ELL students risk being misidentified by tests that do not accurately measure their knowledge or reflect their current academic levels (Abedi, 2008). Waitoller et al. (2009) reviewed research on overrepresentation between 1968 and 2006. The study was intended to find the characteristics of overrepresentation studies, as well as to elucidate how those studies framed the problem of overrepresentation. The study investigators found that most of the literature came from journals on special education, with study number increasing over time with emphasis after year 2000. Most studies focused on learning disabilities and African-Americans. The studies were typically framed in one of three ways: sociodemographic models focusing on individuals and social contexts; critical perspectives involving power issues revolving around the race issue, and professional practices leading to both creation and maintenance of overrepresentation. This study finding indicates that while awareness is increasing, the spheres in which it is occurring may need redressing especially to capture the cultural factor of misidentifying ELL students as learning disabled (Waitoller, Artiles, & Cheney, 2009).

Contreras (2006) found that Spanish-speaking Latino students in a South Texas school district were twice as likely to be receiving special education services as their English speaking counterparts. Further analysis revealed that the overrepresentation of ELL students receiving special education was at 77%. This clearly reveals an inappropriate method in those school districts where ELL students were misidentified as learning disabled, likely due to language proficiency issues (Contreras, 2006).

Sullivan (2009) reports that there has been a disproportionate representation of linguistic minorities in the research on misidentification of students for special education services, with most studies focusing on racial minorities. Sullivan finds that ELL students are not only not represented well in the literature, they are also overrepresented in actuality for special education services (Sullivan, 2009).

August et al. (2005) report that ELL students who display slow development of their vocabulary cannot comprehend text to the same degree as their English speaking counterparts. Outcomes for these students are that they are likely to perform poorly on assessment tests and hence risk being misidentified as learning disabled. The study investigators suggest using native language testing, basic word-meaning tests, and appropriate support and reinforcement in instruction can mitigate the language deficits of ELL students (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005).

ELL students are at particular risk for being misidentified as learning disabled overall in the typical English speaking educational system. Cultural and linguistic differences in testing and intervention do not account for the actual academic knowledge of the students, with static models of testing and intervention potentially exacerbating and prolonging the situation for the ELL student, in terms of the student's academic needs not being met.

Issues in the Pre-Referral Process

Educators and school personnel are those people that are involved in identifying children at risk and in possible need of intervention services. Teachers may be affected by existing processes for referring students for intervention services, as well as be unfavorably influenced by factors relating to implementation of intervention programs in the typical classroom setting. The problem is not only limited to the referral process, it is also related to the implementation process, and this falls within the concerns regarding assessment. The need is to identify those areas of concern held by teachers that may affect both the referral process and the implementation process for intervention services. The issue becomes even more concerning when dealing with a child who is an English language learner (ELL) (Wood, 1998).

There is a strong need for collaboration between teachers that provide intervention services and the general education teacher. This is a problem area. Hardin et al. (2007) found that teaching staff felt they were inadequately trained to work with ELL students of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Hardin, Roach-Scott, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2007). If English is the primary language of the staff and there is little or no resource staff that speak the native language of the child in need of services, the problem is significantly compounded, and may result in inappropriate placement. Placing ELL students in the special education classroom due to some misidentification in the referral process actually causes a further deterioration in the ELL students achievement in the long-run (Buysse, Castro, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010), and is therefore of primary concern in determining the underlying factors in the pre-referral and referral process.

In the pre-referral process, there are discrepancies between what the family believes is being said and what the interpreter is actually saying....

This problem is likely due to the interpreter's lack of knowledge regarding not only the referral process but also their lack of training in early childhood education terminology (Hardin, Roach-Scott, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2007). The data methods used across cultures and languages also vary, making it difficult to obtain reliable data upon which to make referral assessments (Collier, 2007).
The Federal Government has addressed students whose first language is not English, defining them as Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in Title VII of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994; while the government offered a definition of what qualifies as an LEP student, the burden is on the individual states to determine exactly how they will address students with ELL needs (Schon, Shaftel, & Markham, 2008). As such, the lack of an institutionalized methodology for data-gathering has contributed to the problem of properly assessing and placing students with ELL need. Such data-gathering in the pre-referral and referral stages include home-language surveys, teacher observations, language test assessments, informal assessments, role-playing, physical demonstrations, pictorial illustrations, student portfolio assessments, and other methods (Norris, 1998, p. 28). The diversity of assessments calls for a need for best practices in language minority students.

Defining the Problem of General Education Teacher Compliance

The setting of the general education classroom typically brings to mind an organized routine structured around various curricula activities such as the liberal arts and the sciences. Other activities include physical education, and specialist classes such as information technology or others that the school district may offer. The overriding idea is that the general curriculum is one where the typical student does not need any additional supports (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).

When determining if a student can have intervention needs met in this setting, the onus falls on the general education teacher to integrate the student and their special services guidelines into the typical curriculum atmosphere. The general education teacher is not prepared for this issue. They are not trained in college for teaching ELL's who may also be special needs students, unless that is their particular academic focus (Dev, 1996). A general education teacher trained in teaching early childhood education is not well prepared for the emotional, behavioral, and physical needs that may be necessitated by inclusion of a student with alternative needs into their classroom, nor trained in the various cultural traits of a non-English speaking student (Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988).

Therefore, there is no 'buy-in' on the part of the general education teacher to comply with more than the basics of the special services model as it pertains to their typical day in the classroom. They may be understaffed, under-resourced, and under-trained.

Teachers may not be prepared for dealing with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Walker et al. (2004) examined the ideologies attitudes that general education teachers have regarding their ELL students, and the programs that serve these students. Teachers that have racist, ethnocentric attitudes toward their ELL students typically fail to meet the academic needs of those students. The study investigators looked at the attitudes of mainstream teachers, what factors influence those attitudes, and how the attitudes varied by community. The findings of the study were generally negative; 70% of teachers surveyed did not want ELL students in their classroom, and 87% had no professional training to address the needs of ELL students. General education teachers felt that having inclusion of students with special needs in the typical classroom was time demanding and an overall burden. Many teachers responded that they already were burdened with meeting state standards for the mainstream students, and adapting to ELL students was an additional onus. Additionally, while teachers responded that lack of training was a problem in addressing the needs of ELL students, they also responded that the time demand placed on them to receive training was too great, and they would only do such training on school time (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004).

The following table represents the nature of ELL instruction in all 50 states of the United States from 2008-2009; it is interesting to note that even as recently as this time period represented by the table, that there are some states that ban native language instruction, perhaps reflecting on the social context of the state regarding attitudes toward ELL students and minorities in general:

State policies regarding teaching of English Language Learner (ELL) students, by state: 2008 -- 09

State

State has teacher standards for ELL instruction

State requires all prospective teachers to demonstrate competence in ELL instruction

State offers incentives to earn…