Addressing Systemic Inequalities in the Identification of Multilingual

Learners into Special Education Services

Nicholas Vetri

Introduction:

In the United States, there is a considerable problem with multilingual learners being either
over-identified or under-identified for special education services. This problem results from
several complex factors, including the lack of multifaceted, educator credentialing policies, a
lack of funding, culturally insensitive educational materials and policies, and the complexity
involved in accurately identifying students of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds for
special education services.

The purpose of this literature review is to give an overview of this issue, and outline key
considerations and methods for educators to provide equitable classification of multilingual
learners into special education services at the school level.

The Problem:

In the United States, there is a significant problem with classification of multilingual learners
into special education services. According to the IDEA Data Center, though the rate of
classification of multilingual learners into special education programs is close to the national
average of 11% at 13%, the majority of states either under-identify or over-identify multilingual
learners for special education services (2015). Their data showed that some states in the
Southwest over-identified multilingual learners (CA, NV, NM), with the highest being California
at 31% identification. The majority of other states, however, under-identify these students with
an average of 8% identification, while Mississippi and Louisiana only have 1% identification
rate (IDEA Data Center, 2015).

What’s more, according to the Office of Special Education Programs, OSEP, multilingual
learners are more frequently diagnosed with Specific Learning Disabilities than their non-EL
peers (2022). They found that nearly 45% of multilingual learners who had been dually
identified as having a disability under IDEA Part B were classified as having a Specific Learning
Disability, well above the national average of 35% for non-EL students with disabilities (Office
of Special Education Programs, OSEP, 2022).

Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD’s) are the most prevalent category of disability which
students are diagnosed with (WIDA, 2023). In their book, Supporting English Learners with
Exceptional Needs, Patricia Rice Doran and Amy K. Noggle defined SLD’s in this way:

A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or

in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to

listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes

such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia,

and developmental aphasia. (Doran & Noggle, 2019).

The process of their diagnosis also tends to be more subjective than that of other kinds of
disabilities, which can lead to discrepancies when identifying students for special education
services (Adams, 2014). Because of this subjectivity, there may be more room for error in
identifying students for special education services. Therefore, it is even more important to
understand why these discrepancies exist, and how they can be improved.

It is hard to overstate the impact of educational support for multilingual learners and students
who have learning disabilities. Having effective educational support for students has a significant
effect on the academic success of millions of public-school students in the U.S. (Thurlow et al.,
2006). When these supports meet students’ needs, both for language learning and for disabilities,
student success tends to improve (Berkeley et al., 2010; Morgan et al., 2010; Wang & Lam,
2017). On the other hand, when this support is ineffective, students’ success can decrease
(Morgan et al., 2010).

Common Factors in Misidentification:

The Complexity of Observable Behavior:

There are several reasons for misidentification of multilingual learners into special education
services. One important reason is that, for educators who are not familiar with students’
backgrounds, observable behaviors used for assessment of students into special education
programs could be caused by many different factors (Adelson et al., 2014). For example, if a
student is withdrawn and aggressive, it could be due to many factors including self-regulation,
anxiety or depression, language processing, the acculturation process, the step the student is in
the language acquisition process (the pre-production or silent stage), and more (Adelson et al.,
2014). Therefore, unless the assessment procedure is done carefully and considers many aspects
of students' lives, background, and education, mistakes in identification into special education
programs are possible. What’s more, several studies have confirmed that educators have
difficulty in general distinguishing between difficulties that are a part of the language acquisition
process, and difficulty related to learning difficulties or related to disabilities (Golloher et al.,
2018; Johnson et al., 2018; Klinger & Harry, 2006; Lesaux, 2006; Wagner et al., 2005). This
complexity, and the lack of a comprehensive understanding of students’ backgrounds, is a cause
of misidentification of multilingual learners into special education.

Lack of Competence in Teaching Multilingual Learners and Special Education:

Another reason is the lack of educator knowledge in supporting multilingual learners and in
special education. According to Hamayan and her colleagues, to effectively support multilingual
learners, teachers must have received training in the process of second language acquisition, the
process of acculturation, and effective pedagogy and assessment for those students (2013). They
further stated that to support students who have disabilities, teachers must be proficient in
understanding the developmental characteristics of these students, as well as appropriate
assessment and evaluation, and adapted instructional methods for them. Despite the large amount
of professional knowledge required to support these students, many state teaching credential
requirements are insufficient. For example, of the five states with the highest percentage of
multilingual learners (California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and Illinois) only California and
Illinois have specific certification requirements in these areaa (Office of English Language
Acquisition, 2021).

Hesitancy in Classification:

There is also evidence that educators may discount disability as a possibility for multilingual
learners, especially if the student is young or has recently arrived in the United States (Carnock
& Silva, 2019). Also, due to an exclusionary clause in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), which states that limited proficiency in English should not be a determinant factor
in the assessment of special education services, some educators choose not to assess students
early in their U.S. educational experience (IDEA, 2004).

Culturally Insensitive Assessments:

Another issue is that standardized test scores in the U.S. tend not to take multilingual learners’
circumstances into account, and this often leads to unfairly lower scores, which can add to their
misclassification into special education programs (Brown & Sanford, 2011; Higgins, 2015;
Orosco et al., 2008). Many other assessments, and district-based metrics of student progress have
also been normed on non-EL students, and therefore the cultural and linguistic assumptions
involved in the assessments may be compromised to the point where the assessments no longer
provide a meaningful metric of students’ progress (WIDA, 2017).

Lack of Funding:

Finally, there are significant funding issues which impact the identification of multilingual
learners into special education programs. In 1982, congress authorized grants to states that would
cover up to 40% of the costs from special education services in school districts (Dragoo, 2019).
This number is known as the full-funding level. However, IDEA state grants have never met the
legislated full-funding level (Dragoo, 2019). Data covering the range between 1988-2021 shows
that, on average, the federal government has only covered between 7-18% of the national per
pupil average of costs for special education programs (Arundel, 2020). Therefore, programs that
grant protection to students with disabilities tend to be underfunded, and this is a significant
challenge for school districts. When school districts are underfunded, they find ways to cut costs.
One way some school districts do this is to only offer one kind of service to multilingual learners
that have disabilities, not addressing the full scope of their academic needs (Kangas, 2017).

Key Considerations for Identifying students who are adding English for Special Education:

The Teaching Environment:

There are many things educators should consider carefully when assessing multilingual learners
for special education services. The first thing they should consider is the teaching environment
these students are in (WIDA, 2017). Has the student received an appropriate education for a
multilingual learner? Has his/her teacher used adequate differentiation and scaffolding in the
student’s class? Has the student received an equitable opportunity for success? This is important
to consider because if a student has not received an adequate education, the lack of success in
school metrics is not an accurate reflection on his/her learning ability (WIDA 2017). As
Escamilla points out, educators should consider that learning difficulties may not have anything
to do with the student, the problem may actually be a lack of appropriate pedagogy to help
multilingual learners improve academic language, literacy, and acculturation (2015). She further
states that focusing on the difficulties as being a result of the student’s lack of ability does not
address needed systemic change in a system that perpetuates educational inequity (Escamilla,
2015).

Creating a Body of Evidence to View the Student as a Whole:

Identifying multilingual learners for special education services is a complex process. There are
several factors to consider, many of which are subjective. Also, as mentioned earlier, there is
implicit cultural and linguistic bias involved in many assessments. Therefore, it is essential that
educators consider a body of evidence about students’ backgrounds when making decisions in
this process (WIDA 2017).

Asking the right questions for, and about, these [multilingual] students often requires teams

to think carefully about the students’ language proficiency, cultural and family backgrounds,

skills and cognitive backgrounds, and social or behavioral strengths and needs. Multiple

measures, careful interpretation, and use of primary language assessments should all be

considered in students’ assessment plans. (Doran & Noggle, 2019, p. 131).

By taking these factors into consideration and building a body of evidence, educators build a
comprehensive view of the “whole child.” In this way they are able to evaluate the child in a
more professional and equitable way (WIDA, 2017).

Using an Assets-Based Perspective to Consider Students Strengths and Weaknesses:

Doran and Noggle state that educators frequently see multilingual learners and students that have
disabilities through a deficit-based perspective, despite having many skills and assets that can
enrich their education and the education of other students (2019). They state that the U.S.
education system does an inadequate job of taking account of their unique strengths and
advantages, and therefore has an inaccurate concept of the student as a whole. Indeed,
understanding students’ skill and abilities, and the areas that they excel in, allows educators to
get a comprehensive picture of what goals should be set for students to maximize their potential
(Climie & Henley, 2016). So, it is necessary for some educators to shift their perspectives in this
regard and consider the student as whole when making decisions about the students’
classification into special education services.

Purposefully Consider Interdepartmental Collaboration in Diagnosis of the Child:

When collaborating as a team of experts to decide whether or not to classify multilingual learners
for special education services, there are several issues to consider. WIDA found that due to large
amounts of implicit bias against multicultural learners in formative and summative assessments,
and in the tools used for monitoring progress, it is very important that these teams include an
English Language Development Specialist (2017). In this way, they said, experts can consider
the question: What might the typical performance of a given task look like for a multicultural
learner at a certain stage of English proficiency? Furthermore, they recommended that teams of
educators use a T-Chart divided into two sections: (1) Difficulties typical to English language
learning or due to environmental factors and (2) Difficulties indicating a learning disability. This
is because differentiating between difficulties caused by the English language learning process,
and issues that might be related to learning disabilities is one of the most important and easily
mistaken issues to consider in this process (WIDA, 2017).

The way these teams function and the people who are chosen to be a part of that team also have a
big impact on the identification process. According to WIDA, it may take a long time and much
effort to foster excellent interdepartmental collaboration (2023). They said that most schools
don’t start with a perfect team that has everyone in the right place, but through purposeful
collaboration and consideration, teams that can do the most good for students can be formed. It
can take time and effort to bring together experienced educators, experts in language
development, and experts in disabilities together, and to create a strong culture of collaboration
but, the benefits to students are far reaching (WIDA, 2023).

Finally, one consideration to keep in mind is that these collaborative groups should aim to create
a climate where decision-makers feel comfortable raising concerns, and using their specialized
knowledge to provide insight on potential reasons for student difficulties (Doran & Noggle,
2019). Creating a culture of candor and shared expertise will result in the best possible decision
making from these educators.

Equitable Methods for Identifying Students who are Adding English to Special Education:

Culturally Responsive Teaching:

As mentioned earlier, confusing difficulties caused by the English language learning process and
issues related to learning disabilities is one of the most common mistakes in identifying
multilingual learners for special education services. (WIDA, 2017). What’s more, standardized
test scores tend to be normed on native English speakers, and tend not to take multilingual
learners into account (Brown & Sanford, 2011; Higgins, 2015; Orosco et al., 2008; WIDA,2017).
Using culturally responsive teaching as a principle of education in schools is one way to help
solve these issues and create a more equitable environment for multilingual learners (Tan, 2022).
Gay, defined culturally responsive teaching in this way:
[Culturally responsive teaching is]. . . using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and

performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relative to,

and effective for, them by teaching to and through the strengths of these students (2000).

Using culturally responsive Teaching implies using teaching materials, pedagogy, and
assessments that embraces students’ cultural backgrounds, sources of knowledge, and
experiences; what’s more, it means using a multilingual learner’s native language to enhance
learning when necessary (Diaz-Rico, 2012). This way of teaching requires a deep understanding
of students’ cultures in order to have students make a connection with the teaching methods, and
for them to get the most out of their education (Sleeter & Cornbleth, 2011). When done
effectively, culturally responsive Teaching can make for more effective teaching and learning,
and can create an environment where multilingual learners are supported and engaged, which
facilitates their success (Orosco, 2017; Richards et al., 2007).

Tan, in her article on making a more equitable Response to Intervention process (RTI), said that a
key part of effective RTI for multilingual learners involves understanding the cultural and
cognitive background of these students (2022). She said that when students’ native languages,
cultural backgrounds, and prior experiences are brought into the RTI approach, students’ learning
difficulties can be more easily distinguished from issues that stem from their lack of language
and cultural proficiency. In this way, the misdiagnosis of language and cultural issues as learning
issues can be decreased, and the equity of classification of multilingual learners into special
education services can be increased (Tan, 2022).

Involving Students’ Family in the Identification Process:

There is ample evidence that suggests that students whose family is involved in their education
are more successful in school. Having family involvement can foster support and equity both in
the classroom and during the special education classification process. Though family
involvement is not often discussed as a way to support the needs of multilingual learners, it is
critical to their success (Doran & Noggle, 2019). Research also suggests that children with
families that take an active role in their education are more successful in school and have
stronger social development (Noel, et al., 2016). What’s more, family involvement may be even
more important for students that have learning disabilities, because they are at a greater risk for
adverse academic, social, and behavioral outcomes (Doran & Noggle, 2019). So, it is clear that
having family support fosters equity in the education of multilingual learners and students with
disabilities in a system that doesn’t always give them an equal playing field.

In the special education identification process, having families involved also has strong benefits
that can result in more equitable diagnosis of learning disabilities. Parents’ involvement in the
educational process increases the accountability and accuracy of the Individualized Education
Plan (IEP) team (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998). Parents are, in a sense, experts on their children,
and they can provide valuable insights into their children’s behavior and health. Doran and
Noggle recommend that throughout early intervention processes, and in all educational activities,
parents should be invited to be at the table and speak with authority about their child (2019).

Student Assessment in Relation to “True Peers”:

Finally, an important consideration for decision makers involved in special education services is
whether or not multilingual learners are being compared to “true peers.” True peers are "students
who have the same or similar level of language proficiency, acculturation, and education

backgrounds" (Brown & Doolittle, 2008, as cited in Brown & Sanford, 2011, p. 16). Using true
peers promotes equity in the identification process because multilingual learners will be less
likely to be penalized for their lack of language or cultural proficiency, and thereby
inappropriately referred to special education (Tan, 2022).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, there is a significant issue with regards to how multilingual learners are being
identified for special education services. In order for these students to receive the support and
education that they are entitled to, decision-makers must take several factors into account: They
need to consider the student as a whole including their personal, linguistic, and cultural
backgrounds; They need to compile comprehensive evidence that will allow them to understand
the student deeply; and they need to involve the student’s family members in the process as
partners and experts on their own children. What’s more, educators and decision makers need a
shift in perspective. They need to view multilingual learners in a way that takes their assets into
account, as well as the challenges they face. They also need to make a shift to culturally
responsive teaching, which actively seeks to understand, promote, and utilize students’ culture in
a way that promotes equity. By doing so, educators can address the systemic inequity in the way
multilingual learners are classified for special education services.

Further research in several areas would help promote equity in this process. More information on
the relationship between state and school policy and the classification of multilingual learners is
needed. More research on the relationship between teacher credentialing requirements that take
into account both multilingual learners and students with disabilities and their effect on this
process would also be useful. Finally, more practical, step-by-step materials and reports on how
to collaborate, compile evidence about students, and institute culturally responsive methods in
the classification process of multilingual learners into special education services would also be
beneficial for educators involved in this process.

References

Adams, J. M. (2014, March 6). Special education needs a ‘do-over,’ state panel told. Edsource.
https://edsource.org/2014/ special-education-needs-a-do-over-state-panel-told/58260

Adelson, V. Geva, E. & Fraser, C. (2014, March). Identification, assessment, and instruction of
English language learners with learning difficulties in the elementary and intermediate
grades: A guide for educators in Ontario school boards. University of Toronto.
https://www.academia.edu/31726519/Identification_Assessment_and_Instruction_of_Eng
lish_Language_Learners_with_Learning_Difficulties_in_the_Elementary_and_Intermedi
ate_Grades_A_guide_for_educators_in_Ontario_school_boards_March_2014

Arundel, K. (2020, November 24). IDEA turns 45: Is congress close to guaranteeing full special
ed funding? K-12 Dive.
https://www.k12dive.com/news/growing-hope-for-special-education-full-funding/589543
/

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction

for students with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A Meta-Analysis. Remedial and

Special Education, 31(6), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988

Brown, J., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using
screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. National
Center on Response to Intervention.
https://mtss4success.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/rtiforells.pdf
Carnock, J. T. & Silva, E. (2019). English learners with disabilities: Shining a light on
dual-identified students. New America. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED597370.pdf

Climie, E., & Henley, L. (2016). A renewed focus on strengths-based assessment in schools.
British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/DOI:
10.1111/1467-8578.12131

Diaz-Rico, L. (2012). A course for teaching English language learners (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Doran, P. R., & Noggle, A. K. (2019). Supporting English learners with exceptional needs.
TESOL International Association.

Dragoo, K. E. (2019). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding: A
primer. Congressional Research Service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593614

Escamilla, K. (2015). Schooling begins before adolescence: The case of Manual and limited
opportunities to learn. Routledge.

Fagan, D. S., & Herrera, L. J. P. (2022, January). Supporting English learners with disabilities.
State Education Standard, 22(1), p26-31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1344881.pdf

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

Golloher, A. N., Whitenack, D. A., Simpson, L. A., & Sacco, D. (2018). From the ground up:
Providing support to emergent bilinguals to distinguish language difference from
disability. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 15(2), 127–147.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1203413

Hamayan, E., Marler, B., Sánchez-López, C., & Damico, J. (2013). Special education
considerations for English language learners: Delivering a continuum of services.
Carlson, Inc.

Higgins, M. (2016). English language learners and the response to intervention model. In Special
and Gifted Education (pp.569-593). IGI Global.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 614 (2004).

IDEA Data Center (2015). 2014 Child count and state level data.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/statelevel-data-files/index.html

Johnson, L. V., Tuttle, M., Harrison, J., & Shell, E. M. (2018). Response to intervention for
English learners: A framework for school counselors. Journal of School Counseling,
16(17). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1185865

Kangas, S. A. N., (2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service
delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4), 273-306.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1046336

Klinger, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process
for English language learners: Child study team meetings and staffings. Teacher College
Record, 108, 2247-2281.
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/special-education-referral-and-decision-making-pro
cess-english-language-learners-child-s

Lesaux, N. K. (2006). Building consensus: Future directions for research on English language
learners at risk for learning difficulties. Teachers College Record, 108, 2406-2438.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ746177

Morgan, P. L., Frisco, M. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2010, February 1). A propensity score
matching analysis of the effects of special education services. Journal of Special
Education, 43(4), 236–254. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3630079/

Noel, A., Stark, P., Redford, J., & Zukerberg, A. (2016, June). Parent and family involvement in
education, from the NHES survey of 2012. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013028rev.pdf

Office of English Language Acquisition. (March, 2021). English learner population by local
educational agency. United States Department of Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613128.pdf

Orosco, M. J., & Abdulrahim, N. A. (2017). Culturally responsive professional development for
one special education teacher of Latino English language learners with mathematics
 learning disabilities. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 14(1), 73–95.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1165723

Orosco, M. J., de Schonewise, E. A., de Onis, C., Klinger, J. K., & Hoover, J. J. (2008).
Distinguishing between language acquisition and learning disabilities among English
language learners. In J. K. Klinger, J. J. Hoover, & L. M. Baca (Eds.), Why do English
language learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from
learning disabilities (pp. 5-16). Corwin.

Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally
responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900310

Sleeter, C., & Cornbleth, C. (2011). Teaching with vision: culturally responsive teaching in

standards-based classrooms. Teachers College Press.

Tan, F. J. (2022, September). Effective practice of Response to Intervention for English

Language Learners using the concepts of culturally responsive teaching and critical
multicultural education. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED624332.pdf

Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., & Lazarus, S. S. (2006). Meeting the needs of special

education students: Recommendations for the race to the top consortia and states. College

33 and Research Libraries News, 67(9), 548–550. https://ici.umn.edu/products/385

Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull H. R. (1986, April). Stepping back from early intervention: An ethical
perspective. Journal of Early Intervention. 10(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/105381518601000202

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (2022). OSEP
Fast Facts.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-students-with-disabilities-english-learners
Wagner, R. K., Francis, D. J., & Morris, R. D. (2005). Identifying English language learners
with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 20 (1), 17-23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ687023

Wang, M., & Lam, Y. (2017). Evidence-Based practice in special education and cultural

adaptations: Challenges and implications for research. Research and Practice for Persons

with Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916685872

WIDA. (2017, May). Identifying ELLs with specific learning disabilities: Facts, advice, and
resources for school teams. (URL unavailable updated version is the report below.)

WIDA. (2023, November). Identifying multilingual learners with Specific Learning Disabilities:
Data, advice, and resources for school teams.
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/FocusBulletin-Identifying-Multilingual-
Learners-Specific-Learning-Disabilities.pdf