English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities: Research Agenda and Implications for Practice

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 68–78 C 2005, The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children Copyright
English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities: Research Agenda and Implications for Practice Peggy McCardle National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, NIH, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Joan Mele-McCarthy Office of Special Education & Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education Kathleen Leos Office of English Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education Although little is known about learning disabilities (LDs) in English language learners (ELLs), there is a substantial knowledge base about the identification, assessment, and intervention of and for LDs in monolingual native English-speaking students. Building on this knowledge, participants at an October 2003 National Symposium on Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners were asked to suggest research questions, priorities, and suggestions on how to build the necessary infrastructure to address critical research needs. In the discussions that took place, important themes emerged: (1) identification and assessment of LD and/or reading disabilities (RD) in ELLs (ELL/Ds), (2) understanding of the language and literacy developmental trajectories of ELLs, (3) understanding of the individual and contextual factors affecting outcomes, (4) the intersection of all of these areas with neurobiology, and (5) developing and testing the effectiveness of interventions for learning disabilities in ELL/Ds. These themes, and the research agenda that was forged around them, are presented. In addition, the practice implications of this agenda are presented, along with some suggestions for current practice while we await future research findings. The purpose of this special issue of Learning Disabilities Research and Practice (LDR&P) is to illuminate and underscore the complexity of identifying learning disabilities (LD) in English Language Learners (ELLs). A second goal is to map out some of the research areas that must be addressed. The articles comprising this special issue were crafted to identify the critical issues confronting the field, discuss the approaches to research that should be applied to these complex issues, and indicate the direction that future research should take if we are to decrease both the underreferral and the overreferral of ELLs for special education and accurately identify those ELLs who require special education assistance. We hope that the information presented will stimulate additional research and foster the interdisciplinary collaborations that are essential for the development of a comprehensive and productive research program. Although little is known about LDs in ELLs, there is a substantial knowledge base about the identification, assessment, and intervention of and for LDs in monolingual native English-speaking students. To most efficiently move forThe assertions and opinions contained herein represent those of the authors and of their symposium participants as recorded and interpreted by the authors; they should not be taken as representing official policies of the NICHD, NIH, OSERS, OELA, or the U.S. Departments of Health & Human Services and Education. Requests for reprints should be sent to Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH, NICHD, 6100 Executive Blvd. Suite 4B05, Rockville, MD 20852-7510. Electronic inquiries may be sent to pm43q@nih.gov. ward with research on this important but underresearched subgroup of the U.S. population, we must build upon that knowledge base to inform the identification and assessment of learning disabilities in ELLs. We must combine this information with new methodologies to determine the best ways of distinguishing between learning difficulties due to LDs and those due to language differences that appear as these students are learning English. At the October 2003 National Symposium on Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners, participants were asked to suggest research questions, research priorities, and suggestions on how to build the necessary infrastructure to address these critical research needs. In the discussions from that symposium, important themes and suggestions within these themes were raised, from which an initial research agenda was crafted. The five major themes were (1) identification and assessment of learning disabilities (LD) and/or reading disabilities (RD) in ELLs (ELL/Ds), (2) understanding of the language and literacy developmental trajectories of ELLs, (3) understanding of the individual and contextual factors affecting outcomes, (4) the intersection of all of these areas with neurobiology, and (5) developing and testing the effectiveness of interventions for learning disabilities in ELL/Ds. The following summary, organized around these themes includes, but is not limited to, information gained at the symposium. Following the summary is the proposed research agenda and some implications for practice. MCCARDLE, MELE-MCCARTHY, AND LEOS: RESEARCH AGENDA ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF LDS IN ELL STUDENTS Within the area of identification and assessment, it is important that we draw from the earlier research on monolingual English-speaking students with LDs. There is significant evidence regarding the identification of LDs indicating that LD classifications based on an IQ-achievement discrepancy have, at best, weak validity (Aaron, 1997; Fletcher et al., 2002; Hoksyn & Swanson, 2002; Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003; Siegel, 1992; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Stuebing et al., 2002). Moreover, the report by the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 2002) calls for abandoning the discrepancy approach. Current research is seeking to develop the necessary classification and definition frameworks critical to the identification of meaningful subtypes of LDs (Fletcher et al., 2002; Morris et al., 1998; Torgeson, 2002). As we approach the topic of LDs identification in ELLs, we must do so using what we know of the current state of the science. It is unclear how specific types of LD will manifest in different languages (National Symposium on Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners: Symposium Summary, 2003; Ortiz, 1997; Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005). The field needs the same type of fundamental classification studies of ELLs that were performed for monolingual students with LDs. The development of a theory-driven classification system is essential for the internal and external validation of subtypes of LDs in ELLs (Morris et al., 1998). An example of how the field developed such research for the classification and definition of LDs in monolingual English-speaking students in the United States can be found in Lyon (1994) and Lyon, Fletcher, and Barnes (2003), which presented major issues, directions, and emerging trends in the measurement of LD, critical concepts, and the state of the science at the two different points in time with respect to assessment in academic domains. At present, given the over- and underreferral problems of LDs that exist in our nation’s schools, it seems clear that we are not accurately identifying LD in ELLs. Lyon (1994) and recent studies that grew out of that work can be highly informative as we bring the best science to bear on the issues of LD in ELLs. A logical beginning point would be the replication of LD classification and identification studies already conducted (Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003). While both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies are needed, the process can be expedited initially by using cross-sectional designs and sampling at multiple points along the continuum of development. The sampling net should be cast in a comprehensive manner so that a wide range of individual differences in reading, math, and written and oral language can be studied. The ascertainment strategy should include recruitment of low-achieving children with and without IQ-achievement discrepancies as well as children with academic and language abilities within and above the average range. In order to develop a classification system or model that will provide developmental benchmarks and clear identification of ELLs with LDs, cross-sectional studies must be complemented by longitudi- 69 nal studies that track the developmental learning trajectories of cohorts of students that will include those with typical development and those with learning difficulties. In addition, it will be important that co-morbid conditions such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder be identified and documented in students who exhibit learning problems. Any effort at classification and definition of any condition requires valid and accurate measurement. There is a need for assessment tools for ELLs generally; there are major issues in the assessment of learning in typically developing ELLs, such as whether to assess in English or the native language or both, and whether there are tools available. Some new measures have been developed for use with ELLs whose native language is Spanish, within the federally funded Development of English for Spanish Speaking Children research network.1 However, additional tools are needed to measure student and teacher behavior and interactions, as well as the contexts of school, community, and home. Instruments are needed for use with ELLs with native languages other than Spanish. Work on instrument development should also focus on whether reliable, valid instruments can be developed for use with ELLs regardless of native language, since it is often not feasible to develop specific assessment measures for all of the various home languages of U.S. students. This is particularly the case when the proportion of students speaking those languages is small and native speaker expertise is unavailable. In addition, there is a need for new, accurate and user-friendly assessment tools that teachers can use for screening and for ongoing monitoring to guide instruction. To tailor instruction to meet students’ needs, teachers must have the necessary tools to identify language, literacy, and academic competencies in ELLs. Teachers need guidelines for determining in what language(s) a particular student should be assessed. Another key issue for assessment, but one which was not dealt with directly in this workshop, is that of accommodations. ELLs and ELL/Ds often require the use of accommodations during assessments to ensure that the format of the assessment does not mask their mastery of skills or content knowledge. Appropriate, effective accommodations for assessment need to be identified for both ELLs and for ELL/Ds. There are different types of accommodations, and under current guidelines not all accommodations are permitted in all situations (Rivera & Stansfield, 2000). For example, for ELLs with limited ability in English, certain accommodations such as extended time, simplifying the English language, and the use of bilingual glossaries and dictionaries are typically permitted. For ELLs identified as having disabilities that meet the requirements for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, accommodations are frequently included in the Individualized Education Program (IEP), and are determined by the IEP team (i.e., teachers, administrators, parents). These include test-taking accommodations such as extended time, reading the test aloud to the student (when reading is not the ability being assessed), and allowing the student to dictate responses. Even when accomodations are recommended by the IEP team, not all accommodations listed on a student’s IEP are permitted on state assessments. Each state education agency is required to determine which accommodations can be used 70 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS on state assessments so that the assessments remain reliable and valid. Therefore, accommodations permitted on classroom or local education agency tests may not be used on state-level tests. In addition, just as definitions of LDs vary from state to state, allowable accommodations for state assessments also vary from state to state for both students with disabilities and for ELLs without disabilities. To complicate matters, there is presently little research providing clear evidence as to which accommodations are appropriate for whom and under what conditions, how well they work, and whether they affect the validity of standardized assessments. Finally, little is known about the necessary duration of various types of accomodations. It may be the case, for instance, that for ELLs without disabilities, accommodations may be a transitional tool that can be phased out over time as a student’s skills increase and the dependence on the accommodations decreases. For ELL/Ds, the use of accommodations may need to continue throughout their school years and extend into their postsecondary education. Such decisions should be based on empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness and impact of the various types of accommodations. Therefore, it will be crucially important that the use of accommodations for ELLs and ELL/Ds be studied as a specific topic in its own right, including the effectiveness of various types of accommodations and the timing and duration of their use. Another aspect of assessment to consider is the use of technology. As assessments are being developed and adapted, and systems or models of classification and identification are being explored, it is also important to explore the possibilities that technology offers. In addition to the obvious uses of technology, such as offering greater standardization of task presentation and more rapid data collection and analysis, the ready availability and the relatively inexpensive access to computers can be used to offer native-language support to students when native speakers are not available. It is important to explore new software programs that could reduce the cost associated with assessment and individualized language support. Technological advances should also be used where possible to develop measures that can be administered in parallel in whatever native language the student speaks and in English. Within this context, it is important to note that simple translations of one instrument into another language are rarely, if ever, appropriate, and even with back-translation, such approaches are not optimal. (See Li, McCardle, Clark, Kinsella, & Berch, 2001 for a discussion of approaches to parallel instrument development.) Both the positive and any possible negative aspects of computer-assisted assessment, screening, and language support must be studied and documented. UNDERSTANDING THE LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES FOR ELLs In order to fully understand LDs, it is essential to document and more completely understand normative development of language and literacy abilities among well-defined groups of ELL children. What constitutes typical language develop- ment for bilingual children has been understudied, with few published studies in the literature and small numbers of subjects in the studies that are published. It will be especially important to study differences in English language learning that begins at different points in the developmental trajectory. A comparison group of English-speaking monolingual speakers is not always the optimal comparison group for bilingual individuals. However, for purposes of studying ELL students in the U.S. education system, including such comparisons can be important depending on the research questions being addressed. The influence of particular native languages on the learning of English must be understood if we are to develop appropriate educational instructional approaches and interventions. In addition, greater emphasis must be placed on first language research in bilingual children and ELLs.2 Despite the difficulty in studying ELLs’ first languages, due to the quantity and diversity of these languages (necessitating a broad sampling for statistical significance), theoretical models must be developed to examine not only children’s English competency, but also their first language abilities. Where possible, those languages that can show generalizable patterns for ELLs should be strategically selected in order to develop assessments and interventions that might be useful in multilingual classrooms. Research should seek to identify the conditions under which children are most likely to succeed, and based upon these conditions, interventions may be considered in the first language or in English, or both. Intervention in the first language is not always necessary, but it is important to know when and under what conditions it might be advantageous. While the accurate and early identification of LDs is an important focus, it is clear from research on monolingual students that not all children who fail to learn to read have LDs in reading (or in other academic domains). Thus, it will be equally important to identify impediments to learning in ELLs who do not have LDs. There is a clear need for effective methods to identify the social, cultural, emotional, instructional, and linguistic factors that may impede normal language and academic development in ELLs without LDs. These impediments can best be identified through a combination of studies. For example, investigations that include comprehensive longitudinal studies examining the interactions and interrelationships among the child, his or her culture(s), linguistic abilities, and the home and school environments are important. Such research will help to predict outcomes and identify which characteristics and conditions are most likely (or unlikely) to produce learning success. Any such study should include, at a minimum, measures of language proficiency in both or all languages spoken by that student, the type of school instruction received (including bilingual, English as a Second Language [ESL], or general education, with specific characteristics of that instruction), the language(s) of instruction (and when or for what purposes they are used, if more than one language is used in instruction), the age of the child, the language(s) used at home, and specific educational outcomes. Such studies raise major issues for measurement. Measures most often do not cover the age ranges across which the cohorts will need to be studied; thus, such questions as whether the measures to be used in sequence assess the same MCCARDLE, MELE-MCCARTHY, AND LEOS: RESEARCH AGENDA construct must be addressed. In addition, measures available for use may not have been normed on ELLs; in fact, the norms for some available measures were developed so long ago that they may no longer be appropriate for today’s monolingual English-speaking students. New measures, possible adaptations, and new normative data for extant measures will be required to carry out such research. UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AFFECTING OUTCOMES IN ELLs Whether in assessment, instruction, or intervention, it is crucially important that cultural and contextual factors be taken into account. We need detailed information about the interactions and interrelationships among child, culture, home, and school. Such information will enable us to identify those cultural, contextual, and linguistic factors that will affect how an assessment is developed and implemented and how instruction or intervention is delivered and how its effectiveness is determined. Salient cultural variables must be identified. There is insufficient research to clearly identify and understand which cultural variables among specific subgroups of ELLs correlate to positive or negative educational outcomes. For example, there is a need to examine the role of cultural and linguistic factors in the development of native American children, a seriously underresearched population. Within the native American community, two major interests are the continued development of a given tribe or nation’s language and cultural base, as part of the children’s heritage, and the relationship of these priorities to each child’s cognitive development and academic performance in an educational setting.3 Information on child, culture, and home and school environments is crucial in order to more accurately predict child outcomes, to understand which characteristics contribute to learning success, to understand affect and motivation as they relate to academic learning, and to tailor interventions in ways that will optimize children’s potential for successful learning. It is important to understand the roles of affective and motivational factors in academic outcomes for all children, but this is especially important for ELLs who bring linguistic and cultural heritages that differ from those typically expected and accommodated within the educational setting. Researchers must also investigate the roles of parents and family (siblings, grandparents, and extended family), the home environment, and parents’ access to information about their child’s academic progress. The interface between home and school cultures is not only key to predicting child outcomes but also to designing interventions that might bridge those cultures and better equip teachers and parents of ELL students to communicate effectively with one another. Research is also needed that will clearly identify and examine the impact of school infrastructure factors. It is important to study the quality of instruction, the language of instruction, the types of support available within a child’s school, and the efficacy of that support. Do particular school infrastructure factors contribute to successful educational 71 outcomes for ELLs? The most effective types of school structure and support systems for ELLs (i.e., not just curricula and programs) must be identified, and the characteristics of those students for whom these structures or programs work optimally must be defined. In order to provide optimal education for ELLs, we must understand how environmental factors in and around a school affect ELL educational outcomes. Because there are so many variations among school environments, it will be necessary to design the research carefully, taking power and potential effect sizes into account, with large samples where possible in order to derive generalizable conclusions. STUDYING THE INTERSECTION OF NEUROBIOLOGY AND LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN ELLs The neurobiological correlates of reading disability and the neurodevelopmental trajectories associated with successful reading acquisition are likely to be similar in children who are ELLs and those who are monolingual. However, this remains a hypothesis still to be investigated. The application of neurobiology to language and literacy development is still at the earliest stages; to date, some exciting results have been obtained and functional neuroimaging technology holds great promise for new insights about children with LDs and those with normal reading and language development. Therefore, it also holds great promise for use in elucidating the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological correlates of language and learning in ELLs. It will be especially interesting to study neurobiological development in ELLs and bilingual children in relation to the age at which they acquire a second language and whether acquisition of languages is sequential or simultaneous. There are some logical next steps for functional neuroimaging research, as indicated in the articles within this issue. These next steps include developing normative data on patterns of brain activation for various language tasks, in both the first language and additional languages of those who are ELLs or bilingual. Additional steps include developing norms for second (or subsequent) language development at successive stages of acquisition for both simultaneous and sequential acquisition; comparing profiles of each constituent operation for first language and second or additional languages; identifying the neurological operations that generate differences between first language and second or additional language profiles; and discovering whether aberrant profiles correspond to particular behavioral or psychological deficits or strengths. Currently, most of the work on reading and language development has used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (e.g., Holland et al., 2001; Keller, Carpenter, & Just, 2001; Papanicolaou, Pugh, Simos, & Mencl, 2004; Simos et al., 2001). However, researchers are also using other methods such as diffusion tensor imaging (Klingberg et al., 2000) or combining neuroimaging methods (e.g., Dale et al., 2000; Klingberg et al., 2000), and the technology is developing rapidly. As we continue to develop the necessary important research on behavioral 72 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS aspects of bilingual and multilingual language and literacy development and disorders, it will be important to coordinate this work with explorations of the neurobiological aspects of these behaviors, as has been and is being done for monolingual reading and language development. Functional neuroimaging should also be an important adjunct to crosslinguistic studies of language development and reading. For research in most other countries, this will coincide with research on bilinguals and multilinguals, because it is more common in most nations for individuals to speak multiple languages at early ages. The most foundational issue for neuroimaging research is to elucidate the neurobiological bases for language representation in bilinguals, especially regarding the age at which the second or additional language is acquired. There is currently work underway, funded by the National Institutes of Health, to develop a large normative database of anatomical brain development (Pediatric MRI Study of Normal Brain Development; http://www.brain-child.org) for children from birth to 18 years of age. The next step will be to develop a similar normative database for data derived from functional imaging modalities applied to typical language development. This normative database is necessary to map physiological correlates specific to linguistic operations in the first language, and for similar norms for subsequent (or simultaneously acquired) language(s) at successive stages of acquisition in the same individuals. It then becomes possible to compare first language (L1) and second and additional language (L2) profiles, to attempt to determine whether, and on what tasks or task types, L1 and L2 profiles differ. In addition, researchers eventually hope to be able to examine whether specific neuroimaging profiles correspond to particular behavioral and psychological deficits. THE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS It is crucial that any program of research designed to study the development and identification of LDs in ELLs be informed by investigations of the effects of different evidence-based interventions on well-defined groups of children. Because extant data with monolinguals indicate that no single intervention, even one that works for many children, will work for all children, it is critical to determine which interventions are effective for which children or types of children, and to determine the factors that enhance or reduce an intervention’s effectiveness under particular circumstances. Whether or not there are cross-linguistic influences in student learning must also be accounted for in research on the effectiveness of both instruction in general and of specific interventions. Well-designed research testing experimental interventions and the conditions under which they are effective will also be instrumental in accurately identifying LDs in ELLs. As part of this research, teachers’ linguistic abilities, their cultural background, their preparation, content knowledge, and teaching (pedagogical) expertise must also be taken into account. Teachers and other practitioners working with ELLs need to know if their interventions are effective and how to adjust instruction to address individual differences in how children respond or do not respond to their teaching. Therefore, instructional programs and interventions for bilingual, multilingual, and ELL/D students that are currently in use must be evaluated. While it seems natural to use researchbased instructional programs that we know are effective for monolingual English-speaking students with students who are learning English as a second or additional language, it is important to realize that instructional approaches for ELLs and ELL/Ds may need to be different, and it is important to know what these differences are. It is highly likely that not only existing assessments (as noted earlier) but also existing instructional approaches and interventions will require some adaptation and modification. We need to know what modifications or adaptations are needed, and whether these vary by first language or language type. Do ELLs with disorders of basic psychological processes respond differently to intervention than do those without such disorders? For example, would an ELL with a reading disability manifest different responses to instruction than an ELL who is not learning simply because of language differences or due to inadequate instruction? In their training, teachers need to have mastered a significant amount of information about the structure of language in general, and of the English language specifically. Such information becomes even more important when these teachers encounter ELLs in their classrooms (Fillmore & Snow, 2002), and most teachers will at some point be teaching ELLs (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, Cutting, Leos, & D’Emilio, 2005). This knowledge will also underlie and enhance their ability to identify students at risk for reading difficulty. In addition, the case has been made that teachers also need to be aware of and be able to read and understand research on reading development, reading disability, and reading instruction and intervention (Chhabra & McCardle, 2004). For our ELLs and ELL/Ds, we should expect no less in teacher preparation and ongoing teacher professional development. However, as the authors writing for this thematic issue of LDR&P have repeatedly indicated, ELLs present an even more complex picture. Thus, there are additional factors that must be included in the preparation of classroom teachers who will work with ELLs—as well as in the preparation of all professionals who will work with these students. We have not yet identified what all of these factors will be or the best methods to ensure that these are effectively presented to teachers. Thus, there are specific research needs within the domain of teacher preparation and ongoing professional development. First, researchers and teacher educators (realizing that there is or should be significant overlap in these categories) need to examine teacher training courses and practicum experiences. It will be important to identify the components of effective preservice teacher preparation and professional development and to ensure that teachers have mastered the approaches and techniques within these. We need to know what skill sets best equip teachers to successfully engage ELLs and ELL/Ds in the educational process, and what teachers and other professionals need to know, linguistically and culturally, which will best prepare them to work with this diverse group of students. MCCARDLE, MELE-MCCARTHY, AND LEOS: RESEARCH AGENDA Teachers will need to know how to recognize language differences that can interfere with learning (especially in reading, writing, and oral expression) and how to address these educationally, as well as how to distinguish these from indicators of potential learning difficulties that are not attributable to the child’s language differences, that is, that are indicative that this child has or is at risk for learning disabilities. In addition, teachers will need to know how to monitor ongoing progress and adapt their instruction to the strengths and weaknesses of individual students and subgroups of students. This will involve identifying specific measures and learning to administer, interpret, and use the results of these measures. Thus, at every stage of the research on the language and literacy development and learning disabilities in ELLs, researchers will not only need to be publishing their results in scientific journals to inform other researchers and guide future research, but they should also keep in mind that when firm research findings and convergent evidence are obtained, such evidence should also be shared in those journals and periodicals read by teachers and practitioners. THE RESEARCH AGENDA The major areas that define the research agenda that has grown out of the October 2003 multisponsored symposium are discussed above. Below, actual research questions and topics are presented that articulate examples of how this agenda can move forward. Given the universe of important and interesting issues that must be addressed with regard to the education and development of ELLs, this list can not include all that must be done. Instead, it is offered as a starting point for the field; it is meant to offer examples and is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Fuller explanations of each of the listed items are found in our earlier discussion of the major themes of this research agenda. Classification research is needed that will accomplish the following goals: r Replicate recent and current classification and identifir r r cation studies of monolingual students with LDs with ELL students. Develop innovative cross-sectional study designs, with sampling at multiple points in the continuum of development, to examine student learning characteristics. Develop sampling strategies that will adequately cover the full range of ability levels and will be as inclusive as possible. Develop assessment strategies that allow us to understand the co-morbidities between specific kinds of learning problems. 73 r Clear guidelines for those referring for assessment and r r r those making decisions regarding when and in what languages assessments should be conducted. Validation of cognitive and linguistic assessment tools and neuroimaging tasks for use with ELLs. Exploration of the benefits of using technology in administering assessments, offering accommodations, and providing native language support. Study of the effectiveness and appropriateness of various specific accommodations, circumstances and duration of use, and when and how to best withdraw or terminate them. Language and literacy developmental trajectories for ELL students: r Examine the development over time of both typical r r r ELLs and ELL/Ds, and attempt to correlate this with neural activation patterns. Determine effective methods for identifying the issues that impede the typical development (social, cultural, emotional, etc.) of ELLs in this country. Develop subtype profiles of ELLs with LDs, and use these to develop, design, and test interventions. Longitudinally study response to intervention among ELLs with LDs. As part of the identification of developmental trajectories in ELL students, there are a number of language and cognitive factors that should be considered: r Specific student characteristics, including age, changes r r r r in language proficiency in both (all) languages (which may include decline in L1 as well as rate of increase in proficiency in either or both L1 and L2), achievement, cognitive ability, motivation, and self-efficacy. The interaction of academic outcomes, English language acquisition, and first language characteristics and abilities. Characteristics of the type of instruction (bilingual, ESL, general education) the student is receiving, and fidelity of instruction. The influence of multiple language contexts, including peer group, classroom, school, home, and community. The differential impact of learning a heritage language, where children are native speakers of English, learning a language for which few other native speakers are available to provide practice, linguistic context, and models. A subgroup addressing neurobiology issues outlined logical next steps for research in the application of neurobiology to language and literacy development: Assessment development or adaptation is needed: r Develop a normative database of brain activation pror Screening tools to identify ELLs who are at risk for r learning difficulties, as well as more detailed measures for full assessment. Classroom-based assessments and tools for teachers to monitor student progress, and training manuals for the effective use of these tools. r files for linguistic operations in the first and subsequent language(s) at successive stages of acquisition, as well as within simultaneous languages learners. Examine whether different activation patterns correspond to particular behavioral or psychological patterns or deficits. 74 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR PRACTICE While there is a great deal of research needed to develop and norm assessment instruments, to adapt or renorm extant measures, and to test the effectiveness of instructional methods and interventions for ELLs and ELL/Ds, teachers and practitioners are currently faced with teaching students now, individualizing their instruction, and deciding whether to refer students for specialized services (i.e., ESL or special education and related services) and what types of referrals to make. The research agenda outlined in this article obviously carries with it implications for practice. A few of these implications are briefly discussed, but we have also included some practical suggestions for interim practice while awaiting the fruits of this research agenda. Assessment Teachers and practitioners can assess ELL students in several ways. For the classroom teacher, the development of classroom assessments that include the interactions among child, culture, home, and school will facilitate accurate assessment of academic achievement in the ELL population. Additionally, development of validated teacher checklists could serve as a basis for referral to an ESL teacher and to clinicians who work with children with disabilities. For the ESL teacher, new or adapted instruments that determine English proficiency in both academic and social contexts will provide a means of assessing current status and developing an instructional plan for individual students, and for grouping students appropriately for small group work. On a practical level, while awaiting new and better measures, teachers and practitioners should at least ensure that when ELLs are assessed for English proficiency, academic skills, or the presence of a learning disability, they are assessed in their first language as well as in English (if they speak English). Native language assessments of language and literacy abilities as well as English assessments should be administered, when feasible, upon school entry, regardless of age of the student. This information is an important contributor to proper educational placement and for provision of appropriate services, across the span from kindergarten to grade 12, if there is a question about a student’s language, literacy, or learning abilities. For assessing vocabulary in ELL students, it is important to consider the purpose of the assessment. If the goal is to measure vocabulary size in English, then an English measure alone may suffice. However, if the goal is to estimate the size of a student’s overall conceptual vocabulary knowledge, then a combination of the word knowledge in both languages will be more appropriate. Children often learn the meaning of different words in each language; thus vocabulary test results in either their first language or English will render an incomplete picture of the words a child actually knows. Teachers and practitioners should become familiar with the cultural norms of the children and families with whom they work, as there may be cultural differences in formal and informal communication, classroom behavior and attitudes toward education, and attitudes toward disabilities. Teachers and specialists should also be familiar with the phonological, syntactic, and morphological parameters of the student’s first language, as these may interact with the learning of English. Research has demonstrated that ELLs’ linguistic performance cannot be fully or appropriately evaluated separately from their culture, because culture influences how one uses language to express oneself and how language is used in a social context (Brown, 2004; Erikson & Mohatt, 1982; Heath, 1988; Marshall, 2000). Accommodations While accommodations must be more fully studied for their specific effectiveness and the circumstances under which they can best be used to advantage for students, teachers and practitioners can become familiar with the allowable accommodations for ELLs on standardized tests at both the state and local level, and attempt to use these to their advantage so that assessments give them the best possible information on what students know. For classroom tests and assessments, teachers and practitioners could determine, as a team, the types of accommodations might be used, under what conditions, and for which students they seem to enhance learning opportunities. While waiting for the evidence base for assessment of learning disabilities in ELLs, there are some practices that teachers and practitioners can employ to assist ELL students who may have learning disabilities. Providing accommodations to ELLs in wide-scale (e.g., state assessments), local, and classroom assessments can serve to reduce the effect of limited proficiency in English and thus in some measure improve the accuracy of such assessments (Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter, & Baker, 2000). But caution must be used in how certain accommodations are implemented. For example, interpreters can be used to administer criterion-referenced tests where standardized test administration procedures are not required for acquisition of valid test results. However, if an interpreter is to be used for assessments, the interpreter should have some background in education, and the teacher or clinician using the interpreter and scoring or using any results of such an assessment should meet with the interpreter prior to the session with the student, to discuss the goals of the assessment and discuss the items to be administered. It should be noted that literal translation of test items often will not impart the exact meaning of the test item in English. For this reason, written translation and back-translation are recommended over the use of interpreters whenever possible, noting that without norming studies these translation procedures are not optimal but are preferred over interpreter use when possible. Clear guidelines should be established as to when the interpreter may or may not prompt the student, restate the item, etc. Family members or friends should not be used as interpreters for assessment. Sheltered English, also known as simplified English, has been shown to be helpful for some ELLs (Abedi et al., 2000; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). An observation instrument is available for teacher use with sheltered English (Guarino MCCARDLE, MELE-MCCARTHY, AND LEOS: RESEARCH AGENDA et al., 2001). Much more information on sheltered English is available on the website of the Center for Applied Linguistics at http://www.cal.org. Of course, it is important that sheltered or simplified English be used only as an interim approach, to assist students on a short-term basis while they are improving their English language skills. If such instruction is required on a very long-term basis, the student should be assessed for possible learning disabilities. If teachers believe that commonly accepted accommodations to testing for ELLs would not yield a true measure of the ELLs’ skills and abilities, practitioners in the field of bilingual and ELL education advocate for administering three alternative assessment measures (Brown, 2004). They are dynamic assessment based on Vygotsky’s learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and the test-teach-retest assessment developed by Feuerstein (1979); curriculum-based assessment (Fradd, McGee, & Wilen, 1994); and testing-the-limits as a means of probing responses on standardized assessments (Gutierrez-Clellen & Pena, 2001). When using such instruments, it is important that procedures and results be clearly described so that they may be used to tailor instructional approaches to maximize student learning. These alternative assessments may be very useful to determine the language and academic skills of ELLs for the purposes of instruction; however, these assessment procedures do not have a valid and reliable evidence base for determining if an ELL has a disability. Identification of and Intervention for Learning Disabilities Identification and classification studies for learning disabilities in ELLs will generate developmental trajectories of both typical and atypical development in both language and literacy. These trajectories will provide valuable information to the clinician, (e.g., psychologist, special education teacher, speech-language pathologist) in both tailoring instruction to the struggling student and to determining whether an ELL has difficulty learning in a language or whether he or she has lacked opportunity to learn English. Despite the expansive amount of research yet to be conducted relative to learning disabilities in ELLs, existing research does tell us that being bilingual does not cause language impairment, and that children with specific language disorders will have challenges in both languages, but that this does not in and of itself dictate that language input should be restricted to one language (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004). There is a close but not well-understood link between language and literacy abilities and disabilities. Interestingly, if ELLs are identified as students with learning disabilities, it is likely that they may be classified initially as students with a speech-language impairment (Zehler et al., 2003). Yet we also know that many students may be referred for special education who are having difficulty achieving in the classroom based on limited English skills, who do not actually have learning disabilities (Zehler et al., 2003). This highlights the importance of developing methods for the accurate disambiguation of language learning and learning disabilities in ELLs. 75 Technology Technology is an underused resource in our educational system. Ideally, research would demonstrate the most efficient and effective uses of technology in the assessment of and intervention with ELL students, both with and without LD. For example, technology that produces simultaneous translation and language support in a choice of multiple languages could help students in high school classrooms learn the academic content at their cognitive and academic level while they are learning English. Although we currently have limited research information on the use of computer technology in assessment for the identification of learning disabilities in ELLs, or intervention for this population of learners, there are practices that may prove useful for ELLs and ELL/Ds now, while we are waiting for a research base. First, translation software is available that older students with some literacy and computer skills can use, although cost, teacher training, and the language abilities needed to support use of the programs must be taken into consideration and may limit educational usefulness. Software that auditorizes text may assist students in learning English and in accomplishing academic tasks; at its most basic, this can be found in commercial word processing software options originally created for individuals with physical and visual disabilities. In addition, Evans, Kurniawan, and Blenkhorn (2003) specifically have adapted and enhanced this approach for individuals with reading and other learning disabilities. This same group has procedures whereby text-to-speech synthesizers can be produced in new languages for use with assistive applications (Evans, Polyzoaki, & Blenkhorn, 2002). Furthermore, software developers now have the ability to produce texts that, through hypertext, offer native language support on vocabulary and task instructions in a large variety of languages, which can provide assistance in situations where speakers of those native languages are not available or there are too many languages represented for such in-person support to be feasible. Cultural Context The research agenda that evolved from the work of this Symposium carefully weaves together the cultural and contextual factors that affect how assessments, instruction and interventions are developed and employed. This attention to culture and context will promote cultural awareness and sensitivity in both researchers and practitioners who work with ELLs and ELL/Ds. Teachers and practitioners should become familiar with the cultural norms of their ELLs. Several authors offer practice parameters for cultural sensitivity (Chisholm, 1994; Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Lynch & Hanson, 1992; Saville-Troike, 1978). Many resources on the incorporation of culture in the classroom are also available on the web site of the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/). Ortiz (1997) addresses linguistic and cultural incorporation for language-minority students with LDs. Teachers of ESL, special educators, and 76 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS speech-language pathologists should become familiar with the phonological, morphological, and syntactic parameters of the languages spoken by their students as a means of understanding the interaction of the ELL’s first language system with the acquisition of English. The Office of English Language Acquisition, through its own web site (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html) and through its National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (web site provided above), provides ongoing information on educational practice and policy affecting ELL students. Other professional associations and organizations also provide access to resources, through their web sites or publications, which delineate specific strategies to ensure culturally competent practice for professionals who work with learners from diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. planned with real-world applications in mind. As the research proceeds to explore accurate identification and treatment of monolingual students with learning problems, the research on ELLs must keep pace. That is, research must use the most current approaches and build on existing and emerging information, including studies of response to intervention approaches. This research would promote abandoning the invalid definition currently in use for LD that relies on the demonstration of an IQ-achievement discrepancy. Studies must take into account the student’s language and instructional history and use culturally and linguistically appropriate, reliable assessment instruments. Students must be given the educational opportunities to succeed, and for those who do not for whatever reasons, rapid identification and assessment that enable teachers and others to target the areas of need and remediate them are essential. We can and must do no less for all students, including those whose native language is not English. SUMMARY More research is needed on the language and literacy development of ELLs. We hope that this special issue of LDR&P has convincingly indicated many of the specific areas that must be investigated if we are to be able to identify those ELLs with learning disabilities, to distinguish between those who are having difficulty learning English and those who truly have difficulties learning (regardless of native language). The agenda for additional research also includes the development of appropriate assessment tools and strategies, effective instructional approaches, effective interventions and appropriate teacher preparation, and professional development programs. Both basic, foundational research and applied research are needed. As a first step, classification and definition research is needed; this should build upon the solid work already done on the definition and classification of learning disabilities in monolingual English-speaking students. We must be able to predict successful educational outcomes in ELLs, and to provide the most effective educational interventions for each child. Labels such as LD can be highly useful to aid communication among professionals; if a common definition is agreed upon, the label can represent a significant cluster of information succinctly, whether for research or clinical purposes. With better predictive capability, we can better target appropriate instructions and interventions to students or groups of students. Accurate identification includes not only finding and assisting those students with LDs but also avoiding mislabeling students who do not have LDs. In addition, in assigning any label that will help a student obtain important necessary services, we must be culturally sensitive to how the label is communicated to the child and parents, and what it means functionally for the student. Real progress will depend upon the ability to apply what is learned from classification and intervention research to the identification and treatment of ELL/Ds. In order for this to occur, such research must study classroom interventions, monitor implementation, consider and justify control and comparison alternatives, and assess and analyze errors made by children in the course of various assessments. Research on assessment, identification of learning difficulties, and intervention development and effectiveness studies should be NOTES 1. DELSS is funded jointly by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The assessments that are available for research use under specified conditions, are listed on the network web site at http://www.cal.org/delss. 2. A workshop was held in April 2004 to identify the state of science and develop a research agenda on bilingual language development, sponsored by the NICHD, OELA, OSERS, and multiple professional associations; see summary document at http://www.nichd. nih.gov/crmc/cdbb/cdbb.htm. 3. As part of a coordinated effort to address the multiple language and learning issues of language minority students, a national colloquium is being developed by the NICHD, OELA, and OSERS in collaboration with key native American researchers and American Indian education associations, as well as other professional education associations, to survey the current status and identify specific research needs for American Indian, Alaska native, and native Hawaiian students. REFERENCES Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502. Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C., & Baker, E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English language learners’ test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(3), 16– 26. Brown, C. L. (2004). Reducing the over-referral of culturally and linguistically diverse students (CLD) for language disabilities. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 225–243. Chhabra, V., & McCardle, P. (2004). Contributions to evidence-based research. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 3–13). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Chisholm, I. M. (1994). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 43–68. MCCARDLE, MELE-MCCARTHY, AND LEOS: RESEARCH AGENDA Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care, volume I. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center. Dale, A. M., Liu, A. K., Fiscal, B. R., Buckner, R. L., Belliveau, J. W., Lewine, J. D., et al. (2000). Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: Combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron, 26, 55–67. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Erikson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participants structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spinder (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 132–174). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Evans, D. G., Kurniawan, S. H., & Blenkhorn, P. (2003). Speakout: A tool for people with modest print impairment. In G. Craddock, L. McCormack, R. Rielly, & H. Knops (Eds.), Assistive technology—shaping the future (pp. 441–445). Proceedings of the AAATE 2003. Evans, D. G., Polyzoaki, K., & Blenkhorn, P. (2002). An approach to producing new languages for talking applications for blind people. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, & W. Zagler (Eds.), Computers helping people with special needs (pp. 575–582). Proceedings, 8th ICCHP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, No. 2398, ISSN 0302-9743, Springer. Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–53). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidencebased evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to policy (pp. 185–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fradd, S. H., McGee, P. L., & Wilen, D. K. (1994). Instructional assessment: An integrative approach to evaluate student performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Feuerstein, R. (1979). Dynamic assessment of retarded performance: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instrument, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press. Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing. Guarino, A. J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J. E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The sheltered instruction observation protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1), 138–140. Gutierrez-Clellen, V., & Pena, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 212–224. Heath, S. B. (1988). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hoksyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2002). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102– 119. Holland, S. K., Plante, E., Weber Byars, A., Strawburg, R. H., Schmithorst, V. J., & Ball, W. S. Jr. (2001). Normal fMRI brain activation patterns in children performing a verb generation task. Neuroimage, 14, 837– 843. Keller, T. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (2001). The neural bases of sentence comprehension: A fMRI examination of syntactic and lexical processing. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 223–237. Klingberg, T., Hedehus, M., Temple, E., Salz, T., Gabrieli, J. D., Moseley, M. E., et al. (2000). Microstructure of temporo-parietal white matter as a basis for reading ability: Evidence from diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuron, 25, 493–500. Li, R., McCardle, P., Clark, R., Kinsella, K., & Berch, D. (Eds.). (2001). Diverse voices—The inclusion of language-minority populations in national studies: Challenges and opportunities. The National Institute on Aging, The National Institute of Health and Human Development, and The NIH National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/ publications/pubs/diverse voices.htm. Lynch, E., & Hanson, M. (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 77 Lyon, G. R. (1994). Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. C. (2003). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (2nd ed.). (pp. 520–586). New York: Guilford Press. McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., & D’Emilio, T. (2005). Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners— Identifying the Issues: An Introduction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 1–5. Marshall, J. (2000). Critical reflection on the cultural influences in identification and habilitation of children with speech and language difficulties. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47(4), 355–369. Morris, R. D, Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Shankweiler, D. P., et al. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347–373. National Symposium on Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners: Symposium Summary. (2003). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Office of English Language Acquisition (U.S. Dept. of Education) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Retrieved on Sept. 7, 2004 from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdbb/cdbb.htm. Ortiz, A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 321–332. Papanicolaou, A. D., Pugh, K. R., Simos, P., & Mencl, E. (2004). Functional brain imaging: An introduction to concepts and applications. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 385–416). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing. Rivera, C., & Stansfield, C. (2000). An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in state assessment programs during 1998–1999. Washington, DC: Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, The George Washington University. Saville-Troike, M. (1978). A guide to culture in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/classics/culture/index.htm). Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618–629. Simos, P. G., Breier, J. I., Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Mousaki, A., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2001). Age-related changes in regional brain activation during phonological decoding and printed word recognition. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 191–210. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological—core variable—difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It’s time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65–84. Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 469–518. Torgeson, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to policy (pp. 565–652). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families by the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Washington, DC: ED Pubs. Available at http://www.ed.gov/publs/edpubs.html. Wagner, R., Francis, D., & Morris, M. (2005). Classification research and learning disabilities in ELL. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 6–15. Vygotsky, L. S. (Ed.). (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities, volume I: Research report. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, OELA, Arlington VA: Development Associates, Inc. 78 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS About the Authors Peggy McCardle is Associate Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch, Center for Research for Mothers and Children, at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). She also serves as Director of the branch’s research program in Language, Bilingual and Biliteracy Development and Disorders, which includes three interagency-funded research networks: the Biliteracy Research Network; the Adult Literacy Research Network; and the new Adolescent Literacy Research Network. She also serves as liaison to the National Reading Panel, is on the steering committee of the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth, and leads or serves on various interagency working groups. Joan Mele-McCarthy is a senior policy advisor to the Assistant Secretary in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) at the U.S. Department of Education. Her work in OSERS includes policy and special projects involving children who have disabilities and the professionals who serve them. She works closely with the Assistant Secretary in matters concerning the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Kathleen Leos is the Associate Deputy Under Secretary and Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind-Title III, Office of English Language Acquisition. In this capacity, Ms. Leos oversees Title III regulation and policy development, interpretation and codification, technical training, and dissemination to the states, D.C., and Puerto Rico of the NCLB legislation for all English Language Learner students in U.S. public, private, and charter schools.