Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 1

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom

Eric Kursman
May 4, 2014
George Mason University
EDUC 606
Dr. Stephanie Dodman


















Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 2
Abstract
Across the country, schools and districts have been reporting disproportionate enrollment
numbers of English Language Learners (ELLs) who are also in Special Education (SpEd)
programs. Results from an Equity Audit (Appendix F) confirmed a similar overrepresentation of
ELLs in SpEd at my middle school. To investigate this concern, I drew upon Jacobs (1999)
Cultural Inquiry Process to determine how to best support my dual-labeled students. By framing
this puzzlement with cultural questions targeting the impact of my schools ELL program and the
effects of my beliefs and my colleagues beliefs, I was able to take a closer look at the cultural
implications of my puzzlement. After analyzing numerous research articles that discussed many
possible rationales for the inequitable overrepresentations of ELLs in SpEd, I designed surveys
and took notes on student records, the feedback from which helped me design an intervention to
better support my students. My inevitable action involved small-group previewing, which has
yielded positive results thus far. The conclusions from this research have far-reaching
implications on my future instruction and role as a teacher leader in my building. By considering
the crossroads of culture and education in my setting, I was able to develop a more meaningful
and effective support system for my dual-labeled students.

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 3
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Vignette ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Puzzlement .................................................................................................................................................... 4
What is Known ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Setting ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Cultural Questions ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Gathering Data ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Student Questionnaires ........................................................................................................................... 11
Students CUM files ............................................................................................................................... 13
Teacher Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Action - Intervention ................................................................................................................................... 16
Emerging Findings Action Plan Monitoring ............................................................................................ 19
Conclusions and Implications ..................................................................................................................... 23
Reflection .................................................................................................................................................... 26
References ................................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Teacher Survey .................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix B: Results from Teacher Survey ............................................................................................ 35
Appendix C: Notes from Students CUM Files ...................................................................................... 37
Appendix D: Student Surveys ................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix E: Task Cards ......................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix F: Chart Special Education Breakdown by Reporting Group ............................................. 43





Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 4
Vignette
I kneeled down next to Rozas desk and lowered my voice: Okay, Roza whats up?
I dont get what I supposed to do, Roza replied with her thick, halting accent. Her
sixteen-year-old smile is sheepish, but her voice is entirely devoid of embarrassment and shame.
Carefully, I verbally reviewed the written directions with her, pausing to provide examples (that I
explicitly stated she could not borrow she has in the past), hoping to connect the task and the
required process in her head.
As I finished, I paused. She paused, then smiled awkwardly: Okay, I get it now.
I knew this exchange all too well. Okay, Roza, I began, now, tell me what you are
going to do next. In her own words, she summarized her next few tasks and explained how she
would complete the next few necessary steps. From her explanation, it seemed like she had a
grasp on how she would tackle the task at hand. After I left her desk, I worried would her
work represent the process she just described to me?
After the bell rang, I flipped through the submitted student work and paused when I
reached Rozas it looked like she got it. Roza completed the tasks I asked of her, the same
tasks she dictated out loud; her examples and connections, however, were so elementary that
there was no way she would earn a three (meeting expectations). Ive seen this happen too many
times with students like Roza in my class, students who receive both English Language Learner
and Special Education services. After multiple different approaches to communicate the material
and expectations, those students can tell me in their own words what they need to do to
complete their assigned task, even where to look or whom to ask if they need assistance. Even
though my students can then still perform those tasks requested of them, the work they submit
does not show mastery, let alone complete comprehension, of the foundational material that the
task was based on.

Puzzlement
As I have worked with my dual-labeled (ELL and SpEd) students, I have struggled to
understand when they do not understand the material and what is expected of them. Is there a
language-based communication issue that stems from their ELL status? Is there a cognitive
issue, a non-linguistic learning disability that is keeping them from understanding or
demonstrating understanding of the material and assigned tasks? In short, I was left with the
following puzzlement: what can I do to better support my dual-labeled students? Throughout
this study, I hope to find answers to my puzzlement and other questions that arise as I study my
students.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 5
What is Known
There are four students that I will examine closely for the sake of this study: Roza (as
mentioned in the aforementioned vignette), Amira, Rico, and Alejandro. I know a fair amount
about my female students and less of my male students. Roza and Amira were both born in
Ethiopia and both received a substantial English education in their respective group homes in
foster care. Roza was adopted with her older sister by an older couple; when she came to the
United States in 2012, doctors estimated that she was 15 based on her dental records (no other
medical documentation was available). Rozas older sister transitioned quite well to the United
States: her first year of school went well, she became very social, and quickly developed a strong
group of friends. Roza, on the other hand, had a different experience: her first year of school
was very difficult (she did not make anywhere near the academic progress that her sister did),
she has a history of being polite and respectful to her peers, but she has never made close friends
outside of Amira. Roza is an avid reader, however her reading scores show sizable gaps in her
comprehension (she failed her Reading SOL last year). Her writing abilities are low, but
growing steadily.
Amira was adopted from Ethiopia with her two brothers in 2011 by a couple who have
opened their home to five other children who are not their own. To say that Amiras house is a
busy place is putting it mildly, so she does not always receive structured support outside of
school. Amiras mother is very involved at the school, both as a volunteer and as an advocate
throughout Amiras SpEd eligibility testing process. Like Roza, Amira repeatedly earns low
marks on reading assessments and failed last years Reading SOL by almost 100 points. Her
writing skills are considerably low; she is currently writing on a second grade level.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 6
Rico and Alejandro are both first-generation young men who come from Spanish-
speaking households. Both boys are quiet and shy, often times to a fault. Both Rico and
Alejandro were found eligible for SpEd services while in second grade. Rico is the youngest
child in his family, and his parents are inactive in the school culture. Alejandro, on the other
hand, is the older of two boys in his family; both of his parents are active leaders in the schools
small community of Hispanic families. Alejandros brother, Roberto (currently working through
the seventh grade) does not talk with the same accent and slow cadence, nor does he struggle
with comprehension in school: Roberto helps Alejandro understand his homework while
Alejandro forces Roberto to complete his homework. Both Rico and Alejandro have tested low
in reading assessments, however Alejandro passed last years Reading SOL whereas Rico did
not. While Ricos writing has shown great signs of improvement this year, Alejandro is one of
the stronger male writers in his class.
Setting
All of the above students are eighth graders at a middle school in northern Virginia. The
school, bordering on the precipice between suburbia and the rural country, is home to 905
students: 309 sixth grade students, 308 seventh grade students, and 287 eighth grade students.
The demographic breakdown of the student body reflects a homogenous population: 83% of
students are white, 7% are Hispanic, 4% are multi-racial, 3% are black, 2% are Asian, and 1%
reports in the other category. Although the number of economically disadvantaged students
nearly mirrors the number of students enrolled in special education services, there are only 14
English Language Learner students enrolled at the school (Appendix F).
Roza and Amira are in the same class at the beginning of the day every other day, while
Alejandro and Rico are in two different classes at the end of the day. Roza and Amiras class is
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 7
the smallest of the three, comprised of 16 students: 10 boys, 6 girls, 3 students with disabilities (2
dual-labeled, 1 with Autism), 2 ELL students (Roza and Amira), 3 black students, 1 Latino
student, 12 white students, 9 honors students, and 7 grade-level students; only since late April
has this class received support from an ELL assistant. Ricos class, a team-taught class with an
additional instructional specialist, is made up of 24 students: 10 boys, 14 girls, 6 students with
disabilities (2 autistic, 4 learning disabled), 2 ELL students (both at Level 4), 4 black students, 2
Latino students, 1 Asian student, 17 white students, 12 honors students, and 12 grade-level
students. I am fortunate enough to teach fourth block with an amazing special education teacher;
although she prefers not to share classroom instruction, we do plan together. Alejandros class,
another team-taught class with an additional instructional specialist, is made up of 28 students:
16 boys, 12 girls, 6 students with disabilities (5 learning disabled, 1 emotionally disturbed), 2
ELL students, 3 black students, 3 Latino students, 22 white students, 12 honors students, and 16
grade-level students.
Cultural Questions
For the purposes of this study, I selected two cultural questions to frame my
investigation. Borrowing from Jacobs (1999) Cultural Inquiry Process, my first question, strand
3.2.3, addresses the surface-level concern for my four students: How might instructional
programs for English Language Learners be contributing to the puzzling situation? This
question will enable me to investigate how the schools current ELL infrastructure meets (or fails
to meet) the needs of my students. In its infancy, my schools two-year-old ELL program is still
developing to meet the needs of a changing demographic in our community; my first question
will enable me to study the effectiveness of our program for not just ELL students, but SpEd and
ELL students.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 8
The second question, strand 3.1, drives at the more alarming concern for my students:
How might your beliefs or values, or those of other educators, be contributing to the puzzling
situation? This question will allow me to dig deep into my schools thought process behind the
dual label of ELL and SpEd. Considering our schools lack of familiarity supporting ELL
students and meeting the needs of dual-labeled students, the beliefs of my faculty are not
grounded in experiential knowledge. This question will allow me to consider how our beliefs
and values, as educators, impact my puzzlement.

Literature Review
According to the literature, there currently seems to be an overrepresentation of ELLs in
SpEd across the country. In a notable study, Sullivan (2011) found a striking overrepresentation
of ELLs receiving SpEd services, more so in district reporting that in state reporting. (The
category of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) was the most frequent overrepresented
reporting category.) Sullivan (2011) also found that districts with higher proportions of
students identified as ELLs were less likely to have disproportionality in SpEdwhereas
districts with high proportions of teachers with ESL certificates were more likely to place
students identified as ELLs in (SpEd). In short, districts with smaller ELL populations reported
dual eligibility (ELL and SpEd) than districts with larger ELL populations.
Sometimes, this is due to comprehension of eligibility testing. When referring students to
SpEd eligibility testing, language is a key component to the testing process: if the students first
language (L1) is not English, they must be tested in their first language. Many such tests exist in
multiple languages and in many commercially-available forms, however many of these tests
measure students L1 in an academic dialect instead of conversational dialect. According to
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 9
Macswan and Rolstad (2006), many of these commercially-available tests find more false
positives in academic language comprehension than accurate measures of a non-linguistic
disability; in their study, more than 75% of ELLs who have never even been considered for SpEd
services tested low enough on two commercially-available tests to require SpEd services. On the
other hand, when using Natural Language samples instead of the commercial tests, only 4% of
all ELLs were found eligible for SpEd services. The accuracy and capability of L1 tests has not
been the most reliable indicator of whether an ELL should qualify for SpEd services.
Other times, an overrepresentation of ELLs in SpEd is due to the timing of eligibility.
Hibel and Jasper (2012) found that many children (with an L1 other than English) were referred
to ELL programs in grades one through three instead of SpEd services. SpEd identification and
intervention is most effective in grades one through three; when potentially-eligible students are
referred to ELL programs instead of SpEd services, they miss the window that can greatly
reduce the hazard of future academic risk. This study suggests that the timing and placement of
eligibility testing has an enormous impact of whether students should receive dual labels (ELLs
in SpEd).
In addition, sometimes SpEd services are wrongfully used as a fix-all by education
systems. Maxwell and Shah (2012) explore how SpEd became a dumping ground of sorts in
western states; many students were referred to SpEd services with concerns unrelated to
cognitive ability and incorrectly identified as SLI when a more meaningful and accurate
assessment of their learning struggles revolved around first and second language navigation, not
SLD. All of these data points are of grave concern, as echoed by de Valenzuela et al (2006),
who found a rising rate of ELLs in SpEd; the study promptly raised questions about underlying
assumptions regarding placement of ELLs.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 10
Even after students are provided with both ELL and SpEd services, one must consider
how teacher efficacy impacts the support that dual-labeled students receive. In their work,
Barbetta and Paneque (2006) investigated the role that a teachers belief in their effectiveness
had on their instruction. By studying over 200 elementary Special Education teachers in over 30
schools in the southeastern United States, Barbetta and Paneque found that of all aspects that
could influence teachers self-efficacy, a proficiency however small in their students
primary language most positively influenced a teachers sense of self-efficacy. In other words,
an intimate knowledge of their students communication and cultural needs boosted teachers
self-beliefs in their ability to best support their students. This finding has significant meaning for
schools, such as mine, where faculty members do not have much knowledge or experience (as
noted in cultural question 3.1) in supporting dual-labeled students.
Looking ahead, when ELL students are found eligible for SpEd services, one must
consider strategies and methodologies to best support these students in the classroom. Hoover
and Patton (2005) push for differentiated curriculum by adapting instruction in various ways,
such as applying curricular activities to best align with students learning styles, developing
cognitive learning strategies, and modifying instructional materials so that they maintain
demands for higher-level thinking and problem-solving while ensuring accessibility to the
learner. In a similar vein, Ruffin (2009) advocates for comparable approaches, especially with
regards to reading strategies: he pushes for adaptations such as visual or graphic organizers to
boost text structure comprehension and various modalities, such as discussion or gestures, to
accompany those actions. All of these researchers advocate for differentiated curriculum
supplemented with other various instructional methods to support student learning.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 11
The problem of overrepresentation of ELLs in SpEd has far-reaching ramifications. First,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that eligibility testing be
administered in a students L1; if the test is administered in an academic dialect of a students L1
instead of a conversational dialect, not only will the test yield inaccurate results, but it will also
create a deeper discrepancy in equity when it comes to accessibility of fair testing. These
inequities are echoed by de Valenzuela et al (2006) who found a rising rate of ELLs in SpEd; the
study promptly raised questions about underlying assumptions regarding placement of ELLs.
Second, ELLs are protected under the Civil Rights Act, which requires schools to improve
language deficiencies of students (NCES, 2010). If schools are not accurately measuring and
attending to students language and/or cognitive disabilities, this yields yet another equity
concern for public education of whether the services students receive are precise and fair.

Gathering Data
As I considered what type of data I would need to gather for my research, I realized I
would need to triangulate feedback from multiple sources and stakeholders: the students CUM
folders, teachers in the building (SpEd, ELL, and Gen Ed), and the students themselves. Only
through disaggregating feedback from the above sources would I start to gain a clearer picture
from multiple perspectives of what I can do to better support my dual-labeled students.
Student Questionnaires
First, I created student questionnaires to shed light on their own preferences and
perspectives when it comes to their academic journey through school, especially English
Language Arts. My students perspectives were essential in determining the best possible
support strategies moving forward; by considering their input in relation to teacher feedback and
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 12
past student history, I can account for various ways in which my beliefs and past teachers
beliefs (as discussed in Cultural Question 3.1) have impacted the support they received this year
and in previous years.
On the questionnaires, I solicited student responses with regards to support preferences,
difficulty understanding directions versus difficulty completing tasks, positive/negative teacher
impacts, and successful coping strategies. My data revealed a number of interesting findings.
For starters, Rico and Roza both indicated that teachers were more helpful when they explained
the directions (one-on-one) instead of simply handing out assignments and expecting students to
read and understand directions (Appendix D). Amira found it difficult to understand the
directions on assignments and wished that her teachers had given her more time to understand
the directions since she felt uncomfortable in front of her peers when they got what to do faster
(than me). Alejandro wrote about how some of his teachers gave him extra time to finish big
projects outside of class; Amira and Roza both noted that they found it helpful when their
teachers allowed them to keep on working on an unfinished classroom activity even when the
rest of the class was transitioning to the next task. Most interestingly, Rico noted that some of
his past teachers would give students a sneak peak of the (upcoming material) before we
learned it. All of their feedback, especially Ricos comment about a sneak peak, was
instrumental in designing support systems tailored for my students.
With regards to instructional assistance that was not helpful to my students, many
answers revolved around feeling singled out or spotlighted when receiving help. Alejandro said
he felt embarrassed when (teachers) would talk real loud about the directions in front of
everybody. Similarly, Roza wrote how she felt too ashamed to ask questions; (my teachers)
would talk loud and give me a not smart look when I dont know what to do. Rico recalled how
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 13
one time my teacher told everybody that she couldnt help them because I didnt get it.
Regardless of the teachers intentions when helping these students in the past, my four subjects
felt very self-conscious about the help they received in front of their classmates. Although it is
certainly likely that the values and beliefs of my students past teachers significantly impacted
the support they received, I cannot jump to this conclusion; I should, however, keep it in mind.
For me, this is an aspect I need to consider when creating my action.

Students CUM files
Second, I combed through my students CUM (Cumulative) files, paying particular
attention to historical educational background with regards to academic achievement, testing
eligibility, and services offered. These data points provided a glimpse intro when, how, and why
my students became dual-labeled (Appendix C). Furthermore, looking into my students CUM
files would help me address Cultural Question 3.2.3: how has my schools instructional
approaches for ELL students impacted the support they have received?
Both of my boys were found eligible for both Special Education services and English
Language Learner services in early elementary school. On the other hand, both of my girls were
only found eligible for both SpEd and ELL services in the past two years; both girls came to the
United States during the summer before entering seventh grade. All of my students also struggle
mightily when it comes to reading: Rico and Roza are currently reading on a sixth grade level,
while Amira is reading on a seventh grade level. (Alejandro is the only one of my subjects that
is reading on or above grade level he is currently reading at an eighth grade level.)
I did find a number on interesting commonalities throughout their CUM files. For one,
Spanish is the primary language spoken in both of my boys homes, while English is the only
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 14
language spoken in both of my girls homes. Also, all of my students took a dual-language
assessment to determine Special Education eligibility, and all were determined to receive that
assessment in English. For my own information, I found that both Rico and Roza are old for
their age (Rico repeated second grade and Roza began her education in the United States as a 15-
year-old in seventh grade).
I also investigated the services my students were receiving with particular attention to the
courses they were enrolled in. All of my students are currently receiving additional reading
instruction provided by the ELL teacher outside of English class. This information not only
supports my students assessment data (that shows that three out of the four of my students are
reading below grade level), but it also shows me that my action should include extra support for
reading. In my investigation of my students CUM files, I also found that three of my four
students are enrolled in a self-contained study hall led by one of our ELL assistants (Rico is
enrolled in a self-contained study hall led by one of our Special Education teachers). All of these
supports give me a background for the ways in which my school has tried to support my
students needs, both with regards to Special Education services and ELL services.
Teacher Surveys
Third, I created an online survey on Google Forms for my colleagues to gauge their
efficacy with regards to working with dual-labeled students. My colleagues feedback provided
me with a better understanding of different individual strengths and trends in weaknesses when
working with dual-labeled students. This feedback was essential for me not only to address
whether my colleagues beliefs and values have any impact on the support for dual-labeled
students at my school (Cultural Question 3.1), but also to gather best practices, establish
experienced perspectives, and directions our school could take for future professional
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 15
development (Appendix A). I received 23 responses from faculty members at my school; 8 were
Special Education teachers or assistants, 2 were ELL teachers or assistants, and 13 were general
education teachers.
My peers responses shed an interesting light on their efficacy of teaching labeled
students, particularly dual-labeled students (Appendix B). While the majority (57%) of
respondents felt moderately comfortable teaching Special Education students and only
somewhat comfortable teaching ELL students, 30% reported feeling not comfortable
teaching to dual-labeled students and 39% reported feeling only somewhat comfortable
teaching to dual-labeled students. In a related question, respondents were asked about their two
best perceived strengths and their two areas for growth when it came to teaching dual-labeled
students; the two most commonly selected areas of strength were making personal connections
and working with students teams, while the two most commonly selected areas for growth
were understanding their needs and assessing their progress.
What was truly interesting, however, was in regards to their answers about how much of
a positive impact they think they made on their students this year. When it came to Special
Education students, zero respondents reported only making a little impact and 22% of
respondents reported making a huge impact. The numbers started to change, however, with
ELL students: 15% reported feeling like they only made a little impact while 5% felt like they
made a huge impact. The most striking reveal of all came from respondents answers
regarding dual-labeled students: 35% of the teachers surveyed reported feeling like they only
made a little impact on these students, while no respondents reported feeling like they made a
huge impact. These initial findings seem to imply that my colleagues beliefs and values have
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 16
potentially significant impacts on the support my dual-labeled students receive.

Action - Intervention
Inevitably, my data sources helped me to better understand my puzzlement (How can I
better support my dual-labeled students?) through my cultural questions (How might
instructional programs for ELLs be contributing to the puzzling situation? and How might
your beliefs or values, or those of other educators, be contributing to the puzzling situation?).
Information from my students showed their point of view on instructors support and their
educational backgrounds with regards to assessment levels and eligibility for multiple programs,
while information from my colleagues shed a light on our instructors efficacy with ELL
instruction.
When considering the feedback from all three sources, I was able to develop my action.
My students historical assessment data indicated that they have all scored poorly in the past with
regards to reading fluency and comprehension, and their IEPs all allow for reading classes with
either the reading specialist of the ELL teacher. This information told me that my action should
revolve around some aspect of their reading ability in class. My students surveys were
particularly helpful in determining the type of action I should take: Rico noted that he enjoyed a
sneak peak of the material before it was taught. Also, many of my students reported feeling
uncomfortable receiving extensive support in their general education classes in front of their
peers. The feedback from my colleagues showed how they felt more confident in supporting
Special Education students and ELL students than they did meeting the needs of dual-labeled
students.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 17
Considering all of the aforementioned data I collected, I created my two-pronged action.
First, I would preview material and lessons with my four students for 15 minutes in study hall
before they strolled into English class. I would show them what we would cover, expose them to
any and all new vocabulary and readings, and review the classs learning targets. Most
importantly, however, I would have my students create personalized task cards in their own
words that summarized what they were to complete, how they were to complete it (in chunked
portions, e.g. How will you start? or What will you do next?), and the overall learning
targets (What I should be able to do when I leave class). These task cards would serve as
reminders for how they were to complete tasks, guideposts for what they were expected to do,
and checkpoints to determine if they met the learning target for that day.
Once the students finished and returned to their study halls, I would collect their task
cards, review their answers, and provide feedback for each of them (whether their interpretations
of the expectations or directions were on the mark or off target). Considering Cultural Question
3.1, this feedback would be paramount in investigating how my beliefs about my students could
beneficially impact their academic success in class. These students would receive these task
cards upon their entry to English class; they would use them to refer to throughout the lesson as
needed. At the end of class, students would self-assess how well they feel they met the learning
target (What I should be able to do when I leave class) and return them to me before leaving
the classroom. If a student indicated that they did not feel confident about meeting the learning
target, I would review that lessons task card with the student during the next 15-minute preview
in study hall the following day.
Second, I would use these task cards as chunked timed check-ins; in this way, I would not
only be chunking by task on their task card, but by time as well. From past experience with our
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 18
ELL program, I know that my schools ELL instructors explicitly address strategies such as
chunking with our ELL students, but to gain a new insight with regards to Cultural Question
3.2.3, I wanted to know if timed chunking had a meaningful impact on the support my dual-
labeled students received. To do this, I would go to each student throughout the class and check
in with them every five to ten minutes to check their progress; different chunks of tasks would
require different chunks of time. For instance, one of my students tasks might be to draft a
three-paragraph literary letter. I would check in with students to review their first chunked task;
perhaps, in this case, planning the main idea of each paragraph. I might give that student five
minutes to complete their first task and come back to check in on the second task (e.g. looking
for examples in the text). Chunking for tasks allowed my students to break down each
assignment, while chunking for time allowed me to better pinpoint where students may be falling
short. If, in the example above, my student developed their main ideas in the allotted time but
struggled to find examples in the text in the allotted time, I would gain a better understanding of
where their understanding and comprehension of the directions or expectations fell short,
enabling me to use this data and address this issue with the student either in class or during study
hall.
Most importantly, I plan on sharing this action with my administrators and, eventually,
with my colleagues. Just as Barbetta and Paneque (2006) indicated in their study, my colleagues
at my school reported a low level of efficacy with regards to meeting needs and positively
impacting dual-labeled students. I plan on sharing my task card creation idea with my peers to
provide them with another tool in their toolkit for working with dual-labeled students in an effort
to inevitably boost their self-efficacy. That efficacy, in turn, will improve their ability to be able
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 19
to support dual-labeled students.

Emerging Findings Action Plan Monitoring
Since I began implementing my action, I have noticed an uptick in my students work
completion and participation in class. For the past two weeks, my students have been studying
irony a very abstract and developmentally-challenging concept for all of my eighth graders,
including my dual-labeled students. Before each lesson, I had Rico, Amira, Roza, and Alejandro
report to my classroom during their study hall to review the next lessons material, vocabulary,
tasks, and expectations. First, I introduced what we would cover and, more importantly, what I
expected them to be able to do and know when they left class. For example, during one class my
students were expected to tell the difference between examples of situational, dramatic, and
verbal irony. I put these expectations up on the board, but they had to write them down on their
task cards in their own words. Although we didnt spend extensive time going over vocabulary
(as we did that as a whole class the following day), I did introduce them to the terms; they also
wrote down their understandings of the definitions in their own words. In one instance,
Alejandro indicated that verbal irony was being sarcastic while Roza wrote down how verbal
irony was saying one thing but meaning the opposite (Appendix E).
As I discussed the activities we would complete, I had my four subjects keep track of the
materials they would need and could refer to at any time in the lesson. Most importantly, I gave
them the handout for the next lessons main activity, and we reviewed the directions and
expectations together. I modeled by thinking out loud about the steps I would take to complete
the task. Then, I asked the students to pair up and discuss the first few steps they would take to
complete the assignment. As the pairs talked, they would fill out those steps on their task card.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 20
Finally, before my students left and returned back to their study hall, I had the group brainstorm
two different strategies they could use if they struggled completing the activity.
During our 15 minutes in study hall, I was taken aback by how well my students worked
together in pairs to develop a set of steps needed to start (and continue) the main activity. I
suppose that I initially believed that my students would struggle to develop a chunked plan of
attack for the lessons activity; watching my students collaborate showed me how my own
beliefs, as in Cultural Question 3.1, were affecting my puzzlement. I quickly learned, however,
that if I allowed my students to work together, not only would their plan benefit, but by
determining the process on their own, they gained ownership of their actions and confidence in
their work. As Hawley and Nieto (1999) discussed, students not only work best but can scaffold
each others learning. I witnessed this exact situation when Roza was quick to correct Amira,
reminding her that first they needed to be able to explain what situational irony was before they
started looking for it in the poem The Ballad of Birmingham. Sure enough, Roza received a
score of 3 met expectations on her formative analysis paragraph during the next class while
Amira earned a score of 2 approaching expectations; Roza perpetually earned scores of 2
as Amira typically earned scores of 1 far from expectations/ needs improvement in the
past, so this improvement was significant.
Upon entering class, I would return students task cards with my written feedback
(Appendix E). Not only did this feedback help them begin and stay focused on class activities,
but it helped them avoid the self-consciousness they felt in the past with regards to teachers
assisting them in front of their peers. Ill admit, my feedback to my students originally made
them feel uncomfortable; Roza asked me after class one day if I could find another way to return
their task cards and feedback because other kids wanted to know why (she) was getting an extra
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 21
paper from (me). From a cultural standpoint, I could see where Roza was coming from. The
culture of middle school is one that negatively perceives differences; if Rozas peers noticed she
was receiving different papers from me every class, she could feel ostracized and potentially
refuse my support. I ultimately altered the way in which I returned their task cards to them:
instead of handing them their cards at the door or leaving them on their desks, I slipped them into
their reading folders. At the beginning of class, each student is to pick up their reading folder
from their classs respective bin, update their reading log, and complete any posted reading
response. When my four subjects picked up their reading folders at the beginning of class, they
were able to inconspicuously take out their task card and keep it on their desk. At the end of
class, instead of handing me their task card, they simply placed it in their classs turn in bin.
(Many students submit different assignments to their classs turn-in bin at the end of class, so my
students submissions of their task cards did not seem out of the ordinary.)
In addition, my timed chunking of steps on their task cards allowed me to keep track of
which chunks were giving my students the most problems. By setting up a first and second
step for the main activity, my four subjects had very few problems accomplishing those
introductory chunks in the time limits I set for them. They did, sometimes, struggle to meet
chunked steps during the middle or end of the assignment. For example, when working on an
analytic paragraph of the dramatic irony in the poem Protocols, Amira began by meeting the
timed chunked steps of being able to explain what dramatic irony was and finding examples of
dramatic irony in the poem. She struggled, however, to meet the third timed chunk of
explaining how the dramatic irony was created in those examples; she had difficulty applying the
definition to her rationale in her answers. When I noticed that Amira could not meet this timed
chunk, I was able to kneel down at her desk and model how I could use the definition of
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 22
situational irony to explain an example of situational irony. When I checked back in five
minutes later, Amira could demonstrate how to incorporate the definition into her analysis. By
noting this missing step, I was able to informally share my timed chunking strategy with
Amiras ELL assistant (who was in the room at the time) to both better understand my Cultural
Question 3.2.3 and improve the ELL assistance Amira receives in her reading and study hall
classes.
Similarly, Rico struggled in another lesson when writing his analytical essay on The Andy
Griffith Shows Barney and the Choir episode: he began his work without any issues and met
each of my timed chunks, but when it came to explaining why the writers utilized verbal irony
in the episode, he did not make his timed chunk. He was able to explain verbal irony, identify
an example, and explain how his example was an exemplar, but he struggled to understand its
purpose, why someone would use verbal irony. This allowed me to sit down next to Rico and
take two minutes to talk about all of the reasons why people would utilize verbal irony. Rico
was then able to connect one of our brainstormed rationales to his example from the episode.
I have also been able to formally share the task cards success with my subjects ELL
teacher and one of our assistant principals. Our schools ELL teacher was interested in mirroring
a similar strategy for our students math classes. This enthusiasm to continue my task card and
timed chunking practices also helped me to address my Cultural Question 3.2.3: by designing a
similar strategy for ELL instruction, I could impact how my schools ELL program helped to
support my dual-labeled students outside of my class. In addition, after I showed my assistant
principal the results of my teacher survey about self-efficacy with dual-labeled students, he
became very interested in my approach with the task card. He indicated that if my students
continued to find success with the task card approach, he would like to offer the technique to the
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 23
faculty as an instructional strategy during our county-mandated professional development days at
the beginning of the next school year.

Conclusions and Implications
Based on my findings, I have been able to address my puzzlement (What can I do to
better support my dual-labeled students?). Throughout the CIP process, I discovered one method
to meet my subjects needs of comprehending class material and strategies to approach and
maintain working on class activities. By meeting with my students before class so they could
create task cards, I was differentiating my instruction for their needs. Hoover and Patton (2005)
write about how educators must differentiate curriculum and instruction to successfully meet
the diverse educational needs of ELLs. By meeting with Rico, Amira, Alejandro, and Roza
before class to preview material and make a plan for their approach to the next classs lesson, I
tweaked my instructional approach to best accommodate what I felt was their biggest need:
familiarity with material and activities. In addition, I also differentiated by providing feedback
on their task cards, their in-class progress on the class activities, and their self-assessment of the
learning target before, during, an after class; this allowed my students to receive guidance before,
during, and after lessons and activities to help them better understand and accomplish the
learning targets at hand.
Furthermore, I also addressed my original puzzlement by creating lesson organizers in
the form of task cards. I implemented modified reading comprehension accommodations by
incorporating the same style of a graphic reading organizer into a lesson organizer of sorts; my
students task cards allowed them to textually and visually organize the objectives, background
information, and activities necessary to complete the learning targets at the end of each lesson.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 24
Ruffin (2009) talks about using strategies (such as) demonstrations, modeling, examples,
experiences, visuals/graphic organizers to accommodate (dual-labeled students) learning
needs. By breaking the lesson down into integral take-aways, key vocabulary, and chunked
approaches to in-class activities, my students task cards served the purpose of previewing and
chunking key components of the lesson.
Throughout my study, I was also able to consider both of my cultural questions from
Evelyn Jacobs Cultural Inquiry Process. My first question, strand 3.2.3, asked, How might
instructional programs for English Language Learners be contributing to the puzzling situation?
Reflecting of my process thus far, I now have doubt as to whether the good intentions of my
districts ELL program was beneficial for my students in addition to their Special Education
services. Sullivan (2011) found an overrepresentation of ELLs in Special Education; Macswan
and Rolstad (2006) also found an overpopulation of ELLs also receiving SpEd services,
especially when students completed eligibility assessments in a language and format that was not
conducive to their ability to communicate their understanding. Considering how three of my
four students were administered eligibility tests in English, I have to wonder: was English the
best language for my students at the time? Further investigation of this inquiry project could
address this concern.
My second cultural question, strand 3.1, asked, How might your beliefs or values, or
those of other educators, be contributing to the puzzling situation? Through my teacher
surveys, I found that the vast majority of my colleagues reported low self-efficacy ratings
regarding their ability to support and meet the needs of dual-labeled students. Researchers
Barbetta and Paneque (2006) wrote about how teacher efficacy correlated with the quality of
instruction delivered by Special Education teachers. If my colleagues self-efficacy could
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 25
improve, so could, in theory, their ability to better meet the needs of our schools dual-labeled
students. If I do end up sharing my task card strategy with my faculty, it could change the
beliefs of my colleagues for the better and improve the support for our students.
Considering my findings so far, I can conclude I can find ways to support dual-labeled
students in my classroom and in my school by examining the many facets of their educational
lives. By researching the eligibility process and inequities prevalent in many schools Special
Education and English Language Learner programs, I began to question how both services were
truly meeting the needs of my dual-labeled students. Through my data collection from
examining CUM files, surveying my students, and analyzing self-efficacy responses from my
colleagues, I noticed that there was a gap between the services currently being provided for my
students in class and their needs in my fast-paced, higher level English classroom. After
considering my data collection and further research, I developed an action that would better
support my dual-labeled students in class to meet expectations and demonstrate their
understanding of class material on assignments. By previewing material and providing vast
amounts of timely feedback, I differentiated my instruction for my four students.
Inevitably, completing this process to find the best support seems to have already made a
positive impact on my dual-labeled students abilities to demonstrate their understanding in the
classroom. Will it continue to work, or will students tire of the strategy and lose interest? Only
time will tell. This cultural inquiry process, however, has important implications on my practice
and for that of other educators. In the short term, perhaps my colleagues can gain an extra tool,
even an increased sense of self-efficacy, by utilizing my task card approach or a similar
previewing strategy. My teacher surveys indicated that my colleagues may be in need of more
professional development than my tool can offer only 5% of the staff surveyed felt they made a
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 26
strong impact on ELL students and none of the staff surveyed felt that they made any more than
average impact on dual-labeled students this past year at our school (Appendix B). When I share
this information with my administration, I hope that it sparks a discussion for further training and
support on meeting the needs of both our ELL population and, perhaps more importantly, the
needs of our dual-labeled students.
For me as an educator, it is clear that by carefully examining students backgrounds
(especially with regards to culture), thoroughly researching educational issues and how they
relate to students cultures, and synthesizing the two to better meet the needs of some of my most
underserved students, I can replicate this process in future years with different students from
different cultural perspectives. Being cognizant of the many cultures that each student brings to
the classroom is the first step; Jacobs Cultural Inquiry Process not only forces educators to
become aware of the multitude of cultures that collide in school with the hopes of constructing
knowledge, but it also allows teachers to develop new strategies and approaches to improve
educational opportunities for all students while continuously considering and including students
cultural backgrounds. Through action research in the classroom and cultural cognizance, I can
reproduce a similar process throughout the rest of my career to better meet the needs of all of my
future students and all of their cultural connections.

Reflection
Looking back on my entire CIP process and its supporting coursework, I realized that my
most significant learning with respect to the interrelationship between culture and education was
the subtle yet paramount difference between stereotypes and generalizations, especially as they
relate to the crossroads of culture and education. As discussed in class, generalizations are more
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 27
of starting points, whereas stereotypes are more of ending points. If I had only considered
stereotypes with regards to dual-labeled students, this CIP never would have evolved my dual-
labeled students actions and struggles would have been simply attributed to pigeon-holed
categorizations that shut the door on future investigation. By examining my initial puzzlement
through the framework of particular generalizations, I was able to open the door to further study.
Hofstede, for one, even provides one of the starting points for teachers who may conduct
CIP-esque studies. His Cultural Dimensions Theory opens the door to attributing cultural
behaviors to patterns and dimensions he has observed over the scope of many decades with his
research team (Hofstede, 2011). He is careful, however, to warn against confusing value
differences at the individual level. In other words, he cautions his readers not to view his work
as ending point rationales (stereotypes), but as starting point possibilities (generalizations). In
regards to the CIP, in the same way that teachers may begin early investigations of puzzlements
by talking to counselors, parents, or colleagues, these teachers can also refer to Hofstede much in
the same way to begin to develop a potential frame for a particular cultural concern or issue.
The differentiation between generalizations and stereotypes also relates to my future
students. In essence, some of my future students will undoubtedly be dual-labeled. From my
research, I know now that there are an alarming number of dual-labeled students who were
misidentified or misplaced according to their eligibility testing. Instead of stereotyping that all
of my future dual-labeled students have been misidentified in some way, I will wonder if these
students received appropriate eligibility testing, and as a result, appropriate placement and
services.
As another example, I am reminded of my dual-labeled students and their ability to
understand and work within academic English. As Zwiers (2004) points out, many English
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 28
Language Learnersstruggle to master the complex language of school. This statement is, in
fact, a generalization: as a starting point, I need to recognize that this struggle is a common
occurrence for many ELLs, and inevitably dual-labeled learners I wonder if my future dual-
labeled students will need additional assistance, such as Academic Language Banks, to decode
and master the complex academic dialect of English.
Ultimately, the distinction between generalizations and stereotypes underscores one of
the key pillars of the CIP: when exploring an intersection of education and culture, one should
consider generalities, but one cannot rely on them as endpoints. These generalizations can be
starting points. Generalizations such as my initial generalizations (a large proportion of our
small ELL population is also SpEd I wonder why that is) can lead the way for further
investigation, resulting in strengthened support for students, and at the least increased
cognizance of the role culture plays in students education (Appendix F).
Considering how EDUC 612 taught us the value of reflection during, and especially after,
an event or extended study, I would be remiss not to consider the future impact of this study on
my teaching, my learning, and on learning about students in my classroom. In a general sense, I
can easily replicate the action research throughout the CIP process when I encounter future areas
of interest or concern as they relate to my students and my school as a whole. This process
reminds me, in a way, of my lesson planning. In my undergraduate studies, I learned how to
painstakingly plan out every millisecond of a lesson and my rationales for each of my decisions.
Although I still dont take three hours to create airtight individual lesson plans on a daily basis, I
do rely on my foundational knowledge to craft new, meaningful lessons. During this project, I
learned how to formally and fully address every aspect of the CIP process. Although I may not
meet every standard with the same exact detail in future cultural studies, I can rely on my
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 29
foundational knowledge of Jacobs Cultural Inquiry Process to deeply investigate the curious
crossroads between my students cultures and their education.
In a more specific sense to this study, I plan on taking my findings to enact positive
change in my school as a teacher leader. My school has never invested in any ELL training
(anything from SIOP training to one-on-one sessions with our ELL teacher) since our program
began last year, nor has my school devoted professional development to SpEd trainings in the
five years I have worked at the school. (As a caveat, I fully understand that not all, but many
teacher education programs cover these topics at the university level; however, isnt it possible
for research, methodologies, laws, and philosophies change over the course of a 25 year career in
education?) As one would expect, my school has also never offered any professional
development to better support dual labeled students. I plan on using my research and teacher
survey results regarding teacher efficacy and dual-labeled students as a persuasive catalyst to
convince my administration that our faculty is in need of assistance. From there, assuming the
remainder of my findings show that my dual-labeled students benefited from my task card
action, I plan on sharing my action with my faculty during our August professional development
days with hopes of boosting my colleagues self-efficacy (or at least simply supplying them with
another tool to better reach and support their students). As a teacher leader, it is my
responsibility and duty to share best practices, advocate for further educational opportunities for
my colleagues, and use data-driven teacher research to help guide school-based decisions with
everything from school improvement plans to collaborative learning team decisions. I will use
this study to further my schools opportunity to better meet the needs of one of our smallest, but
most important populations: our dual-labeled learners.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 30
While considering the implications this study has on my future instruction and learning
about my students, I also must consider other farther reaching actions that I did not have the
opportunity to address in this study due to time and scope constraints. I am very interested to
learn more about the dual-language eligibility assessment protocols in my school and my district;
I would like to compare them to ELL and SpEd eligibility procedures in surrounding districts in
my region. These findings could prove to play a significant role in my schools identification
and placement of SpEd students whose first language is not English. This CIP also limited my
study to only the middle school level. As a middle school teacher, I recognize that middle
schools are the hormone-laden bridge that connects the preadolescence from elementary school
to the full-blown teenagers in high school. I want to know how elementary and high schools
support dual-labeled students in different ways; by gaining a better perspective of the type of
support my dual-labeled students receive throughout their educational career, I might be able to
better tailor my support to build off of the assistance they received in elementary school while
also preparing them for the level of support they will receive in high school. Although the
duration and scope of this study limited me from investigating these farther reaching actions,
they still serve as potentially powerful areas for future study during my time as a middle school
educator.





Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 31
References
Barbetta, P. & Paneque, O. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education teachers of
English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 171-193.
de Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Huaging Qi, C., & Pack, M. (2006). Examining
educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in
special education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 425-441.
Hawley, W. D., & Nieto, S. (2010). Another inconvenient truth: Race and ethnicity matter.
Educational Leadership, 68(3), 66-71.
Hibel, J. & Jasper, AD. (2012). Delayed special education placement for learning disabilities
among children of immigrants." Social Forces, 91(2), 503-529.
Hoover, J.& Patton, J. (2005). Differentiating curriculum and instruction for English-language
learners with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 231-235.
Jacobs, E. (1999). The cultural inquiry process. Retrieved from http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/cip/
Macswan, J. & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability:
Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers
College Record, 108(11), p. 2304 - 2328.
Maxwell, L.A. & Shah, N. (2012). Evaluating ELLs for special needs a challenge. Education
Week, 32(2), 1-12.
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 32
Ruffin, T. M. (2009). Reading strategies: adaptations to meet the needs of secondary English
language learners with learning disabilities. Reading Matrix: An International Online
Journal, 9(1), 22-30.
Sullivan, A.L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334.
Zwiers, J. (2004). The third language of academic English. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 60-
63.
(2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator2_8.asp.









Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 33
Appendix
Appendix A: Teacher Survey
1. What subject(s) and grade(s) do you teach?
2. How long have you been a teacher?
3. What kind of experience do you have teaching Special Education students?
4. What kind of experience do you have teaching ELL students?
5. What kind of experience do you have teaching dual-labeled (SpEd-ELL) students?
6. How comfortable do you feel teaching Special Education students?
a. Not comfortable all the way to very comfortable (5 steps)
7. Why? Check all that apply:
a. Years of experience with SpEd students in a classroom
b. Professional trainings (workshops, certifications, PD, etc)
c. Family members with special needs
d. Education (Masters, endorsements, etc)
e. Other
8. How comfortable do you feel teaching ELL students?
a. Not comfortable all the way to very comfortable (5 steps)
9. Why? Check all that apply:
a. Years of experience with ELL students in a classroom
b. Professional trainings (workshops, certifications, PD, etc)
c. Family members who are ELL
d. Education (Masters, endorsements, etc)
e. Other
10. How comfortable do you feel teaching dual-labeled (SpEd-ELL) students?
a. Not comfortable all the way to very comfortable (5 steps)
11. Why? Check all that apply:
a. Years of experience with dual-labeled students in a classroom
b. Professional trainings (workshops, certifications, PD, etc)
c. Personal experience with SpEd-ELL
d. Education (Masters, endorsements, etc)
e. Other
12. When working with Special Education students, what do you think are your TWO best strengths?
a. Making personal connections
b. Understanding their needs
c. Delivering instruction
d. Assessing their progress
e. Working with students teams (parents, other teachers, case managers, AP)
13. When working with Special Education students, what do you think are your TWO areas for
growth?
a. Making personal connections
b. Understanding their needs
c. Delivering instruction
d. Assessing their progress
e. Working with students teams (parents, other teachers, case managers, AP)
14. When working with ELL students, what do you think are your TWO best strengths?
a. Making personal connections
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 34
b. Understanding their needs
c. Delivering instruction
d. Assessing their progress
e. Working with students teams (parents, other teachers, ELL instructors, AP)
15. When working with ELL students, what do you think are your TWO areas for growth?
a. Making personal connections
b. Understanding their needs
c. Delivering instruction
d. Assessing their progress
e. Working with students teams (parents, other teachers, ELL instructors, AP)
16. When working with dual-labeled students, what do you think are your TWO best strengths?
a. Making personal connections
b. Understanding their needs
c. Delivering instruction
d. Assessing their progress
e. Working with students teams (parents, other teachers, ELL instructors/case managers,
AP)
17. When working with dual-labeled students, what do you think are your TWO areas for growth?
a. Making personal connections
b. Understanding their needs
c. Delivering instruction
d. Assessing their progress
e. Working with students teams (parents, other teachers, ELL instructors/ case managers,
AP)
18. How much of a positive impact do you think you make right now, this year with SpEd
students?
a. Only a little
b. Some impact
c. Good impact
d. A huge impact
e. Life-changing impact
19. How much of a positive impact do you think you make right now, this year with ELL
students?
a. Only a little
b. Some impact
c. Good impact
d. A huge impact
e. Life-changing impact
20. How much of a positive impact do you think you make right now, this year with dual-labeled
students?
a. Only a little
b. Some impact
c. Good impact
d. A huge impact
e. Life-changing impact

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 35
Appendix B: Results from Teacher Survey

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 36


Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 37
Appendix C: Notes from Students CUM Files
Alejandro moved from North Carolina in summer 2008
- Found eligible for:
o SpEd 2/08
Dual language assessment administered in English
o ELL 10/07
- Reading level: 8
th
(Stanford Reading Assessment) as of 9/13
- Reading SOL (7
th
grade) - 441
- Services:
o Reading instruction with ELL teacher (will not receive next year)
o Self-contained study hall taught by ELL teacher
o Inclusion (w/ support) HCivics, Math 8, English, Science
- Additional information:
o Primary language at home: Spanish
o Parents very involved in PEP

Rico moved from Fauquier County in summer 2008
- Found eligible for:
o SpEd 6/08
Dual language assessment administered in English
o ELL 11/07
- Reading level: 6
th
(Stanford Reading Assessment) as of 9/13
- Reading SOL (7
th
grade) - 351
- Services:
o Reading instruction with ELL teacher (will not receive next year)
o Self-contained study hall taught by SpEd teacher
o Inclusion (w/ support) Civics, Math 8, English, Science
- Additional information:
o Primary language at home: Spanish
o Repeated second grade
o Water on the brain after bicycle accident

Roza moved from Ethiopia in summer 2012
- Found eligible for:
o SpEd 4/14
Dual language assessment administered in English
o ELL 10/12
- Reading level: 6
th
(Stanford Reading Assessment) as of 9/13
- Reading SOL (7
th
grade) - 328
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 38
- Services:
o Reading instruction with ELL teacher
o Self-contained study hall taught by ELL teacher
o Inclusion (w/ part-time support) Civics, Math 8, English, Science
- Additional information:
o Primary language at home: English
o 15 years old at beginning of 7
th
grade; will enter high school as a 17-year-old

Amira moved from Ethiopia in summer 2012
- Found eligible for:
o SpEd 11/13
Dual language assessment administered in English
o ELL 10/12
- Reading level: 7
th
(Stanford Reading Assessment) as of 9/13
- Reading SOL (7
th
grade) - 312
- Services:
o Reading instruction with ELL teacher
o Self-contained study hall taught by ELL teacher
o Self-contained math
o Inclusion (w/ part-time support) Civics, English, Science
- Additional information:
o Primary language at home: English
o One of eight kids, all adopted; came to US with her two brothers

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 39
Appendix D: Student Surveys

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 40

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 41

Appendix E: Task Cards

Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 42


Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 43
Appendix F: Chart Special Education Breakdown by Reporting Group



















16
36
10
35
21
83
WHITE BLACK ASIAN HISPANIC OTHER ELL
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o

q
u
a
l
i
f
y

f
o
r

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Reporting Groups
Special Education Breakdown by Reporting Group
Students from grades 6-8
Dual-Labeled Students: Meeting Their Needs in the English Classroom 44