Editors Note.

This article and the one that follows are a continuation of the Special Series on Language Learners Struggling to
Learn to Read: Emergent Research on Linguistic Differences and Learning Disabilities published in JLD 39:4. In this article by
Klingner and Artiles, a comprehensive overview is provided for the series. The first five articles referred to in this overview appeared in 39:4H. Lee Swanson

English Language Learners

Struggling to Learn to Read:
Emergent Scholarship on Linguistic
Differences and Learning Disabilities
Janette Klingner and Alfredo J. Artiles

ur purpose in preparing this

special issue was to create a
forum in which emergent
scholarship on the differences between
second-language acquisition and learning disabilities (LD) could be disseminated. The impetus for the special issue is the unprecedented growth of the
English language learner (ELL) population, the growing concern about inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special
education, the challenges associated
with distinguishing between the characteristics of second-language acquisition and learning disabilities, and the
alarming dearth of research on these
and related issues. We invited senior
researchers with a track record in these
areas to participate, as well as promising newer scholars. We asked authors
to report original research findings,
conduct a review of empirical research,
or prepare a theoretical treatise on key
topics related to the special issues
theme. Our vision was that each paper
would offer a different perspective.
Thus, Rueda and Windmueller provide a theoretical piece, Klingner, Artiles, and Mndez Barletta contribute a
research synthesis, Wilkinson, Ortiz,
Robinson, and Kushner discuss referral issues, Barrera addresses assessment
issues, and finally, Linan-Thompson,

Vaughn, Prater, and Cirino focus on instructional issues.

In November of 2004, the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt)
(see Note 1) held a conference on these
issues (see Note 2). The authors of each
of the articles included in this special
issue presented their papers at the conference. Other papers presented at the
conference will appear in a special
issue of Teachers College Record. Our intent in publishing two special issues,
one in a special education journal and
one in a general education journal, is to
try to reach a broader audience than
would be possible by targeting one
journal only. We consider disproportionate representation to be a challenge
faced by general educators as well as
special educators. After all, it is in general education classrooms that students first show signs of struggling to
learn to read, and it is general education teachers who initiate the vast majority of referrals for an evaluation for
possible special education placement
(Algozzine, Christenson, & Ysseldyke,
1982; Ysseldyke, 2001; also, see Klingner et al., in press).
ELLs are rapidly becoming a sizable segment of school district populations around the country. There are

now more than 3.5 million ELLs in U.S.

schools (i.e., with limited English proficiency; U.S. Department of Education,
2003). According to U.S. Census data
(2003), in 2000 the percentage of the
school-aged population speaking a
home language different from English
was 42.6% in California and 32.4% in
Texas. In Arizona, Florida, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
and Rhode Island, the percentage was
over 20%, and in 12 other states it surpassed 10%. According to Zehler et al.
(2003), about 77% of ELLs speak Spanish as their first language. Though
many Latino or Hispanic students are
not ELLs, they are a significant proportion of this population. Hispanics are
the fastest growing ethnic group
in U.S. schools and have passed African Americans as the largest minority group in the United States (U.S.
2000 Census, 2001). Hispanic students
have higher dropout rates than nonHispanics (Education Statistics Quarterly, 2000), and although the Hispanic
White achievement gap narrowed in
the 1970s and 1980s, it widened in the
late 1980s and 1990s and is still sizable
(Lee, 2002).
An additional concern is that
ELLs are often disproportionately
placed in special education programs.

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006, PAGES 386389

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

Depending on the state and district,

ELLs tend to be either under- or overidentified for special education, based
on what would be expected given their
percentage of the school population
(Artiles & Trent, 2000). In discussing
the placement of Hispanics in LD programs in their report on disproportionate representation, the National Research Council panel noted:
The nationally aggregated data have
been interpreted to suggest no overrepresentation of either black or Hispanic students in LD. But state-level
data tell a more complex story . . . For
Hispanic students, the risk index
ranges from 2.43 in Georgia to 8.93 in
Delaware. Clearly there is overrepresentation for these two minorities in
the LD category in some states. (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 67)

Given the persistent underachievement of many ELLs in U.S. schools, of

particular importance is the intersection of language development and
literacy acquisition. Most ELLs with
special needs have LD with reading difficulties as their core problem (USDOE
& NICHD, 2003). Eight years ago, in
their comprehensive review of schooling for language minority children,
August and Hakuta (1997) noted that
there is still much to learn about this
intersection. We do know that students
struggle in school for a variety of reasons, only some of which are related to
genuine disabilities. It can be difficult
to determine who actually has a disability because the characteristics of
students acquiring a second or additional language in many ways parallel
those of students with language and/
or learning disabilities (Ortiz, 1997; Ortiz et al., 1985; Ortiz, Garca, Wheeler, &
Maldonado-Coln, 1986). The process
of second-language acquisition is influenced by many factors, including
but not limited to the learners sociocultural environment, language proficiency in the first language, attitudes
toward the first and second language,
perceptions of others attitudes towards the first and second language
(e.g., related to relative status), and
personality attributes (August & Ha-

kuta, 1997). Some behaviors that appear to indicate LD may be normal for
the childs cultural background or can
be a by-product of the acculturation
process (Collier & Hoover, 1987). Also,
some students underachieve because
of inadequate instruction or a lack of
opportunities to learn (Harry & Klingner, in press), complicating attempts to
pinpoint the cause of their difficulties.
School personnel must be able to
identify accurately the multiple possible sources of a students struggles so
that they can provide appropriate prereferral interventions, identify additional sources of support, and justify a
possible referral to special education
(Garcia & Ortiz, 1988, Harry & Klingner, in press; Klingner & Artiles, 2003).
Once a student has been referred for
an evaluation, challenges continue. It
is difficult to conduct an appropriate
assessment due to the unavailability of
appropriate tests (Wagner, Francis, &
Morris, 2005), the misuse of tests used
to identify an IQachievement discrepancy (Jimnez, Siegel, & Lopez,
2003), misunderstandings about students language abilities (Oller, 1991),
and cultural differences (Ortiz &
Maldonado-Colon, 1986; Salend, Garrick Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002).
Each of the papers in this special
series attempts to shed light on these
dilemmas and offer possible solutions.
In the first paper, Rueda and Windmueller review the history of learning
disabilities and note continuing problems in the field of special education
that remain unresolved. They suggest
that overrepresentation is best conceptualized as an indicator of underlying
difficulties rather than the proper focal
point of remediation and problemsolving efforts. They propose an alternative framework for addressing these
problems. Central to their model is a
multilevel approach in which various
levels of the learning and development
ecology are considered, and in which
local context plays a vital role.
Next, Klingner, Artiles, and Mndez Barletta contribute an analytical
synthesis of the empirical research on
ELLs who struggle with reading and

387

may have learning disabilities. They

review research on population issues
and the characteristics of subgroups
of ELLs, referral issues, assessment issues, instructional issues, and the relationships among English oral proficiency, native language reading, and
second-language reading. They conclude that more research is warranted
in each of these areas to help us better
understand the strengths and learning
needs of subgroups of underachieving
ELLs and the conditions under which
they seem to thrive or struggle and
to facilitate the referral and eligibility
decision-making process.
Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, and
Kushner describe an exploratory study
of eligibility decisions made for 21
Spanish-speaking English Language
Learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities (LD) who were targeted as needing
support in reading. An expert panel
reviewed students cases and determined that their eligibility decisions
differed significantly from those of
school multidisciplinary teams. The
authors discuss issues associated with
referral, assessment, and eligibility determinations for ELLs and offer valuable recommendations for improving
practice. They emphasize the importance of considering data from multiple sources when deciding whether
ELLs qualify for special education.
Barrera examines the efficacy of
current definitions of LD and related
assessment models. He proposes a revised framework for defining LD and
an associated assessment model that is
based on curriculum-based dynamic
assessment. He reports the results of
an investigation of teachers use of
curriculum-based dynamic assessment
to differentiate between adolescent
ELLs and students with LD. He identifies characteristics of curriculum-based
work that may predictably differentiate the work of ELLs with LD from the
work of their peers without LD. This
article has important implications for
how we approach assessment and
identification issues.
Figueroa and Newsome investigate the extent to which psychologists

388

assessment procedures are nondiscriminatory, according to federal regulations and state criteria, when used
with English learners for the purpose
of identifying learning disabilities.
Figueroa and Newsome applied a
checklist of legal and professional
guidelines for doing assessments with
English Learners to evaluate 19 psychological reports on English learners.
They found that, in general, the psychologists did not follow extant legal
or professional guidelines for conducting nondiscriminatory assessments.
The authors provide a historical overview of nonbiased assessment procedures as well as current guidelines for
assessing culturally and linguistically
diverse students.
Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater,
and Cirino describe a notable experimental study of a response to intervention model for providing early assistance to ELLs identified as at risk
for reading difficulties. Response to intervention models and scientifically
based reading interventions are at the
core of changes in policy for the identification of students with LD under
IDEA (2004). Linan-Thompson and
colleagues found that intervention students gained significantly more on
reading-related measures than comparison students. Importantly, all but
one student in the Spanish condition
reached end-of-the-year benchmarks,
and students in the Spanish intervention who responded to intervention
and were no longer at risk at the end
of first grade maintained this status
in second grade. This article provides
worthwhile information as we proceed
with the development of response to
intervention models as a viable means
for identifying ELLs with reading disabilities.
In summary, together these articles add to the emerging scholarship
and research base on ELLs who struggle to become literate in U.S. schools
and may or may not have LD. They encourage us to broaden our approaches
to research, to think in creative ways
about referral, assessment, and instructional issues, to use multiple sources of

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

information when making decisions,

and to not be limited by previous
(mis)understandings of the language
acquisition process, intelligence, and
potential of ELLs. Yet much more research is still needed.
AUTHORS NOTE

Preparation of this special series was supported

by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt) under
Grant H326E020003 awarded by the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Special Education Programs. Address correspondence to:
Janette Klingner, University of Colorado at
Boulder, School of Education 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0249; E-mail: janette.klingner@
colorado.edu
NOTES

1. NCCRESt was funded to address the disproportionate representation of culturally and

linguistically diverse students in special education. We are co-principal investigators
for NCCRESt; other NCCRESt co-principal
investigators include Elizabeth Kozleski, Beth
Harry, and William Tate. The NCCRESt
project coordinator is Shelley Zion and the
project officer is Grace Zamora Durn.
2. The conference, entitled English Language
Learners Struggling to Learn: Emergent
Research on Linguistic Differences and
Learning Disabilities, was co-sponsored
with the Council for Exceptional Children,
the National Association for Bilingual Education, and Arizona State University.
REFERENCES

Algozzine, B., Christenson, S., & Ysseldyke,

J. (1982). Probabilities associated with the
referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 1923.
Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (2000). Representation of culturally/linguistically diverse
students. In C. R. Reynolds, & E. FletcherJantzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education, Vol. 1 (2nd edition; pp. 513517).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.).(1997). Improving schooling for language-minority
children: A research agenda. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Collier, C., & Hoover, J. J. (1987). Sociocultural considerations when referring minority children for learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(1), 39-45.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Education Statistics Quarterly. (2000). High
school dropouts, by race/ethnicity and
recency of migration. Education Statistics
Quarterly, 2(3), 25-27.
Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988, June). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. FOCUS/NCBE, 5, 1-17.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (in press). Crossing the border from normalcy to disability:
Culturally and linguistically diverse students and the special education placement process. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jimnez, J. E., Siegel, L. S., & Lopez, M. R.
(2003). The relationship between IQ and
reading disabilities in English-speaking
Canadian and Spanish children. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 36, 15-23.
Klingner, J., & Artiles, A. J. (2003). Bilingual
special education: Contemporary challenges and prospective solutions. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66-71.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E.,
Zion, S., Harry, B., Tate, W., Zamora
Durn, G., & Riley, D. (in press). Addressing the disproportionate representation
of culturally and linguistically diverse
students in special education through
culturally responsive educational systems. Educational Policy Analysis Archives.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress
toward equity. Educational Researcher, 31,
3-12.
Oller, J. W., Jr. (1991). Language testing research: Lessons applied to LEP students
and programs. In Proceedings of the first research symposium on limited English proficient students issues: Focus on evaluation
and measurement: Vol. 2 (pp. 42123).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Language Affairs.
Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities
(30), 321-332.
Ortiz, A., Garca, S., Holtzman, W., Polyzoi,
E., Snell, W., Wilkinson, C., & Willig, A.
(1985). Characteristics of limited English
proficient Hispanic students in programs of
the learning disabled: Implications for policy,
practice and research. Austin: University of
Texas, Handicapped Minority Research
Institute on Language Proficiency.
Ortiz, A., Garca, S., Wheeler, D., &
Maldonado-Coln, E. (1986). Characteris-

389

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

tics of limited English proficient students

served in programs for the speech and language handicapped: Implications for policy,
practice and research. Austin: University of
Texas, Handicapped Minority Research
Institute on Language Proficiency.
Ortiz, A. A., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986).
Recognizing learning disabilities in bilingual children: How to lessen inappropriate referrals of language minority
students to special education. Journal of
Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities
International, 2(1), 43-56.
Salend, S. J., Garrick Duhaney, L. M., &
Montgomery, W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5),
289-299.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003, June).

Key Indicators of Hispanic Student Achievement: National Goals and Benchmarks for
the Next Decade. Retrieved June 27,
2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/
hispanicindicators/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, April 2). U S.
Census Bureau, Population Division. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://
www.census.gov/population/www/
cen2000/phc-t1.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, February, 25).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.
Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://
www.census.gov/population/www/
cen2000/phc-t20.html
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 & Practice,
20(1), 6-15.
Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Reflections on a research career: Generalizations from 25
years of research on assessment and instructional decision making. Exceptional
Children, 67 (3), 295-309.
Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P.,
Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S.
(2003). Policy report: Summary of findings
related to LEP and SPED-LEP students.
Submitted by Development Associates,
Inc. to U.S. Department of Education,
Office of English Language Acquisition,
Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement of Limited English Proficient Students.

Cover Art for 2007 Journal of Learning Disabilities Sought

The six covers of this volume year of the Journal of Learning Disabilities feature original artwork by Francesca King, Toni Grawvunder, and Lulu Reith. We plan to continue showcasing the artwork of individuals with learning disabilities on JLD covers;
therefore, we are now soliciting art for the 2007 issue covers.
Eligibility. Individuals with learning disabilities of any age
are encouraged to submit their original work for consideration.
The artwork may be a painting, drawing, photograph, sculpture,
computer-generated graphic, or any comparable medium. Work
must not exceed a maximum of 11" by 17"; three-dimensional
pieces must not exceed 10 pounds. Two entries per participant
may be submitted.
Submissions. Each entry must include:
the artists name, age, address, and
contact information
the title of the work
the specific medium used (computer-generated pieces
should include step-by-step information on software
used)
the size of the work
All artwork, including photographic images, must be the
original work of the submitting artist. Signed photo releases

must accompany any work that includes

photo images of people.
The actual submission of the art should
be a color reproduction (which will not be
returned) in one of the following formats:
color laser print
photograph
slide (35 mm)
high resolution EPS or TIFF file
The winner(s) may be asked to send in original art, which
will be returned.
Judging. Work will be judged based on originality, creative
use of materials, and overall composition and design. The age of
the artist will be taken into account.
Entries should be postmarked by October 1, 2006. Judging
will take place on or about October 15, and artists will be notified of our selection by December 1, 2006. Entries, requests for
more information, or questions should be directed to Peggy
Kipping, Periodicals Director, PRO-ED, 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.,
Austin, TX 78757-6897; 512/451-3246, ext. 630; FAX: 512/3029129; e-mail: peggy@proedinc.com. PRO-ED assumes no responsibility for entries damaged in the mail.