Policy Considerations

There is clear room for improvement at the policy level to more accurately identify ELs with disabilities and provide appropriate instructional services. Researchers have recognized several system weaknesses, pointing to gaps in educator knowledge of the language acquisition process, child development, and disability; a dearth of bilingual instructional knowledge and practices; weak referral strategies; and inappropriate assessment tools.

Here are seven ways that leaders and policymakers can strengthen education for ELs with disabilities:

1. Provide clearer policy guidance. Many states lack clearly defined procedures or expectations for educators when referring EL students for special education. The lack of basic guidance for dual-identified ELs fosters confusion and varying interpretations from teachers about the rules they need to follow.¹ A 2019 review by the Institute of Education Sciences found that nine states, seven of which are among the top 20 states with the highest EL populations, have publicly available manuals or handbooks on best practices to navigate the identification process for ELs.² These in-depth resources offer case examples, checklists, sample intervention programs, and explicit decision criteria for referrals. This basic, common starting point is crucial to foster more consistency in decision-making.³
2. Prioritize early identification for young ELs. IDEA (Part C) calls for the identification of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with special needs starting at birth. In these early years, research shows ELs are less likely than their non-EL peers to be referred to early intervention and early childhood special education services. One study found that four-year-old ELs were 48 percent less likely to be referred for early intervention compared to non-EL peers.⁴ This trend is unfortunate, given that studies show early intervention can mitigate or even eliminate long-term effects of a disability on a child’s development.⁵ Leaders should invest more aggressively in early identification methods, such as early developmental screening in a child’s home language. As a positive step forward, Head Start’s new regulations require screening in English and in a student’s home language. However, few state pre-K programs require developmental language screening in English, let alone in other languages.⁶
3. Improve evaluation and assessment practices. As a baseline, assessment tools should be culturally appropriate and yield results that are psychometrically valid and reliable.⁷ Moreover, it is critical that assessment administrators evaluate ELs in their home language and in English to yield meaningful data, as any delay or disability will be observable across both languages in most cases.⁸ IDEA requires such bilingual assessment when students have academic skills in their native language and stipulates that it be administered by trained bilingual personnel to the extent possible. However, despite these mandates, the Department of Justice and Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights have found that ELs are frequently tested in English only.⁹
4. Train and support educators in developing key knowledge and skills. Since creating a more effective identification process relies on implementation by educators, it is vital that they have a solid understanding of how culture, language, and disability intersect. Well-designed pre-service learning and in-service professional development (PD) should address typical and atypical language and literacy trajectories, formal and informal evaluation practices, instructional strategies that correspond to each stage of language development, and early intervention strategies.¹⁰ States and districts should also provide ongoing training for teachers to support their implementation of effective practices for instructing ELs with disabilities. As highlighted in 2017 guidance from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), PD for dual-identified ELs should focus primarily on how to embed supports and accommodations in instruction and assessment.¹¹ According to CCSSO, states should also use PD to explicitly counter the idea that special education services can replace English learner services; ELs with disabilities have a right to both special education and English language services by federal law.
5. Institutionalize collaboration. General educators, special educators, English language specialists, and paraeducators all play an important role in supporting dual-identified ELs. Though a multidisciplinary team must come together to develop a student’s initial IEP, educators often work in silos in their day-to-day work. School administrators should reserve and prioritize time for cooperative planning where educators can meet regularly to align IEP goals with language objectives, discuss strategies, review data, and consider adjustments to services.¹² At the district and state level, administrators can build explicit connections between different divisions working with these students. For instance, California’s English Learner Support and Special Education Divisions have held a joint symposium on supporting ELs in recent years. Within the Colorado Department of Education, the special education branch funds a portion of staff salaries in the EL branch, writing collaboration for dual-identified ELs into core job responsibilities.¹³
6. Support home language as an asset. For dual-identified students, one of the biggest questions revolves around whether to integrate home language supports. Similar to debates in EL education, some educators fear that using the home language will confuse students and delay progress. However, in an academic review of over 60 studies spanning 30 years, no research supported this conclusion.¹⁴ Rather, compared to English-only approaches, researchers found that interventions that used both home language and English result in similar or even greater rates of growth in English abilities.¹⁵ In New York, leaders have acted aggressively in light of this research base, promoting bilingual education for all children—including ELs with disabilities—and launching the nation’s first dual language program for students with autism.¹⁶
7. Expand bilingual supports, including through the use of technology. The majority of states now report a shortage of bilingual educators, including special educators, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and others who play a central role in identifying and supporting dual-identified ELs. Expanding the number of bilingual personnel would allow for inclusive rather than exclusionary services for ELs with disabilities. When bilingual staff members are unavailable, school systems can explore telepractice strategies, such as interactive video conferencing. This strategy has proven particularly useful for speech-language specialists delivering online services for EL children. A promising example of this model is the dual language support program at the Center for Hearing and Speech, located in Houston, which utilizes remote technology to provide bilingual services to a growing population of ELs who are deaf or hearing impaired and live in rural areas across Texas.¹⁷ For school systems facing similar limitations, using technology can help expand bilingual services for ELs when in-person options are not practical.¹⁸