Cited by 183Educational and Psychological AssessmentsCollaborative Teaching and InclusionBehavioral and Psychological Studies

The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process for English Language Learners: Child Study Team Meetings and Placement Conferences

Klingner, Janette K., Harry, Beth·2006·Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00781.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
Venue
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
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