help with 401 article review 5

https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517707217

Rural Special Education Quarterly 2017, Vol. 36(2) 64 –72 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/8756870517707217 journals.sagepub.com/home/rsq

Article

Mathematics is a joy for Carlos and the rest of his peers. Mrs. Cano seems to use many hands-on strategies in the classroom. Although math has been a success for Carlos, in the past few months, he has struggled with his middle school classes, especially English and science. As a first-generation Salvadorian American, Carlos grew up speaking Spanish and receiving English as a Second Language (ESL) support through his elementary school years at the local rural school district. Now in middle school, many students like Carlos have been referred to the Response-to-Intervention (RTI) process at his local school district for a suspected learning disability. Recently, Carlos’s parents, Maria Isabel and Felipe, both engineers at a small electric company, spoke to Carlos’s teachers regarding the RTI process and the wariness of a possible learning disability. Along with other parents, Maria Isabel and Felipe began working on understanding their son’s struggles and, through external professional assistance, realized it could be a language issue followed by a decrease of ESL and bilingual support at the middle school level, rather than an issue of a possible learning disability. Through this journey, they uncovered the reality of the district’s large increase of English Language Learners (ELLs) and bilingual students and, with it, an overrepresentation of ELL students in special education over the past few years. As a group, the parents decided to address these concerns with the district. The district recognized this may have become an issue and would like to address it with the assistance and input of all

stakeholders, especially making changes in their policies. With all stakeholders ready to make changes, what is the next step?

Disproportionality of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in special education has been a recurring issue of concern in the United States for several decades (Artiles, 2011; Barrio, 2016; Barrio & Combes, 2015; Cavendish, Artiles, & Harry, 2015; Morgan et al., 2015; Sullivan, 2011). As of February 2016, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSEP) from the U.S. Department of Education (2016) released a statement that calls for the amendment of regulations of Part B of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) to promote equity for students in special educa- tion—specifically, support for states to address dispropor- tionality in special education. Disproportionality refers to the unequal representation of students within an area—in this case, special education—compared with students from

707217 RSQXXX10.1177/8756870517707217Rural Special Education QuarterlyBarrio research-article2017

1Washington State University, Pullman, USA

Corresponding Author: Brenda L. Barrio, Washington State University, 334 Cleveland Hall, P.O. BOX 642114, Pullman, WA 99164-2132, USA. Email: [email protected]

Special Education Policy Change: Addressing the Disproportionality of English Language Learners in Special Education Programs in Rural Communities

Brenda L. Barrio, PhD1

Abstract Research suggests that disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education has been a recurring topic of concern in the field of special education within the United States. Over the past few years, this concern has shifted to focus on the disproportionate representation of English Language Learners (ELLs) in categories of mild to moderate disabilities, specifically within the category of learning disabilities. Although improvements in educational policy have been made through federal legislation, local rural school districts continue to battle this concern, especially those in rural areas. The following article focuses on the recommendations for development, implementation, and evaluation of local policy change to improve the disproportionate representation of ELL students within rural school districts.

Keywords English language learners, special education, disproportionality, policy

Barrio 65

Caucasian backgrounds (Artiles, 2011; De Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi, & Park, 2006; Klingner et al., 2005; Morgan et al., 2015; Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). Often, CLD stu- dents are underrepresented or overrepresented in special education, depending on the disability category. Although the federal government, as well as researchers, policy mak- ers, practitioners, parents, and professional organizations have attempted to remediate the problem of disproportion- ality, the issue continues to be a major topic in our schools. With special attention to urban settings, rural schools often are not the focus of research.

The Numbers

Rural school districts often are referred to as underrepre- sented communities, especially in reference to education. Geographical isolation and lack of support and access to professional development, materials, and supplies directly affect students. This is especially important in terms of sup- ports for ELL students (Hoover & Erickson, 2015). The National Center for Education Statistics (2015) reported that an average of 3.5% of the K–12 population in rural set- tings and 21% nationwide were ELLs. This was an increase of almost 80% in the past decade. In some rural areas where farming is the focus of their economy, these numbers may be higher. Furthermore, the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES; n.d.) suggested that students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (i.e., minority status) were most likely to be placed in special education (20%–24%) than those from Caucasian back- grounds (18%). For ELL students, the average number in special education is 6%, but, in some states, it can be as high as 12% or as low as 2% (Data Accountability Center, 2013). Although, nationally, ELL students are underrepre- sented in special education, the National Education Association (NEA; 2007) reported that ELL students com- prise about 16% of students in special education in school districts with a small ELL population (e.g., rural school dis- tricts). Specifically, rural school districts with limited ESL or bilingual resources may over- or underidentify ELL stu- dents and place them in special education (Keller-Allen, 2006). This is a reflection of what the literature has continu- ously reported as negative effects on rural education due to the lack of resources and isolation, and declining econo- mies, among other issues (Hoover & Erickson, 2015).

The NEA (2007) concluded that the disproportionate representation of CLD students, including ELL students, is a concern in the field of special education. The IDEA of 2004 contained specific language to provide appropriate resources to decrease the number of disproportionate num- bers of CLD students placed in special education (IDEA, 2004; Klingner et al., 2005; Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). This topic recently has shifted to focus on the dispropor- tionate representation of ELLs in the categories of mild to

moderate disabilities and, specifically, within the category of learning disabilities.

Although data on the ELL population are extensive, there is a lack of clear data reporting the number of ELL students in rural special education programs, as data most often are reported on the number of Hispanic students in the district (NEA, 2007). To obtain specific information, researchers have to obtain data from specific districts, regions, or states. For example, when exploring the litera- ture and reports in a western state of the United States, reports were not easily available. A report by Keller-Allen (2006) explained that most local education agencies (LEAs) do not have procedures, mechanisms, or policies that link ELL students and special education data. They report this is especially true in rural schools with limited resources, where ELL students often are overrepresented in special education.

Cavendish et al. (2015) provided risk ratios for all 50 states in relation to disproportionate representation in spe- cial education. The authors reported higher risk ratios (2.0 to 3.0) in rural states, such as Wyoming, South Dakota, Vermont, and Oregon, suggesting these states have not addressed disproportionality according to OSEP. With such reports, researchers have called for the examination of cur- rent policies and practices of ELL students in or referred to special education and explored innovative ways in which their disproportionality is addressed (Burr, Haas, & Ferriere, 2015; Sullivan, 2011).

ELLs in Special Education

According to Harry and Klingner (2006), ELL students in special education are over- or underrepresented in special education, especially in the category of learning disabilities. A study by De Valenzuela et al. (2006) showed that 35% of the total students of the largest school district of a southwest- ern state were ELL students placed within the category of learning disabilities. This statistic shows the overrepresenta- tion of this population because they only represented 12% (n = 3,973) of the overall student population within this study (n = 87,000). Similarly, a 2005 report about trends and poli- cies of ELL students in this state included language of spe- cific districts with issues of disproportionality without using this language (Pennucci & Kavanaugh, 2005). The report included a rural district with high numbers of migrant work- ers as having 14% of ELL students in special education when they only counted for 11% of the total student population, showing an overrepresentation. The report warned of the importance of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team’s assessment on whether these students were placed in special education due to a reading and writing disability or due to an English language deficiency. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2016), this state had not met stan- dards in certain areas of special education as of 2014.

66 Rural Special Education Quarterly 36(2)

The disproportionate representation of ELL students in the category of learning disabilities can be attributed to many factors (Linan-Thompson, 2010; Macswan & Rolstad, 2006). Research provides the explanation that the subjectiv- ity of the referral process for categories, such as learning disabilities, can be a cause for this issue. Researchers have explained that, although bilingual assessments are avail- able, personnel may not be professionally trained to admin- ister the assessment or the school district or may not have the resources to provide the assessment in their native lan- guage (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higadera, 2005; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005). Other researchers have attributed the lack of quality of multi-tiered interventions for ELL students (Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2006). Hardin, Roach-Scott, and Peisner-Feinberg (2007) expressed the need of professional preparation for teachers, administra- tors, and paraprofessionals to appropriately instruct and meet the needs of ELL students.

Additional factors, such as the type of instruction pro- vided to ELL students (e.g., bilingual education, full immer- sion, dual-language instruction) and the socioeconomic status of the student and school, have provided a possible explanation to this disproportionality (De Valenzuela et al., 2006; Vaughn et al., 2005). All schools and districts in rural communities must address unique challenges of providing effective specialized instruction and supports and services to a CLD population, including ELLs as well as children from tribal communities and low-income schools with lim- ited resources and finances (Ashbaker & Wilder, 2006; Faircloth, 2006; Klingner, Blanchett, & Harry, 2007; Kossar, Mitchem, & Ludlow, 2005).

RTI or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): A Solution?

Recent research has suggested that disproportionate repre- sentation of ELL students in special education can be reduced through the appropriate use of models, such as RTI, evidence-based practices (Linan-Thompson, 2010; Macswan & Rolstad, 2006), and MTSS (Hurst, 2014). RTI is an early intervention three-tier model for those students who are not responding to classroom instruction (Esparza- Brown & Doolittle, 2008). According to Esparza-Brown and Doolittle (2008), RTI provides an improved manner on screening students that are struggling within the classroom, including ELL students. RTI and evidence-based practices can assist with the decrease of overrepresentation of ELL students in special education. The RTI process allows edu- cators to make comparisons between ELL students as cohorts and collaborate with professionals to intervene at an earlier stage.

Examples of evidence-based practices for appropriate instruction for ELL students, such as the ones presented by

various researchers (e.g., Gersten et al., 2007; Harris, Sullivan, Oades-Sese, & Sotelo-Dynega, 2015), provide teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders the infor- mation necessary to conduct these interventions. According to Hosp (2014), there are few guides to address the issue of disproportionality through RTI. On the contrary, MTSS incorporates RTI but extends the foci of support to the social, emotional, and behavioral development of students (Hurst, 2014). MTSS is a framework that not only provides supports for students but also is intended to provide sup- ports for teachers and administrators through professional development and coaching. The foundations of this model focus on a school-wide or district-wide shift that can be sus- tainable, incorporating shifts in policies and practices. Sailor (2015) called MTSS/RTI “one of the most significant advances in the area of inclusive school reform” (p. 95) as it incorporates evidence-based practices based on research to be used as preventive models.

Although many overall factors can contribute to the dis- proportionate representation of ELL students in categories such as learning disabilities around the country, every school district and their administrators (i.e., superinten- dents, principals, directors of special education) should focus on the individual factors that are relevant to their issue. With the increase in population of ELL students in today’s schools, teachers, administrators, and district offi- cials have been overwhelmed by the task of providing ade- quate instruction and decreasing the overrepresentation of ELL students in special education (Baca, 2012). All stake- holders should come to a consensus to determine an appropriate plan of action to decrease the disproportionate representation of ELL students in categories such as learn- ing disabilities. A possible solution can be incorporated through a district-wide policy change in which all stake- holders play a key role to the development, implementation, and evaluation of this new policy.

Challenges and Barriers in Rural Schools

Rural schools are often said to be underrepresented com- munities, especially in reference to education. Due to geo- graphical isolation, a lack of support and access to professional development, materials, and supplies can directly affect students (Hoover & Erickson, 2015; Robinson, Bursuck, & Sinclair, 2013). In rural settings, for example, the lack of professional development for teachers focusing on evidence-based practices to support ELL stu- dents can fuel the disproportionality of this population in special education (Barrio, 2016; Hoover & Erickson, 2015). In addition, lack of funds to travel to obtain professional development can be a great challenge in remote rural set- tings (Hoover & Erickson, 2015). With this in mind, teach- ers are not prepared to work with students from diverse

Barrio 67

cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Shim, 2013), espe- cially as it refers to culturally responsive practices (Hoover & Erickson, 2015).

Similarly, there is a lack of data focusing on ELL students in special education. Rather, reports focus on ELL student numbers and special education numbers separately. Supporting this claim is the most recent statement released by the U.S. Department of Education (2016), which calls for the amendment of regulations of Part B of IDEA to promote equity for students in special education. Specifically, the statement focused on providing assistance to states and keep- ing states accountable in the mining of data and development of risk ratios that address disproportionality. In addition, OSEP includes language to clarify requirements that focus on the revisions and review of regulations and policies in place to address disproportionality. Finally, the new amendment calls for the states to specifically identify factors contributing to the disproportionality of students in special education.

New Policy Evaluation and Development

Following the case study at the beginning of this article, the concern of parents, teachers, and administrators toward the disproportionate representation of ELL students in the cat- egory of learning disabilities within special education has become a trigger mechanism for policy change within many local rural school districts. The scope of concern has grown tremendously over the past few years and the intensity of worry also has increased. Parents have questioned the deliv- ery of instruction, the RTI system, and the resources avail- able for their children in elementary and secondary educational settings. In Carlos’s case, his parents would like

to address the concerns of disproportionality and the ser- vices provided for their son. Similarly, teachers have expressed concerns about the lack of resources and profes- sional development provided by their school districts to bet- ter serve this population (Hoover & Erickson, 2015). Also, school administrators continue to advocate for the students within their campuses to better understand the situation. (For the purpose of this article, superintendents, principals, and directors of special education are included within the category of school administrators.)

With the trigger mechanisms in place to change the rural school districts’ policy, a development of a plan should be started. Gerston (2010) suggested that, to change policies, all stakeholders should be included in the decision making and planning of the new policy—for example, developing an educational policy on the pre-referral process of CLD students, including ELL students (e.g., RTI, MTSS) to address the disproportionate representation in special edu- cation. In this case, the stakeholders representing this issue (i.e., disproportionality in special education) could include those shown in Figure 1.

A task force of a small group of people should be created with one representative from each group of stakeholders. Each separate group of stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, administrators) should appoint a representative who could attend meetings and disseminate the information to their groups after each meeting. Meetings could be conducted every month and voting could be won by a majority of votes. Task force meetings suggest set ideas for an interven- tion to decrease the number of ELL students in special edu- cation. The meetings should draft a plan for a policy change to present to the school board within a 6-month period (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 1. List of stakeholders in policy change planning and decision making. Note. ESL = English as a Second Language.

68 Rural Special Education Quarterly 36(2)

Throughout every meeting, a plan of action should be built. Although several plans would be presented, a sugges- tion of providing a step-by-step multi-tiered model and pro- viding targeted professional development for teachers and administrators would be taken into consideration. In addi- tion, the district could provide workshops for parents and students in this matter. District officials should present the new plan, and the school board members could vote on the new policy for the district after a pilot study is complete. The pilot study should begin its focus on the implementation of this new policy and its impact as it relates to the supports for ELL students with or without disabilities. For example, they could implement the policy at the elementary school level.

The step-by-step multi-tiered model (see Figure 4) includes the utilization of evidence-based interventions and specific guidelines for all preassessment teams following the model of RTI, as suggested by research (Esparza-Brown & Doolittle, 2008; Linan-Thompson, 2010; Macswan & Rolstad, 2006). After the plan for the new policy is presented, a small pilot study should be conducted. The results of this pilot study could provide evidence for the school board mem- bers to vote in support of the new policy. Two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school could begin with professional development of their teachers, administra- tors, and paraprofessionals. Also, school diagnosticians and

school psychologists should be given appropriate professional development for conducting assessments. Workshops for parents could be provided twice during this period of time. The pilot should be evaluated by a small research study from a local or state university. If the results show a positive decrease of number of special education referrals of ELL stu- dents, the school board members can vote the new policy for the district into effect.

Implementation of Rules and Regulations

As previously stated, the new policy change within the school district cannot be done by one person but should integrate all stakeholders in the decision-making process (Gerston, 2010). Based on a review of the literature, rec- ommendations are presented in Figure 4. To implement a new district policy, district officials should provide appro- priate staff development for all teachers, staff, school administrators, and school specialists. They also should provide opportunities for parents and students to learn more about evidence-based practices and their rights on the process of special education. Finally, they should pres- ent a step-by-step model that could be used as a guide for interventions for all students before assessing them for special education services.

Figure 2. Beginning steps for the consideration of policy change. Note. ELL = English Language Learner; MTSS = Multi-Tiered Systems of Support.

Barrio 69

During the first year of implementation of a new pol- icy, district officials should set aside part of the yearly budget to provide staff development for all the teachers, school administrators, and school specialists in the areas of evidence-based practices for ELL students, multicul- tural responsive practices, and RTI. School administrators may bring consultants or use specialists within the district to provide the staff development. This staff development should be presented before the beginning of the school year and should have one follow-up session throughout the school year. Impact of the professional development in these areas will guide the effectiveness of implementa- tion of the new policy. Every year after that, a refresher session should be provided prior to the beginning of the school year.

District diagnosticians, school psychologists, specialists, and administrators should have the same professional development in addition to training about assessments for ELL students but should only be required to attend once per year. District officials and administrators should provide parents and students opportunities to learn more about these interventions throughout the school year. A total of six dates should be provided by the school district for parent and stu- dent workshops on evidence-based practices and legal

rights in the process of special education. These workshops should be presented in English and Spanish or have a com- munity translator for other languages. Incentives should be considered to increase attendance (e.g., food, free child care, school supplies).

Teachers, administrators, and specialists should then focus on presenting the information learned through every- day instruction. All teachers should use evidence-based practices in the classroom while working with ELL students with or without disabilities. The multi-tiered team and school specialists should incorporate the RTI model and the step-by-step guidelines for all students. District diagnosti- cians and school psychologists should focus on providing nonbiased assessments and take cultural and linguistic diversity into consideration when evaluating students. The district should implement the new policy as a requirement for all teachers, administrators, and other professionals within the school district. A district-wide implementation of these rules and regulations should be monitored every year.

Evaluation of the Policy

As an accountability measure, the district should assign district specialists and special education administrators

Figure 3. Later steps for the consideration of policy change.

70 Rural Special Education Quarterly 36(2)

the task of monitoring the attendance and progress of all stakeholders while participating in staff development. The new policy should be evaluated by external consul- tants from a local or state university by conducting a research study. This research should focus on the number of ELL students being referred to special education, spe- cifically to the category of learning disabilities. Researchers should concentrate on the fidelity of imple- mentation of evidence-based practices learned in staff development, the appropriate use of the RTI model, and the consistency of the step-by-step model for the multi- tiered process used by the school district. Research assis- tants should be trained to conduct the observations of the fidelity of implementation of these practices and inter- ventions within the schools. The main researchers should conduct overall evaluations of the fidelity of implementa- tion of administrators and multi-tiered teams through monthly observations. The school district should disclose

the number of attendees at each parent workshops. Twice a year, surveys on the effectiveness of the staff develop- ment should acquire opinions of the implementation of the new practices and policy.

Researchers from the local or state university should provide an overall biannual report on the progress of the district for two levels: (a) elementary educational settings and (b) secondary educational settings. The school district and school board members should meet twice per year to discuss the result of the report and make changes as needed. Quality assurance of implementation of the new policy, as well as the impact of professional development and collaboration and supports for parents, should be a continuous process for the school district that should involve teachers and administrators, as well as parents and students. The main objective should continue to be to pro- vide appropriate instruction and interventions for ELL stu- dents to reduce the disproportionate representation of this

Figure 4. Step-by-step referral model and policy change plan. Note. ELL = English Language Learner.

Barrio 71

population in the category of learning disabilities. It is imperative that all stakeholders continue to actively par- ticipate in the process to assure accountability and prog- ress of the new policy.

Addressing Concerns

With the new policy in place, a new set of concerns could originate. Due to the number of teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals within the school district, the bud- get allocated for staff development could increase. With most of the budget already allocated for specific tasks, this budget change could mean cuts of other parts of the budget that may affect students directly. Also, if the school district is trying to avoid a deficit in the budget and cannot afford to ask for another school bond from tax payers, the policy may be applied through a multiyear plan. If this is the case, staff development may be prioritized for campuses that have higher numbers of disproportionate representation of ELL students in special education. Another option is to seek col- laboration with colleges of education and universities to provide professional development for campus specialists and special education teachers who later could disseminate professional development to the rest of their campus teach- ers and administrators.

Another concern could be the large amount of time taken to apply and evaluate the policy appropriately in each cam- pus. A long amount of time should have lapsed since the beginning of the pilot study to the attendance of staff devel- opment for all stakeholders to the implementation and eval- uation of evidence-based practices and the step-by-step multi-tiered model. The passing of a couple of years can mean more disproportionate numbers of ELL students in special education, which could increase the concern for par- ents and the community. Although it may be impossible to shorten the amount of time, parents and the community can be informed of the overall progress of the implementation of the policy through newsletters, electronic updates in schools’ websites, and town hall meetings.

The effectiveness of the new policy should be chal- lenged and evaluated through the research study from a local or state university. If concern is that the new policy fails to improve the disproportionate representation of ELL students in special education, reorganization of the policy should be taken into consideration by the initial task force members and by the school board. With biannual reports, this concern can be minimized by changes and improve- ments made every 6 months or every year.

Conclusion

Addressing disproportionality of ELL students through pol- icy change and implementation can be a great challenge for any school district. This challenge can be even more diffi- cult when geographical isolation, reduced supports and

materials, and difficulty in obtaining ongoing professional development are part of the educational system, as they are in many rural settings (Hoover & Erickson, 2015; Robinson et al., 2013). Focusing on the positive, rural settings are unique because of their often observed sense of community. In the described policy development and implementation plan, stakeholders from the school district and around the community play key roles in addressing any challenge. In addition, collaboration with universities and colleagues near the area can assist in this process without spending local resources (Hoover & Erickson, 2015). As diverse pop- ulations continue to increase in rural areas, it is imperative to address any necessary changes (Shim, 2013).

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 Council on Rural Special Education. (n.d.). Policy brief: Special education and disability services in rural areas. Retrieved from http://acres-sped.org/r/download/123894

Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racializa- tion of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431–445.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higadera, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. doi:10.1177/ 001440290507100305

Ashbaker, B. Y., & Wilder, L. K. (2006). Responding to multi- cultural challenges in rural special education. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 1, 31–44.

Baca, L. M. (2012, April). Update on bilingual special educa- tion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Denver, CO.

Barrio, B. L. (2016). Fueling disproportionality of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: Implications for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Mestizo and Indigenous Voices, 1, 1–9.

Barrio, B. L., & Combes, B. H. (2015). General education pre-ser- vice teachers’ levels of concern on Response to Intervention (RTI) implementation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 121–137.

Burr, E., Haas, E., & Ferriere, K. (2015). Identifying and sup- porting English learner students with learning disabilities: Key issues in the literature and state practices (Report # REL 2015-086). Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west/ pdf/REL_2015086.pdf

Cavendish, W., Artiles, A., & Harry, B. (2015). Tracking inequality 60 years after Brown: Does policy legitimize racialization of

72 Rural Special Education Quarterly 36(2)

disability? Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 14(2), 1–11.

Data Accountability Center. (2013). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data [Data tables for OSEP state reported data]. Retrieved from https://www.ideadata.org/ tables33rd/ar_1-9.pdf

De Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Qi, C. H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the dispro- portionate representation of minority students in special edu- cation. Exceptional Children, 72, 425–441.

Esparza-Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 66–72.

Faircloth, S. C. (2006). Early childhood education among American Indian/Alaskan Native children with disabili- ties: Implications for research and practice. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(1), 25–31.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse. doi:10.1037/ e607782011-001

Gerston, L. N. (2010). Public policy making: Process and princi- ples. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. doi:10.5860/choice.48-2968

Hardin, B. J., Roach-Scott, M., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2007). Special education referral, evaluation, and place- ment practices for preschool English language learners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22, 39–54. doi:10.1080/02568540709594611

Harris, B., Sullivan, A. L., Oades-Sese, G. V., & Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2015). Culturally and linguistically responsive practices in psychoeducational reports for English language learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31, 141–166.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority stu- dents in special education? Understanding race & disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hoover, J. J., & Erickson, J. (2015). Culturally responsive spe- cial education referrals of English learners in one rural county school district: Pilot project. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(4), 18–24.

Hosp, J. L. (2014). Response to intervention and the dispropor- tionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. Retrieved from http://www. rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/disproportionaterepresentation

Hurst, S. (2014). What is the difference between RTI and MTSS? Retrieved from http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/what- is-the-difference-between-rti-and-mtss

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1418 et seq. (2004).

Keller-Allen, C. (2006, August). English language learners with disabilities: Identification and other state policies and issues. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., . . . Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38), 1–43.

Klingner, J. K., Blanchett, W. J., & Harry, B. (2007). Race, culture, and developmental disabilities. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 55–75). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kossar, K., Mitchem, K., & Ludlow, B. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A national study of its impact on special education in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 3–8.

Linan-Thompson, S. (2010). Response to instruction, English lan- guage learners and disproportionate representation: The role of assessment. Psicothema, 22, 970–974.

Macswan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English lan- guage learner placement in special education. Teachers College Record, 108, 2304–2328. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9620.2006.00783.x

Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., Mattison, R., Maczuga, S., Li, H., . . . Cook, M. (2015). Minorities are dis- proportionately underrepresented in special education longi- tudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44, 278–292.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). English language learners. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator_cgf.asp

National Education Association. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC: Author.

Pennucci, A., & Kavanaugh, S. (2005). English language learners in K-12: Trends, policies, and research in Washington state. Retrieved from http://wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/896

Robinson, G. R., Bursuck, W. D., & Sinclair, K. D. (2013). Implementing RTI in two rural elementary schools: Encouraging beginnings and challenges for the future. Rural Educator, 34(3), 1–9.

Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learn- ers, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 99–107.

Sailor, W. (2015). Advances in schoolwide inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 36(2), 94–99. doi:0741932514555021

Shim, J. M. (2013). Involving the parents of English language learners in a rural area: Focus on the dynamics of teacher- parent interactions. Rural Educator, 34(3), 18–26.

Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities; Preschool grants for children with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www2. ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/nprm-signifi- cant-disproportionality–unofficial-copy.pdf

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58–67. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-5826.2005.00121.x

Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language learners with reading-related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determi- nations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 129–141. doi:10.1 177/00222194060390020201

Copyright of Rural Special Education Quarterly is the property of ACRES and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.