culturaland linguistic diversity is perceived asan asset (Baca, 2002; Nieto, 2004; Ortiz,1997, 2002), and making sure thatteachers know a variety of research-based instructional approaches specif-ically designed for ELLs who showearly signs of struggling to learn.Teachers need to know if their inter-ventions are effective and how to ad-




just instruction for students who donot seem to be responding to the firstor second tiers of instruction before itis assumed that the instruction was ap-propriate for the child. Teachers’ needscannot be fulfilled in traditional pro-fessional development activities orpreservice courses. Research is needed,therefore, on new models of profes-sional learning, in which the ongoingstudy of professional practice is at thecenter of efforts and is situated in sup-portive institutional contexts (Artiles,Trent, Hoffman-Kipp, & López-Torres,2000). The field is wide open for theselines of research.

Implications for Research and Practice

Our review of the research on ELLswho struggle with reading has gener-ated the following list of recommenda-tions for research and practice. Notethat there is overlap across categories.

ResearchRefine language proficiency assess-

ment procedures so that more pre-cise and complete information canbe collected about students’ levelsof language proficiency in Englishand in their first language. Usemultiple measures to determinelanguage proficiency (e.g., test re-sults as well as natural languagesamples).

Continue to investigate language ac-quisition processes, in particular forstudents who grow up speakingtwo or more languages.

Describe ELL research participants inmore detail, with information aboutlanguage proficiencies, ethnicity, so-cioeconomic level, school history,and family circumstances (e.g.,number of generations in theUnited States, families being mi-grant workers or not).

Develop detailed profiles of studentswho struggle with literacy and whomay or may not have LD. Theseprofiles should include descriptionsof students’ instructional programs,

learning contexts, the quality of in-terventions, and the history of theiropportunities to learn, as well asstudent characteristics.

Collect additional information aboutsubgroups of ELLs who strugglewith reading and are placed in spe-cial education to assess the poten-tial differential effects of interven-tions efforts.

Prereferral and Referral Practices

Provide early interventions to stu-dents who show signs of strugglingwith reading (before initiating a re-ferral to special education).

Implement meaningful prereferralstrategies within general educationas part of the referral process.

Include experts in language acquisi-tion in all phases of instructional,referral, and assessment processes,particularly when students seem tobe delayed in acquiring both theirfirst language and English.

Consider contextual features, socio-cultural factors, school and pro-gram characteristics, and students’opportunities to learn in all phasesof instructional, referral, and assess-ment processes.

Assessment Practices and Eligibility Decisions

Use alternative ways of assessing stu-dents’ strengths to determine theupper limits of their potential.

Conduct observations of students indifferent settings as part of anyevaluation.

Pay greater attention to cultural andaffective considerations when eval-uating students (e.g., sources of po-tential conflict, motivation).

Give greater attention to students’ na-tive language and to the role of lan-guage acquisition when determin-ing whether a student may haveLD.

Consider that weak auditory process-ing skills could relate to languageacquisition rather than to a process-ing disorder or LD.

Evaluate students in their first lan-guage as well as in English to deter-mine predictors of reading achieve-ment.

Instructional InterventionsCombine phonological awareness

with other reading and English lan-guage development activities(whether instruction is in the stu-dent’s first language or in English).

Provide explicit vocabulary instruc-tion to facilitate reading compre-hension in the student’s first andsecond language.

Teach and encourage the use of read-ing comprehension strategies in thestudent’s first and second language.

Help students develop a strong foun-dation in their first language as away to promote literacy in boththeir native language and English.

In conclusion, the fields of specialeducation, bilingual multicultural spe-cial education, and literacy continue toevolve. The research base in each fieldis growing, yet remains incomplete.Although, on the one hand, more re-search is needed to help us differenti-ate between language acquisition andLD, on the other hand, much is alreadyknown about teaching, assisting, andassessing ELLs who struggle to be-come literate in their first language andin English. Yet it appears that notenough of this knowledge is used inpractice. Thus, we not only need morebasic research, but also more field-based research to help us better under-stand the challenges associated withapplying what we know in school set-tings and the resources needed to carryout preferred practices.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Janette K. Klingner, PhD, is an associate pro-fessor at the University of Colorado at Boulder.Her research interests include disproportionaterepresentation and reading comprehensionstrategy instruction for culturally and linguis-tically diverse students and students withlearning disabilities. Alfredo J. Artiles, PhD,is a professor of special education at ArizonaState University. He studies how constructionsof difference (e.g., on the basis of race, class, or






language background) influence schools’ re-sponses to the needs of diverse students. His re-search examines special education placementpractices as a window into schools’ cultural con-structions of difference and how teachers learnto use a social justice perspective in their pro-fessional practices. Laura Méndez Barletta,MS, is a PhD student at the University of Col-orado at Boulder. Her research interests includeliteracy acquisition and culturally embeddedmodes of learning among culturally and lin-guistically diverse students. Address: Janette K.Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder,School of Education, 249 UCB, Boulder, CO80309-0249; e-mail: [email protected]

AUTHORS’ NOTES

1. Paper presented at the research conferenceEnglish Language Learners Struggling toLearn: Emergent Research on Linguistic Dif-ferences and Learning Disabilities, Scotts-dale, AZ, November 2004.

2. The writing of this article was supported by the National Center for Culturally Re-sponsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt)under Grant H326E020003 awarded by theU. S. Department of Education’s Office ofSpecial Education Programs.

NOTE

By English language learner, we mean studentswho speak another language than English, whoare in the process of acquiring English as a sec-ond or additional language, and who have notyet achieved full English proficiency. We usethis term rather than limited English proficient.We use the term bilingual to indicate full profi-ciency in English and another language.

REFERENCES

Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievementtests and English language learners: Psy-chometric issues. Educational Assessment,8, 231–257.

Ambert, A. N. (1986). Identifying languagedisorders in Spanish speakers. Journal ofReading, Writing, and Learning DisabilitiesInternational, 2(1), 21–41.

Ammon, M. S. (1987). Patterns of perfor-mance among bilingual children whoscore low in reading. In S. R. Goldman &H. T. Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate inEnglish as a second language (pp. 71–105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Argulewicz, E. N. (1983). Effects of ethnicmembership, socioeconomic status, andhome language on LD, EMR, and EHplacements. Learning Disability Quarterly,6, 195-200.

Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Perdomo-Rivera, C.(1996). Ecobehavioral analysis of instruc-tion for at-risk language minority stu-dents. The Elementary School Journal, 96,245–258.

Artiles, A. J. (2002). Culture in learning: Thenext frontier in reading difficulties re-search. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification oflearning disabilities: Research to policy(pp. 693–701). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education’schanging identity: Paradoxes and dilem-mas in views of culture and space. Har-vard Educational Review, 73, 164–202.

Artiles, A. J., Fierros, E., & Rueda, R. (2004,April). English language learner overrepre-sentation in special education: A 10-stateanalysis of placement patterns and opportu-nity to learn. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, San Diego,CA.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Hi-gareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversityin minority disproportionate representa-tion: English Language Learners in urbanschool districts. Exceptional Children, 71,283–300.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., Hoffman-Kipp, P.,& López-Torres, L. (2000). From individ-ual acquisition to cultural–historicalpractices in multicultural teacher educa-tion. Remedial and Special Education, 21,79–89.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Kuan, L. A.(1997). Learning disabilities research onethnic minority students: An analysis of22 years of studies published in selectedrefereed journals. Learning Disabilities Re-search & Practice, 12, 82-91.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Palmer, J. (2004).Culturally diverse students in special ed-ucation: Legacies and prospects. In J. A.Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on multicultural education (2nded., pp. 716–735). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Im-proving schooling for language-minoritychildren: A research agenda. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Avalos, M. A. (2003). Effective second-language reading transition: From learner-

specific to generic instructional models.Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 171–205.

Baca, L. M. (2002). Educating English lan-guage learners with special educationneeds: Trends and future directions. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), Englishlanguage learners with special educationneeds: Identification, placement, and instruc-tion (pp. 191–200). Washington DC: Cen-ter for Applied Linguistics.

Barrera Metz, I. (1988). The relative impor-tance of language and culture in makingassessment decisions about Hispanic stu-dents referred to special education. TheJournal for the National Association forBilingual Education, 12, 191–218.

Barrera, M. (2003). Curriculum-based dy-namic assessment for new- or second-language learners with learning disabili-ties in secondary education settings.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(1),69–84.

Bos, C. S., & Fletcher, T. V. (1997). Sociocul-tural considerations in learning disabili-ties inclusion research: Knowledge gapsand future directions. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practice, 12, 92–99.

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, L. H., &Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of met-alinguistic capabilities and readingachievement for children who are be-coming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguis-tics, 20, 459–478.

Carrasquillo, A. L., & Rodriguez, J. (1997).Hispanic limited English-proficient stu-dents with disabilities: A case study ex-ample. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisci-plinary Journal, 8, 167–174.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. A., & Gottardo, A.(2002). Reading-related skills of kinder-gartners from diverse linguistic back-grounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 95–116.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collier, C., & Hoover, J. J. (1987). Sociocul-tural considerations when referring mi-nority children for learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(1), 39–45.

De La Colina, M. G., Parker, R. I., Has-brouck, J. E., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2001). In-tensive intervention in reading fluencyfor at-risk beginning Spanish readers.Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 503–538.

Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., &Hasbrouck, J. (2004). Effects of two tutor-ing programs on the English reading de-velopment of Spanish–English bilingualstudents. The Elementary School Journal,104, 289–305.





Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002). Mi-nority students in special and gifted educa-tion. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transferof phonological awareness. Journal of Ed-ucational Psychology, 85, 453-465.

Estrin, E. T. (1993). Alternative assessment: Issues in language, culture, and equity(Knowledge brief No. 11). San Francisco:WestEd.

Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological testingof linguistic-minority students: Knowl-edge gaps and regulations. ExceptionalChildren, 56, 145–152.

Figueroa, R. A., & Sassenrath, J. M. (1989).A longitudinal study of the predictive va-lidity of the system of multicultural plu-ralistic assessment (SOMPA). Psychologyin the Schools, 26(1), 5–19.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive readingprocesses: A review of research in theUnited States. Review of Educational Re-search, 65, 145–190.

Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing theEnglish reading test performance ofSpanish speaking Hispanic children.Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371–392.

Garcia-Vazquez, E. (1995). Acculturationand academics: Effects of acculturationon reading achievement among Mexican-American students. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 19, 305–315.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching.New York: Teachers College Press.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What weknow about effective instructional prac-tices for English-language learners. Ex-ceptional Children, 66, 454–470.

Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., & Yawkey, T.(1997). Assessment and instruction of cul-turally and linguistically diverse students.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship be-tween language and reading skills inbilingual Spanish–English speakers. Top-ics in Language Disorders, 22(5), 46–71.

Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjectswere White and middle class”: Trends inpublished research on African Americansin selected APA journals, 1970–1989. TheAmerican Psychologist, 47, 629–639.

Haager, D., & Windmueller, M. (2001).Early reading intervention for Englishlanguage learners at-risk for learning dis-abilities: Student and teacher outcomes inan urban school. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 24, 235–250.

Hakuta, K. (1990). Bilingualism and bilingualeducation: A research perspective. Washing-ton, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics,George Washington University.

Hardin, V. B. (2001). Transfer and variationin cognitive reading strategies of Latinofourth-grade students in a late-exit bilin-gual program. Bilingual Research Journal,25, 539–561.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Crossingthe border from normalcy to disability: Mi-norities and the special education process.New York: Teachers College Press.

Harry, B., Klingner, J. K., Sturges, K. M., &Moore, R. F. (2002). Of rocks and softplaces: Using qualitative methods to in-vestigate disproportionality. In D. J.Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequal-ity in special education (pp. 71–92). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Im-provement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Act of1990).

Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic readingabilities and potential of five low-literacyLatina/o readers in middle school. Read-ing Research Quarterly, 32, 224–243.

Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies ofbilingual Latina/o students who are suc-cessful English readers: Opportunitiesand obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly,31, 90–112.

Jorstad, D. (1971). Psycho-linguistic learn-ing disabilities in 20 Mexican Americanstudents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4,143–149.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Recip-rocal teaching of reading comprehensionstrategies for students with learning dis-abilities who use English as a second lan-guage. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Stu-dents’ perceptions of instruction in inclu-sion classrooms: Implications for studentswith learning disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 66, 23–37.

Knight, S. L., Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1985). Cognitive strategies used byESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 789–792.

Langdon, H. W. (1989). Language disorderor difference? Assessing the languageskills of Hispanic students. ExceptionalChildren, 56, 160–167.

Langer, J. A., Bartholome, L., Vasquez, O., &Lucas, T. (1990). Meaning construction in

school literacy tasks: A study of bilingualstudents. American Educational ResearchJournal, 27, 427–471.

Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Ef-fectiveness of supplemental reading in-struction for second-grade Englishlanguage learners with reading difficul-ties. The Elementary School Journal, 103,221–238.

Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E.(2003). Prediction of first-grade readingin Spanish-speaking English-languagelearners. Journal of Educational Psychology,95, 482–494.

López-Reyna, N. A. (1996). The importanceof meaningful contexts in bilingual spe-cial education: Moving to whole lan-guage. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 11, 120–131.

MacSwan, J., Rolstad, K., & Glass, G. V.(2002). Do some school-age children haveno language? Some problems of con-struct validity in the Pre-LAS Español.Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 395–420.

Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Assessment: In-terpreting data of linguistically/culturallydifferent students referred for disabilitiesor disorders. Journal of Reading, Writing,and Learning Disabilities International, 2(1),73–83.

Mathewson, G. C., & Pereyra-Suarez, D. M.(1975). Spanish language interferencewith acoustic–phonetic skills and read-ing. Journal of Reading Behavior, 75, 187–196.

McLoyd, V. C. & Randolph, S. M. (1985).Secular trends in the study of Afro-American children: A review of Child De-velopment, 1936–1980. In A. B. Smuts & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Monographs of the So-ciety for Research in Child Development,50(4–5), 78–92.

Mehan, H. (1991). The schools’ work ofsorting students. In D. Zimmerman & D.Boden (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 71–90). Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Mehan, H., Hartwick, A., & Meihls, J. L.(1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Deci-sion-making in students’ educational careers.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Miramontes, O. (1987). Oral reading mis-cues of Hispanic students: Implicationsfor assessment of learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 627–632.

Miramontes, O. (1990). A comparativestudy of English oral language readingskills in differently schooled groups of





Hispanic students. Journal of Reading Be-havior, 22, 373–394.

Nag-Arulmani, S., Reddy, V., & Buckley, S.(2003). Targeting phonological represen-tations can help in the early stages ofreading in a non-dominant language.Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 49–68.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of theNational Reading Panel. Washington, DC:National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The so-ciopolitical context of multicultural educa-tion. New York: Longman.

Ochoa, S. H., González, D., Galarza, A., &Guillemard, L. (1996). The training anduse of interpreters in bilingual psycho-educational assessment: An alternative inneed of study. Diagnostique, 21(3), 19–22.

Ochoa, S. H., Powell, M. P., & Robles-Piña,R. (1996). School psychologists’ assess-ment practices with bilingual and lim-ited-English-proficient students. Journalof Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 250–275.

Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B. D., & Powell, M. P.(1997). Factors used to comply with theexclusionary clause with bilingual andlimited-English-proficient pupils: Initialguidelines. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 12, 161–167.

Oh, D., Haager, D., & Windmueller, M.(2004). Assembling the puzzle of predictabil-ity: Validity of the dynamic indicators of basicearly literacy skills assessment with Englishlearners in kindergarten.

Oller, J. W., Jr. (1991). Language testing re-search: Lessons applied to LEP studentsand programs. In Proceedings of the first re-search symposium on limited English profi-cient students’ issues: Focus on evaluationand measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 42–123).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ed-ucation, Office of Bilingual Educationand Minority Language Affairs.

Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities oc-curring concomitantly with linguistic dif-ferences. Journal of Learning Disabilities,30, 321-332.

Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school fail-ure and early intervention for Englishlanguage learners). In A. J. Artiles & A. A.Ortiz, (Eds), English language learners withspecial education needs: Identification, place-ment, and instruction (pp. 31, 48). Wash-ington DC: Center for Applied Linguis-tics.

Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A frame-work for serving English language learn-ers with disabilities. Journal of Special Ed-ucation Leadership, 14, 72–80.

Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). Theeffect of ESL students’ perceptions oftheir cognitive strategies on readingachievement. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 146–150.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Thereciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoringactivities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature ofhuman development. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Rueda, R. (1997). Changing the context ofassessment: The move to portfolios andauthentic assessment. In A. J. Artiles & G.Zamora-Duran (Eds.), Reducing the dis-proportionate representation of culturally di-verse students in special and gifted education(pp. 7–25). Reston, VA: Council for Ex-ceptional Children.

Ruiz, N. T. (1989). An optimal learning en-vironment for Rosemary. Exceptional Chil-dren, 56, 130–144.

Ruiz, N. T. (1995). The social construction ofability and disability: I. Profile types ofLatino children identified as languagelearning disabled. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 28, 476–490.

Salend, S. J., & Salinas, A. (2003). Languagedifferences or learning difficulties: Thework of the multidisciplinary team.Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 36–43.

Schiff-Myers, N. B., Djukic, J., McGovern-Lawler, J., & Perez, D. (1994). Assess-ment considerations in the evaluation of

second-language learners: A case study.Exceptional Children, 60, 237–248.

Serna, L. A., Forness, S. R., & Nielsen, M. E.(1998). Intervention versus affirmation:Proposed solutions to the problem of dis-proportionate minority representation inspecial education. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 31, 48–51.

Trueba, H. T. (1988). English literacy acqui-sition: From cultural trauma to learningdisabilities in minority students. Linguis-tics and Education, 1, 125–152.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, April 2). U.S.Census Bureau, Population Division. Re-trieved March 26, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t1.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, February, 25).U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t20.html

U.S. Department of Education, & NationalInstitute of Child Health and Human De-velopment. (2003). National symposium onlearning disabilities in English languagelearners. Symposium summary. Washing-ton, DC: Authors.

Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilin-gualism and testing: A special case of bias.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (Eds.).(1999). Successful failure: The school Amer-ica builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefininglearning disabilities as inadequate re-sponse to instruction: The promise andpotential problems. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practice, 18, 137–146.

Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P.,Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S.(2003). Policy report: Summary of findingsrelated to LEP and SPED-LEP students (Re-port submitted to U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Office of English Language Acquisition,Language Enhancement, and AcademicAchievement of Limited English ProficientStudents). Arlington, VA: DevelopmentAssociates.




Documents

English Language Learners Who Struggle With Reading: Language Acquisition or LD?