Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students With Learning Disabilities: Building a Framework for Addressing Equity Through Empirical Research

Abstract

The purpose of this special series is to augment effective instruction for students with learning disabilities who are also considered culturally, racially/ethnically, linguistically, or otherwise diverse. In this paper, we acknowledge the central focus on technical rigor for the purpose of strengthening causal linkages between instruction and learning, thus enhancing instructional efficacy and accuracy. We also recognize that diminished access to effective instruction has contributed to the marginalization of diverse students. In our response to the articles in this series, we focus on the theorization of equity, articulated to varying degrees, underpinning and uniting these papers. Equity underscores the relevancy both of educational diversity and of research methods aimed toward generalizability. We discuss the implications of simultaneously using tools and methods required for both strengthening the empirical research base and studying systemic inequities inherent in our institutions and research practices.

Keywords

research methods equity diversity intervention research

The term diversity can refer to a broad range of human characteristics including, but not limited to, disability, race, ethnicity, cultural identity, gender, socioeconomic status, immigration status, sexual orientation, and language. These individual characteristics contribute to individuals’ identity and group membership, and group membership contributes to individuals’ ways of knowing and doing (i.e., culture; Cole, 2010; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003). At the same time, educational experiences and opportunity are associated with group membership and reflect a group’s power and status in social hierarchies (National Research Council, 2004). For example, socioeconomic status and immigration status are both associated with limited access to education in fully resourced schools. Thus, minoritized students and immigrants, particularly those from low socioeconomic households, are less likely to attend schools where material and faculty resources are commensurate with the school’s needs (Anyon, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2006). In this article, diverse refers to students and families from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) communities with a focus on ways in which disability, race/ethnicity, culture, language, and other aspects of diversity are considered in the implementation and interpretation of intervention research.

Both in-school achievement and post-school outcomes for students with learning disabilities (LD) vary considerably across racial/ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic groups (Blackorby et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2011). These differences are often framed as achievement gaps; however, many scholars have embraced Ladson-Billings (2006) argument that such disparities are more accurately conceptualized as education debts reflecting differences in access to effective educational practices as well as complex structural and societal inequities. Exposure to biases and other affronts to equitable educational opportunity, including poverty and under-resourced schools (Anyon, 1997, 2005; Sala & Knoeppel, 2017), inadequate instruction provided by teachers who are ill-prepared to work with diverse learners (Ortiz & Robertson, 2018; Wilcox et al., 2015), inaccuracies in special education identification (Artiles et al., 2006; Skiba et al., 2006; Sullivan, 2011), and exclusionary discipline (Skiba et al., 2005, 2009/2010; Sullivan, 2011), disproportionately impacts CLD students’ access to education. Although many CLD youth are resilient and excel in school, reduced opportunity to learn can create vulnerability and diminish benefits of education.

Historically, special education has conceptualized CLD students as racial/ethnic minorities, focusing attention on racial/ethnic disproportionality. For nearly five decades, the examination of disproportionality—first in disability identification, then in access to the general education curriculum, exclusionary discipline, school achievement, and post-school outcomes—has resulted in what Freire (1998) identified as a kind of cultural residue. Residue, in this context, refers to the summative knowledge resulting from cultural practices (e.g., researching and teaching) that have endeavored to understand the individual and individual differences, without a concurrent emphasis examining equity, society, and its structures. This residue also includes the current, renewed debate about the nature of racial/ethnic disproportionality. This debate continues to target an examination of individual achievement despite that over 15 years ago, and findings from a national panel noted “a lack of precision in the schools’ ability to predict ‘true’ cases of disability, particularly in the judgmental categories” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 38). The panel ultimately warned of both false negatives and false positives in identification, particularly in the area of LD.

Largely driven by concerns regarding LD identification, Response to Intervention (RtI), another example of an educational practice that is embedded in a set of beliefs, assumptions, activities, and routines (i.e., a culture of practice), was designed to increase academic performance among students with and without disabilities and to provide a more valid process for identifying disabilities that do exist (Fuchs et al., 2014). Given its emphasis on effective instruction and the prevention of academic difficulties, RtI has also been identified as process with the potential to both increase student achievement and decrease inappropriate referrals of CLD students to special education (Hoover et al., 2008; Ortiz et al., 2011). However, a number of challenges must be overcome in order for RtI to meet the identified goals, not the least of which involves ensuring the provision of culturally and linguistically relevant instruction and intervention (King-Thorius et al., 2014; Kressler & Cavendish, 2019; Nichols et al., 2017; Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Orosco & O’Connor, 2014). Currently, national consensus on how to best address the needs of CLD students prior to or during the learning disability identification process does not exist (Scott et al., 2014).

We consider how our culture of practice, as represented in research, frames how we study diversity and equity. We believe that how we study a problem influences how we solve it. Using a culture of practice framework—specifically the practice of doing research—prods us to reflectively examine our own work. Research exists in the same contexts of inequity that embed CLD students’ educational opportunities, impacting our approach to examining equitable practices and the study of their efficacy (Arzubiaga et al., 2008). Furthermore, we present important considerations that may be overlooked but are essential in using research to increase equitable educational opportunity for CLD students identified as having LD. We were inspired by the aim of this special series to move beyond disproportionality in identification toward effective instruction for this large group of students who received special education services and are considered CLD. We think that the aim of this special series is more likely to be fruitful when the conceptualization of diversity is closely tethered to equity.

Using Words to Frame Concepts of Equity and Diversity

In 1968, Lloyd Dunn drew the field’s attention to a problem now widely understood as disproportionality. He used the term “low status ethnic groups” (p. 5), and he argued youth in this group were not only misidentified as having disabilities, they were also poorly served in special education. At the same time, Dunn remained a proponent of special education infrastructure that augmented learning opportunities for students with disabilities who were accurately identified. Our vernacular around equitable educational opportunity for diverse populations has evolved through many iterations since Dunn’s early moniker for diversity, including, but not limited to, disadvantaged, at-risk, minority, historically marginalized, and, most recently, minoritized.

Special educators, researchers, individuals with disabilities, and their families have long acknowledged that fair is not same, and that school-based equity requires taking into consideration and addressing obstacles to opportunities to learn, work, and live. Over time, this has included deconstructing ableist and other societal biases that open the door to, or at least intersect with, challenges associated with living with a disability. Beyond that, the field also has worked to identify sound effective educational practices that support instructional interventions that are effective for students with disabilities (Cook et al., 2009). A premise of this work is that effective instructional practices will equalize schooling for students with disabilities across groups, including the most vulnerable among us.

Diversity, conversely, is a word that we have handled with far less precision. For example, the term has often been used to signify “of color.” Here, we see diversity as signifying both literal differences and connotations of non-dominance, particularly when examining the culture of the practice of doing special education research. When used and understood literally, diversity—meaning heterogeneity—is appropriate for addressing the variation in school populations and local contexts, the range of inter- and intra-group differences, and the breadth of intersecting identity factors, all of which contribute to teaching and learning experiences. Yet, a focus on the literal meaning of diversity can be problematic, particularly when the construct of equity remains hidden or underdeveloped in the contexts of research (Watts-Smith & Mayorga-Gallo, 2017). Disparate outcomes across diverse groups of students flag unequal and deeply seeded issues of status and power. The historical, social, and political realities that make CLD students vulnerable to unequitable educational opportunity have multiple sources that intersect, making generalizations elusive and the relationship between diversity and educational opportunity difficult to measure. For example, although we understand White students to be members of the dominant racial group and to be among the most privileged of students, we recognize that White students with disabilities are also vulnerable to limited educational opportunity and to challenges associated with attending under-resourced schools. Although dominance conveys privilege and power, it does not establish a monolithic group identity that is absent in either diversity or vulnerability. Moreover, we acknowledge that strengths and agency can, at times, mitigate vulnerability for both youth of color and dominant group (i.e., White) youth (Sullivan & Bal, 2013).

Terminology is neither the most nor the least important aspect of providing equitable educational opportunity for children with disabilities. Words, however, reveal how we are conceptualizing our work in the questions we ask, the methods we employ, and our interpretations of results. Valencia (1997) discussed deficit-oriented language when examining diversity and equity in education, connecting its use to the pitfalls of deficit thinking such as teachers’ low expectations of students, the oversimplification of inequitable educational opportunity, and the masking and perpetuation of toxic biases in schooling. More than changing vocabulary, moving toward research-based equitable educational opportunity for students with LD requires that researchers understand and reveal the conceptual and theoretical frameworks that undergird our work (Arzubiaga et al., 2008; Erickson & Gutiérrez, 2002; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Reed et al., 2012).

Technically Effective Education as the Object of Research Efforts

As our terminology has evolved, so too has the object of our scholarly inquiry. Reaching beyond the accurate, precise identification of disability across racial/ethnic groups, our field has called for effective instruction identified through research methods that can either demonstrate causality or correlation for all students with disabilities. Practitioners may consider, as Cook and Cook (2017) suggested, the extent to which the findings from these studies apply to their students and classrooms. Researchers will likely consider the methods employed and the implications of results when developing future studies. Critical to such considerations is an understanding of the role of culture in educational research (Arzubiaga et al., 2008; Trainor & Bal, 2014), including a careful examination of the cultural responsiveness of each study and the methodological variables that influenced project outcomes. Beyond aspects of fit between an intervention and an applied setting, additional considerations are necessary to address equity issues that are ever-present in our quest to make educational opportunity available to all students with LD. Sample selection, the contexts in which studies occur, the positionality of the researcher(s), and the use of data to make instructional decisions are all centrally important to studies designed to equitably address the needs of diverse students. See Figure 1 for a selection of considerations that convey status and power associated with individuals and contexts that are relevant to educational research. Sociocultural, political, and historical movements occur over time and status and power considerations change. For example, the recent gender fluidity movement may have implications for transgender learners, and as part of a nondominant group, attention to instructional equity for this group is necessary (Sumerau et al., 2017). Selected considerations presented in this figure are not meant to represent an exhaustive list.

Figure 1.

Select considerations for increasing equity in intervention research for culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities.

Sample Selection and Description

When designing research targeting diversity and equity, arguments can be made for focusing student-level intervention research on samples that include one or more groups of youth who identify as people of color; English learners (ELs), the arguably deficit-oriented, federally recognized term for multilingual learners (Linquanti & Cook, 2013); immigrants across races/ethnicities; and, others who experience vulnerability mapping to breaches in opportunity (Reed et al., 2012). Clearly, students with LD should receive instruction and intervention that is relevant to their needs and that has been demonstrated effective with their “true peers,” students with similar language proficiency, cultural and experiential background, and learning characteristics (Esparza-Brown & Doolittle, 2008).

Cook and Cook (2017) suggested that practitioners seeking to implement research-based interventions will ponder the degree of match between participants in a given study and their own students. However, they caution that participating subjects may have “idiosyncratic characteristics that are not typically considered, but that might still impact the effect of the instructional practice” (p. 81). Consider, for example, multilingual learners (i.e., ELs) as a subgroup of students who are the focus of a number of studies included in this special series (Helman et al.; Powell & Urutia; Sorrells, Linan-Thompson et al.). The classification of a student as an EL is based upon results of a home language survey and an assessment of their English proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). However, ELs are a tremendously heterogeneous population in terms of sociocultural background, school and academic experiences, English and native language proficiency, and the characteristics of the special language programs in which they have been enrolled (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016; Moore & Klingner, 2014). In addition to descriptions of the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, it is important to specify, to the maximum extent possible, the nature of bilingual and/or English as a second language (ESL) instruction provided, results of assessments of language proficiency in both English and the native language, results of academic performance measures in the language(s) of instruction, and other contextual variables researchers identify that may have impacted study outcomes (Moore & Klingner, 2014; Ortiz et al., 2018).

Earlier studies demonstrated a lack of precision in the identification of students of color as participants in research (Artiles et al., 2006), and researchers are advised to follow an existing, more exacting set of minimal criteria when describing participants (American Psychological Association, 2003). Yet less precise categorization continues, as demonstrated by the descriptions of student characteristics as reported in math intervention studies and a study of the ecological and population validity of reading intervention research conducted by Reed et al. (2012). Reed et al. found significant gaps in the research evidence related to specific subgroups of students (e.g., African Americans, Native Americans and, ELs). Yet, accuracy in sample description is a key consideration when evaluating research evidence across quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Brantlinger et al., 2005; Chard et al., 2009; Cook & Cook, 2017; Cook et al., 2009; Lane et al., 2009). Individuals, however, are embedded in contexts that include environmental, institutional, and systemic factors that should also be described with precision.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the sample and its description include characteristics that are responsive to the research questions. These characteristics, in turn, illuminate positionalities of researchers and participants, which have influence on the design of the research.

Contexts Beyond the Individual

The examination of context beyond the individual is a characteristic of equity-focused research. In addition to describing the context of a study, the theoretical frameworks that inform a study are important to explicitly acknowledge. One theoretical framework that has been useful in framing the research context with specificity has been Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005) used here for the purpose of illustrating our points rather than prescribing a recommendation. We acknowledge that other theories have the capacity to address questions of equity.

Bronfenbrenner’s theory provides tools to understand micro- and macro-level systems of variables such as home and school socioeconomic factors (i.e., micro) and federal policies (i.e., macro) that embed intervention contexts including, among others, communities, districts, schools, and classrooms. Bronfenbrenner (1979, 2005) also emphasized interrelatedness and movement between systems and across levels, called the meso- and exo-systems, and over time (i.e., the chronosytem). For example, we understand that parents’ and teachers’ interactions and relationships (i.e., mesosystem) effect children’s experiences in school even when one or both are not present in the actual micro-level environment. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem (i.e., a system of systems of connections) includes factors such as the social networks or the career trajectories of parents. When considering the knowledge base of intervention studies with the broader question of establishing equity for diverse and vulnerable students with disabilities, the constellation of systems in Bronfenbrenner’s model helps identify factors in need of targeting through intervention. Through a contextualized analysis of intervention implementation, we can more accurately understand what factors should be addressed to bring about educational change.

Such analyses are critical to understanding, for example, why 93% of a nationally representative group of multilingual learners with disabilities, the majority of whom have been identified as LD, received transition planning—considered an effective evidence-based intervention (Mazzotti et al., 2015; Test et al., 2009)—yet only 80% gained postschool employment (Trainor et al., 2016). An intervention may be necessary but not sufficient to evidence increased opportunity when implemented in local contexts. Extending the above examples, transition planning interventions may not bring employment opportunities to bare on communities in which depressed economies and underemployment for adults overshadows finding early work experiences for adolescents with disabilities. The context of intervention studies must be considered in addition to and alongside the diversity of the sample.

Moving beyond the sample allows us to see that diversity conceptualizations, to be useful in solving questions of inequity, are instantiated with questions about status and power. In other words, diversity in educational research necessarily engages equity. This is why using ecological models, such as Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) in isolation, is not sufficient for addressing the most pressing questions in educational research. Theoretical models that explain how inequality disrupts opportunities to learn in local contexts are also an essential element to intervention research. Moreover, knowing a sample’s racial/ethnic, linguistic, and other identities, although essential, does not provide a complete picture of the relevance of diversity. Relationships among teachers, researchers, students, and their families are also important. A thorough discussion of the use of theory to contextualize power and privilege is beyond the scope of this article; however, examples of models that are commonly used in other education fields to frame and examine equity and diversity include identity theories (Kana’iaupuni et al., 2017; Lee, 1996), capital theories (Fine & Weis, 1998; Galindo et al., 2017), and critical theories (Madrigal-Garcia & Acevedo-Gil, 2016; Yosso, 2005). Figure 1 illustrates the reciprocal and integral relationship between context, the research questions, and additional indicators of equity-focused research.

Interventionists and Reflexivity

Given that research is a culturally situated practice (Arzubiaga et al., 2008; Trainor & Bal, 2014), it follows that the assumptions brought to the process and the decision-making that occurs as studies are conceptualized and implemented are socially and culturally mediated. King (2017) reminded us that as scholars we do not

check our identities at the door; rather moral considerations, or the lack thereof, linked to our identities and interests are always already shaping our inquiries . . . it is a matter of whether we reflexively acknowledge that fact or not. (p. 217)

Thus, researchers are challenged to broaden their investigative focus from one that narrowly targets specific subgroups of students to one that considers the sociocultural background and location of the researcher and the cultural presuppositions inherent in commonly utilized research practices (Arzubiaga et al., 2008).

Given the tendency of preparation programs to structure service delivery in discipline-specific tracks (Robertson et al., 2016), few educators are adequately equipped to provide effective interventions for students from traditionally underserved/marginalized groups who experience academic or behavioral difficulties and/or disabilities, or to understand the myriad variables that may influence their impact. General educators are often well versed in standards-based curriculum but have limited opportunities to learn about special populations, and bilingual and ESL teachers are prepared to provide linguistically responsive instruction but often with limited preparation to address the unique needs of students with LD. Similarly, special educators are capable of designing and delivering Individual Education Programs (IEPs) that address disability-related needs but may lack understanding of culturally relevant pedagogy, native language instruction, second language acquisition, ESL strategies, and other techniques designed to increase cultural and linguistic responsiveness. Educators may rely on their discipline-specific knowledge when planning and providing instruction and intervention rather than considering the intersectionality between culture, language, and disability (García & Ortiz, 2008, 2013). Researchers may also be similarly inclined.

As we seek to understand the impact of research that engages questions of equity for students with LD, we must be prepared to explore our own positionality in terms of not only individual background characteristics but also relational positions with and between participants including issues of relative status, trust, and the nature of insider/outsider relationships (Trainor & Bal, 2014). This introduces another indicator depicted in Figure 1. We must also carefully consider the nature of activities and participation structures (e.g., mechanisms for responding, expected language structures) we utilize in light of the cultural frames of reference of participants. For example, in Morgan et al. (2015), the authors noted that their research team used parent’s language as a proxy for the language status of their child. Although the authors acknowledged this decision as a limitation, they do not expound on why this decision was made or its effects on results and conclusions. Taking measures to explain research decisions such as these can improve our collective interpretation of results and serve as an indicator that we, as researchers, recognize the interactive/bidirectional nature of our work. Such reflexivity can be further enhanced by collaborating with key informants or insiders from the programs, schools, and surrounding communities situating the research.

Barden and Cashwell (2014) stressed the need to examine multiple perspectives over a single perspective when complex phenomena are explored. Given the complexity of research designed to increase equity across diverse groups, it is important to examine how our values, assumptions, and differences in personal and cultural identities, as well as our theoretical frames of privilege and power, relate to our understanding and interpretation of our work. The input of key informants representing various programs and perspectives along with family and other community members has the potential to engage researchers in conversations that support self-reflection and highlight ways in which our own previously unexamined assumptions and frames of reference (Senge et al., 2000) influence our agency in research processes.

Efficacy Data and Interpretation

Despite efforts to enhance equity-focused research, researchers along with practitioners often find themselves in the position of implementing and evaluating interventions that have limited research–evidence specific to the populations of learners with whom they work (Moore & Klingner, 2014). Determining intervention efficacy then becomes critical to both informing educational decisions regarding individual students, and to enhancing our broader understanding of the viability and impact of those practices for various subgroups. As with the previous indicators, Figure 1 shows that efficacy data and interpretations are not only central to the research activity, they are informed by, and they inform, every other component of the research process focused on equity.

Evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention is dependent upon both the quality and the quantity of the data available for decision-making purposes (e.g., progress in both language and academic skill development for multilingual learners). The rationale for the selection of measurement tools should be reported, including a description of their validity and reliability related to the specific subgroup(s) of participants along with the language(s) of assessment (Trainor & Bal, 2014). When faced with a lack of available norm-referenced tools appropriate for the sample population(s), those limitations should further be discussed. Whenever possible, multiple measures should be used to verify levels of performance before, during, and following intervention. Once all data have been gathered, researchers should explore the impact of the intervention on students with varying backgrounds and school histories and those who have been served in diverse programs, including different models of bilingual and/or ESL instruction, to determine if the intervention is more or less effective with different student subgroups (Artiles et al., 2005; Moore & Klingner, 2014). Comparisons of performance among these true peers will support identification of students who need increasingly intensive intervention and/or special education services, and will assist researchers in identifying characteristics of students for whom interventions are unsuccessful.

Intervention researchers often rely on measures of fidelity of implementation to confirm the link between intervention and outcome (Hill et al., 2012). Stein et al. (2008) described two primary dimensions across which implementation fidelity can vary—characteristics of the program and features of the setting. As intervention results are evaluated, contextual factors that influence outcomes must be analyzed and discussed. Identifying deficiencies in the teaching–learning environment or the broader contextual environment supports our understanding of whether it is the intervention itself that is ineffective or whether it was implemented in ways that compromised its potential impact. Variables associated with instructional delivery including, but not limited to, language of instruction, participation structures, and cultural relevance of the materials and activities should be carefully documented and examined. It is also important to weigh the balance of implementation fidelity with teacher flexibility, defined as the “customization of a research-based practice to meet student specific needs” (McMaster et al., 2014, p. 177). This customization positively influences student outcomes and may be particularly critical when implementing interventions in classrooms serving a diverse group of learners. These customizations should be carefully recorded and discussed in data analysis.

Implications for Practice: Facing Inequity and Pursuing Equitable Opportunity

Intervention research is a challenging endeavor. Historically, scholars recognized inequity in the U.S. educational system and in the referral process in special education, embarking on an examination of disproportionality and its causes and effects, which continue to be debated today. This article focused on empirical research addressing instruction for diverse learners with LD, once identified. In so doing, these studies are clearly tethered to previous work outlining criteria for rigor in the establishment of empirical findings (Brantlinger et al., 2005; Cook et al., 2009; Gersten et al., 2005; Lane et al., 2009; Odom et al., 2004; Test et al., 2009). Yet, this body of scholarship on special education rigor in research has guided the field for more than a decade, largely absent a framework for either diversity or equity. Pursuing educational equity for students with disabilities, however, requires interpretation of the context. Attention to diversity without an eye toward equity limits the implications, and thus the contribution, of research. Doing so also reifies the status quo of status and power that undermines equitable educational opportunity.

The manifold task is to expand our potential for impact by ensuring that we sharpen our definitional foci for CLD, seek truly diverse collaborations in which researchers act with reflexivity, contextualize our design and our findings, and examine efficacy data and interpretation from a critical perspective. As researchers continue to examine the efficacy of interventions for students with LD, consideration of the contextual factors discussed in this article can assist the field in ensuring that the evidence-based practices we implement are appropriately designed to address the diverse identities, learner characteristics, and contexts of all students with LD.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58(5), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377

Anyon

(1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. Teacher’s College Press.

Anyon

(2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. Routledge.

Artiles

A. J.

Klingner

J. K.

Tate

W. F.

(2006). Representation of minority students in special education: Complicating traditional explanations. Educational Researcher, 35, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006003

Artiles

A. J.

Rueda

Salazar

Higareda

(2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(6), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100305

Arzubiaga

A. E.

Artiles

A. J.

King

K. A.

Harris-Murri

(2008). Beyond research on cultural minorities: Challenges and implications of research as situated cultural practice. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400303

Barden

S. M.

Cashwell

C. S.

(2014). International immersion in counselor education: A consensual qualitative research investigation. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 42, 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2014.00043.x

Blackorby

Schiller

Mallik

Hebbeler

Huang

Javitz

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wagner

Williamson

(2010). Patterns in the identification of and outcomes for children and youth with disabilities (NCEE 2010-4005). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104005/pdf/20104005.pdf

Brantlinger

E. A.

Jiminez

R. T.

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

10.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

11.

Bronfenbrenner

(Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Biological perspectives on human development. SAGE.

12.

Callahan

R. M.

Shifrer

(2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students: Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16648190

13.

Chard

D. J.

Ketterlin-Geller

L. R.

Baker

S. K.

Doabler

Apichatabutra

(2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500301

14.

Cole

(2010). What’s culture got to do with it? Educational research as a necessarily interdisciplinary enterprise. Educational Researcher, 39(6), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10380247

15.

Cook

B. G.

Cook

(2017). Do research findings apply to my students? Examining study samples and sampling. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12132

16.

Cook

B. G.

Tankersley

Landrum

T. J.

(2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500306

17.

Donovan

M. S.

Cross

C. T.

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

18.

Dunn

L. M.

(1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440296803500101

19.

Erickson

Gutiérrez

(2002). Comment: Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008021

20.

Esparza-Brown

Doolittle

(2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000509

21.

Fine

Weis

(1998). The unknown city: The lives of poor and working young adults. Beacon Press.

22.

Freire

(1998). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review, 40(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.40.2.q7n227021n148p26

23.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522966

24.

Galindo

Sanders

Abel

(2017). Transforming educational experiences in low-income communities. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216676571

25.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2008). A framework for culturally and linguistically responsive design of response to intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(1), 24–41.

26.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47.

27.

Gersten

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

Coyne

Greenwood

Innocenti

M. S.

(2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202

28.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Rogoff

(2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019

29.

Hill

King

Lemons

C. J.

Partanen

J. N.

(2012). Fidelity of implementation and instructional alignment in response to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(3), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00357.x

30.

Hoover

J. J.

Klingner

J. K.

Baca

L. M.

Patton

J. M.

(2008). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Pearson.

31.

Kana’iaupuni

S. M.

Ledward

Malone

(2017). Mohala i ka wai: Cultural advantage as a framework for indigenous culture-based education and student outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1. Suppl.), 311S–339S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216664779

32.

King

J. E.

(2017). 2015 AERA Presidential Address: Morally engaged research/ers dismantling epistemological nihilation in the age of impunity. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17719291

33.

King-Thorius

K. A.

Maxcy

B. D.

Macey

Cox

(2014). A critical practice analysis of response to intervention appropriation in an urban school. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 287–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514522100

34.

Kressler

Cavendish

(2019). High school teachers’ sense-making of response to intervention: A critical practice analysis. Education and Urban Society, 52(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519848032

35.

Ladson-Billings

(2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in the U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

36.

Lane

K. L.

Kalberg

J. R.

Shepcaro

J. C.

(2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based interventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500304

37.

Lee

S. J.

(1996). Perception of panethnicity among Asian American high school students. Amerasia Journal, 22(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.17953/amer.22.2.e52u1t67248u600q

38.

Linquanti

Cook

H. G.

(2013, February). Toward a “common definition of English learner”: A brief defining policy and technical issues and opportunities for state assessment consortia. https://eric.ed.gov/?ID=ED542705

39.

Madrigal-Garcia

Y. I.

Acevedo-Gil

(2016). The new Juan Crow in education: Revealing panoptic measures and inequitable resources that hinder Latina/o postsecondary pathways. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 15(2), 154–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918805152

40.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Sinclair

Poppen

Woods

W. E.

Shearer

M. L.

(2015). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(4), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415588047

41.

McMaster

K. L.

Jung

P. G.

Brandes

Pinto

Fuchs

Kearns

. . .Yen

(2014). Customizing a research-based reading practice. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1301

42.

Moore

B. A.

Klingner

J. K.

(2014). Considering the needs of English language learner populations: An examination of the population validity of reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412466702

43.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillmeier

M. H.

Mattison

Maczuga

Cook Li

Cook

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

44.

National Research Council. (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. National Academies Press.

45.

Newman

Wagner

Huang

Shaver

Knokey

A.-M.

. . . Cameto

(2011). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012-3000). SRI International. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20123000/pdf/20123000.pdf

46.

Nichols

S. L.

Castro-Villarreal

Ramirez

(2017). Response to intervention: Instructional challenges for teachers in high need contexts. Teachers College Record, 119(9), 1–30.

47.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. D.

Thompson

Harris

(2004). Quality indicators for research in special education and guidelines for evidence-based practices: Executive summary. Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Research.

48.

Orosco

M. J.

Klingner

(2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: Referring into RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355474

49.

Orosco

M. J.

O’Connor

(2014). Culturally responsive instruction for English language learners with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413476553

50.

Ortiz

A. A.

Robertson

P. M.

(2018). Preparing teachers to serve English Learners with language- and/or literacy-related difficulties and disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(3), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418757035

51.

Ortiz

A. A.

Robertson

P. M.

Wilkinson

C. Y.

(2018). Language and literacy assessment record for English learners in bilingual education programs: A framework for instructional planning and decision-making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1443423

52.

Ortiz

A. A.

Robertson

P. M.

Wilkinson

C. Y.

Liu

McGhee

B. D.

Kushner

M. I.

(2011). The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: Implications for response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.628608

53.

Reed

D. K.

Sorrells

A. M.

Cole

H. A.

Takakawa

N. N.

(2012). The ecological and population validity of reading interventions for adolescents: Can effectiveness be generalized? Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(3), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712451976

54.

Robertson

P. M.

García

S. B.

Rodriguez

H. M.

(2016). Walking the talk: Collaborative preparation of bilingual and special educators to serve English language learners. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(2), 3–21.

55.

Rogoff

(2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

56.

Sala

M. R. D.

Knoeppel

R. C.

(2017). Modeling the effect of educational resources on student achievement. Education and Urban Society, 49(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516643757

57.

Scott

A. N.

Hauerwas

L. B.

Brown

R. D.

(2014). State policy and guidance for identifying learning disabilities in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507261

58.

Senge

Cambron-McCabe

Lucas

Smith

Dutton

Kleiner

(2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. Doubleday/Currency.

59.

Skiba

R. J.

Eckes

S. E.

Brown

(2009/2010). African American disproportionality in school discipline: The divide between best evidence and legal remedy. New York Law School Law Review, 54, 1071–1112. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=facpub

60.

Skiba

R. J.

Poloni-Staudinger

Gallini

Simmons

A. B.

Feggins-Azziz

(2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200402

61.

Skiba

R. J.

Poloni-Staudinger

Simmons

A. B.

Feggins-Azziz

L. R.

Chung

C.-G.

(2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390030101

62.

Stein

M. L.

Berends

Fuchs

McMaster

Saénz

Yen

L. Y.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

(2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 368–388. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708322738

63.

Sullivan

Bal

(2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900406

64.

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

65.

Sumerau

J. E.

Mathers

L. A. B.

Nowakowski

A. C. H.

Cragun

R. T.

(2017). Helping quantitative sociology come out of the closet. Sexualities, 20(5–6), 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716666755

66.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

S. M.

White

Mazzotti

Walker

A. R.

. . . Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809336859

67.

Trainor

A. A.

Bal

(2014). Development and preliminary analysis of a rubric for culturally responsive research. Journal of Special Education, 47(4), 203–216. https://doi.org:10.1177/0022466912436397

68.

Trainor

A. A.

Murray

Kim

(2016). English learners with disabilities in high school: Population characteristics, transition programs, and postschool outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 37(3), 146–158. https://doi.org:10.1177/0741932515626797

69.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). English learner tool kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). https://ncela.ed.gov/files/english_learner_toolkit/OELA_2017_ELsToolkit_508C.pdf

70.

Valencia

R. R.

(1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice

71.

Watts-Smith

Mayorga-Gallo

(2017). The new principle-policy gap: How diversity ideology subverts diversity initiatives. Sociological Perspectives, 60(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417719693

72.

Wilcox

K. C.

Lawson

H. A.

Angelis

(2015). Classroom, school, and district impacts on diverse student literacy achievement. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–38.

73.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006