Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

Special Education Identification and ELL Placement

Griselle Arrieta-Rose
California State University Monterey Bay




IST520 Learning Theories
Professor Nancy Lockwood
Spring 2014
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

"
Table of Contents
!" !$%&'()*%+'$ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,
!!" -./.0&*1 2&'*.()&./ 34.%1'(/5 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6
!!!" -./.0&*1 -./)7%/ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 8
!9" -./.0&*1 :+/*)//+'$ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ;
-<=<-<>?<@ """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" AB














SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

#
I. Introduction
In the article Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of
English Language Learners, Amanda Sullivan (2011) conducts a descriptive study on the
disproportionality of identification and placement of English Language Learners in special
education. The purpose of this study is to investigate patterns of representation and placement of
English Language Learners (ELLs) in relation to White peers over an eight-year period in the
southwestern state of Arizona. This study is a secondary examination of state data, which is
meant to add pertinent information to the knowledge base regarding the representation of ELLs
in special education. Sullivans (2011) study seeks to examine this disproportionality by
analyzing existing state data available for the 1999 to 2006 academic school years.
Sullivans study centers around four explicitly stated research questions. They include
the following:
1. To what extent is there a disproportionate representation of students
identified as ELLs in special education, focusing on high-incidence
categories, at the state level over time?
2. To what extent is disproportionality observed at the district level over
time?
3. To what extent are students identified as ELLs placed in the least
restrictive environment at the state and district levels over time?
4. To what extent can one predict disproportionate representation of ELLs
at the district level, considering certain district characteristics? (Sullivan,
2011, p.321).
The guiding research questions are clearly stated and consistent with the rest of the study.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

$
Furthermore, they serve to provide a context for the study by narrowing the examination. Based
on the background information supplied by Sullivan at the beginning of the article, she holds a
negative bias toward the subject of the study. Sullivan (2011) describes English Language
Learners as one of the groups with the highest grade-retention and dropout rates. She further
describes a series of issues, which have previously led to an inappropriate placement in special
education, including behavioral problems and low learning engagement (Sullivan, 2011, p.318).
Sullivan already begins her study with the assumption that ELLs have been historically and
disproportionately placed in special education. Her study confirms this fact and adds to the
relevant literature on the subject while concluding that further research is needed on the subject.
Nonetheless, Sullivans (2011) research questions provided a convincing basis for the
examination of ELLs in special education. For example, Sullivans research questions pertaining
to the disproportionate placement of ELLs at the state and district levels allows for an
examination of the structures in place which may lead to this disparity. Furthermore, an
examination at various levels provides a comprehensive view of possible disproportional trends
in special education representation and placement.
II. Research Procedures (Methods)
Sullivans (2011) study utilized a quantitative method to reach her results because she
employed a variety of descriptive statistical methods and regression analyses which allowed her
to evaluate patterns and predictors of Special Education identification and placement for ELLs
compared to their White peers (Sullivan, 2011, p.317). The study included a demographic
sample of the total number of ELLs enrolled in districts throughout Arizona. Sullivan (2011)
compiled the data on general and special education through a research agreement with the state
of Arizona. Sullivans (2011) sample is representative of the target population, ELLs and
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

%
students with special needs. Sullivans (2011) data is reliable since she utilized Arizona districts
criteria for ELL designation, which is based on the Arizona Revised Statue 15-751, 2007.
Furthermore, in order to account for districts with low enrollment (n < 10) of ELLs, low
reporting districts were excluded since the risk ration for small cell sizes could not be reliably
calculated (Sullivan, 2011, p.322). Moreover, the study included an examination of the
following specific variables in order to investigate the level of disparity in special education
identification:
1. District enrollment at 1.1 million students
2. ELL district enrollment at 16%
3. Racial/ethnic minority district enrollment at 55%
4. Proportion of students on free/reduced lunch at 44%
5. Percentage of students identified for special education (13%)
The study also utilized a relative risk ratio in order to compare ELLs identification and
placement compared to their White counterparts (Sullivan, 2011, p.323). Sullivan (2011)
justified the utilization of White students as the referent group since this group of students is
usually considered the implicit and explicit comparison group. Furthermore, the study was
reliable because it considered the impact of the implementation of the English-only legislation of
2000, which mandated English-only instruction in the state (Sullivan, 2011, p.323). The impact
of this legislation may serve to explain variations in the amount of students designated as English
Language Learners. However, Sullivans (2011) study analysis does not mention specifically
how she accounted for this changes, which this legislation may have caused.
Sullivans (2011) data analysis utilized the relative risk ratio (RRR) at values between
0.80 and 1.20 in order to quantify and categorize special education identification and placement
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

&
(p.324). A positive risk indicated increased likelihood of disproportionality while a negative risk
indicated a decreased likelihood. This method was valid and reliable because Sullivan (2011)
utilized a conservative risk ratio correlated with field recommendations. Furthermore, the
measurements were reliable because of Sullivans utilization of White students as the
comparison group. Sullivan explains that the category of White students was chosen in order to
grapple with broader concerns for educational equity and that the category of White students is
commonly utilized as the implicit and explicit comparison group (Sullivan, 2011, p.323).
Sullivan presented her research procedures in separate categories, thereby clarifying the
general context of the study and the method for analyzing the data. The research procedures
were appropriate for the study, for Sullivan utilized correlational analyses and multiple linear
regressions to evaluate and interpret the relation between the district-level disproportionality and
the predictors chosen (Sullivan, 2011, p.324). Because Sullivan clearly delineated the specific
statistical methodologies and formulas utilized throughout the study, a third party may replicate
the results and either confirm and disconfirm the findings by reviewing the findings in the study.
Sullivan displays evidence of the findings through charts and tables included in the study, which
a third party may verify for accuracy or replicate if needed.
III. Research Results
Sullivan utilized descriptive statistics to describe patterns and predictors of identification
and placement of ELLs in Special Education as compared to their White Peers. Since Sullivan
conducted a quantitative study to examine these patterns and number of placements, her use of
descriptive statistics to analyze the data and variables is accurate. Furthermore, by implementing
correlational analyses and multiple linear regression analyses, Sullivan utilized standard
techniques for identifying relationships between quantitative variables. Moreover, due to the
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

'
dichotomous nature of the study (ELLs vs. White peers), Sullivan accurately used a relative risk
ratio, which is statistically used to compare and determine the risk of a particular event between
two separate groups.
According to Sullivan (2011), the variables in relation to district characteristics emerged
as the most meaningful. Sullivan (2011) states, These results also suggest that the district
factors predicting disproportionality of ELLs differ from those predicting disproportionality of
racial minorities (p.327). Therefore, the variables that Sullivan utilized to predict
disproportionality need to be specifically adapted to examine issues pertaining to race. Sullivan
(2011) concludes that the variables chosen in this study are weak predictors of disproportionality
in regards to race and that further studies are necessary to analyze racial disproportionality.
IV. Research Discussion
Sullivans (2011) research results indicate an overrepresentation of ELLs in special
education in the state of Arizona. Sullivans (2011) research found that overall at the state level,
the identification and placement of ELLs in Special Education went from being 30% less likely
to be identified in 1999 to 30% more likely in 2006. Moreover, in the SLD [Special Learning
Disability] and MIMR [Mild Mental Retardation] categories, students went from being 24% to
30% more likely to be identified in 1999 to 82% and 63% more likely to be identified 2006
(()**+,-./ "011/ p.327). While these findings largely support previous studies conducted on
ELLs and their identification and placement in Special Education, Sullivans findings contradict
earlier research regarding ELL overrepresentation in high-incidence categories, including ED
[Emotional Disturbance]. Of note is that students identified as ELLs were rarely identified as
ED (()**+,-./ "011/ p.327). Sullivan also found that in relation that districts with high
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

2
proportions of teachers with ESL certification were more likely to place ELLs in the least
restrictive environment (()**+,-./ "011/ p.325).
Sullivan (2011) explained the research results by suggesting that ELL overrepresentation
may be due to coupled with decreased language support for this population of students. These
finding support the assumption that special education may be inappropriately used to remedy the
decreased support created by the lack of language programming, in that increasing risk was
found following the passage of English-only legislation (()**+,-./ "011/ p.330). Sullivan
further explains that administrators and educators must identify the specific structural
programmatic problems, which may lead up to overrepresentation of ELLs in Special Education.
Specifically related to English-only legislation, Sullivan (2011) argues, The transition from
bilingual programs to general education classes is especially problematic for students identified
as ELLs because they are likely to be taught by inexperienced teachers, are prone to experience
declines in academic performance, and are more likely to be referred to special education
(p.330). Sullivan (2011) also explains that therefore Special Education may be used as a backup
option for ELLs to compensate for larger systemic factors, including quality of curriculum and
instruction, availability of programming and resources, and teacher training as they may relate to
differential rates of referral and identification for special education (p.330-331).
In summary, Sullivan utilized descriptive statistical methods to examine patterns and
predictors of identification and placement of ELLs in Special Education as compared to their
White peers. She utilized correlational analyses and multiple linear regressions to investigate
connections between disproportionality and the variables chosen. She also utilized a relative risk
ratio to compare the risk of disproportionality between ELLs and their White peers. Finally,
Sullivan concluded that disproportions in ELL identification and placement are indicative of
SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

3
larger structural and systemic problems, which must be addressed in future studies on this issue
in order to probably address this population of students.













SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION AND ELL PLACEMENT

10
REFERENCES
Sullivan, A.L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Council for Exceptional Children 77(3), 317-334. Retrieved
from http://cec.metapress.com/content/n88778154g895155/