Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and

1Running head: INTERVENTIONS STRATEGIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR

CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS?

Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Students?

Systematic Review Proposal

Ayuuba Gibrilla

Department of Educational Studies

EDPS 664: Research Seminar in Special Education

Purdue University

Fall 2014



Abstract

Students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse background resist the

intervention treatments, and as a result they are referred to special education and its related

service (Sorrells, Rieth & Sindelar, 2004). In view of the increasing number of culturally and

linguistically diverse students (CLDS) being referred to special education, it has become

imperative to conduct a review of the intervention strategies currently implemented to find out

why these students resist interventions; and also to identify potential variables that contribute to

the ineffectiveness of the intervention strategies. Preliminary findings point out that

inappropriate instruction at the tiers levels of Response to intervention (RTI) model, a negative

school culture, and inadequate teacher preparation were the main reasons why students from

culturally and linguistically diverse are not responding to intervention treatments (Klingner &

Edwards, 2006)

Keywords: culturally and linguistically diverse background, interventions, response to

intervention, intervention strategies, disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse students



Introduction

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students are common in schools across the United

States. In 2002, it was estimated that 43% of teachers teaching in the U.S taught at least one

culturally and linguistically student in their classrooms (U.S. Department of Education

[USDOE], 2003). Approximately 20% of residents in the U.S older than 5 speak a language

other than English at home, and by the year 2030, it has been estimated that approximately 40%

of the school population will speak English as a second language (USDOE, 2003). Although

77% of English language learners speak Spanish as their first language (Zehler et al., 2003),

culturally and linguistically students are a diverse population in terms of ethnicity, nationality,

and socioeconomic background in the United States (August & Hakuta, 1997).

On a national level, students from culturally and linguistically diverse background

perform at a lower levels than their English proficient peers on math and science tests to a lesser

degree (Abedi, 2006). By fourth grade, nearly half of the students from culturally and

linguistically diverse background drop behind non–English language learner peers in their

academics (Fry, 2007). It is estimated that 1 in 5 students from culturally and linguistically

diverse backgrounds meet state standards in mathematics, reading and science (Genesee,

Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005).

There is abundant evidence that culturally and linguistically diverse Students are

overrepresented in special education due to inappropriate identification and misassessment

(Artiles, Sullivan, Fierros, & Klingner, 2008; de Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi, & Park, 2006). These

students may often times inappropriately be identified as having a learning disability due to first

of all the lack of limited understanding of the educational needs of culturally and linguistically

diverse students (Gersten & Woodward, 1994). Secondly, the inadequate language assessments



(MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006), and inappropriate assessment practices are carried out (Figueroa &

Newsome, 2006). As a result of inappropriate assessment, (Schmid, 2001), and also the fact that

many teachers do not have adequate knowledge of the impact of language acquisition on

academic development (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006) CLDS are miseducated. Due to all CLDS

are more likely to drop out of school and are less likely to go on to any kind of post-secondary

education than students who speak English as their native language (Genesee et al., 2005).Thus,

it is evident that school systems and teachers are unable to meet the educational needs of CLDS.

In fact research has consistently validated that students identified as CLDS are more likely to

attend poorer quality schools than their native English- peers (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-

Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).

Unfortunately, research demonstrates that many schools and teachers view the diversity

of student backgrounds as a problem (Obiakor, 1999). Moreover, it is common for limited

English proficiency to be viewed as a barrier to educational success and even as a disability

(Connor & Boskin, 2001). Such attitudes manifest themselves in low achievement for students

from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CLDB) (Nieto, 2000).

Response-to-Intervention (RTI) in Special Education

RTI is an intervention used to meet the educational needs of struggling students before

they are considered for special education services. The implementation of RTI varies

considerably. RTI is typically organized into three or four tiers that may, or may not, include

special education services. In three-tier models, Tier 1 focuses on providing high-quality

instruction for all children in general education classrooms and on differentiating instruction

according to students' performance levels and needs (Xu & Drame, 2008). Intensive

interventions is increased in Tiers 2 and 3 (e.g., individual or small-group instruction provided



by the classroom teacher or by a reading specialist) for students who do not make expected

progress. If it is included in the RTI model, special education teachers typically provide Tier 3

interventions. As students move through the tiers, the intensity of the interventions they receive

increases and those students who do not seem to be making adequate progress are provided with

interventions right away, before they have a chance to fall further behind (Harn, Kame'enui, &

Simmons, 2007).

There are a lot of components built into RTI that if done well can make a difference for

CLDB. One of the things that need to be done is to focus on quality of core instruction and

making sure that the instruction given is as strong as possible because it is the core instruction

that is the foundation of the RTI pyramid. Every intervention that has to be provided to

struggling students to ensure their educational success is built into that foundation. It is therefore

important to take a look at the instruction being provided and there are some ways built into RTI

to do that. The progress monitoring, universal screening and that enable us to look at the class

wide data sets as well as how individual children are doing to get the sense of where the students

in the class seem to be doing well, where the teacher might benefit from some professional

development to help with certain areas (Deno, Reschly, Lembke, Magnusson, Callender,

Windram & Stachel, 2009)

When we think about the progress monitoring data, it is important that we do not want

too many students not reaching bench marks. When a class or a grade level where is not doing

well, what that means is that the instruction has to be changed. It is not that all these students are

just moved to Tier 2. It is important to take a look at what is going on to make sure the

instruction being provided is as strong as it can be. Is it at the right level for the students? Is it



meeting their language and literacy needs? Is it a practice that has been validated with similar

students in similar circumstances?

It is important too that teachers have a strong relationship with students, that the

classroom environment is conducive to learning, that the teacher has a good relationship with

the family and community (Klotz & Canter, 2007). One of the things this is going to take is

observing in classroom and collaboration, recognizing that any one teacher does not have all the

expertise, but together as a team, by sharing expertise, then the students’ needs will be better

met. (García & Ortiz, 2008; Linán-Thompson & Ortiz, 2009). Although there appears to be much

promise in RTI, many of the details of RTI implementation still need to be worked out. Some

experts are concerned about the feasibility of RTI (Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santora,

Linan-Thompson & Tilly, 2008). General and special education teachers are confused about how

best to implement RTI in practical and effective ways (Wiener & Soodak, 2008).

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in a social constructivist framework (Kong & Song (2013) and

guided by three assumptions with CLDS. The first assumption is that teachers have a duty to use

teaching and assessment practices that have been validated with similar populations (e.g.,

Newman & Cole, 2004). Second, teachers who work in culturally and linguistically diverse

settings should be knowledgeable about teaching multicultural education pedagogy (Gay &

Howard, 2000). Third, a sociocultural perspective is important for teachers and instructional

aides to understand the ways culture and language affect learning (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

The second assumption concerns the belief that one size-fit all approach to RTI does not

help meet the educational needs of CLDS. For teachers to make a meaningful impact in the

education of CLDS, they have to provide high quality evidence-based education. Moreover, the



assessment and instructional practices they implement in the classroom should have been

validated with similar students and in similar educational settings (Klingner & Edwards, 2006).

This is because; instructional interventions and assessment techniques which have produced

positive results with native speakers of English are not necessarily practical with CLDS. When

common approaches are applied, there is the possibility CLDS will not respond to such

instructional interventions.

The third assumption is about the knowledge of the teacher. It is important that for

teachers to properly assess and implement interventions for CLDS, they need to have some

expertise on how to educate them. General and special teacher education and in-service

professional development programs an adequate level of preparation. But that is not the case.

Teachers who work with CLDS should be knowledgeable about the second-language acquisition

process. They also need to understand that when CLDS comprehension and production of

English are limited, this does not mean they have a cognitive deficit, rather, they are in the

process of acquiring a new linguistic discourse. (August & Shanahan, 2006; Teachers of English

to Speakers of Other Languages, 2008).

Although researchers have found that intensive, well-constructed interventions can help

improve CLDS academic achievements, there are gaps in the knowledge base of culturally and

linguistically responsive interventions. Little is known about what RTI actually looks like when

implemented by practitioners in schools with a high proportion of CLDS. Moreover, the RTI

literature is mainly composed of quantitative studies that pay little attention to students’

differences, teachers’ instructional behaviors, or classroom and school settings. To remedy gaps

in the knowledge base of culturally and linguistically responsive interventions, there is the urgent



need for more qualitative and descriptive studies to help understand how school personnel make

sense of RTI and incorporate it into their daily routines.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the factors or potential variables that

contribute to the ineffectiveness of RTI and other instructional strategies when implemented on

CLDS population. Research has shown a sizeable percentage of students from CLDB with

disabilities do not respond intervention treatments when they are implemented on them (Sorrells,

Rieth & Sindelar, 2004).

We sought to describe school personnel’s perceptions of RTI, what the model looked like,

and the challenges they faced. We focused on understanding instruction provided across the three

tiers of the RTI model. This research was guided by the following question:

1. What are the factors or potential variables that contribute to the ineffectiveness of RTI

and other instructional strategies when implemented on CLD population?

2. a. How do school personnel implement an RTI model for CLDS with disabilities? (b)

What are the features of the RTI model? (c) What mathematics interventions are teachers

using for CLDS learning difficulties, (d) what did this instruction look like? (e) To what

extent did instruction appear to be appropriate for meeting students’ cultural and

linguistic needs? (f) What kinds of assessment data were collected?

3. How did school personnel understandings, beliefs, judgments, professional development,

and training affect program implementation with CLDS?

4. How do we ensure that the child has in fact received culturally responsive, appropriate,

quality instruction?



5. How do we account for language and culture when designing interventions, conducting

research, and generalizing findings?

6. Can teachers realistically and effectively teach these students in the absence of research

based teaching grounded in cultural responsive interventions?

Methodology

Inclusion criteria. Peer reviewed publications from NECTC's transition literature database,

teacher personnel preparation programs database, Google scholar, RTI State Database, CEC

database and ERIC databases were searched for articles published in English since 2008 using

the following key search terms: response to intervention, response to instruction, intervention

strategies, disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse Students, English Language Learners.

The search main objective was to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria which include

studies that were empirical, published in peer reviewed journals, included culturally and

linguistically diverse population, and also is grounded in an RTI framework.

The Purdue Online Library was purposely included to ensure that no similar reviews had

been conducted before. The review will also include full-text articles published in English since

2000 in order to capture the most recent developments in the field. Studies with both positive and

negative outcomes were included, for the purposes of reducing publication bias. The review also

incorporated systematic reviews and observational type studies, including case studies that used

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.

Exclusion criteria. Publication type that were excluded include narrative reviews, editorials,

commentaries, unpublished manuscripts, dissertations, government reports, book chapters,

conference proceedings, meeting abstracts, lectures and addresses. Secondly, article with study



design that are nonsystematic, and those that did not report methods were excluded. Thirdly,

research with study population that were native English language speakers were also excluded.

Study selection. After retrieving potentially relevant primary studies from the database searches,

a screening process which usually has two steps was used to assess studies relevance. The first

step was searching by title and abstract. The second step was by reading the full text. For this

systematic review, studies that focused on RTI or its elements and other instructional strategies

used in teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students were selected. The reviewer

independently extracted data (the participant details, intervention details, outcome measures,

baseline and post-intervention results). Overall, the search preliminary findings yielded fifteen

studies, of which 4 make specific reference to linguistic and cultural factors were chosen and

reviewed.

Summary Information of studies reviewed

Studies reviewed were summarized according to the setting, participants’ description

(e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, culture, and language), and intervention description (duration) and

primary outcome.



Citation /Study

Setting Participants description

Intervention description; duration

Criteria for students’inclusion in intervention

Intervention implemented

Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C., & Glutting, J. (2013).

kindergarten classes infive schools serving high-risk children from low-incomeurban families.

121 participants,52 were girls and 69 were boys. 67 were identifiedas African American , 45 as Hispanic (37%), 7 asCaucasian, 1 as Asian, and 1 as biracial

8-week number sense intervention, 30-min sessions, 3 days per week, for a total of24 sessions.

Participants were recruited from kindergarten classes in five schools serving high-risk children from low-incomeurban families.

Representations (primarily chips, black dots, and fingers)

Lovett et al. (2008)

16 schools from a diverse,urban school district inToronto

76 CLDS, 90 non-ELLs

1 hour of daily instruction basic word identification and decoding skills for 4 to 5 days per week.Intervention classestaught by certified specialeducation teachers,grouped by reading level5 weeks, totaling 105 hr.

Average standard score<85 on 3 readingachievement tests

Tier 2

Koutsoftaset al.(2009)

3 public school classroomsand 2 Head Start classrooms

Spanish; preschool Direct instruction inphonemic awarenessskills twice per week for2 weeks, 20–25 min each

<4 out of 8 points onTrophies Pre-KBeginning SoundAwareness CBM

Tier 2

Kamps et al.(2007)

16 Kansas schools over a5-year period

170 CLDS and 148 English onlystudents; first andsecond grade

Groups of 3–6 studentsusing Reading Mastery,Early Interventions inReading, Read Well, orReading Naturally bygeneral educationteachers or readingspecialists

Failure to reach benchmarkon DIBELSNonsense WordFluency and OralReading Fluency

Tier 1 and 2



Findings

The purpose of this review was to find out why CLDB with disabilities do not respond

intervention treatments and to determine the potential factors that contribute to the

ineffectiveness of RTI and other instructional strategies when implemented on CLDS population.

Consequently, studies were examined to determine whether, and to what extent, researchers in

this area instructional quality as they relate to intervention. Though some limitations must be

acknowledged (i.e., minimal number of studies reviewed, the specificity of the search, potential

inadequacies in the search strategy), the present review produced notable findings. The findings

indicated that inappropriate instruction, a negative school culture, and inadequate teacher

preparation were the main reasons why students from culturally and linguistically diverse are not

responding to intervention treatments.

Discussion

In examining the intervention strategies for CLDS, we focused on how teachers’

understandings, beliefs, judgments, and training affected RTI program implementation with

CLDS. One of the studies included in the review made reference to Tier 1 general education

factors. Gay (2010) is of the view that the foundation of the first tier should be culturally

responsive, quality instruction with on-going progress monitoring within the general education

classroom. They see this first tier as including two essential components: (a) research-based

culturally and linguistically responsive interventions, and (b) instruction by knowledgeable,

skilled teachers who have developed culturally responsive attributes.

Another study included in the review shows that few researchers attended to the

implications of language when studying interventions for CLDS. The treatment of all students

(including CLDS) as relatively homogenous when implementing interventions in the general



education setting is troubling. Although it is certainly relevant to attend to language as a critical

factor in intervention studies with CLDS, the extent to which language is considered requires

deeper examination.

Another study indicated that teachers who provide a balance between direct and explicit

instruction, oral language development, and student-based collaborative approaches integrated

with phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary development,

and comprehension skills instruction can significantly improve CLDS academic development

(August & Shanahan, 2006; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006).

Unfortunately, a few teachers in this study provided effective practices that had been

authenticated. For instance, this study’s sole bilingual teacher provided instruction that included

clear, direct, and explicit strategies that allowed for student motivation, individual differences,

and oral language development. In contrast, other participants failed to provide instructional

pacing in phonological awareness and decoding that would have promoted English language

learner engagement to improve their fluency and word identification (Leafstedt et al., 2004;

Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006).

In view of the ongoing, one of the study reviewed recommend that in teacher education

programs and professional development workshop, teachers should be trained in instructional

strategies that are responsive to CLDS. They should also be trained in the language acquisition

process and the unique needs of CLDS. Teachers need to know if their interventions are effective

and how to adjust instruction for students who do not seem to be responding.

Implication for Policy, Practice, and Research

There is advancement and support for the use instructional interventions to help prevent

culturally and linguistically diverse students’ underachievement and inappropriate referral to



special education. The how to do it has always been problematic (Morrow, & Chou, 2008).

Educational institutions need the knowledge to be able to attend to the educational needs of the

growing CLDS population. Preliminary information proceeding from this review seems to

suggest that policy has to be made to encourage research and teachers’ use of instructional

interventions that are culturally and linguistically responsive in order to help address the

educational needs of CLDS.

Policy. A major policy concern was that students from culturally and linguistically diverse

backgrounds might learn differently compared with the Native English proficient students. Due

to this, using a one-size-fits-all policy approach in the provision of the needs of all students,

without considering student’s culture and language might be ineffective and unproductive

(Klingner & Edwards, 2006). This approach results in more CLDS being referred to special

education and related services (Ortiz & Yates, 2002). Therefore, there is the need to develop

policies that encourage the use of culturally and linguistically responsive intervention when

teaching students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Practice. This review has made it obvious that classroom teachers, whether in general or special

education need to first of all have the knowledge of the cognitive, psychological, and behavioral

characteristics of CLDS and how to respond to their ethnic, cultural and linguistic ethos.

Secondly, they need to teach CLDS using research based teaching grounded in culturally and

linguistically pedagogy particularly when there are instances of culture, language and disability

(Klingner & Edwards, 2006). And finally, teacher education and professional development

programs have to prepare teachers to provide instruction that is unique, individualized and

culturally responsive for all students with disabilities (Murawski & Hughes, 2009).



Research. According to Pugach (2001) the research community has yet to set culturally and

linguistically responsive interventions as its research agenda in special education. In view of this,

there are several unanswered research questions which should be explored through future

research. One of the questions is whether a culturally and linguistically responsive approach

would be more effective to address and educate CLDS (Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Xu &

Drame, 2008). If so, under what conditions would it be most effective? Another question is can

teachers realistically and effectively teach these students in the absence of research based

teaching grounded in cultural responsive pedagogy? The research community needs to

investigate to come out with answers that will establish whether there is the need for culturally

and linguistically responsive approach to teaching CLDS.

Conclusion

Diversity is increasing in U.S public schools and as a result children from culturally and

linguistically diverse backgrounds will continue to grow. Regrettably, if teachers do not

implement intervention strategies that are culturally and linguistically responsive, public schools

would witness an overrepresentation of children from culturally and linguistically diverse

background in special education than we would expect. In order to decrease the number of

students from culturally and linguistically backgrounds’ referrals to special education, the first

and crucial step to take is to provide significant training in cultural awareness to instructional

staff. They need to be able to teach these students using research based teaching grounded in

cultural responsive interventions. The second is the need for greater depth and breadth in

planning instructional interventions, particularly, the tiers of RTI framework in order to

understand how curriculum and instruction at each tier may be improve and how assumptions

about student language that mediate both teaching and research can be addressed effectively.



References

Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in ELL assessment and special education eligibility.

Teachers College Record, 108, 2282 – 2303

Artiles , A. J. , Sullivan , A. , Fierros, E. G. , & Klingner , J. ( 2008 , March ). The impact of

restrictive language policies on special education placements of English learners.

Presentation at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New

York, NY.

August, D and Hakuta, K. (1997) Improving Schooling for Language-minority Children: A

Research Agenda National Research Council, Washington, DC

Connor, M. H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Overrepresentation of bilingual and poor children in

special education classes: A continuing problem. Journal of Children & Poverty, 7, 23 –

32.

Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram, H., &

Stachel, N. (2009). Developing a school‐wide progress‐monitoring system. Psychology

in the Schools, 46(1), 44-55.

de Valenzuela , J. S. , Copeland , S. R. , Qi , C. H. , & Park , M. ( 2006 ). Examining educational

equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special

education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425 – 441

Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C. & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income

Kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 46(2),

166-181.

Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: Is it

Nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 206 – 214.



Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?

Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center

García, S. B. and Ortiz, A. A. 2008. A framework of culturally and linguistically responsive

design of response to intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse

Exceptional Learners, 11(1): 24–41.

Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The

Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College

Press.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language

learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for

Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363 – 385.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language minority student and special education:

Issues, themes and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310–322. Learning Disabilities

Quarterly, 28, 163 – 167.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santora, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly,

W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and

multi-tier intervention for reading in primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-

4045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.

Harn, B. A., Kame’enui, E. K., & Simmons, D. C. (2007). Essential features of interventions for

Kindergarten students most in need of accelerated learning: The nature and role of the

third tier in a primary prevention model. In D. Hager, S. Vaughn & J. Klingner (Eds.),



validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 161 – 184). New York, NY:

Brookes.

Kamps , D. , Abbott , M. , Greenwood , C. , Arreaga-Mayer , C. , Wills , H. , Longstaff , J. ,

Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English

language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 30, 153 – 168.

Klingner, J. K., Sorrels, A. M., & Barrera, M. T. (2007). Considerations when implementing

response to intervention with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In D. Haager,

J. K. Klingner & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to

intervention (pp. 223 – 244). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2007). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer for parents.

Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved July, 10, 2009.

Kong, S. C., & Song, Y. (2013). A principle‐based pedagogical design framework for developing

constructivist learning in a seamless learning environment: A teacher development model

for learning and teaching in digital classrooms. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 44(6), E209-E212.

Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Gray, S. (2009). The effect of Tier 2 intervention for

phonemic awareness in a response-to-intervention model in low-income preschool

classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 116 – 130.

Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit

Phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 19, 252 – 261.

Linán-Thompson, S. and Ortiz, A. A. 2009. Response to intervention and English-language



learners: Instructional and assessment considerations. Seminars in Speech and Language,

30(2): 105–120.

Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P. T. (2006). The response to

intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 39, 390 – 398.

Lovett , M. W. , De Palma , M. , Frijters, J. , Steinbach , K. , Temple , M. , Benson , N. , &

Lacerenza, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to

intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41,

333 – 352.

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, 2304 – 2328.

Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-

teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School

Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 267-277.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New

York, NY: Longman.

Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact on

“accuracy” of self-concepts. Exceptional Children, 66, 39 – 53.

Pugach, M.C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative

research for special education. Exceptional Children, 67, 439–453.

Report No. 89–9). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.



Schmid, C. L. (2001). Educational achievement, language-minority students, and the new

second generation. Sociology of Education, 74, 71–87.

Shanahan, T., & August, D. (2006). Report of the National Literacy Panel: Research on

teaching

reading to English language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Xu, Y. and Drame, E. 2008. Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential of response

to intervention of English Language Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35:

305–311.

Zehler , A. M. , Fleischman , H. L. , Hopstock , P. J. , Stephenson , T. G. , Pendzick , M. L. , &

Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with

disabilities: Policy report—Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students.

Washington, DC: Development Associates.