The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process for English Language Learners: Child Study Team Meetings and Placement Conferences
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the special education referral and decisionmaking process for English language learners (ELLs), with a focus on Child Study Team (CST) meetings and placement conferences/multidisciplinary team meetings. We wished to learn how school personnel determined if ELLs who were struggling had disabilities, to what extent those involved in the process understood second language acquisition, and whether language issues were considered when determining special education eligibility. We observed CST meetings and placement conferences for 19 students who were considered ELLs when they were referred. Findings revealed that in practice, only cursory attention was given to prereferral strategies. Most students were pushed toward testing, based on an assumption that poor academic performance or behavioral difficulties had their origin within the child and indicated a need for special education. Although some school personnel were quite knowledgeable about language issues, many were not. There was tremendous variation in the quality of what transpired during meetings. These differences were influenced by the intentions, knowledge, skills, and commitment of CST or multidisciplinary team members. All the factors we describe point to aspects of the process that should be improved.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With current diagnostic methods, it can be difficult to distinguish between limited English language proficiency and a learning disability.
“With current diagnostic methods, it can be difficult to distinguish between a lack of English language proficiency and a learning disability (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda 2005; Klingner and Harry 2006).”
From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Klingner and Harry 2006
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072 · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language
Shifrer, D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2011) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219410374236 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Language-Minority Learners in Special Education: Rates and Predictors of Identification for Services
Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219408326221 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Hardin, B. J., Lower, J. K., Smallwood, G. R., Chakravarthi, S., Li, L., & Jordan, C. (2010) · Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/10901020903539580 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- ORCID
- Harry, Beth
- Venue
- Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2247-2281
- ISSN
- 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
- 0161-4681
- 1467-9620
- OpenAlex
- W2023344103
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 9.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
- Social Sciences › Education › Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- English language learners, special education referral, eligibility determination, multidisciplinary team meetings, second language acquisition, special education decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review