1

Language Barrier or Learning Disability Among ELLs

Michaela Green, Kate Patnaude, and Melissa Hatchett

Depart of Education and Counseling, Longwood University

READ 650: Evaluation of Literacy Research

April 14, 2024

 2

Students Literacy Skills Develop at a Slower Rate than Their General Education Peers

Data suggests that students who are English Learners (ELs) develop literacy skills at a

much slower rate than their general education counterparts. Seidenberg & Macdonald (2018)

tells us that students who are English learners have more things to learn than students whose first

language is English, because on top of learning the content that is being taught, they also have to

learn the language that is being used to teach the content. Students who speak more than one

language have limited morphological awareness (Shen, 2023), meaning that they have limited

understanding of the smallest units of meaning within words. This slows down their

understanding of what they are learning. There are multiple studies that suggest that ELs perform

at lower levels than native English speakers. In a study completed by Solari et al., data showed

“...that, in general, [EL students] are performing at lower levels than their GenEd peers on

essential literacy skills across grades 3 to 10” (2014). Similarly, Golloher et al. found that

emergent bilingual students are “substantially behind” their peers who fluently speak English in

reading and math (2018).

Students’ Learning Disabilities are Often Overlooked due to Language Acquisition

It is important to understand the terms learning disability and language acquisition

problems. Chu and Flores (2011) tell us that “a learning disability refers to ‘disorder in one or

more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or

written that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or

do mathematical calculations’”. Sanatullova-Allison and Robinson-Young (2016) define

language acquisition problems in relation to comprehensible input. To help yourself determine if

it a learning disability or a language acquisition problem, there are a handful of questions you

can ask yourself:

 3

To what extent is the student receiving instruction of sufficient quality to make the

accepted levels of academic progress? How does the student’s progress in hearing,

speaking, reading, and writing English as a second language compare with the normal

rate of progress? To what extent are behaviors that might otherwise indicate a learning

disability considered normal for the child’s cultural background or process of US

acculturation? (Burr et al., 2015).

There is conflicting evidence in underrepresentation versus overrepresentation of ELs

who receive or have been referred for special education services. According to Garcia & Ortiz

(1992), there has been an “inappropriate referral of language minority students to special

education”, whereas the U.S. Department of Education released data 2007 that showed Latinos

are underrepresented in special education. Golloher et al. (2018) states that “...underidentification

would suggest that emergent bilingual students with learning disabilities may not be receiving

the types of interventions that would address their learning needs”.

Unfortunately, many teachers have not been prepared on how to identify ELs with

specific learning disabilities (Ferlis et. al., 2016). Because of this, differentiating between

language difference and learning disability can be a challenge for educators (Golloher et al.,

2018), resulting in misidentifying bilingual students. In this section, there are a few reasons listed

why some EL students may be misidentified. One reason being students may struggle more than

a teacher would generally expect, leading to a premature consideration of learning disabilities

(Lopes-Murphy et. al., 2020). Another is that students who are acquiring a new language tend to

have similar learning behaviors to students with learning disabilities (Lopes-Murphy et. al.,

2020). Lastly, Shepherd et al. (2005) makes a valuable point in that “children who are not
 4

dominant in either standard English or standard Spanish may be inappropriately identified as

having a disability”.

Assessments and evaluations Should be done in Students’ Native Language

In 2010 Zetlin, Beltran, Salcido, Gonzalez, & Reyes reported that “familiarity with

English accounts for at least 50% and up to 90% of test variance found within IQ tests.” When

analyzing the assessments that were being used to refer ELLs to special education Sanatullova-

Allison stated that “these assessments do not lend themselves to valid, reliable results, given the

biased nature upon they are built (Sanatullova-Allison et.al., 2016). They go on to say that bias

exists in many forms within IQ tests including “sample bias, sociocultural bias, and proficiency

bias” (Sanatullova-Allison et.al., 2016)

Special education referrals usually begin with the classroom teachers. According to a

study done by Lopes-Murphy & Murphy in 2020, “teachers rarely use assessment tools that take

into consideration the learner’s native language and level of proficiency in English.” The study

also states that teachers’ inability to adopt an identification process that is more effective for a

“culturally and linguistically diverse group can potentially contribute to the continual

misidentification of ELs as students with learning disabilities” (Lopes-Murphy et. al., 2020)

It is the language and cultural differences that call into question the reliability and validity of

standardized tests (Shepherd et. al., 2005).

What do you do if there is no assessment in their native language?

Academic screeners are an important first step for educators in the process of identifying

students who may have learning disabilities, but “few literacy screeners are developed with EL

students in mind,” (Cummings et al., 2021). While assessing students in their native language
 5

may give educators a chance to eliminate the language and cultural barriers that exist, providing

a test in every students’ native language may be a challenging process.

One issue is that some students are not proficient in any standard language. In 2005

Shepherd, Linn, and Brown reported in their study of students on the Texas-Mexico border that

many students speak a “combination of English and Spanish sometimes known as Tex-Mex.”

They go on to explain that the language “contains many oddities uncommon to both English and

Spanish” and it is peppered with slang and therefore would not likely be used on any

standardized test, (Shepherd et. al., 2005).

Another shortcoming of a standardized test for Spanish speakers is not taking into

account the different dialects and cultures of students who hail from various Spanish -speaking

countries. The inclination would be “the categorization of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and

many other Spanish-speaking groups into one ethnic group” (Shepherd et. al., 2005). Finding the

most effective way to screen and identify ELL students is still a dilemma that needs to be

addressed.

Recommendations For Future Practices?

Studies support the importance of early intervention in addressing discrepancies between

general education students and high risk groups such as students with learning disabilities and

ELL students. The study “Differentiating literacy growth of ELL students with LD from other

high-risk subgroups and general education peers'' indicates that discrepancies are persistent

across grade levels and need to be addressed through targeted intervention at every grade level.

(Solari et al., 2014) To ensure appropriate instruction for all students, including those with

learning disabilities and English language learners, the Tier 1 framework is proposed as a

baseline tool for planning instruction. Collaboration among classroom teachers, special
 6

educators, and English language teachers is crucial in implementing all aspects of a RTI/MTSS

program. (Golloher et al., 2018) Also moving forward, school districts should reexamine their

pre-referral processes to focus more on student-oriented solutions rather than teacher-oriented

solutions. (Shepherd et. al., 2005) Although EL teachers use socioculturally-guided instruction, it

is ineffective without administrators, general education and special education teachers, having

professional development opportunities to better incorporate it into instruction. (Ferlis et.al.,

2016)

Conclusions

In conclusion, it is clear that students with learning disabilities face unique challenges in

developing literacy skills at a slower rate compared to their general education peers. These

challenges are intensified by the fact that students' potential reading disabilities are often

overlooked due to language acquisition issues. It is important for assessments and evaluations to

be conducted in students’ native languages to accurately assess their abilities and provide

appropriate instruction and support. In cases where assessments in the students native language

are not available, alternative methods should be utilized. Moving forward, it is essential for

educators and other professionals within the schools to prioritize the needs of English Language

Learners and develop more inclusive practices to support their academic growth and success in

the classroom.
 7

References

Chu, S.-Y.; Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English language learners with learning

disabilities. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,

84(6), 244–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.590550

Cummings, K. D., Smolkowski, K., & Baker, D. L. (2021). Comparison of literacy

screener risk selection between english proficient students and english learners. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 44(2), 96–109.

https://doi-org.proxy.longwood.edu/10.1177/0731948719864408

Ferlis, E.; Xu, Y. (2016). Prereferral process with latino english language learners with

specific learning disabilities: perceptions of english-as-a-second-language teachers.

International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(3), 22–39.

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.

Lopes-Murphy, S. A., & Murphy, C. G. (2020). English learning and learning disabilities:

has research made its way into practice? Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 32(4),

304–330.

Ortiz, A. A. (1992). Assessing appropriate and inappropriate referral systems for LEP

special education students.

Sanatullova-Allison, E., & Robison-Young, V. A. (2016). Overrepresentation: an

overview of the issues surrounding the identification of English language learners with

learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 31(2).

 8

Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2018). The impact of language experience on

language and reading: a statistical learning approach. Topics in Language Disorders,

38(1), 66–83.

Shen, Y. (2023). Issues of measuring morphological awareness longitudinally. Reading

Psychology, 44(2), 175–193.

https://doi-org.proxy.longwood.edu/10.1080/02702711.2022.2141398

Shepherd, T. L., Linn, D., & Brown, R. D. (2005). The disproportionate representation of

English language learners for special education services along the border. Journal of

Social and Ecological Boundaries, 1(1), 104-116.

Solari, E. J., Petscher, Y., & Folsom, J. S. (2014). Differentiating literacy growth of ELL

students with LD from other high-risk subgroups and general education peers: evidence

from Grades 3-10. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 329–348. https://doi-

org.proxy.longwood.edu/10.1177/0022219412463435

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). 27th annual report to Congress on the

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2005. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/ about/reports/annual/osep/2005/parts-b-c/ index.html