Investigating English Language Learners: the Difference Between

Second Language Acquisition & Learning Disabilities

Jacey Gustafson

Drake University

Fall 2015

Abstract

This paper provides a brief overview of the extremely large problem of the

overrepresentation of English Language Learners in special education due to learning

disabilities. English Language Learners are an ever increasing population in our schools

across the nation; each year we gain approximately 10% more English Language

Learners. Overall, these students make up about 16% of the special education population,

while representing half of the learning disabled population. These students are thought to

have learning disabilities for many different reasons, but their second language

acquisition is not accounted for as often as it should be. Coincidentally, second language

acquisition and learning disabilities run parallel to each other in regards to developmental

stages, characteristics, and struggles for children. This article discusses the flaws in our

current assessment of English Language Learners for special education and some

solutions as to how we can better assess these increasingly important students.

What is the difference between a Learning Disability and Second Language

Acquisition?

There are many reasons for a student to receive special education services. One of

the most common reasons to receive special education services is due to a learning

disability. A learning disability is a neurological condition, which affects academic

learning. Academic learning can be inhibited by the inability to use or understand

language parts or as a whole. This includes areas of reading, writing, speaking, listening,

spelling, thinking, and computing mathematical problems (Hallahan, Kauffman, &

Pullen, 2015).

Coincidentally, minority students make up 44.54% of the special education

population with learning disabilities (Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju, & Roberts, 2014). Looking

at the percentages of minorities who have been diagnosed with a learning disability can

be misleading because many minorities are learning English as a second language.

Sullivan (2011) said it is extremely important to consider both the racial makeup of the

student in question, and the native language because there are many issues that arise with

the development of a second language that make identifying learning disabilities

abundantly complex. Klingner, Artiles, and Barletta (2006) found that middles class

Mexican American English Language Learners (ELLs) were the students who were most

likely to be identified as learning disabled and receive special education services because

of difficulties in reading, writing, speaking, or other language based activities. This is

especially alarming because the vast majority of ELLs (77%) in American schools are

native Spanish speakers (Case, 2005; Klingner et al., 2006). I believe there is a direct

correlation between the high percentage of minorities with learning disabilities and the

extremely high percentage of Spanish speaking ELLs whose native language is not

English. I believe the native language is not being adequately accounted for when ELLs

are being assessed, which is resulting in an unnecessary overrepresentation of ELLs in

special education for learning disabilities.

This is a troubling concept to comprehend because the U.S. Department of

Education estimates that nearly 40% of the school-aged population will speak English as

a second language by the year 2030 (Klingner, 2006). If the ELL population continues to

grow, which it is anticipated to increase 10% per year (Zhang et al., 2012), and continue

to be overrepresented in special education, our education system will have major issues to

overcome in the future. Sullivan (2011) made a great point when discussing the high rates

of ELLs who struggle with academics; she elaborated by saying that it is very unlikely

that all of the ELLs who struggle with academics truly have learning disabilities, rather

that there is a flaw in the system for recognizing difficulties with language acquisition. In

order to avoid the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education, I believe schools

should be better trained to educate and assess ELLs, particularly in the areas of Second

Language Acquisition (SLA) and implement culturally and linguistically mindful special

education assessments. This leads us to the discussion of English Language Learners who

are overly identified as having a learning disability when in all reality the issue most

likely lies within the acquisition of a second language.

Second Language Acquisition

What exactly does Second Language Acquisition (SLA) look like for ELLs? That

is a difficult question to answer because SLA is dependent on numerous factors that vary

greatly amongst ELLs. Some factors that influence the rate of SLA are socioeconomic

status, native language proficiency, prior educational experiences, age, motivation, and

opportunities to learn (Case & Taylor, 2005; Klingner et al., 2006). Additionally, ELLs

follow stages of SLA that can potentially resemble the signature learning disability signs

(Case & Taylor, 2005), which makes it difficult to distinguish between troubles with SLA

and a true learning disability. Both of these variables make it extremely difficult to create

a standard procedure to assess ELLs for special education services.

Coles (2014) found when ELLs are learning English as a second language, they

develop Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) first because they are engulfed

in a school setting where all of their likeminded peers are speaking English, and children

absorb communication skills from their peers the fastest at young ages. Typically, ELLs

acquire BICS with anywhere from one to three years of exposure to the new language.

However, academic language is much more difficult for ELLs, and even non-ELLs, to

acquire. She went on to say that Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)

takes anywhere from seven to ten years for ELLs to acquire. This is a major reason why

ELLs may appear to struggle with the language demands and activities in class. It may be

easier for ELLs to socially interact with others in English in an informal manner, while

formal academic English-based tasks require more cognitive concentration and language

proficiency that very likely has not developed during the beginning stages of SLA. While

considering ELLs language acquisition, attributes of both BICS and CALP are essential

to take into consideration because it is unreasonable to expect ELLs to fully comprehend

complex academic language when they are beginning to learn this new, complex, and

foreign language.

Rinaldi and Samson (2008) discuss how dire it is to identify ELLs who have a

learning disability as early as possible in order to provide the necessary services, both

language supports and special education services, to best educate the child. As Klingner

et al. (2006) discovered, “General education teachers sometimes hesitate to refer ELLs to

special education because they cannot determine if ELLs difficulties with learning to read

are due to second language acquisition issues or learning disabilities.” This shows us that

teachers are paying attention to the language development of their ELLs and that teachers

are aware of the discrepancies between SLA and specific learning disabilities. One way

to resolve this issue it to ensure that our teachers have the proper training in order to

identify the differences between SLA and learning disabilities, or at least have the

schools staffed with a linguistic professional to assist in assessing ELLs. However,

Klingner et al. (2006) also found that teachers were referring ELLs for special education

when they had low language achievements, low reading scores, and general academic

deficits. In these situations, it is the teacher’s responsibility to provide sound, evidence-

based teaching methods to attempt to make the content comprehensible rather than

immediately assume the child needs to be assessed for special education services. Our

efforts as educators should fall somewhere in the middle, rather than falling at one

extreme or another. For example, we should not refer ELLs for special education

assessments if the only deficits exist in language based academic tasks; and we should

also avoid waiting too long to refer ELLs who are showing signs of a true cognitive-

based, learning disability. This is a difficult balance to maintain, but specific training can

help teachers reach this delicate balance and use their best judgment. There needs to be

more support in the schools for the teachers and students in order to find this balance.

This brings us to the current flaws in special education assessment for ELLs and the ways

that we can remediate those flaws in our education system.

Current Flaws in Special Education Assessment for ELLs

One of the major flaws in special education assessment for ELLs is that there isn’t

a standard procedure to follow when ELLs are being evaluated for special education

services (Klingner et al., 2006). The procedure for assessing ELLs varies from state to

state, and even school to school. Moreover, the ELL students each have a unique case and

numerous factors that contribute to SLA, which makes it difficult to assess each ELL

based off a standard procedure for special education services. However, there is a strong

need for a consistent evaluation of ELLs in order to determine whether or not special

education services are necessary for ELLs. Ideally we would have a nationwide

assessment procedure to follow that has consistencies in the many different variables

present with ELLs, but unfortunately there is not very much information on how this

process can be carried out in order to best serve every ELL with their unique special

needs.

When educators wrongly identify ELLs’ language acquisition or limited English

proficiency (LEP) as an intellectual disability or intellectual deficit, ELLs end up getting

overly represented in special education and stigmatize the student even more. As stated

previously, it is difficult to distinguish between SLA and a learning or intellectual

disability; however, it is critical that educators are educated in both areas in order to

differentiate between SLA difficulties and intellectual disabilities in order to place all

students appropriately and provide them with their entitled supports within the school

setting.

The most surprising issue with ELL special education assessments is that the

students are assessed in English. However, according to IDEA (2004), “Federal law

dictates that examiners conduct evaluations in the child’s native language or other mode

of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information” (as cited in

Cole, 2014). Several researchers in the field have noted the importance of evaluating

ELLs in their most proficient language in order to fully understand if the child does in

fact have a learning disability (Cole, 2014; Ortiz & Yates, 2002; Rinaldi & Samson,

2008; Case & Taylor, 2005; Piazza et al., 2015; Sullivan, 2011). These same researchers

have also found that many schools do not follow this mandate, and ELLs who are

referred for special education end up getting assessed in English rather than their native

or most proficient language. In the following section we will discuss positive ways in

which ELLs should be assessed for special education.

Changes in Special Education Assessment for ELLs

There are countless ways to remediate the current flaws in special education

assessments for ELLs. Some of those suggestions follow. Educators can assess students

in their native language, or their most proficient language, and assess the students in

English (Case & Taylor, 2005; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008). By assessing the students in

both languages we would be able to cross reference the test results to determine if

language acquisition was the underlying problem, or if there truly is a learning disability,

or a combination of the two, in order to accommodate the child as needed. This is a

tedious process but it is vital in order to properly assess ELLs with potential learning

disabilities. Rinaldi & Samson (2008) highlighted that these assessments should be

evaluating the whole child in a variety of tasks and settings in order to paint a full picture

of the child’s needs, abilities, and potential disabilities. Directly supporting this idea,

Klingner et al. (2006) suggests that educators should use a variety of alternative methods

for assessing student’s strengths in a variety of settings.

In the general education classroom there are many ways to help ELLs acquire the

English language in culturally and linguistically responsive approaches. Klingner et al.

(2006) found that students who were learning a new language, with different language

backgrounds, in the same general education classroom, developed basic literacy skills in

similar manners. They focused heavily on phonological, print, and alphabetic knowledge.

Languages vary greatly in the phonemes that are used. For example, the Korean

language, Hangul, does not have the phoneme that English has for the letter “L,” so this

is a particularly difficult phoneme for Koreans to pronounce. Also, many languages are

not based on alphabetic script; Chinese, Japanese, and Hangul are a few examples of

languages that are not alphabetical script. Students from these cultures may not know that

the English language is read from top to bottom, and left to right. These are a few

language concepts that are innate to the native English speaker, but are often times

overlooked when teaching ELLs. Students who were provided with explicit phonological

instruction in small groups saw considerably advanced improvements in reading and

comprehension (Klingner et al., 2006).

Another way to help advance SLA is to encourage students to read and write in

their native language during class, it is much better for students to advance their native

language literacy skills they already have because those literacy skills will transfer when

learning another language (Case & Taylor, 2005; Klingner et al., 2006). Promoting a

strong proficiency in the ELL’s native language will encourage positive literacy

behaviors during SLA and help ELLs learn English more efficiently. Going along with

these ideas, if the teacher suspects an ELL has difficulties with language, whether it is

reading, writing, speaking, or listening, it is essential that the teacher provide additional

early interventions before referring the ELL for special education (Rinaldi & Samson,

2008).

ELLs need help building their schema surrounding American culture (Klingner et

al. 2006) because the standardized tests that are used to assess academic achievement are

extremely culturally biased. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills was explicitly mentioned by

Klingner et al. (2006) for representing culturally biased information in the assessment,

which skewed the performance of ELLs because they did not have the proper schema to

make sense of some of the questions. Teachers can spend time supporting ELLs by

explicitly teaching cultural differences and exposing the students to the new culture in

order to help mitigate this issue. Schools, administrators, and teachers can also evaluate

the standardized tests to try and eliminate culturally biased aspects of tests that ELLs will

be required to take.

By teaching in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner educators can

make the content comprehensible for all students, especially ELLs. Simply including

trade books, discussions, projects, or bringing in guest speakers about the cultures that are

represented in your classroom will help teach the entire class in a culturally responsive

manner. When educators take these small steps in the general education classroom it will

help ELLs make significant advancements in English language acquisition. Showing all

students that you care about them as an individual person will encourage all of your

students to learn, participate, and engage in your daily classroom activities. By bridging

the cultural gap in education it is my hope that ELLs will not be overrepresented in

special education for specific learning disabilities. It is also crucial that all teachers and

administrators are well versed in the stages of second language acquisition compared to

that of learning disabilities.

Conclusion

ELLs make up a significant and steadily growing population in our education

system. With minorities making up about half of the total students identified as having

learning disabilities currently, there is a severe need for change. The overrepresentation

of ELLs and minorities with learning disabilities can most likely be attributed to the

uncanny similarities between second language acquisition and characteristics of learning

disabilities. It is important for our education system to reevaluate how ELLs are assessed

for special education because of the language discrepancy that exists. We should be

assessing ELLs in both English and their native, or most proficient, language in order to

truly understand where the ELL is having difficulties. By neglecting to assess students in

both languages we are doing a disservice to the increasing ELL population. There are

numerous ways that our schools can accommodate ELLs in culturally and linguistically

responsive methods. The ELLs are becoming more important with every passing year

because they will soon be the majority in school districts across the nation, it is important

that we assess, place, and support these learners properly before it is too late.

References

Case, R., & Taylor, S. (2005). Language Difference Or Learning Disability? Answers

From A Linguistic Perspective. The Clearing House, 127-131.

Cole, C. V. (2014). Special Education Evaluation of English Language Learners (ELLs):

The Importance of Language Proficiency Determination. Dialog: Journal Of The

Texas Educational Diagnosticians Association, 43(1), 7-11.

Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Pullen, P. (2015). Exceptional learners An Introduction to

Special Education (13th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Klingner, J., Artiles, A., & Barletta, L. (2006). English Language Learners Who Struggle

With Reading: Language Acquisition Or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities,

39(2), 108-128.

Klingner, J., Boelé, A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Rodriguez, D. (2014). Essential

Components of Special Education for English Language Learners with Learning

Disabilities: Position Statement of the Division for Learning Disabilities of the

Council for Exceptional Children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,

93-96.

Ortiz A. A. & Yates, J. R. (2002). Considerations in the assessment of English language

learners referred to special education. In A. Artiles & Ortiz (Eds.), English

language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and

instruction, 65-85.

Piazza, S. s., Rao, S. s., & Protacio, M. s. (2015). Converging Recommendations for

Culturally Responsive Literacy Practices: Students with Learning Disabilities,

English Language Learners, and Socioculturally Diverse Learners. International

Journal Of Multicultural Education, 17(3), 1-20.

Rinaldi, C., & Samson, J. (2008). English Language Learners and Response to

Intervention: Referral Considerations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5),

6-14.

Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and

Placement of English Language Learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334.

Zhang, D. d., Katsiyannis, A. a., Ju, S., & Roberts, E. (2012). Minority Representation in

Special Education: 5-Year Trends. Journal Of Child & Family Studies, 23(1),

118-127. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9698-6.