Considerations in Implementing

Intervention Assistance Teams to

Support English Language Learners
A L B A A . O R T I Z , C H E R Y L Y. W I L K I N S O N , P H Y L L I S R O B E R T S O N - C O U R T N E Y,
AND MILLICENT I. KUSHNER

ABSTRACT

ntervention assistance teams (IATs) can help teachers

design and implement interventions to improve the performance
of English language learners (ELLs) who are experiencing academic or behavioral difficulties, providing the supports needed to
resolve many such difficulties within the context of general education. If interventions are unsuccessful and ELLs are subsequently
referred for special education, eligibility decisions are informed by
documentation that students did not make adequate progress
despite general education problem solving and that students
problems cannot be explained by such factors as limited English
proficiency or cultural differences. To be successful, however, IATs
must accurately interpret data about ELLs and design culturally
and linguistically responsive interventions. This article presents considerations in implementing IATs for ELLs, including team membership, the knowledge base needed by team members, intervention
design, and recordkeeping.

NGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS (ELLS) HAVE

such limited English skills that they cannot benefit from general education instruction provided entirely in English without special language program support (Ortiz & Kushner,
1997). These students are typically served in bilingual education classrooms, where they receive both native language
(L1) and English as a second language (ESL, or L2) instruction, or they are enrolled in general education classrooms and

are provided with supplemental instruction by ESL teachers.

In 20022003, there were approximately 5,044,000 ELLs in
U.S. public schools, representing about 10% of the PreK
through 12th-grade student enrollment (Padolsky, 2004). This
number reflects a 45% increase in the ELL population since
19971998. Although special language programs are provided for more than 400 language groups, approximately
80% of ELLs are Spanish speakers.

THE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

FOR

ELLS

Educator Preparation
One of the most important elements of student success is the
preparation and expertise of the educators who serve them
(Mayer, Mullens, & Moore, 2000). However, according to the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES; 2004),
schools with the highest percentages of ELLs are more likely
to employ novice teachers and to assign teachers without the
requisite credentials to teach in bilingual education and ESL
classrooms. Lack of access to qualified teachers may explain
the low academic achievement of ELLs, at least in part.
Almost 70% of teachers who responded to an NCES (2000)
survey indicated that they were not well prepared to teach this
group. This is not surprising given that approximately 60% of
the deans of colleges of education who responded to a ques-

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006, Pages 5363

53

tionnaire about their preservice teacher education programs

indicated that their colleges coursework did not adequately
focus on culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Futrell,
Gomez, & Bedden, 2003).

Academic Achievement
Data describing the academic achievement of ELLs are
scarce and, when available, are difficult to interpret because
of wide variations across states in assessment practices and
reporting of results. The results of the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed that 41% of ELLs
were scoring 1 year below and 29% were scoring 2 or more
years below grade level on tests of reading and language arts
(Mazzeo et al., 2000). Data from states that disaggregate
accountability data by students language proficiency consistently reveal significant gaps between the performance of
ELLs and all other students on reading and mathematics measures (Albus, Thurlow, & Liu, 2002). For example, the percentage of ELLs passing all parts of the 2001 Texas statewide
achievement test ranged from 66% for Grade 3 to 33% for
Grade 10 (Texas Education Agency, 2001). In 2004, statewide passing rates for ELLs on English assessments were
51% for reading and language arts, 48% for math, and 72%
for writing (Texas Education Agency, 2004).
An examination of achievement data by ethnicity indicates that Hispanic studentsthe largest language minority
populationexperience substantive academic difficulties.
Only 44% of Hispanic fourth graders scored at or above basic
reading level on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, in comparison to 75% of European American students (Grigg, Daane, Jin, & Campbell, 2003). By age 15 to
17, 40% to 50% of Hispanic students are enrolled below the
modal grade level for their age (Heubert & Hauser, 1999),
suggesting that a large number have been retained in grade.
Students who speak Spanish at home are more likely to have
repeated a grade than students from other language groups
(Klein, Bugarin, Beltranena, & McArthur, 2004). These are
alarming statistics, given that retention is associated with
impoverished curricula, poor teaching, and low expectations
(Heubert & Hauser, 1999) and often leads to de facto tracking or segregation (Knapp, Shields, & Turnbull, 1995). Over
time, students who have been retained come to believe that
they cannot master challenging academic content, which in
turn lowers their self-esteem, diminishes their interest in
school and their motivation to do well, and contributes to
school attrition (Ortiz & Kushner, 1997). Of all racial and
ethnic groups, Hispanic students have the highest dropout
ratesa pattern that has persisted since the 1970s (NCES,
2004). Hispanic immigrant students drop out of school at a
rate nearly double that of native-born Hispanic students: 43%
versus 15%, respectively. The gap between the achievement
of both Hispanics and ELLs and their English-speaking peers
is cause for concern, because poor academic progress is the

54

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

major reason for referring ELLs to special education (Ortiz

et al., 1985).

Disproportionate Special Education

Representation
There is great variation in the number of ELLs in special education programs across the country. For example, Henderson,
Abbot, and Strang (1993) found that ELL representation rates
ranged from less than 1% in some states to almost 26% in
others. In Texas, ELLs were up to five times as likely to be in
special education in one school district as in another (Robertson, Kushner, Starks, & Drescher, 1994). More recently, Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda (2000) found that ELLs
were between 1.4 and 2.4 times more likely than Englishspeaking students to be placed in special education programs.
In the mid-1980s, bilingual special education (BSE) faculty at The University of Texas (UT) at Austin conducted
research on Hispanic students with learning disabilities (LD;
Ortiz et al., 1985). They concluded that it was impossible to
know whether these students were accurately classified as
having LD, because data critical to making this determination
were missing from student records, and the assessment practices used to determine special education eligibility were
questionable. Few students were tested in Spanish or bilingually, and adaptations of standardized procedures (e.g., translating tests) were common, raising questions about the
validity of eligibility decisions based on these test results.
Almost 20 years later, these issues continue to plague
the field. UT Austin BSE faculty recently completed a study
of Spanish-speaking ELLs with reading-related LD (Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2004). An expert panel
examined special education eligibility decisions for 21 ELLs
using archival data from special education, bilingual education, and cumulative school records. These students had been
identified as having LD and no secondary disabilities at initial entry into special education. The panel agreed with the
decisions of the cooperating districts multidisciplinary teams
(MDTs) that 5 of the 21 students had reading-related LD.
Although they concurred with MDT decisions that six additional students had disabilities, the panel members questioned whether reading-related LD was the appropriate
classification for these students. The remaining 10 students
had significant achievement difficulties, but the panel
believed that factors other than the presence of a disability
could explain their learning problems. These factors included
interrupted schooling; significant life events, such as the
death of a parent or divorce; lack of prereferral intervention;
and inappropriate assessments. These findings suggested that
educators who had key rolesdirectly or indirectlyin eligibility determinations, including teachers, prereferral and
referral committees, and multidisciplinary teams, had difficulty distinguishing between linguistic and cultural differences and specific disabilities.

PURPOSE
Available data have suggested that ELLs are not achieving
commensurately with their English-speaking peers and that
schools experience difficulty in appropriately identifying ELLs
with disabilities. Intervention assistance teams (IATs; also
referred to as prereferral teams, teacher or student assistance
teams, etc.) can help teachers design and implement interventions to improve the performance of ELLs (Ortiz, 1990).
Teams can provide documentation that students are not making adequate progress despite well-designed general education interventions, and that school-related problems do not
appear to be explained by special factors, such as limited
English proficiency or cultural differences. This process is
consistent with emerging response to intervention (RTI) models for identifying LD (Gresham, 2002) and with procedures
described in the recently reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004).
Previous research has suggested that teachers are often
unable or unwilling to implement IAT recommendations (Conway, Christensen, Russell, & Brown, 2000). This may not be
surprising in light of findings that suggest that IATs seldom
use an ecological perspective in problem analysis and intervention design and rarely recommend substantive instructional modifications (Truscott, Cohen, Sams, Sanborn, & Frank,
2005). IATs must be able to suggest interventions that teachers believe will be successful in resolving student difficulties.
In the case of ELLs, IATs must accurately interpret data
unique to these students, such as the results of language proficiency assessments, and design interventions that are culturally and linguistically responsive.
This article presents considerations in implementing
IATs for ELLs, including team membership, the knowledge
base needed by team members, intervention design, and
recordkeeping. The importance of prevention and early intervention efforts that are effective for ELLs, including modifying instruction for struggling learners before pursuing
solutions outside the general education classroom, is also discussed. For purposes of illustration, recommendations for
ELLs are presented in the context of a problem-solving process that includes classroom-based interventions (i.e., clinical
teaching); teacher assistance teams (TATs; Chalfant, Pysh, &
Moultrie, 1979), consisting of general education teachers;
and student assistance teams (SATs), consisting of teachers
and a variety of specialists such as administrators, special
educators, and assessment personnel.

PREVENTION

AND

EARLY INTERVENTION

Students academic and behavioral difficulties can be attributed to a variety of factors (Adelman, 1970; Garcia & Ortiz,
1988; Ortiz, 2002). In some cases, problems result from deficiencies in the teachinglearning environment (Type I prob-

lems). For example, if teachers do not have the skills to adapt

instruction for ELLs, these students are likely to fail. In other
instances, students learning problems become more serious
over time because instruction is not modified to address their
needs (Type II problems). Students who have had inconsistent schooling need access to support services to close their
achievement gaps; without support, they will fall further and
further behind and may be at risk for special education referral. Still other students need specialized instruction because
they have disabilities (Type III problems). Helping teachers
distinguish among these three types of problems is crucial,
given that almost 80% of special education referrals are initiated by teachers (Johnson, Lessem, Bergquist, Carmichael, &
Whitten, 2001). Moreover, all those involved in problemsolving, referral, and eligibility processes must be adequately
prepared to make these distinctions.

Prevention of Academic Failure

Establishing positive school climates, ensuring that students
receive effective instruction, preventing at-risk students from
falling further behind, and preventing inappropriate special
education referrals are the most cost-effective means of improving academic achievement (Fashola & Slavin, 1998; Ortiz, 1997; Ortiz & Wilkinson, 1991). Without these general
education elements, educators will find themselves in a constant cycle of remediation as the system itself engenders student failure. In addition to factors such as effective school
leadership and a safe, orderly environment (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Walberg, Bakalis, Bast, & Baer, 1989), positive
school climates for ELLs are characterized by (a) acceptance
of linguistic and cultural diversity; (b) academically rich programs that integrate basic skill instruction into the context of
teaching higher order skills in both the native language and in
English; (c) elimination of ineffective responses to failure
(e.g., retention, low-ability grouping, referral of students
without disabilities to special education); and (d) collaborative school, family, and community relationships (Cummins,
1989; Ortiz, 2002; Ortiz & Wilkinson, 1991).

Clinical Teaching
Some students will experience academic and behavioral problems even though school climates are linguistically and culturally responsive and teachers use instructional strategies
known to be effective for ELLs. For these students, early
intervention strategies must be implemented as soon as
their problems are noted. Early intervention begins with clinical teaching (Lerner, 2002), then moves to involving other
colleagues if the teacher is unable to resolve the students
teachinglearning difficulties.
In a clinical teaching cycle, teachers teach skills, subjects, or concepts and then reteach them using significantly
different strategies or approaches when students do not meet

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

55

expected performance levels. If the students continue to

struggle, teachers analyze their performance using informal,
curriculum-based assessment strategies (e.g., observations,
inventories, or work samples) and identify the students
strengths and needs. They then provide explicit, differentiated
instruction designed to eliminate academic gaps (Garcia &
Ortiz, 1988; Ortiz, 1997, 2002; Ortiz & Wilkinson, 1991) and
appropriately monitor student performance. The intervention
cycle is repeated as needed.
When the student is an ELL, analyses of strengths and
needs and modification of instruction incorporate a focus on
(a) the language (L1 and L2) demands of the classroom,
(b) the cultural knowledge needed to understand curriculum
and instruction and to participate effectively across classroom
and school contexts, and (c) the cultural responsiveness of the
curriculum and related texts and materials (Garcia & Malkin,
1993). To evaluate the adequacy of the teachinglearning
environment for ELLs, teachers must be familiar with classroom adaptations and modifications for these students, strategies for assessing achievement in the native language and in
English, progress monitoring techniques, and methods for
documenting academic and behavioral interventions and their
outcomes.

School-Based Problem Solving

If clinical teaching does not resolve student difficulties, IATs
can be effective vehicles for helping teachers to design other
general education interventions. Marston (2002) recommended a three-stage problem-solving model for supporting
struggling learners and determining whether they are eligible
for special education services. Each stage includes problem
identification, intervention design and implementation, and
systematic progress monitoring. When teachers determine
that classroom-based interventions (Stage 1) are not working,
they request the assistance of a building IAT (Stage 2), which
provides access to a broader range of resources, including, for
example, instruction by reading specialists or placement in
alternative programs or services (e.g., Title I or tutorial programs). If Stage 2 interventions are unsuccessful, the student
is considered by a student support team (Stage 3) that includes special education staff, school social workers, school
psychologists, and so forth. Marston (2002) argued that the
data gathered across the three stages can be summarized to
describe student performance in relation to peers or identified
standards and that these data are adequate for making special
education eligibility determinations. That is, if the data indicate that the student has not responded to a continuum of
appropriate, increasingly intensive interventions, the student
can be declared eligible for special education by the student
support team.
Consistent with Marstons (2002) model, the following
section describes a problem-solving process for ELLs that
includes two types of IATs: teacher assistance teams (TATs;

56

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

Chalfant et al., 1979), composed of general education teachers; and student assistance teams (SATs), which include a
variety of specialists. Considerations in implementing both
types of IATs for ELLs are presented. As is suggested by their
names, the focus of TATs is on helping teachers to develop
requisite skills to serve struggling ELLs whereas that of SATs
is on designing more intensive interventions for students
whose problems were not resolved by classroom-based interventions. The SAT will also make a final decision about
whether a special education referral will be initiated, based
on its evaluation of all available data.

Teacher Assistance Teams

Given the widespread academic underachievement among
ELLs, teachers will likely need help in addressing the needs
of students who present serious behavioral or academic difficulties but who do not have disabilities (i.e., Type I and Type
II problems). Having access to a TAT (Chalfant et al., 1979)
composed of general education peers may encourage teachers
to seek help for students as soon as they realize that classroom-based interventions are not working and before students problems are serious enough to warrant a special
education referral (Ortiz, 2002). This is an important consideration, given that teachers who perceive students as having
severe academic and behavioral issues are less inclined to
seek the help of IATs or to implement IAT recommendations
(Bahr, Whitten, Dieker, Kocarek, & Manson, 1999). In these
instances, they may feel that IAT recommendations will not
adequately address the severity of the problem, they may lack
confidence in their ability to implement the interventions
effectively, or they may have already concluded that the student cannot be served in the general education classroom
without special education support.
Moreover, as ELLs school-related problems may be
the result of teachers lack of preparation and experience in
working with these students, serving on the TAT is an excellent professional development opportunity. By participating,
teachers can develop a repertoire of strategies to use the next
time they encounter an ELL with problems similar to those
that the TAT helped resolve. This, in turn, enhances their clinical teaching interventions for ELLs.
Problem-solving support systems such as those provided
by TATs may also help minimize general educations reliance
on special educators to resolve the achievement difficulties of
struggling learners who do not have disabilities. Given the
dramatic increase in the number of ELLs in schools, the
shortage of bilingual educators, and increased accountability
pressures to show adequate yearly progress and high achievement, as measured by standardized tests (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001), shifting responsibility for struggling learners
onto special education may overwhelm the system and limit
the resources available to students with disabilities. As general educators assume greater responsibility for struggling

learners, special educators and assessment and related services personnel will have more time to spend on the tasks for
which they are uniquely prepared (e.g., serving on special
education referral committees, conducting full and individual
evaluations (FIEs), or consulting with general education
teachers to facilitate the integration of students with LD into
their classrooms). Moreover, they will be able to devote
greater attention to the complex issue of designing effective
interventions for ELLs with LD.

TAT Operating Procedures

TATs consist of four to six general education teachers, including the teacher who requests assistance (Chalfant et al., 1979).
The team should include teachers with expertise specific to
the education of ELLs, such as ESL teachers or bilingual educators (Ortiz, 2002). Other individuals (e.g., parents, principals, special educators, or assessment personnel) are invited
to participate as needed. Parents can help TAT members to
determine whether problems are evident at home and at
school. If TAT members suspect that health issues are affecting the students learning, the school nurse should be invited
to team meetings; if the team believes that emotional issues
are affecting student performance (e.g., separation from family members is stressing an immigrant student), the presence
of the school counselor will be helpful.
Request for Assistance. When teachers request TAT
assistance, they describe what they would like the student to
be able to do, report the results of their clinical teaching
efforts (including what was taught, in which language, and
for how long), document the students strengths and needs,
and report any other information they think will be helpful to
TAT members in problem solving (Chalfant & Pysh, 1989;
Chalfant et al., 1979). If this information is not available
when teachers request assistance, team members should
secure it prior to designing interventions.
Team Problem Solving. TATs have several options for
problem solving, including assessments to pinpoint the specific nature of student difficulties and instructional or behavioral interventions (Chalfant & Pysh, 1989; Garcia & Ortiz,
1988). Members first reach consensus about the nature of the
problem; determine priorities for intervention; help teachers
select the methods, strategies, or approaches they will use;
assign responsibility for carrying out the teams recommendations; and establish a follow-up plan to monitor progress
(Chalfant & Pysh, 1989; Pysh & Chalfant, 1992). The teacher
then implements the plan, with the assistance of TAT members or other colleagues as needed. Follow-up meetings are
held to review progress and examine data collected to specifically monitor the impact of the intervention. If the problem
is resolved, the case is closed; if not, the TAT repeats the
problem-solving process or requests the assistance of an SAT.

Student Assistance Teams

The SAT can be a separate team from the TAT, or it can be
formed by adding members to the TAT. In either case, SATs
include the teacher requesting assistance and a variety of specialists, such as administrators, special educators, and assessment personnel. The specialists bring their expertise to bear
on the problem, especially in areas related to eligibility assessment, diagnosis, and specialized interventions. SAT members may design additional classroom-based interventions,
following a process like that described for TATs; recommend
alternative general education programs or services; or decide
that the student should be considered for special education
services.

Alternative Programs and Services

A variety of general education alternatives exists for struggling students, including one-to-one tutoring, family and student support groups, family counseling, and the range of
services supported by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001).
Regardless of the approach, alternative programs and services
should be tailored to the linguistic, cultural, and other background characteristics of ELLs. Services should be intensive
and temporary, and students who are removed from their
general education classrooms for supplemental instruction
should be returned to their classrooms as quickly as possible
(Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Slavin & Madden, 1989).
Schools should develop a plan to ensure that interventions designed by IATs and alternative programs and services
represent a systematic continuum of services. For example,
many schools provide reading or behavioral interventions to
students based on the results of benchmark testing or other
indicators (Grimes, 2002; Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, HickmanDavis, & Kouzekanani, 2003; Tigard-Tualatin School District
23J, n.d.). Teams might be asked to assist in developing and
evaluating criteria for eligibility for these interventions or to
consider the cases of students for whom they are not successful. Teams might also choose to implement these interventions for students who were not identified by schoolwide
screening criteria when the team believes the students would
be assisted by these efforts.

Special Education Referral

IATs may decide that the student should be considered for
special education services. This decision is informed by the
data gathered through the prevention, clinical teaching, TAT,
and SAT processes (Ortiz, 2002). A special education referral
indicates that (a) neither clinical teaching nor the interventions recommended by the TAT resolved the problem;
(b) general education interventions and alternative programs
and services recommended by the SAT were also unsuccessful; and (c) in the judgment of the SAT, no remaining alternatives are likely to be successful in resolving academic or

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

57

behavioral difficulty. It is probable that ELLs who continue to

struggle in spite of such extensive efforts to individualize
instruction and to accommodate their linguistic, cultural,
learning, and other background characteristics do have disabilities (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Ortiz, 1997, 2002; Ortiz &
Wilkinson, 1991).

CONSIDERATIONS IN IMPLEMENTING
IATS FOR ELLS
The success of IATs depends on (a) the knowledge and skills
of the team members, (b) their ability to design quality academic and behavioral interventions, (c) the fidelity of implementation of team processes and classroom interventions,
and (d) a system for monitoring the effects of intervention
assistance (Marston, 2002; Rock & Zigmond, 2001). To be
successful for ELLs, team processes must also be responsive
to the students linguistic, cultural, and other background
characteristics (Ortiz, 1990, 2002).

Team Membership
Experts on ELLs. IATs must include individuals with
expertise related to cultural and linguistic diversity to ensure
that (a) native language and English language proficiency and
achievement data and related information provided by bilingual education and ESL program eligibility and placement
committees are considered and interpreted accurately, and
(b) evaluations of progress in the general education curriculum or as a result of participation in alternative programs
and services take into account the appropriateness of these
services, given the students linguistic, cultural, and other
background characteristics. ELL experts can also facilitate
parental involvement.
Parents. The participation of parents or other family
members on IATs is important. In working with families of
ELLs, IAT members must be sensitive to cultural differences
in family structures, childrearing practices, and decisionmaking authority, so that the appropriate family representatives are involved in team processes and decision making.
The definition of parent may need to be broadened to include
members of the extended family (e.g., godparents) to reflect
the familys kinship system (Garcia, 2002).
Parents and families can provide valuable information
about the social, linguistic, and cultural contexts in which students are being reared (Anderson & Pellicer, 1998; Garcia &
Dominguez, 1997; Ortiz, 1997; National Alliance of Black
School Educators & ILIAD Project, 2002) and can help educators understand family socialization practices that have
influenced the students development and that may be affecting classroom behavior (Garcia, 2002). Moreover, effective
partnerships with parents and families promote academic

58

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

progress both at school and at home (Cummins, 1989; Garcia, Wilkinson, & Ortiz, 1995).
To ensure family involvement, IAT members must eliminate obstacles to participation, including logistical barriers
(e.g., transportation and childcare), attitudinal barriers (e.g.,
anxieties about schools, uncertainty about roles), and communication barriers (e.g., need for interpreters or educational
jargon) (King & Goodwin, 2002; Sosa, 1997). Teams should
help family members understand the purpose of meetings,
give them time to share their perceptions of their childs performance, and solicit their responses or questions about the
information being shared by team members (Garcia, 2002). If
family members have concerns similar to those of educators,
it is easier to rule out linguistic, cultural, or other background
factors as causes of learning problems.
Interpreters. Interpreters may be needed to facilitate
meaningful family involvement (Ortiz, 2002). If so, IAT
members should ensure that interpreters are proficient in the
familys native language and in English and are qualified to
provide interpreting (oral) and translation (written) services.
Professional development for interpreters should foster an
understanding of the purposes of IATs, the processes involved, educational terminology, and related requirements,
such as the importance of maintaining confidentiality regarding team processes.

Shared Knowledge Base Among

Team Members
If IATs do not understand the impact of linguistic, cultural,
and other background characteristics, they may inaccurately
attribute ELLs difficulties to poor motivation, lack of effort,
disinterest on the part of parents, and so forth. They may also
design interventions that, though well-intentioned, are misguided. For example, IAT members may believe that ELLs
who are having difficulty learning to read in their native language should be taught to read in English instead, to give
them more time to master English reading. However, it is
unlikely that students who are struggling to read in their
stronger language will perform at higher levels in their weaker
language (Cummins, 1989; Ortiz, 1984). Such a recommendation is akin to saying that native English-speaking students
who have failed to learn to read in English should be taught
to read in German. Thus, interventions for ELLs must be pedagogically sound.
Because not all IAT members will have expertise related
to ELLs, professional development must be provided. Key
topics for all IAT members include (a) second-language
acquisition, including the relationship between native language competence and the development of English proficiency; (b) assessment of L1 and L2 proficiency; (c) sociocultural influences on teaching and learning; (d) native
language and ESL teaching methodologies; (e) informal

progress-monitoring strategies, which document the growth

of both content-area knowledge and L1 and L2 language and
literacy; and (f) strategies for working with culturally and linguistically diverse families and communities. Furthermore,
team members should have access to professional development specific to their roles to ensure that their practices are
appropriate for ELLs (e.g., federal and state policies governing services for ELLs, culturally responsive counseling practices, designing appropriate FIEs). It is also important that
team members examine their own cultural views and experiences and how they influence their views of teaching and
learning (Craig, Hull, Haggart, & Perez-Selles, 2000; Garcia
& Dominguez, 1997). Team members must learn to acknowledge, respect, and accommodate cultural differences in the
context of schooling (Garcia, 2002) and in the design of interventions. The Appendix presents a list of resources that can
support professional development for IATs.

Team Interventions
As indicated previously, IATs may recommend assessments
to pinpoint the specific nature of the problem, develop instructional or behavioral interventions, or refer students to
alternative programs and services.
Informal Assessment. When teachers request assistance, they should provide sufficient data to describe the
presenting problem and the students current level of performance in areas of concern. If these data are not available, the
IAT should develop an informal assessment intervention consistent with the following guidelines (Ortiz & Yates, 2002):
1. Data describing the students L1 and L2 proficiency, in both social and academic contexts,
must be current. Language data are critical to
planning other evaluations (e.g., assessment of
native language and English literacy), interpreting their results, and determining whether
interventions will be implemented in the native
language and/or using ESL strategies.
2. Assessments should yield data that describe
academic achievement in the native language,
if students have received L1 instruction, and in
English for subjects or content taught in English. Assessment results should also describe
the students progress in acquiring English as a
second language. Of particular interest is the
question of whether assessment outcomes indicate that problems are evident across languages
or that difficulties in English are explained by
the students limited proficiency.
3. Parent data should be gathered in a way that
allows IATs to determine whether presenting

problems have been noted at home and in community contexts, as opposed to at school only.
It is important to recognize that school-related problems
may be due to factors beyond students control. For example,
immigrant students may have had limited or sporadic educational experiences in their homeland. Difficulties encountered by ELLs may be explained by a lack of access to
effective special language programs, qualified bilingual education, or ESL teachers or by inconsistent patterns of L1 and
L2 instruction. Although it is often assumed that this inconsistency is the result of student mobility, it may reflect the
absence of a well-articulated plan for native language and
ESL instruction, for transitioning students to English instruction, and for exiting them from special language programs.
Instructional and Behavioral Interventions. Interventions for struggling learners tend to focus on lower level
basic skills (Elmore & Fuhrman, 1994; Knapp et al., 1995;
Oakes, 1986; Ortiz, 1997; Ortiz & Wilkinson, 1991). However, research has indicated that approaches that exclusively
address basic skill instruction may ultimately be ineffective.
Although there is evidence that such approaches improve
childrens grasp of basic skills, they risk shortchanging the
mastery of more advanced skills, such as comprehension, reasoning, and composition (Knapp et al., 1995). Struggling
ELLs benefit from curricula and instruction that nest basic
skill instruction into the context of higher order thinking and
problem solving (Cummins, 1984; Ortiz & Wilkinson, 1991;
Willig, Swedo, & Ortiz, 1987). For example, in addition to
lessons on phonics and word recognition, Vaughn, Mathes,
Linan-Thompson, and Francis (2005) incorporated oral language development and reading comprehension activities to
help second-grade ELLs experiencing reading difficulties to
grasp new vocabulary and concepts and to maintain active
engagement. Willig et al. (1987) found that writing approaches that emphasized the communication of ideas and
integrated spelling, grammar, and punctuation lessons in the
context of the students own products were associated with
the most intense and prolonged task engagement. Lessons
that focused on the mechanics of writing and presented material in decontextualized worksheet or drill formats (e.g., filling in blanks in sentences; writing words multiple times)
produced the lowest engagement and success rates.
Because instruction in the native language provides the
foundation for achieving high levels of English proficiency
(Cummins, 1984; Krashen, 1982), it is a key instructional
strategy for ELLs. Students also need quality ESL instruction
that teaches social and academic English by incorporating
strategies such as vocabulary instruction, advance organizers,
visual and concrete referents, and periodic reviews as a way
of making instruction comprehensible (Gersten & Baker,
2000; Krashen, 1982). Interventions should draw on students prior knowledge, linking what students know with

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

59

what they need to learn (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi,

2000), and instructional materials should reflect the students
contemporary linguistic, cultural, social, political, and economic experiences (Garcia & Dominguez, 1997; Garcia &
Malkin, 1993; Santos, Fowler, Corso, & Bruns, 2000).
Culturally and linguistically diverse learners, including
ELLs, may be reared in the traditional contexts of their racial
or ethnic group, and their behaviors may be distinct from
those expected by educators (Garcia & Dominguez, 1997).
Thus, it will be important for IAT members to determine
whether problem behaviors reflect the norms and expectations of the students cultural group. Appropriate behavioral
supports for diverse learners affirm students cultures while
avoiding negative stereotypes (Ewing, 1995). These supports
are more effective when they are developed with input from
students and their families and when evaluation criteria are
developed for the context in which they are being used,
including the particular teacher and students in a given classroom. Discipline procedures that are viewed as aversive from
a students cultural perspective may result in unintended
consequences, including humiliation, alienation, or even approval from peers. None of these will produce desired behaviors.

Fidelity of Implementation and Evaluation

The success of any intervention depends on the quality and
duration of its implementation. When the student is an ELL,
design and implementation of high-quality interventions may
be difficult, in that these interventions may require that unfamiliar student characteristics and data be considered and
interpreted and that native language and/or ESL instructional
strategies be incorporated. Nonetheless, interventions should
be evidence based to the degree that the current research base
about ELLs allows and incorporate those instructional
changes that are most likely to achieve success.
The overall effectiveness of prereferral interventions can
be ensured only through careful evaluation of teacher implementation and through systematic measurement and documentation of academic and behavioral results (Bahr et al.,
1999). Thus, when IATs design interventions, they should
simultaneously develop a plan for ensuring consistent and
accurate implementation, establish timelines, and design a
strategy for evaluating effectiveness using objective means
such as graphs and charts, comparing baseline and intervention data, and systematic observations (Bahr et al., 1999;
Rock & Zigmond, 2001). Rock and Zigmond (2001) further
recommended that teachers be recognized and rewarded for
high fidelity intervention implementation.
Ongoing evaluation of teacher implementation and student outcomes should produce interventions that have the
largest possible chance of success. Conversely, these procedures should ensure that ELLs who do not respond to highquality interventions are rapidly identified and should prevent
either IAT processes or the belief that a struggling ELL just

60

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

needs time to adjust and learn English from being a barrier

to an appropriate special education referral.
Some research has suggested that a larger than expected
number of students considered by problem-solving teams are
retained or referred to special education in subsequent years
(Rock & Zigmond, 2001). Evaluation data are needed to
determine why this occurs. One possibility is that IAT interventions were ineffective, so it is important to examine why
progress monitoring and follow-up meetings failed to recognize this. Evaluation data should be disaggregated by student
race, ethnicity, and language status to determine whether
IATs need additional training to improve intervention planning and implementation for specific groups. IATs may need
to encourage teachers to participate in team processes if a students social and behavioral issues have not yet been resolved
as the student moves from one grade to the next. If the receiving teachers fail to provide linguistically and culturally
responsive instruction consistent with the students needs and
functioning levels, gains made as a result of previous interventions may be lost over time.

Record-Keeping
IAT documentation should be a component of a comprehensive student record-keeping system that includes information
over time describing language dominance and proficiency,
recommendations of bilingual education and ESL placement
committees, report cards, achievement test results, and the
outcomes of clinical teaching. IAT records are important in
the event that a student continues to experience difficulty or
is referred to the team again by subsequent teachers. Districts
should develop forms and technology that allow student data
to be captured in one place, making the data centrally available and easily accessible. These data can prove invaluable to
teachers in determining the effectiveness of prior interventions or if the student is referred to special education.
Beyond the use of IAT records in designing interventions for individual students, the team coordinator can use the
records to analyze the types of problems for which teachers
requested assistance and share this information with the principal, without identifying individual teachers (Ortiz, 1990,
2002). The principal can then use these data to identify issues
that need to be addressed at the campus level (e.g., the need
to revise the schools discipline plan or to implement a bilingual tutoring program) or professional development topics
that might be beneficial to the entire faculty (e.g., how to
determine whether students are English proficient, or when it
is appropriate to transition students from reading in their
native language to reading in English).

RESEARCH

ON

IATS

FOR

ELLS

Research on IATs and RTI models is generally limited; the

research on these processes as they involve ELLs is even

more limited (Vaughn et al., 2005). Thus, it would be premature to conclude that the research findings related to problemsolving processes in the general education literature are
applicable to ELLs. Ultimately, the key questions are what
problem-solving processes are successful, under what conditions, and for which ELLs.
Research should begin with determining whether teachers who serve ELLs routinely have access to problem-solving
processes. If they do, the factors that influence the success of
IATs must be studied, including teacher perceptions of the
mission and purposes of IATs, team membership and members expertise specific to ELLs, professional development
provided to team members, nature and quality of interventions recommended, fidelity of implementation, and the
support provided to teachers as they implement IAT recommendations for ELLs.
For the successful implementation of school-based
problem solving, researchers must develop assessment approaches and measurement tools that allow the documentation of factors critical to understanding ELLs performance.
Needed student measures include assessments of language
dominance and proficiency, assessments of achievement in
L1 and L2 that are appropriate for learners who are acquiring
English as a second language, and effective systems for documenting the languages of instruction. Teams must also be
able to gauge the instructional climate and practices of individual teachers and to determine the expertise of professionals who design and implement classroom- and school-based
interventions.
Understanding the outcomes associated with interventions delivered in L1 and L2 is important, given the shortage
of special language program personnel available to serve
ELLs. Of particular interest is the question of whether or how
ELLs outcomes differ from those of their native Englishspeaking peers (e.g., problem solution, rates of or referral to
special education, eligibility determinations). Specific attention should be paid to problem solving in relation to students
linguistic and cultural characteristics and the severity of presenting problems to determine how these affect problemsolving processes and outcomes.
The resulting knowledge base should help educators to
design interventions that will distinguish between students
with Type I or Type II problems, which can be addressed
through general education interventions, and students with
Type III problems, who are likely to need special education
support. However, further research that documents the impact
of the IAT process on special education referral and the conditions under which IATs make the most appropriate referrals
of ELLs is also warranted.

CONCLUSIONS
The dramatically increasing number of ELLs in U.S. schools
and the data indicating that these students experience high

rates of school failure require that teachers be able to provide

culturally and linguistically appropriate instruction for these
students. In the context of early intervention, IATs can be
effective vehicles for helping teachers select and implement
interventions to improve the academic performance of ELLs
experiencing school-related difficulties. To be effective, however, IATs must include teachers with expertise in the education of ELLs or provide professional development designed
to help all IAT members develop this expertise. IATs must
also promote the participation of family membersa key
strategy for distinguishing behaviors that are appropriate
given the students language and cultural background from
behaviors that signal problems or deficits. Finally, interventions designed by IATs must be culturally and linguistically
responsive and carefully monitored to ensure fidelity of
implementation and to gauge their success in addressing the
needs of ELLs and of the teachers who serve them. IATs can
also help address inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special
education by providing documentation that students did not
make adequate progress despite well-designed, evidencebased interventions and that school-related problems cannot
be explained by special factors, such as limited English proficiency or cultural differences.


ALBA A. ORTIZ, PhD, is a professor of special education at the University
of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include English language learners
with language and learning disabilities. CHERYL Y. WILKINSON, PhD,
is an assistant professor of special education at the University of Texas at
Austin. Her research interests are multicultural special education and assessment. PHYLLIS ROBERTSON-COURTNEY, PhD, is a clinical associate
professor of special education at the University of Texas at Austin. Her
research interests are appropriate identification and instructional planning for
English language learners with disabilities. MILLICENT I. KUSHNER,
EdD, is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University
of Maryland at College Park. Her research interests include the delivery of
instruction to English language learners with and without disabilities.
Address: Alba A. Ortiz, Department of Special Education, 1 University Station, D5300, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; e-mail:
alba.ortiz@mail.utexas.edu

REFERENCES
Adelman, H. (1970). An interactive view of causality. Academic Therapy, 6,
4352.
Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2002). Participation and performance of
English language learners reported in public state documents and web
sites, 19992000. LEP project report. Minneapolis, MN: National Center for Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED472203)
Anderson, L. W., & Pellicer, L. O. (1998). Toward an understanding of
unusually successful programs for economically disadvantaged students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 237263.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, I., & Higareda, I. (2000, November). Factors associated with English learners representation in special education: Emerging evidence from urban school districts in California. Paper
presented at the conference on Minority Issues in Special Education in
the Public Schools, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Bahr, M. W., Whitten, E., Dieker, L., Kocarek, C., & Manson, D. (1999). A
comparison of school-based intervention teams: Implications for educational and legal reform. Exceptional Children, 66, 6783.

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

61

Chalfant, J. C., & Pysh, M. V. D. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five

descriptive studies on 96 teams. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6),
4958.
Chalfant, J. C., Pysh, M. V. D., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance
teamsA model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(3), 8596.
Conway, D. F., Christensen, J. E., Russell, J. F., & Brown, J. D. (2000). Principals perceptions of pre-referral student assistance teams. Educational
Research Service Spectrum, 18(1), 1419.
Craig, S., Hull, K., Haggart, A. G., & Perez-Selles, M. (2000). Promoting
cultural competence through teacher assistance teams. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 612.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bilingual special education.
Exceptional Children, 56, 111119.
Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). Governing curriculum: Changing
patterns in policy, politics, and practice. In R. F. Elmore, & S. H.
Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: 1994 Yearbook of the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 110).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ewing, N. J. (1995). Culture: A neglected factor in behavior management. In
F. E. Obiakor & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Managing problem behaviors: Perspectives for general and special educators (pp. 96114). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Schoolwide reform models. What
works? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 370379.
Futrell, M. H., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a
new America: The challenge of diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 381
385.
Garcia, S. B. (2002). Parentprofessional collaboration in culturally sensitive
assessment. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language
learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and
instruction (pp. 87103). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Garcia, S. B., & Dominguez, L. (1997). Cultural contexts that influence
learning and academic performance. In L. B. Silver (Ed.), Child and
adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America: Academic difficulties
(pp. 621655). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Garcia, S. B., & Malkin, D. H. (1993). Toward defining programs and services for culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(1), 5258.
Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of
language minority students to special education. New Focus, No. 5.
Wheaton, MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Garcia, S. B., Wilkinson, C. Y., & Ortiz, A. A. (1995). Enhancing achievement for language minority students: Classroom, school and family contexts. Education and Urban Society, 27, 441462.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional
practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454
471.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative
approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley,
L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grigg, W. S., Daane, M. C., Jin, J., & Campbell, J. R. (2003). The nations
report card: Reading 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Grimes, J. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special
education identification, service, and exiting decision making. In
R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 531547). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Henderson, A., Abbot, C., & Strang, W. (1993). Summary of the bilingual
education state educational agency program survey of states limited

62

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

English proficient persons and available educational services 1991

1992 (Contract No. T292001001, U. S. Department of Education, Office
of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs). Arlington, VA:
Development Associates.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R.
1350.
Johnson, C. D., Lessem, A., Bergquist, C., Carmichael, D., & Whitten, G.
(2001). Disproportionate representations of minority children in special
education: Summary report. College Station: Texas A & M University,
Public Policy Research Institute.
King, S. H., & Goodwin, A. L. (2002). Culturally responsive parental
involvement: Concrete understandings and basic strategies. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Klein, S., Bugarin, R., Beltranena, R., & McArthur, E. (2004). Language
minorities and their educational and labor market indicatorsRecent
trends. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1995). Academic challenge
in high-poverty classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 16, 770776.
Krashen, S. (1982). Bilingual education and second language acquisition
theory. In California State Department of Education, Schooling and
language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 5179). Los
Angeles: Bilingual Education Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Lerner, J. (2002). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching
strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K.
(2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for secondgrade English language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 222238.
Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment
approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification
of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 437447). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., & Moore, M. T. (2000, December). Monitoring
school quality: An indicators report. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J. E., Voekl, K. E., & Lutkus, A. (2000). Increasing the
participation of special needs students in NAEP: A report on 1996
NAEP research activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
National Alliance of Black School Educators & ILIAD Project. (2002).
Addressing over-representation of African American students in special
education: The prereferral intervention processAn administrators
guide. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children; and Washington, DC: National Alliance of Black School Educators.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Fast response survey system: Survey on professional development and training in U.S. public
schools, 19992000. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2004). The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ortiz, A. A. (1984). Choosing the language of instruction for bilingual exceptional children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16(3), 208212.
Ortiz, A. A. (1990, Fall). Using school-based problem-solving teams for prereferral intervention. Bilingual Special Education Newsletter, 10(1),
35.
Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321332.
Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention and early intervention. In A. J. Artiles &
A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special education

needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 3148). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Ortiz, A. A., Garca, S. B., Holtzman, W. H., Jr., Polyzoi, E., Snell, W. E., Jr.,
Wilkinson, C. Y., et al. (1985). Characteristics of limited English proficient Hispanic students in programs for the learning disabled: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Austin: University of Texas,
Handicapped Minority Research Institute on Language Proficiency.
Ortiz, A. A., & Kushner, M. I. (1997). Bilingualism and the possible impact
on academic performance. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of
North America, 6, 657679.
Ortiz, A. A., & Wilkinson, C. Y. (1991). Assessment and Intervention Model
for the Bilingual Exceptional Student (AIM for the BESt). Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 3542.
Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2002). Considerations in the assessment of English language learners referred to special education. In A. J. Artiles &
A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special education
needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 6585). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Padolsky, D. (2004, October). How many school-aged English language
learners (ELLs) are there in the U.S.? Ask NCELA No. 1. Washington,
DC: George Washington University, National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
Pysh, M. V., & Chalfant, J. C. (1992). Teacher assistance teams. In Educational approaches and program options for integrating students with disabilities: A decision tool (pp. 4.2874.314). Research Triangle Park,
NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Robertson, P., Kushner, M. I., Starks, J., & Drescher, C. (1994). An update
of participation rates of culturally and linguistically diverse students in
special education: The need for a research and policy agenda. The Bilingual Special Education Perspective, 14(1), 39.
Rock, M., & Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or
symbolism? Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 153161.
Santos, R. M., Fowler, S. A., Corso, R. M., & Bruns, D. A. (2000). Acceptance, acknowledgement, and adaptability: Selecting culturally and linguistically appropriate early childhood materials. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 37(3), 1422.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989, February). What works for students
at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 413.

SELECTED RESOURCES

Sosa, A. S. (1997). Involving Hispanic parents in educational activities

through collaborative relationships [Electronic version]. Bilingual
Research Journal, 21(23), 103111.
Texas Education Agency. (2001). Comprehensive annual report on Texas
public schools: A report to the 77th Texas legislature. Austin: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (2004). 20032004 Academic excellence indicator
system. Retrieved August 2, 2005, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/
perfreport/aeis
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J. (n.d.). EBS, EBIS, FSTS and Project
Circuits: A summary of progress 20012003. Tigard, OR: Author.
Truscott, S. D., Cohen, C. E., Sams, D. P., Sanborn, K. J., & Frank, A. J.
(2005). The current state(s) of prereferral intervention teams. Remedial
and Special Education, 26, 130140.
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 to practice. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20, 5867.
Walberg, H. J., Bakalis, M. J., Bast, J. L., & Baer, S. (1989). Reconstructing
the nations worst schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 802805.
Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2004,
November). Appropriate eligibility determinations for English language
learners suspected of having reading-related learning disabilities: Linking school history, early intervention, referral, and assessment data.
Paper presented at the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems Conference on English Language Learners Struggling
to Learn: Emergent Research on Linguistic Differences and Learning
Disabilities, Scottsdale, AZ.
Willig, A. C., Swedo, J. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (1987). Characteristics of teaching strategies which result in high task engagement for exceptional
limited English proficient students. Austin: University of Texas, Handicapped Minority Research Institute on Language Proficiency.
Received 2/28/2005
Initial acceptance 5/17/2005
Revision received 8/17/2005
Final acceptance 8/31/2005

APPENDIX A
FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Print Resources
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with
special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Baca, L., & Cervantes, H. (2003). The bilingual special education interface
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the
classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), & ILIAD Project.
(2002). Addressing over-representation of African American students in
special education: The prereferral intervention processAn administrators guide. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, and
Washington, DC: National Alliance of Black School Educators.

National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) & ILIAD Project.

(2002). Determining appropriate referrals of English Language Learners
to special education: A self-assessment guide for principals. Washington, DC: National Association for Bilingual Education; and Arlington,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Online Resources
Center for Applied Linguistics: http://www.cal.org
Center for Multilingual Multicultural Research: http://www.bcf.usc.edu/
~cmmr/BEResources.html
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language
Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA): http://www.ncela.gwu.edu

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 27, Number 1, January/February 2006

63