Waived English Learners: The Understudied Intersection of English Learner and Special Education Status

Abstract

Under federal law, parents have the right to decline, or waive, English language support services when their child is identified as an English learner (EL) in school. In this study, we focus on this important subgroup of ELs—referred to as waived ELs—at the understudied intersection of EL status and special education (SPED) status. Using longitudinal statewide Tennessee data from 2010 to 2021, we used discrete-time hazard modeling to explore ELs’ representation in SPED services by their English language service waiver status (i.e., ever-waived EL vs. never-waived EL). Results revealed that ELs’ likelihood of placement into SPED services, and specifically for specific learning disability and speech-language impairment, varied by their English language service waiver status. We describe similarities and differences in the timing and likelihood of placement trends and discuss implications for practice and policy.

The number of U.S. school-age English learners (ELs) is rapidly growing and currently exceeds 5 million (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). By definition, ELs (a) come from homes where a language other than English is spoken and (b) are in the process of English language development while learning grade-level content in English (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015). To identify students eligible for English language support services, states typically administer a home language survey (HLS) upon school entry as a first step. If a legal guardian indicates that the child uses a language other than English to communicate at home, an English language proficiency screener is administered to determine the child's eligibility for English language support services (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Although the scope of HLS items may vary across states, schools use HLSs to identify children from homes where a language other than or in addition to English is used (Salerno & Andrei, 2021). If the child does not pass a specified threshold on the English language proficiency screener, legal guardians are notified with (a) available language support programs, (b) their right to waive English language support services, (c) their right to remove their child from English language services, and (d) English language service exit criteria (Office of Elementary & Secondary Education, n.d.). Under the federal requirements of ESSA (2015), all states are required to annually assess and monitor ELs’ English language proficiency—regardless of English language service waiver status—until they are reclassified as English proficient.

Although the EL population is by no means new in the United States, certain areas of the country—commonly known as new destination states (e.g., South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia)—have been experiencing a rapid, unprecedented growth of ELs (Park et al., 2018). Indeed, the education of ELs is no longer solely relevant to traditional EL-serving states (e.g., California, Florida, Texas). To effectively support ELs’ academic achievement, schools need internal capacity (e.g., certified teachers, evidence-based EL programs) to provide appropriate services to their ELs. Unfortunately, many districts nationwide continue to experience shortage of teachers qualified to work with ELs (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017), and we might expect that ELs have even less access to educators familiar with and prepared to meet their unique language and academic needs in new destination states. Therefore, we focused on ELs in Tennessee—a new destination state in the American South—where the overall EL population grew by 45% from 2011 to 2017 (Tennessee Department of Education [TDOE], 2018). This emerging educational context raises many questions about the educational affordances for ELs and their academic achievement. Existing findings do offer insight into ELs’ language and reading skills, but we must be cautious in assuming that previous findings from traditional EL-serving states hold true for ELs in new destination states. Relative to ELs in traditional EL-serving states, ELs in new destination states may be much less likely to receive bilingual instructional support (Gándara & Mordechay, 2017) or access necessary resources for their developing English proficiency (Potochnick, 2014).

Waiver of English Language Support Services

When students are identified as ELs, their parents have the legal right to accept or decline (i.e., waive) English language support services (Office of English Language Acquisition [OELA], 2020). Under the federal guidelines (ESSA § 1112[3]), local education agencies are required to notify parents of their right to waive English language services for their children. This EL subgroup is also known as waived ELs. In Tennessee, the significant growth of not only ELs in general but also those who are waiving English language services (i.e., 146% increase from 2010–2011 to 2020–2021 school years) warrants research on ELs’ academic outcomes by waiver status. Although research on ELs has significantly grown in the past decade, empirical work documenting waived ELs’ education is limited (for exceptions, see Flores et al., 2012; Flores & Drake, 2014; Mavrogordato & Harris, 2017). Studies and reports on ELs have typically focused on students receiving English language services and rarely disaggregate the EL-identified population by receipt of language services (e.g., Betts et al., 2020; Johnson, 2022). Additionally, within the limited literature on waived ELs, most studies focus on ELs’ transition to college and show mixed findings on the link between waiver status and outcomes: Studies report that compared with EL peers receiving English language services, high school waived ELs were more likely to perform poorly on advanced college-preparation courses (Flores & Park, 2011) or less likely to need additional coursework to be ready for college-level coursework (Flores & Drake, 2014). Nonetheless, waived-EL research remains limited at the elementary and middle grades, when important developments in oral language and literacy skills occur (Halle et al., 2012; Kieffer, 2011) and high-stakes educational decisions (e.g., special education [SPED] identification) are made. If the field is to gain a more nuanced understanding of the EL population as a whole, there is an urgent need to also attend to waived ELs. Additionally, research on waived ELs offers the unique opportunity to examine how the provision of English language services relates to ELs’ educational outcomes.

Understudied Intersection of EL and SPED Status

ELs constitute 12% of students with disabilities as of school year 2021–2022, up from 9% in 2012–2013 (Office of Special Education Programs, 2022). Although the intersection of EL and SPED status remains underresearched, studies continue to underscore the complexity and importance of accurate identification of ELs for SPED services (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Mancilla-Martinez et al., 2022; Sullivan, 2011; Yamasaki & Luk, 2018). Of the 13 federally recognized SPED disability categories (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2018 [IDEA], § 300.8[c]), ELs tend to be most represented in two language-based disability types: specific learning disabilities (SLD; includes conditions such as reading difficulties and dyslexia; IDEA § 300.8[c][10]) and speech-language impairment (SLI; includes conditions such as a communication disorder; IDEA § 300.8[c][11]). SLD and SLI are relevant to students’ reading achievement (Gilmour et al., 2019), and, unsurprisingly, they are the two most common disability categories among ELs (OELA, 2020). In fact, SLD and SLI have been regarded as subjective disability categories, due to the reliance on educators’ judgment versus physical indicators or medical diagnoses (Donovan & Cross, 2002), which include language-based and other learning disabilities that do not fit into other official categories of SPED (Counts et al., 2018; Hibel & Jasper, 2012).

Relatedly, disentangling language difference (i.e., language development patterns that differ from those of English monolinguals but expected in bilingually developing children) from language disabilities (i.e., special needs that require clinical, explicit, and systematic support) remains a complex task for educators and educational researchers (Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022). In fact, empirical evidence on ELs’ representation in SPED is mixed, with studies reporting overrepresentation (Sullivan, 2011), underrepresentation (Morgan et al., 2012, 2015), or even a shifting pattern from underrepresentation in the primary grades to overrepresentation in the secondary grades (Hibel & Jasper, 2012; Samson & Lesaux, 2009; Umansky et al., 2017). Therefore, persistent findings on disproportionality in SPED placement of ELs—one of the fast-growing and most vulnerable student groups in the United States—signal an issue of educational equity for this student population.

Until recently, studies on ELs’ representation in SPED have mostly relied on cross-sectional analyses (e.g., Mancilla-Martinez et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2015; Samson & Lesaux, 2009), and longitudinal evidence on the timing and likelihood of ELs’ SPED placement has been limited (for exceptions, see Linn & Hemmer, 2011; Umansky et al., 2017). To be clear, both cross-sectional and longitudinal insights are equally important to inform efforts to make appropriate identification and placement decisions for ELs. However, longitudinal exploration of their representation in SPED services (e.g., timing and likelihood, predictors of ELs’ SPED placement)—especially for SLD and SLI, which tend to be most prevalent among ELs—can inform ongoing efforts to better assess, identify, and support ELs dually identified with disabilities.

Competing Needs: English Language Services and SPED Services

Research at the intersection of EL status and SPED status suggests that the two programs are often perceived as competing needs, where the double demands of serving ELs with disabilities often lead prioritization of SPED services over English language services (Kangas, 2014; Schissel & Kangas, 2018; Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022). This is partially attributed to the lack of accountability in EL education compared with SPED services (e.g., lack of legal documents equivalent to an individualized educational plan that places legal accountability) that portray language services as a more quasilegal, negotiable service (Kangas, 2014, 2018). More recently, in a study on teacher and administrator perceptions of ELs with disabilities, Stutzman and Lowenhaupt (2022) documented that students’ SPED needs were prioritized over English language services due to the “unspoken hierarchy” (p. 11) in which SPED services took precedence. However, by federal law, dually identified ELs are entitled to both English language support services and SPED services (U.S. Department of Education, 2015), and researchers have continued to push the importance of dispelling the misconception that SPED and English language services are mutually exclusive or that SPED services matter more (Carnock & Silva, 2019; Lopes-Murphy, 2020).

Purpose of the Current Study

Although waived ELs have emerged as a fast-growing EL subgroup in Tennessee since 2010, their SPED representation has rarely been studied in the field.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to longitudinally explore the likelihood and timing of SPED placement by English language support service waiver status (“waiver status”). The findings from this study will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of ELs in SPED services and how waiver status relates to SPED representation. Building on the emerging evidence pointing to a hierarchy of educational services among ELs with disabilities (Kangas, 2018; Schissel & Kangas, 2018; Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022), we hypothesize that waived ELs (i.e., ELs whose parents opted them out of English language support services) may show higher likelihoods of being placed in SPED services compared with their EL peers who receive direct English language services. To address the growing yet limited research at the intersection of EL and SPED status, we ask, How does the likelihood and timing of placement into overall SPED, SLD, and SLI differ between ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs?

Method

Data Source and Procedures

The analytic data for this study come from a confidential state-level dataset made available through our partnership with the Tennessee Education Research Alliance. Given that the option to waive English language support services was first introduced in the 2010–2011 academic year in Tennessee, our state-level, longitudinal analytic sample spans from 2010–2011 to 2020–2021. Specifically, we include only students who entered the Tennessee public school system in kindergarten between 2010–2011 and 2020–2021 (for details, see Table S1 in the online supplementary material). The dataset for this study was organized using an intact-cohort analysis approach similar to previous longitudinal EL studies (Clotfelter et al., 2009; Flores & Drake, 2014), where the dataset includes only students who entered the school system in kindergarten and stayed until eighth grade (i.e., “intact” sample of students who have data from all nine time points from kindergarten to eighth grade). This approach provides a focused sample with a maximum number of data points for the groups of interest. This is particularly helpful for studying waived ELs, given that the waived EL population starts small since its introduction in 2010–2011 but gradually increases over time.

Within each cohort, ELs were organized into two categories of waiver status: (a) ever-waived ELs and (b) never-waived ELs. Ever-waived ELs include ELs who ever waived English language support services, whether consistently until being determined English proficient or even for one school year between kindergarten and eighth grade. Never-waived ELs include ELs who never waived English language support services and received English language development instruction (i.e., ELs who were only current ELs or ELs who received direct English language support). The conceptualization of ELs’ status as “ever” waived expands the growing focus in the literature on the ever-EL framework (Umansky et al., 2017), which recognizes that ELs are a dynamic group of students who enter and leave English language support services at different time points. Given that this dynamic nature of the EL population may lead to misleading conclusions when comparing them with their peers, especially in longitudinal studies (Umansky & Reardon, 2014), the ever-EL framework organizes all ELs (e.g., those who used to receive language services, those actively receiving language services) in the same group. Under the ever-EL framework, ever-ELs are compared with their never-EL peers (i.e., students who come from non-English-language backgrounds but did not qualify for English language support services). Although the ever-EL framework does not attend to waived ELs, our preliminary review of waiver status showed that like EL status, waiver status was also a dynamic variable, where ELs switched between waiving and receiving English language services. In fact, the Tennessee State Board of Education clearly states that parents have the legal right to waive direct English language support services at any time during the school year (Tennessee State Board of Education, 2021). Therefore, we use the ever-waived framework to examine the waived EL population to explore how the timing and likelihood of SPED, SLD, and SLI placement relate to parents’ decision to waive English language support services.

After categorizing the sample into either the ever-waived EL group or the never-waived EL group, we combined three cohorts of students who stayed in the Tennessee public school system from kindergarten to eighth grade (i.e., those who started kindergarten in 2010, 2011, and 2012) to maximize sample sizes for each subgroup. In total, our state-level analytic sample includes 14,612 students with data from nine time points, resulting in 131,508 observations in total. By language status, the dataset includes 946 ever-waived ELs and 13,666 never-waived ELs.

Variables

The following student-level covariates were included as they have been hypothesized in the literature to contribute to SPED placement: female gender, lower socioeconomic status (SES), Hispanic background, and chronic absenteeism. Students’ gender was included (1 = female, 0 = male), given association between gender and SPED placement rates (Coutinho & Oswald, 2005). Lower SES is associated with compromised academic achievement (e.g., Duncan & Hoynes, 2021) and SPED placement (Schifter et al., 2019). Thus, household SES was included as a covariate, based on students’ eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (1 = eligible, 0 = not eligible) for academic years 2010 to 2017 and economically disadvantaged status for 2017 to 2021 (1 = economically disadvantaged, 0 = not economically disadvantaged). To note, the SES indicator changed in 2017 from free or reduced-price lunch eligibility to economically disadvantaged status in Tennessee, where students were automatically classified as economically disadvantaged based on their participation in public nutrition assistance programs instead of self-reports of household income (TDOE, 2021). Additionally, SES varies by race or ethnicity—with Hispanic students representing the largest share of students living in poverty (Guzman et al., 2021)—and there is a mixed landscape on Hispanic students’ SPED representation (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020). We thus used Hispanic status to indicate racial and ethnic status (1 = Hispanic, 0 = non-Hispanic). We selected Hispanic status given that ELs predominantly come from Spanish-speaking homes (i.e., 76% of the U.S. EL population; NCES, 2022; and 76% of the Tennessee EL population; Sugarman & Geary, 2018). The non-Hispanic group in the sample includes Asian, Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and White subgroups. Last, we included chronic absenteeism status (1 = chronic absenteeism, 0 = no chronic absenteeism), as defined by the TDOE (i.e., missing more than 10% of instructional days in each school year). We chose chronic absenteeism given its importance during SPED identification processes (e.g., for SLD; Sprick et al., 2020) and that higher attendance (i.e., 0 = no chronic absenteeism) relates to lower likelihoods of SPED identification (Sullivan & Bal, 2013).

Discrete-Time Hazard Modeling

Discrete-time hazard models are useful for answering longitudinal questions about whether and when an event (i.e., SPED placement) occurs across a period of discrete time points (i.e., grade). We investigated the likelihood and timing of SPED designation—and specifically in SLD and SLI—between ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs using discrete-time hazard modeling (Singer & Willett, 2003). We also account for the previously noted student-level covariates that have been hypothesized in the literature to contribute to SPED placement and explore to what extent, if any, the likelihood of SPED placement—beyond student-level characteristics—is accounted for by waiver status. In doing so, we use the never-waived ELs as the reference group to examine the extent to which waiver status accounts for ELs’ SPED placement likelihood and timing.

Further, this method allows researchers to examine the probability of event occurrence over time without making assumptions about students who were “censored,” meaning students who never experienced the outcome of interest. In our analytic sample, censoring occurs when ELs never receive SPED services by eighth grade. The start time of the analysis is kindergarten year, which corresponds to ELs’ first year in Tennessee public schools. To note, the dataset for this study is nested, where time points are nested within each student (i.e., nine time points per student), and students are nested within their schools. As such, we also include school fixed effects to adjust for systematic differences between students across different schools. This decision was made to achieve the main goal of this article: to explore the extent to which waiver status—adjusting for student-level factors found to predict SPED placement rates—explains any differences in ELs’ representation in overall SPED, SLD, and SLI in Tennessee.

The visual representations of the discrete-time hazard modeling results will be presented as plots of hazard functions and cumulative hazard functions, which are two common methods for describing hazard analysis findings. The hazard function represents the likelihood that a student will be placed into SPED services at a particular grade level, given that the student has not already received SPED services. In other words, hazard functions present the timing at which ELs, by waiver status, are most at risk for SPED placement. The cumulative hazard functions—commonly referred to as cumulative probabilities—slightly differ from hazard functions in that these plots show the likelihood of SPED placement up to a certain grade level.

Results

Descriptive Findings

Table 1 presents mean student-level descriptive statistics by waiver status. In total, female students made up half of the total EL sample, and, on average, 5% of all ELs showed chronic absenteeism, with minor variations by waiver status. In contrast, students’ household SES and Hispanic status noticeably differed by waiver status. Overall, 75% of the total EL sample had lower-SES backgrounds, with never-waived ELs showing a similar proportion (73%). In contrast, ever-waived ELs included a smaller portion of students from lower-SES backgrounds (59%). Similarly, Hispanic background was predominant overall, but ever-waived ELs showed a slightly lower percentage (65%) compared with never-waived ELs (82%).

Table 1.

Key Demographic Characteristics by Waiver Status.

Variable	Total (N = 14,612)	Ever-waived EL (n = 946)	Never-waived EL (n = 13,666)
Variable	%	%	%
Female	48.09	45.56	48.27
Hispanic	80.87	65.12	81.96
Lower SES	75.12	58.47	72.46
Chronic absenteeism	5.36	6.47	4.90

Note. EL = English learner; SES = socioeconomic status. Values for time-varying variables, lower SES and chronic absenteeism, are averaged between 2010–2011 and 2020–2021.

Likelihood and Timing of SPED Placement by Waiver Status

In this section, we present the discrete-time hazard modeling results for overall SPED placement, followed by results for SLD and SLI categories. As a reminder, the overall SPED placement likelihood reflects the likelihood of placement into any of the SPED disability categories recorded in the Tennessee database.

Overall SPED Status

Table 2 presents the distribution of SPED placement occurrences at each grade level (see column “SPED”). The “Beginning Total” column shows the number of students at the beginning of each grade level, and the “Received SPED Status” column indicates the number of students who received SPED status at that grade level. As a reminder, no student was censored until reaching eighth grade (i.e., indicated by consecutive zeros under “Censored” column until eighth grade) because the dataset includes only students who stayed from kindergarten to eighth grade. Table 2 shows that the majority of SPED placement occurred in kindergarten (11.3% for ever-waived ELs and 8.8% for never-waived ELs), indicating that students either entered the Tennessee public school system with already-known SPED needs or were placed into SPED services in the first year of their schooling. As shown under the “Censored” column, approximately 75.6% of ever-waived ELs (715 out of 946 ever-waived ELs) and 80.5% of never-waived ELs (11,000 out of 13,666 never-waived ELs) in our sample did not receive SPED status by eighth grade.

Table 2.

Distribution of Placement Occurrences by Waiver Status for SPED, SLD, and SLI.

Grade	SPED						SLD						SLI
	Ever-waived ELs			Never-waived ELs			Ever-waived ELs			Never-waived ELs			Ever-waived ELs			Never-waived ELs
	Beginning total	Received SPED status	Censored	Beginning total	Received SPED status	Censored	Beginning total	Received SLD status	Censored	Beginning total	Received SLD status	Censored	Beginning total	Received SLI status	Censored	Beginning total	Received SLI status	Censored
K	946	107 (11.3%)	0	13,666	1,197 (8.8%)	0	946	1 (0.1%)	0	13,666	1 (0.01%)	0	946	52 (5.5%)	0	13,666	509 (3.7%)	0
1	839	26 (3.1%)	0	12,920	312 (2.4%)	0	945	10 (1.1%)	0	13,665	59 (0.4%)	0	894	20 (2.2%)	0	13,157	245 (1.9%)	0
2	813	31 (3.8%)	0	12,608	292 (2.3%)	0	935	21 (2.2%)	0	13,606	148 (1.1%)	0	874	21 (2.4%)	0	12,912	172 (1.3%)	0
3	782	19 (2.4%)	0	12,316	344 (2.8%)	0	914	26 (2.8%)	0	13,458	204 (1.5%)	0	853	10 (1.2%)	0	12,740	143 (1.1%)	0
4	763	27 (3.5%)	0	11,972	253 (2.1%)	0	888	19 (2.1%)	0	13,254	189 (1.4%)	0	843	5 (0.6%)	0	12,597	91 (0.7%)	0
5	736	13 (1.8%)	0	11,719	157 (1.3%)	0	869	9 (1.0%)	0	13,065	148 (1.1%)	0	838	8 (1.0%)	0	12,506	39 (0.3%)	0
6	723	5 (0.7%)	0	11,562	46 (0.4%)	0	860	4 (0.5%)	0	12,917	55 (0.4%)	0	830	1 (0.1%)	0	12,467	8 (0.1%)	0
7	718	1 (0.1%)	0	11,516	40 (0.3%)	0	856	1 (0.1%)	0	12,862	39 (0.3%)	0	829	0 (0%)	0	12,459	14 (0.1%)	0
8	717	2 (0.3%)	715	11,476	25 (0.2%)	11,000	855	3 (0.4%)	852	12,823	32 (0.2%)	12,791	829	0 (0%)	829	12,445	5 (0.04%)	12,440

Note. SPED = special education; SLD = specific learning disability; SLI = speech-language impairment; EL = English learner; K = kindergarten. Grade indicates the year in which a student received SPED status. Percentage of students placed into SPED, SLD, or SLI services in each grade is in parentheses. In this analytical sample, waived ELs and current ELs are censored when they do not receive SPED, SLD, or SLI status until the end of eighth grade.

In Table 3, we report the hazard modeling results for SPED placement likelihood (see column “SPED”). For ease of interpretation, the estimates are presented as odds ratios (ORs). An OR of 1.0 indicates that the group of interest (i.e., ever-waived ELs), when compared with the reference group (i.e., never-waived ELs), has about the same probability of experiencing an event (i.e., SPED placement) at each time point. An OR greater than 1.0, however, indicates that a group of interest is more likely to experience an event compared with the reference group. Finally, an OR less than 1.0 indicates that a group of interest is less likely to experience an event compared with the reference group.

Table 3.

Discrete-Time Hazard Modeling Results Predicting SPED, SLD, or SLI Placement by Language Status.

Variable	Odds ratio (SE)
Variable	SPED	SLD	SLI
Ever-waived EL	1.25* (0.12)	1.64*** (0.19)	1.33* (0.18)
Female	0.60*** (0.03)	0.64*** (0.04)	0.55*** (0.04)
Hispanic	1.07 (0.07)	1.60*** (0.15)	1.39** (0.14)
Lower SES	0.79** (0.06)	1.05 (0.10)	0.90 (0.10)
Chronic absenteeism	1.50*** (0.17)	1.33* (0.19)	1.33 (0.22)

Note. SPED = special education; SLD = specific learning disability; SLI = speech-language impairment; EL = English learner. Never-waived ELs used as a reference group to ever-waived ELs.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 shows that, at each time point, ever-waived ELs are 25% more likely than otherwise similar never-waived ELs to be placed into SPED services (as indicated by statistically significant, covariate-adjusted OR of 1.25). By other student-level factors, female students are 40% (OR of 0.60) less likely than their male peers to be placed into SPED services, students from lower-SES households were less 21% less likely (OR of 0.79) than their peers from higher-SES households, and chronically absent students were 50% more likely (OR of 1.50) to receive SPED status compared with their peers who attended school for more than 90% of the school year. Hispanic status was the only predictor of SPED placement that was not significant (nonsignificant OR of 1.07), suggesting that the odds of SPED placement were not statistically different between Hispanic ELs and non-Hispanic ELs.

Figure 1 displays the covariate-adjusted hazards functions (top panel) and cumulative hazards functions (bottom panel) of SPED placement by waiver status. For the specific values of hazard and cumulative hazard values at each grade, see Table S2 in the online supplementary material. As a reminder, hazard functions represent the conditional probability that a student will be placed into SPED services at each time point, assuming that the student has not already been placed into SPED services. Hence, hazard functions allow us to examine not only the likelihood but also the timing at which SPED placement is most likely to occur (i.e., the highest point on the hazard function plot indicates the time of highest risk), by language status.

Figure 1.

Plots of covariate-adjusted hazard and cumulative hazard functions of SPED placement by waiver status. SPED = special education; EL = English learner.

Figure 1 reveals that ELs’ likelihood of SPED placement, adjusting for other student-level factors, starts elevated in the kindergarten year for both waiver status groups. Most notably, ever-waived ELs were slightly more likely to have SPED status compared with their never-waived EL peers in kindergarten. However, both ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs followed a similar pattern over time. Similar hazard function plots for both ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs between kindergarten and second grade (i.e., 0.031–0.034 [3.1%–3.4%] and 0.024–0.026 [2.4%–2.6%], respectively) suggest that, regardless of waiver status, SPED placement likelihoods are elevated but stable in the primary grades. After a slight peak in third grade, both groups show a noticeable dip in likelihoods starting in fourth grade. This trend indicates that the likelihood of SPED placement—for ELs who have not been previously identified for SPED services—declines as they progress toward middle school. This decline continues into middle grades with an even more noticeable drop in sixth grade. Additionally, the gap between ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs almost overlap starting in sixth grade and continuing toward eighth grade.

The bottom panel of Figure 1 presents the cumulative likelihood of SPED placement (see Table S2 for specific values of cumulative hazard functions). As a reminder, cumulative hazard or cumulative probability indicates the likelihood that a student will experience an event (i.e., SPED placement) by each time point (vs. at each time point). These values can be easily interpreted as follows: If we were to follow 100 ever-waived ELs who entered the Tennessee public school system in kindergarten, the group's cumulative probability of 0.034 (or approximately 3%) by the end of their first school year (i.e., end of kindergarten) would mean that approximately three ever-waived ELs have been placed into SPED services by that time point. Likewise, the cumulative probability of 0.095 (or approximately 10%) by the end of second grade, for example, indicates that after 2 years since school entry, approximately 10 ever-waived ELs—including the original three ever-waived ELs (hence “cumulative”)—will have been placed into SPED. The covariate-adjusted cumulative probabilities show that ever-waived ELs have an approximately 18% likelihood of being identified for SPED services by the end of eighth grade (cumulative probability of 0.178). This is slightly higher than 14% cumulative probability (cumulative probability of 0.138) for never-waived ELs. These results are by no means intended to imply causal relation between waiver status and SPED placement. Rather, they simply suggest that from kindergarten to the end of middle school, ELs whose parents waived English language support services at any point had a higher cumulative likelihood of receiving SPED services.

SLD and SLI

In addition to overall SPED placement, we conducted discrete-time hazard analyses for SLD and SLI, which are the top two disability categories for which the majority of ELs with disabilities are classified (OELA, 2020; WIDA, 2017). Table 3 presents the distribution of placement occurrences for SLD and SLI by waiver status (see columns “SLD” and “SLI,” respectively). The frequencies noticeably differ between SLD and SLI. The majority of SLD placement for both ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs occur between second and fourth grades (2.1%–2.8% and 1.1%–1.5%, respectively). In contrast, the majority of SLI placement for ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs were concentrated in primary grades, specifically in kindergarten (5.5% and 3.7%, respectively). In other words, whereas SLD placement appears to occur mostly in later elementary grades, SLI placement occurs most frequently at school entry, suggesting that students may be entering schools already diagnosed with SLI.

Next, we present the discrete-time hazard analysis results for both SLD and SLI in Table 3, presented as ORs (see columns “SLD” and “SLI”). Most notably, ever-waived ELs showed greater odds of SLD placement compared with SLI (covariate-adjusted ORs of 1.64 vs. 1.33), where they were 64% more likely to have SLD status and 33% more likely to have SLI status at any time point compared with their never-waived EL peers. ORs for SLD and SLI placement based on students’ gender and chronic absenteeism were comparable to findings for overall SPED placement. That is, female students were significantly less likely than their male peers to receive either SLD or SLI placement. Chronic absenteeism did significantly predict higher odds of SLD placement (33% as indicated by OR of 1.33) but not SLI. In contrast to the findings for overall SPED placement, being Hispanic emerged as a significant and positive predictor of both SLD and SLI status (60% and 39%, respectively). However, lower SES was no longer a significant predictor for odds of SLD and SLI classification.

Based on the findings shown in Table 3, the top two panels of Figure 2 plot the covariate-adjusted hazard functions for SLD and SLI over time by language status (see Tables S3 and S4 in the online supplementary material for specific values). Ever-waived ELs were consistently more likely to be placed into SLD or SLI services than never-waived ELs, as shown by the ever-waived-ELs line that is consistently above that of never-waived ELs. Additionally, as indicated by the highest points, or peaks, the highest likelihood of SLD placement is in third grade, and the highest likelihood of SLI placement occurs in kindergarten (i.e., at school entry), for both groups. The shape of the SLD hazard plots for both waiver groups show that the likelihood of SLD placement increases toward third grade, peaks in third grade, and decreases over time, with the gap in likelihoods narrowing between ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs. In contrast, the likelihood of SLI placement steadily declines over time starting in kindergarten, indicating that regardless of waiver status, ELs generally start kindergarten already having been identified with SLI or are identified with SLI soon after starting school.

Figure 2.

Plots of covariate-adjusted hazard and cumulative hazard functions of SLD and SLI placement by waiver status. SLD = specific learning disability; SLI = speech or language impairment; EL = English learner.

The bottom two panels in Figure 2 present the cumulative probabilities of SLD and SLI placement by waiver status (see Tables S3 and S4 in the online supplementary material for specific values). Results show that, after 9 years in the Tennessee public school system since kindergarten, ever-waived ELs had a 10.6% and 9.5% probability of being identified with SLD and SLI, respectively. Never-waived ELs had a 6.9% and 7.3% probability of receiving SLD and SLI status, respectively. Similar to the cumulative probability for overall SPED placement, ever-waived ELs consistently showed higher cumulative probabilities for both SLD and SLI. Additionally, as expected based on the hazard function peak in third grade for SLD and in kindergarten for SLI for both waiver groups, Figure 2 (see bottom left panel) shows a steep increase in the cumulative hazard plots at third grade for SLD and at kindergarten for SLI. Overall, both waiver groups gradually became less likely to be identified with SLD and SLI toward the end of elementary school and throughout middle school, as indicated by the plateauing of cumulative probabilities over time.

Discussion

This study builds on the growing literature on ELs’ representation in SPED services (e.g., Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Hibel & Jasper, 2012; Mancilla-Martinez et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2015; Samson & Lesaux, 2009; Skiba et al., 2016; Sullivan & Bal, 2013; Umansky et al., 2017; Yamasaki & Luk, 2018) and offers insight into an understudied EL subgroup: waived ELs. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine how waived ELs are represented in SPED services overall and specifically in language-based disability categories of SLD and SLI.

Ever-Waived ELs Overrepresented in SPED, SLD, and SLI

Ever-waived ELs’ covariate-adjusted odds of SPED, SLD, and SLI placement indicated that they were consistently more likely than their never-waived EL peers to experience the three outcomes. Although not much is known about ever-waived ELs’ representation in SPED in the field, their overrepresentation in SPED relative to their similarly situated never-waived ELs suggests that the parental decision to waive English language support services may be related to their child's need for SPED services to an extent, especially in SLD (64% more likely), followed by SLI (33% more likely). Indeed, Zhao and Maina (2015) also discovered that ELs whose parents declined English language services in Maryland included a substantial proportion of waived ELs (36.7%) in SPED. Additionally, ever-waived ELs’ consistently higher likelihoods of SPED, SLD, and SLI placement compared with their never-waived EL peers also contribute to the growing conversation in the field about the competing nature of English language support and SPED services (Kangas, 2014, 2018; Lopes-Murphy, 2020; Schissel & Kangas, 2018; Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022). The goal of this study was not anchored on parents’ decision to waive English language support services for their children due to SPED eligibility; however, the distinct trends in which ever-waived ELs consistently showed greater odds of SPED, SLD, and SLI placement signals that waiver status could be related to ELs’ need for SPED services, at the cost of English language support. That is, it may be that the hierarchy of services may be involved (i.e., SPED prioritized over English language support services; Kangas, 2018; Schissel & Kangas, 2018; Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022). In other words, there may be misguided perceptions that ELs need to choose either English language support services or SPED services but not both. If so, this raises serious concerns about whether ELs’ need for both language and disability services is being overlooked or addressed much later than their English-proficient or native-English-speaker peers with similar learning disabilities.

Similar Trends Between Ever-Waived ELs and Never-Waived ELs

Both ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs in our sample reached peak likelihood of SPED and SLD placement at the start of upper elementary years (i.e., third grade, immediately after primary years [K–2]), and the likelihoods declined over time, toward middle grades. In other words, there appears to be a window for overall SPED and SLD placement that closes before sixth grade in that ELs who are not placed into SPED or SLD services by the end of elementary school become much less likely to experience it in middle school. This SLD placement pattern aligns with national trends, where SLD placement tends to mostly occur around second and fourth grades (Umansky et al., 2017). In fact, this trend could be explained by how SLD is defined: “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell” (emphasis added; IDEA § 300.8[c][10]). Studies find that students with reading-based difficulties and signs of low academic achievement tend to be referred to SLD placement, especially in upper elementary grades, when academic demands increase and underachievement becomes more difficult to address (Butler et al., 2010; Flynn et al., 2012). In Massachusetts, Yamasaki and Luk (2018) found that ELs (referred to as emerging bilinguals) showed a lower rate of SLD placement in early grades (third grade) but higher rates in later grades (fourth and fifth grades). Similarly, in an undisclosed new destination state, Umansky et al. (2017) found that ELs who entered school in kindergarten were most likely to be placed into SPED around fourth and fifth grades. Most notably, the likelihood of SLD placement for ELs remained lower than that of never-ELs between kindergarten and third grade, but soon outpaced never-ELs’ likelihood for SLD placement at fourth grade and remained elevated into middle school (Umansky et al., 2017). Likewise, studies on SLD representation of Hispanic students—which is the predominant background of ELs in our study—also reported a gradual increase in SLD placement likelihood from lower to upper elementary grades, at which point the likelihood declines (e.g., fifth grade; Morgan et al., 2015) or remains elevated through middle school (Cruz & Firestone, 2022).

SLI placement trends, however, differed from those of overall SPED and SLD. The likelihood of SLI placement already started at its peak in kindergarten and gradually declined; in other words, ever-waived ELs and never-waived ELs were most likely to have SLI status at school entry. This trend is consistent with longitudinal research on representation of minority learners by disability category (Cruz & Firestone, 2022; Morgan et al., 2015). That is, in contrast to SLD, where the highest likelihoods are in third and fourth grades (see Figure 2, top left panel), the peak window of SLI placement appears to be in primary grades (i.e., kindergarten to second grade), after which the likelihood of being newly identified for SLI continues to drop. Although SLI is also a language-related category like SLD, the early placement rates may be attributable to the fact that SLI placement involves more clinical elements (e.g., impaired articulation, stuttering, or voice impairment) that tend to be more visible earlier on, compared with reading comprehension difficulties—associated with SLD—that may not be as noticeable until later grades, when reading demands increase.

Although we do not know if the elevated SLD placement likelihoods indicate delayed placement, the peak at the start of upper elementary grades suggests that for SLD, students may be particularly susceptible to the “wait-and-see” phenomenon that is often attributed to increased proportion of ELs in SPED services in later elementary grades (Limbos & Geva, 2001; Samson & Lesaux, 2009). That is, teachers may be hesitant to refer ELs for SLD placement in the early elementary years (K–2) under the assumption that ELs need more time to develop English language proficiency before attributing academic underachievement to SLD. In fact, English language support services are sometimes viewed as alternatives to SPED services in early grades, which relates to disproportionate representation of ELs in later grades (Hibel & Jasper, 2012). Although our exploratory study was not designed to identify whether the wait-and-see approach or delayed SPED placement occurs, the findings confirm the complicated intersection of EL and SPED status.

Implications for Practice and Policy

This study revealed variability in SPED, SLD, and SLI status by English language support service waiver status.

Given this, districts and local education agencies may benefit from reviewing the policies and practices related to parents’ waiver declaration and systematically document the extent to which institutional factors (e.g., district or school culture and resources related to parent involvement and decision-making) influence this choice. Based on growing research suggesting a hierarchy of services in school settings where SPED services trump English language support (Kangas, 2018) and how this culture of SPED prioritization often begins at the district level and filters down to classroom practices (Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022), evaluating if and to what extent this perception exists in schools would be informative.

Relatedly, it is possible that parents who are already aware of their child's need for SPED services may be opting out of English language services when their child is identified as an EL.

Additionally, given that the ever-waived status in this study includes ELs who may have received English language support services in one year but later declined language services, it is also possible that ELs may have been receiving English language services for a certain period of time before waiving language services to receive SPED services that they needed from the beginning.

Our findings raise important questions about whether parents are declining English language support services for the sake of SPED services.

If this is the case, policy-level efforts to allocate resources to build capacity across districts, schools, and teachers to not only have qualified SPED and EL teachers prepared to serve ELs with disabilities but also ensure that they have appropriate resources and space to collaborate to make consequential educational decisions for ELs will be imperative (Kangas, 2018; Stutzman & Lowenhaupt, 2022). We recognize that school administrators and educators want to be judicious with the time they have with their students. As such, district-level efforts and systematic investments for dually identified students are much needed, such as more EL-related content requirements for preservice teacher training and SPED teacher credentialing (Umansky et al., 2017); professional development opportunities to strengthen teachers’ asset-driven, research-based understanding of ELs; and school-level support for interdisciplinary teams and opportunities in which educators can collaboratively evaluate data and evidence centered on ELs and ELs with disabilities.

Limitations and Future Directions

This exploratory study has several limitations that future research could address. Despite the novel attention to longitudinal trends of SPED, SLD, and SLI representation by waiver status, we did not examine how the trends might vary by school-level or district-level factors. ELs’ representation in SPED and specific disability categories can vary based on educational contexts (Barrio, 2017; Umansky et al., 2017), such as local policies and referral practices, proportion of certified EL teachers or trained bilingual school personnel (e.g., school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, special education teachers), and the size of the district-level EL population. Therefore, in-depth studies accounting for school or district variability related to identifying and supporting dually identified ELs would be valuable for better understanding the contributors to ELs’ representation in SPED.

Another limitation relates to how the analytic dataset was organized. On the basis of the English language background indicator in the state database, ELs were categorized into either ever-waived ELs or never-waived ELs. In particular, the ever-waived EL group not only included ELs who were only waived ELs (i.e., never received English language services) but also included students who were identified as current ELs in one year but as waived ELs in another year. Therefore, although this exploratory study offers preliminary insight into the ever-waived EL group broadly, future research should compare how the shift(s) in waiver status relates to representation in SPED services (i.e., are ELs who switched from current EL to waived EL status more likely to be in SPED, compared with those who switched from waived EL to current EL status? Does the frequency of waiver status changes relate to SPED service receipt?). Second, the dataset included only students who entered the school system in kindergarten. Future research should explore variability in SPED placement trends based on the timing of later school entry (e.g., does school entry in third grade vs. sixth grade differentially relate to waiver status and/or SPED status?). Further, the majority of the ELs in our sample were Hispanic. It is true that the majority of ELs come from Spanish-speaking homes in the United States (OELA, 2020). Nonetheless, Spanish is not the predominant language spoken by ELs in all states. In fact, top languages spoken by ELs (and thus ethnic backgrounds) could vary across schools and districts even within the same state. Therefore, more research is needed in states, districts, and schools that (a) have large EL populations from other home-language backgrounds (e.g., Arabic, Chinese), (b) offer formal bilingual programs in schools (e.g., Delaware, Utah), and (c) offer the option to waive English language support services. Additionally, future research should consider ELs’ language proficiency in both English and their home language to explore the relation among SPED status and waiver status and any variability by language proficiency.

Although limited, studies have reported parents’ concerns about potential prejudice and stigma associated with the label as an EL or a student with disabilities (Kabuto, 2020; Zuckerman et al., 2014). However, evidence on how and why parents waive English language support services is limited. Hence, future research should explore the perspectives of parents who waive English language support services, specifically whether their decision to waive English language services is influenced by their child's need for SPED. Relatedly, studies should examine how SES relates to parents’ decision to waive English language support services. In our sample, we observed a noticeable difference in the percentage of low-SES backgrounds between ever-waived ELs (58.47%) and never-waived ELs (72.46%). A slightly larger proportion of ELs who were not from lower-SES households tended to have parents who declined English language support services for their child (i.e., ever-waived ELs) compared with those who did not decline services (i.e., never-waived ELs). Given that parents in low-SES households tend to be less familiar with the inner workings of schools and knowledge about the choices available to them to navigate educational programs for their children (Yettick et al., 2008), it may be possible that household SES may be associated with ELs’ waiver status. Currently, there is limited research and documentation about waived ELs in U.S. schools, and even less is known about the parental decision to waive English language support services. More research is warranted not only about waived ELs but also at the intersection of waiver status and SPED status—by disability type and across states and districts (e.g., in traditional EL-serving states vs. new destination states).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ecx-10.1177_00144029231220302 - Supplemental material for Waived English Learners: The Understudied Intersection of English Learner and Special Education Status

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ecx-10.1177_00144029231220302 for Waived English Learners: The Understudied Intersection of English Learner and Special Education Status by Min Hyun Oh and Jeannette Mancilla-Martinez in Exceptional Children

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This work was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No. R305B210008).

ORCID iD

Min Hyun Oh

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Manuscript received October 2022; accepted June 2023.

References

Artiles

A. J.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2002). English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction. Center for Applied Linguistics.

Barrio

B. L.

(2017). Special education policy change: Addressing the disproportionality of English language learners in special education programs in rural communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(2), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517707217

Betts

Hill

Bachofer

Hayes

Lee

Zau

(2020). Effects of English learner reclassification policies on academic trajectories . NBER Working Paper No. 28188. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28188/w28188.pdf

Butler

Urrutia

Buenger

Hunt

(2010). A review of the current research on comprehension instruction (No. ED-08-CO-0123). U.S. Department of Education.

Carnock

J. T.

Silva

(2019). English learners with disabilities: Shining a light on dual-identified students. New America.

Clotfelter

C. T.

Ladd

H. F.

Vigdor

J. L.

(2009). The academic achievement gap in grades 3 to 8. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(2), 398–419. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12207

Counts

Katsiyannis

Whitford

D. K.

(2018). Culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education: English learners. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 102(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636518755945

Coutinho

M. J.

Oswald

D. P.

(2005). State variation in gender disproportionality in special education: Findings and recommendations. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010201

Cruz

R. A.

Firestone

A. R.

(2022). Understanding the empty backpack: The role of timing in disproportionate special education identification. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 8(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492211034890

10.

Donovan

M. S.

Cross

C. T.

(Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Academies Press.

11.

Duncan

G. J.

Hoynes

(2021). Reducing child poverty can promote children’s development and productivity in adulthood. Society for Research in Child Development. https://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/resources/CEB-Child%20Tax%20Credits_final.pdf

12.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7801 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

13.

Flores

S. M.

Batalova

Fix

(2012). The educational trjaectories of English language learners in Texas. Migration Policy Institute.

14.

Flores

S. M.

Drake

T. A.

(2014). Does English language learner (ELL) identification predict college remediation designation?: A comparison by race and ethnicity, and ELL waiver status. Review of Higher Education, 38(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2014.0041

15.

Flores

Park

(2011). The effect of English language learner identification on college access outcomes: Using matching techniques to decipher the role of time in program . Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC, November 17, 2011.

16.

Flynn

L. J.

Zheng

Swanson

H. L.

(2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00347.x

17.

Gándara

Mordechay

(2017). Demographic change and the new (and not so new) challenges for Latino education. Educational Forum, 81(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2017.1280755

18.

Gilmour

A. F.

Fuchs

Wehby

J. H.

(2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795830

19.

Guzman

Thomson

Ryberg

(2021). Understanding the influence of Latino diversity over child poverty in the United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 696(1), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211048780

20.

Halle

Hair

Wandner

McNamara

Chien

(2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004

21.

Hibel

Jasper

A. D.

(2012). Delayed special education placement for learning disabilities among children of immigrants. Social Forces, 91(2), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos092

22.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act . (2018). Sec. 300.8 Child with a disability. U.S. Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8

23.

Johnson

(2022). Achievement and growth for English learners. Educational Policy, 37(4), 875–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211049419

24.

Kabuto

(2020). Parental perceptions of learning disabilities. Educational Forum, 84(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1737997

25.

Kangas

S. E. N.

(2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4), 273–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

26.

Kangas

S. E. N.

(2018). Breaking one law to uphold another: How schools provide services to English learners with disabilities. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 877–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.431

27.

Kieffer

M. J.

(2011). Converging trajectories. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1187–1225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419490

28.

Limbos

M. M.

Geva

(2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400204

29.

Linn

Hemmer

(2011). English Language learner disproportionality in special education: Implications for the scholar-practitioner. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 1(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2011.01.1.06

30.

Lopes-Murphy

S. A.

(2020). Contention between English as a second language and special education services for emergent bilinguals with disabilities. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.1.3

31.

Mancilla-Martinez

Luk

Rollins

(2023). Special education representation trends vary by language status: Evidence of underrepresentation in Tennessee. Educational Researcher, 1–15.

32.

Mavrogordato

Harris

(2017). Eligiendo escuelas: English learners and access to school choice. K-16 Education, 31(6), 801–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817724226

33.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillemeier

M. M.

Maczuga

(2012). Are minority children disproportionately represented in early intervention and early childhood special education? Educational Researcher, 41(9), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12459678

34.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillemeier

M. M.

Mattison

Maczuga

Cook

(2015). Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15591157

35.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies Press.

36.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). English learners in public schools: Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf

37.

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020). Significant disproportionality in special education: Trends among Latinx students . https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-NCLD-Disproportionality_Latinx-Students_FINAL.pdf

38.

Office of English Language Acquisition. (2020). English learners who speak Spanish as a home language .

39.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2022). OSEP fast facts: Students with disabilities who are English learners (ELs) served under IDEA Part B .

40.

Park

Zong

Batalova

(2018). Growing superdiversity among young U.S. dual language learners and its implications. Migration Policy Institute.

41.

Potochnick

(2014). The academic adaptation of children of immigrants in new and established settlement states: The role of family, schools, and neighborhoods. Population Research and Policy Review, 33(3), 335–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9319-0

42.

Salerno

A. S.

Andrei

(2021). Inconsistencies in English learner identification: An inventory of how home language surveys across U.S. States screen multilingual students. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211002212

43.

Samson

J. F.

Lesaux

N. K.

(2009). Language minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221 9408326221

44.

Schifter

L. A. A.

Grindal

Schwartz

Hehir

(2019). Students from low-income families and special education. Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/students-low-income-families-special-education/

45.

Schissel

J. L.

Kangas

S. E. N.

(2018). Reclassification of emergent bilinguals with disabilities: The intersectionality of improbabilities. Language Policy, 17, 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9476-4

46.

Singer

J. D.

Willett

J. B.

(2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.

47.

Skiba

R. J.

Artiles

A. J.

Kozleski

E. B.

Losen

D. J.

Harry

E. G.

(2016). Risks and consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et al. (2015). Educational Researcher, 45(3), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16644606

48.

Sprick

J. T.

Bouck

E. C.

Berg

T. R.

Coughlin

(2020). Attendance and specific learning disability identification: A survey of practicing school psychologists. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(3), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12229

49.

Stutzman

Lowenhaupt

(2022). At the intersection: Examining teacher and administrator perceptions of ELs and special education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(3), 1047–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1749240

50.

Sugarman, J., & Geary, C. (2018). English learners in Tennessee: Demographics, outcomes, and state accountability policies. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/EL-factsheet2018-Tennessee_Final.pdf

51.

Sullivan

A. L.

(2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700304

52.

Sullivan

A. L.

Bal

(2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15591157

53.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2018). Supporting all English learners across Tennessee: A framework for English learners . https://content.schoolinsites.com/api/documents/39d376898177460d951302d52f7b7e34.pdf

54.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2021). Federal programs and oversight data manual . https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/fed/FPO%20Data.pdf

55.

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2021). Chapter 0520-01-19: English as a Second Language programs . https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/rules/0520/0520-01/05.pdf

56.

Umansky

I. M.

Reardon

S. F.

(2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in Bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214545110

57.

Umansky

I. M.

Thompson

K. D.

Díaz

(2017). Using an ever-English learner framework to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917707470

58.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Ensuring English learner students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs . https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-el-students-201501.pdf

59.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Tools and resources for addressing English learners with disabilities . https://www2-ed-gov.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap6.pdf

60.

U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Profile of English learners in the United States . Office of English Language Acquisition. https://ncela.ed.gov/sites/default/files/fast_facts/DEL4.4_ELProfile_508_1.4.2021_OELA.pdf

61.

WIDA. (2017). Identifying ELLs with specific learning disabilities: Facts, advice, and resources for school teams . https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/FocusOn-Identifying-ELLs-with-Specific-Learning-Disabilities.pdf

62.

Yamasaki

B. L.

Luk

(2018). Eligibility for special education in elementary school: The role of diverse language experiences. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0006

63.

Yettick

Wexler

Anderson

(2008). Parental decision-making and educational opportunity. In K.

Welner

Chi

(Eds.), Current issues in education policy and the law (pp. 99–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

64.

Zhao

Maina

(2015). English language proficiency and progress: Students receiving English for speakers of other languages services from 2012 to 2014. Montgomery County Public Schools.

65.

Zuckerman

K. E.

Mattox

K. M.

Sinche

B. K.

Blaschke

G. S.

Bethell

(2014). Racial, ethnic, and language disparities in early childhood developmental/behavioral evaluations: A narrative review. Clinical Pediatrics, 53(7), 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922813501378

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB