Overcoming Common Misunderstandings About Students With Disabilities Who Are English Language Learners

Abstract

Special education programs are increasingly serving students with disabilities who are English language learners and their families. Facilitating bilingualism is an effective practice and aligns with culturally responsive special education service provision. It is critical for special educators and service providers to learn about bilingualism, second language learning, and students with disabilities to responsibly participate in individualized education program team decision making. This column presents five misunderstandings about students who are English language learners with disabilities. Based on the research literature, responses to each misunderstanding are presented and include implications and recommendations for special educators.

Keywords

bilingualism disabilities English language learners families

Increasingly, students who are English language learners participate in special education programs. In the 2008–2009 school year, 11% of students in kindergarten through 12th grade were considered English language learners, of whom 7% were receiving special education services (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011). Providing quality special education services to these students has frequently encountered challenges, including determining an accurate diagnosis, differentiating disability from language difference, and/or providing opportunity to learn English (Orosco & Klingner, 2010), which may lead to inappropriate placement and services (Gargiulo, 2015; Ortiz & Artiles, 2010). While most general and special educators recognize that disability and language difference are intricately related issues that impact student learning, many report feeling unprepared to address the needs of students from linguistically diverse backgrounds with disabilities (Garcia & Ortiz, 2006; Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011).

Specialized instruction in inclusive settings can benefit students as they access the general education curriculum and increase academic engagement (Salend, 2001; Snell, 2009; Wehmeyer, 2011). The Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Early Childhood recognize the importance of home languages for students with disabilities (Durán et al., 2010; Klingner, Boele, Linan-Thompson, & Rodriguez, 2014). In addition, culturally responsive practices (Ladson-Billings, 2009) foster students’ home language as they concurrently learn English. Despite significant progress in meeting needs of students with disabilities who are English language learners, challenges remain, such as educator misunderstandings about second language acquisition (Cheatham, Jimenez-Silva, Wodrich, & Kasai, 2014).

Five Misunderstandings

Based on current debates and research literature regarding language diversity, disability status, and related policies, five misunderstandings about second language acquisition, including the role families, were selected to discuss in this column:

Students with disabilities cannot be bilingual.

Students with disabilities should not be bilingual.

English should be the only instructional language for students with disabilities who are English language learners.

Pull out special education services are best for students with disabilities who are English language learners.

Families of students with disabilities will readily value bilingualism.

Responses to each misunderstanding present research, implications for special educators, and recommendations, all of which are grounded in research-based practices and scientific knowledge of linguistic competence.

Misunderstanding 1: Students With Disabilities Cannot Be Bilingual

This long-standing misunderstanding rests on the unfounded assumption that students with disabilities, particularly students with disabilities that impact their intellectual functioning and language skills, cannot adequately learn their first language and therefore cannot or should not add a second language, or learn and maintain two languages. In addition, there may be assumptions that learning two languages hinders language development or causes other delays.

Increasingly, research illustrates that students with disabilities, including disabilities that impact students’ intellectual and linguistic skills, can and do become bilingual, including students with Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorders, and language and learning disabilities (Cheatham, Santos, & Kerkutluoglu, 2012). Moreover, growing evidence indicates that students with disabilities can learn two languages without cost to their development (Feltmate & Kay-Raining Bird, 2008; Kay-Raining Bird, 2009; Reetzke, Zou, Sheng, & Katsos, 2015; Thordardottir, Ellis-Weismer, & Smith, 1997). In a review of research, Cheatham et al. (2012) found that bilingual students with disabilities performed as well or better than their monolingual peers with disabilities on communication, cognition, and reading skills. Therefore, the presence of disability does not appear to prevent students from being bilingual. In fact, students with a variety of disabilities and functioning levels are able to be bilingual.

Misunderstanding 2: Students With Disabilities Should Not Be Bilingual

This misunderstanding rests on the assumption that students with disabilities who are English language learners do not need to be bilingual. However, students with disabilities who come from linguistically diverse backgrounds should be bilingual because of the importance of their home languages and English and the need for two languages in their lives. Bilingualism allows students with disabilities more opportunities for inclusion (Cheatham, Santos, & Ro, 2007). For instance, in school and communities, bilingualism can support students’ active participation in social groups and family activities (e.g., talking during dinner, playing games, shopping), many of which necessitate the use of more than one language. Indeed, some families value bilingualism for this very reason (Jegatheesan, 2011).

In addition, bilingualism contributes to students’ cultural and linguistic identities (Cheatham et al., 2007). Because language and culture are intricately entwined (Luykx et al., 2007), meaningfully participating in linguistic communities means learning and maintaining home language and culture. When families discuss the importance of children’s home languages, they acknowledge their contribution to individual and cultural identity. Both English and the home language are critical as students develop a bicultural and bilingual identity (Tong, 2014), which contributes to students’ growth in agency and voice, and can promote language learning (Toohey, 2000).

Misunderstanding 3: English Should Be the Only Instructional Language

A common misunderstanding is that students with disabilities will most effectively learn English when taught only in English. A growing body of research indicates that high-quality bilingual instruction is as effective as or more effective than English-only instruction for students with disabilities (Cheatham et al., 2012; Thordardottir, 2010). Unlike English-only instruction, bilingual instruction adds to rather than limits students’ linguistic skills (Baker, 2011). Studies of bilingual instruction compared to English only for students with disabilities included several outcome measures, such as language, academic, and other skills for students with autism spectrum disorders, intellectual disabilities, and language disabilities (Duran & Heiry, 1986; Pham, Kohnert, & Mann, 2011; Rohena, Jitendra, & Browder, 2002). Moreover, learning the home language can facilitate learning a second language (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Verhoeven, Steenge, & van Balkom, 2012). Though more research is needed with older students and other student disabilities, the evidence for effectiveness of bilingual education for students without disabilities is strong (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Slavin, Madden, Calderon, Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2011). Bilingual instruction holds promise for meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities who are English language learners.

Misunderstanding 4: Pull-Out Services Are Best

This misunderstanding likely rests on the assumption that students with disabilities are best educated in segregated placements. Inclusion models have been well researched and found to lead to positive learning outcomes for students with a variety of disabilities (Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011). With recognition of this research base, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 requires that, to the maximum extent appropriate, special education services be provided in the least restrictive environment. Inclusion in general education is the default service provision model (H. R. Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007). Moreover, students learning English do not forfeit their right to bilingual education when found eligible for special education services (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002). Even in states where English-only instruction laws have been enacted, states may not restrict home language use as a component of students’ individualized education program (IEP) goals if the team deems bilingual instruction appropriate (Cheatham et al., 2012). Indeed, students with disabilities who are English language learners are entitled to an individualized, appropriate education, including supplementary aids and services in the least restrictive environment (Serpa, 2011).

Misunderstanding 5: Families Will Value Bilingualism

Some families of students with disabilities who are English language learners believe that their children should learn and speak only English. They may have heard that learning two languages is too difficult given their child’s disability and that bilingualism negatively impacts children’s development, thereby requiring a focus only on English. Indeed, families may have heard these kinds of recommendations from educators and other professionals (Jegatheesan, 2011; Jordaan, 2008). Families may refrain from speaking their home language to their children in a mistaken hope of fostering children’s developmental, academic, and social outcomes. Consequently, families may attempt and even struggle to speak only in English expecting that this practice will further develop their children’s English. Some families also may view teaching English as the school’s responsibility and teaching the home language as their own (Adair & Tobin, 2008).

However, research investigating bilingualism presents many advantages for students with disabilities. In addition to children’s academic and social success at school, bilingualism can contribute to family quality of life, because bilingualism supports communication and relationships among family members in a common language (Cheatham et al., 2007). Some students’ parents and other family members may not speak English well enough to engage in the kinds of discourses necessary when raising and socializing their children (Tabors, 2008; Wong Fillmore, 2000). Students need to communicate with family members, including those who do not speak English.

Moreover, research illustrates that the loss of a student’s home language frequently proceeds at an alarming rate (Tse, 2001). Instruction only in English at school may lead to home language loss despite family desire to maintain the home language (Wong Fillmore, 1991). Combining bilingual instruction with families’ active efforts at home language development and maintenance appears most likely to result in bilingualism for students with disabilities.

Recommendations

Combined, the five misunderstandings lead to recommendations for special educators and other educators. Below, recommendations to support students with disabilities who are English language learners and their families are presented.

Adopt an Asset-Based Perspective

Educators can begin by viewing bilingualism as an asset and recognizing that students’ primary language and culture are vehicles to help maximize student potential (Gargiulo, 2015). Effective teachers of students with disabilities who are English language learners will demonstrate sensitivity to the cultural heritage of each student and construct culturally relevant learning activities (Gollnick & Chinn, 2013). In addition, effective programs must consider the academic knowledge and skills, instructional environment, and student behaviors, and how these aspects reciprocally interact with and are influenced by the student’s language and cultural heritage (Voltz, Sims, Nelson, & Bivens, 2005). As they adopt a posture of culture reciprocity (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999), teachers can learn about and incorporate the family’s priorities.

Implement Response to Intervention

Response to intervention (RTI) is an approach that examines learning difficulties of students with disabilities who are English language learners. In teams, teachers and other school personnel explore how linguistic difference may be impacting students’ readiness and opportunity to learn and the extent to which evidence based practice is being delivered (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2015). Teams can avoid presuming a student’s learning difficulties stem from language difference or disabilities, or other factors inherent to the student (Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007). Instead, the team seeks different instructional approaches, linking learning activities with students’ interests and experiences and making content relevant to their lives (Klingner et al., 2014). Educators can also consider a universally designed approach wherein they identify alternative means of representation, engagement, and expression to make the learning visible, comprehensible, and ultimately accessible for students (Rose & Meyer, 2006).

Bilingual special education uses both English and the home language as part of the student’s IEP to address academic, language, and other skills, as appropriate (Ovando & Combs, 2011). In addition, bilingual special education should include access to the general education curriculum and research-based, individualized instruction to support academic development and appropriate behavior (Klingner et al., 2014).

Collaborate Across Disciplines

Providing special education for students with disabilities who are English language learners requires coordination among teachers and support professionals. Teachers should capitalize on instructional teams and seek out assistance from those professionals expert in second language acquisition processes, sheltering techniques, and teaching English to bilingual students (Klingner et al., 2014). Linguistically responsive education professionals provide direction on how to differentiate instruction to meet learner needs (Klingner et al., 2014). The team can observe students, brainstorm challenges, and create plans to support language and academic content learning (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2015). For example, teachers should focus instruction on oral language and listening comprehension, vocabulary, reading comprehension and fluency, and phonemic awareness, to name a few (Correa & Miller, 2014; Klingner et al., 2014). Explicit instruction in reading comprehension, word study, repeated reading, and phonics strategies has been recommended (Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005).

Implement Instructional Strategies

Like other students, students with disabilities who are English language learners are entitled to accommodations and modifications to facilitate their learning (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Practical accommodations include providing visual cues and graphic supports to accompany oral and written instructions, allotting extra time to complete tasks, clarifying multistep tasks and directions, dividing longer presentations into shorter segments, and utilizing cooperative groups so that students can meaningfully interact with their peers (Klingner et al., 2014). Furthermore, for students with disabilities that impact communication, such as autism spectrum disorders, the use of augmentative and alternative communication in both languages is critical (Soto & Yu, 2014).

Develop a Strong Program Model

With a focus on inclusive practices, one promising approach to facilitating learning for students with disabilities who are English language learners is dual language programs, such as programs in which students are taught using both English and the home language, for example, each for 50% of the school day (Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008). In this model, students from English-speaking homes and students who speak a home language other than English are integrated into a single class to promote language and literacy for two languages. These programs (a) have demonstrated success for students learning two languages and academic skills (Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008), (b) show promise for students who are demonstrating learning difficulties (see Genesee & Fortune, 2014), (c) avoid unnecessarily segregating students from peers without disabilities, (d) build on all students’ cultural and linguistic strengths (Bearse & de Jong, 2008), and (e) include needed specialized instruction, services, and supports. Moreover, those bilingual students with disabilities who do not qualify for English language learning services can experience the benefits of dual language programs.

Other instructional program models are possible when teachers have students who are speakers of several different home languages within their classes. To meet special education and language learning needs, a purposefully designed IEP can include services of monolingual English-speaking special education teachers and general education classroom teachers, English language learner specialists, bilingual teaching assistants, and monolingual and bilingual service providers (e.g., speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists; Hoover, Klingner, Baca, & Patton, 2008). As such, student IEPs will reflect deliberate team decisions regarding home language, English, and academic content to meet students’ needs in inclusive environments.

Partner With Families

Educators can forge partnerships with families of students with disabilities who are English language learners to answer questions and provide credible information and resources to enable families to make informed language choices and meaningfully participate in planning. Special educators can ensure effective communication and opportunities for dialogue to overcome the tendency of educators to place families in the role of recipients of educators’ decisions, a tendency that may be particularly salient for families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (A. Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2015). As such, special educators learn about families’ viewpoints and priorities regarding their child’s language use while also sharing information and resources about bilingualism and disability. Educators can help families see that bilingualism may be necessary to meet family and student goals (Jegatheesan, 2011).

Despite educators’ efforts to dialogue with families about students’ strengths and needs, family goals and priorities, and ways in which language proficiency in English and the home language are involved in these, some families of students with disabilities who are English language learners may want their children to speak only English, even resisting educator efforts at home language maintenance. In such cases, educators can respect families’ decisions and provide instruction and resources to facilitate their child’s English language learning.

Conclusion

Increasingly, students who are English language learners are participating in special education programs. Special educators can learn about bilingualism and disabilities to maximize effective participation and planning. In this article, common misunderstandings regarding bilingualism for students with disabilities were presented that, when disentangled and clarified through review of second language and special education best practice research, can form the basis for more effective and culturally responsive individualized educational planning.

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

Abu-Rabia

Siegel

L. S.

(2002). Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working memory skills of bilingual Arabic–English speaking Canadian children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661–678.

Adair

Tobin

(2008). Listening to the voices of immigrant parents. In Genishi

Goodwin

A. L.

(Eds.), Diversities in early childhood education: Rethinking and doing (pp. 137–150). New York, NY: Routledge.

Artiles

A. J.

Ortiz

(Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special needs: Identification, placement, and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Baker

(2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Bearse

de Jong

(2008). Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary, two-way immersion program. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41(3), 325–340.

Cheatham

G. A.

Jimenez-Silva

Wodrich

D. L.

Kasai

(2014). Disclosure of information about English proficiency: Preservice teachers’ presumptions about English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 53–62.

Cheatham

G. A.

Santos

R. M.

Kerkutluoglu

(2012). Review of comparison studies investigating bilingualism and bilingual instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 45(3), 1–12.

Cheatham

G. A.

Santos

R. M.

Y. E.

(2007). Home language acquisition and retention for young children with special needs. Young Exceptional Children, 11(1), 27–39.

Cole

C. M.

Waldron

Majd

(2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136–144.

10.

Correa

V. I.

Miller

(2014). What is high quality instruction for English language learners in inclusive schools? In McLesky

Valdron

N. L.

Spooner

Algozzine

(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 136–154). New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Duran

Heiry

T. J.

(1986). Comparison of Spanish only, Spanish and English only cues with handicapped students. Reading Improvement, 23(2), 138–141.

12.

Durán

L. K.

Cheatham

G. A.

Darling

Moore

Preciado

Sanchez

. . . Watson

(2010). Responsiveness to all children, families, and professionals: Integrating cultural and linguistic diversity into policy and practice (Position statement). Missoula, MT: Council for Exceptional Children Division for Early Childhood.

13.

Feltmate

Kay-Raining Bird

(2008). Language learning in four bilingual children with Down syndrome: A detailed analysis of vocabulary and morphosyntax. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 32(1), 6–20.

14.

Garcia

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2006). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive pre-referral interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 64–68.

15.

Gargiulo

R. M.

(2015). Special education in contemporary society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Genesee

Fortune

T. W.

(2014). Bilingual education and at-risk students. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 14, 196–209.

17.

Genesee

Lindholm-Leary

Saunders

Christian

(2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.

18.

Gollnick

Chinn

(2013). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

19.

Haager

Klingner

J. K.

Vaughn

(2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

20.

Hoover

J. J.

Klingner

J. K.

Baca

L. M.

Patton

J. M.

(2008). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

21.

Jegatheesan

(2011). Multilingual development in children with autism: Perspectives of South Asian Muslim immigrant parents on raising a child with a communicative disorder in multilingual contexts. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 185–200.

22.

Jordaan

(2008). Clinical intervention for bilingual children: An international survey. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 60, 97–105.

23.

Kalyanpur

Harry

(1999). Culture in special education: Building a posture of reciprocity in parent-professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

24.

Kay-Raining Bird

(2009). Bilingualism and children with Down syndrome. Language Learning and Education, 16, 90–96.

25.

Klingner

Boele

Linan-Thompson

Rodriguez

(2014). Essential components of special education for English language learners with learning disabilities (Position Statement 2). Council for Exceptional Children Division for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://TeachingLD.org/pages/position-papers

26.

Ladson-Billings

(2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Lindholm-Leary

Howard

E. R.

(2008). Language development and academic achievement in two-way immersion programs. In Fortune

T. W.

Tedick

D. J.

(Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 177–200). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

28.

Luykx

Lee

Mahotiere

Lester

Hart

J. E.

Deaktor

(2007). Cultural and home language influences on children’s responses to science assessments. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 897–926.

29.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011). ESL with special needs: National overview. AccELLerate, 3(3), 10–11. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/17/Accellerate_3_3.pdf

30.

Odom

S. L.

Buysse

Soukakou

(2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 344–356.

31.

Orosco

M. J.

Klingner

J. K.

(2010). One school’s implementation of RtI with English language learners: “Referring into RtI.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288.

32.

Ortiz

Artiles

A. J.

(2010). Meeting the needs of English language learners with disabilities: A linguistically and culturally responsive model. In Li

Edwards

(Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 247–272). New York, NY: Guilford.

33.

Ovando

C. J.

Combs

M. C.

(2011). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Pham

Kohnert

Mann

(2011). Addressing clinician-client mismatch: A preliminary intervention study with a bilingual Vietnamese–English preschooler. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 408–422.

35.

Reetzke

Zou

Sheng

Katsos

(2015). Communicative development in bilingually exposed Chinese children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 813–825.

36.

Rohena

E. I.

Jitendra

A. K.

Browder

D. M.

(2002). Comparison of the effects of Spanish and English constant time delay instruction on sight word reading by Hispanic learners with mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 36, 169–184.

37.

Rolstad

Mahoney

Glass

G. V.

(2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.

38.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

(2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

39.

Salend

(2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

40.

Serpa

M. B.

(2011). An imperative for change: Bridging special and language learning education to ensure a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment for ELLs with disabilities in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Gastón Institute.

41.

Slavin

R. E.

Madden

N. A.

Calderon

Chamberlain

Hennessy

(2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47–58.

42.

Snell

M. E.

(2009). Rethinking effective instructional practices: A response to Copeland and Cosbey. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 228–231.

43.

Soto

(2014). Considerations for the provision of services to bilingual children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 83–92.

44.

Tabors

P. O.

(2008). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

45.

Thordardottir

(2010). Towards evidence-based practice in language intervention for bilingual children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 523–537.

46.

Thordardottir

Ellis-Weismer

Smith

(1997). Vocabulary learning in bilingual and monolingual clinical intervention. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 13, 215–227.

47.

Tong

(2014). Understanding the acculturation experience of Chinese adolescent students: Sociocultural adaptation strategies and a positive bicultural and bilingual identity. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 83–100.

48.

Toohey

(2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

49.

Tse

(2001). “Why don’t they learn English?” Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

50.

Turnbull

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

(2015). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (8th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.

51.

Turnbull

Erwin

E. J.

Soodak

L. C.

Shogren

K. A.

(2015). Families, professionals, and exceptionality. Boston, MA: Pearson.

52.

Turnbull

H. R.

Stowe

M. J.

Huerta

N. E.

(2007). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities. Denver, CO: Love.

53.

Utley

Obiakor

Bakken

(2011). Culturally responsive practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 5–18.

54.

Vaughn

Mathes

Linan-Thompson

Francis

(2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 58–67.

55.

Verhoeven

Steenge

van Balkom

(2012). Linguistic transfer in bilingual children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(2), 176–183.

56.

Voltz

Sims

Nelson

Bivens

(2005). M² ECCA: A framework for inclusion in the context of standards-based reform. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(5), 14–19.

57.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2011). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In Kaufman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 544–556). New York, NY: Routledge.

58.

Wong Fillmore

(1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346.

59.

Wong Fillmore

(2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 203–2110.