The authors used a large data set (N = 1,011,549) to examine literacy growth over a single school year comparing general education (GenEd) students to three high-risk subgroups: English language learners (ELL), those with a specific learning disability (LD), and those identified as both LD and ELL (LD-ELL) in students in Grades 3–10. The authors were particularly interested in whether variability existed between initial status and the growth trajectories of the three high-risk groups on measures of spelling, fluency, and reading comprehension across the school year and whether this variability was differentiated because of socioeconomic status (SES) as defined by free and reduced lunch (FRL) status. Results indicate that all high-risk groups began the year at substantially lower levels than their GenEd peers, with the largest differences seen between the LD-ELL students and the other subgroups. Further results suggest that students who are in the high-risk subgroups and also qualify for FRL perform significantly worse than their peers in similar risk status groups who do not qualify for FRL, demonstrating the significant impact of SES on academic outcomes for all groups.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
ArtilesA. J.OrtizA. A. (2002). English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction, Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
3.
ArtilesA. J.RuedaR.SalazarJ.HigaredaJ. (2002). English-language learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In LosenD. J.OrfieldG. (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 117–136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
4.
ArtilesA. J.RuedaR.SalazarJ.HigaredaI. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
5.
ArtilesA. J.TrentS. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437.
6.
AunolaK.LeskinenE.Onatsu-ArvilommiT.NurmiJ.-E. (2002). Three methods for studying developmental change: A case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 343–364.
7.
BakerL. A.DeckerS. N.DeFriesJ. C. (1984). Cognitive abilities in reading disabled children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23, 111–117.
8.
Buros Center for Testing. (2010). Evaluating reading tests for the state of Florida: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 6th Edition (DIBELS) and Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading. Lincoln, NE: Author.
9.
CappsR.FixM.MurrayJ.OstJ.PasselJ. S.HerwantoroS. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act (Research report). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
10.
EndersC. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
11.
FletcherJ. M.FoormanB. R. (1994). Issues in definition and measurement of learning disabilities: The need for early intervention. In LyonG. R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 185–200). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
12.
Florida Department of Education. (2008). FCAT handbook: A resource for educators. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (2009b). Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR). Tallahassee, FL: Author.
15.
Florida Department of Education. (2010). Education information & accountability services: Data report, English language learners. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
16.
FoormanB.TorgesenJ.CrawfordE.PetscherY. (2009). Assessments to guide reading instruction in K–12: Decisions supported by the new Florida system. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35(5), 13–19.
17.
FrancisD. J.SantiK. L.BarrC.FletcherJ. M.VaiscoA.FoormanB. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
19.
GundersonL.SiegelL. S. (2001). The evils of the uses of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first and second language learners. Reading Teacher, 55(1), 48–55.
20.
HemphillF. C.VannemanA. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011–459). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
21.
HospJ. L.ReschlyD. J. (2002). Predictors of restrictiveness of placement for African American and Caucasian students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 225–238.
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
23.
KiefferM. J. (2011). Converging trajectories: Reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to Grade 8. American Education Research Journal, 48, 1187–1225.
24.
KlingnerJ. K.ArtilesA. J.Mendez BarlettaL. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128.
25.
KolenM. J.BrennanR. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York, NY: Springer.
26.
LimbosM.GevaE. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 137–151.
27.
LyonG. R. (1985, Fall). Identification and remediation of learning disability subtypes: Preliminary findings. Learning Disability Focus, 1, 21–35.
28.
LyonG. R. (1995). Research initiatives and discoveries in learning disabilities. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120–126.
29.
McNamaraJ. K.ScissonsM.GutknetchN. (2011). A longitudinal study of kindergarten children at risk for reading disabilities: The poor really are getting poorer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 421–430.
30.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HibelJ. (2008). Matthew effects for whom?Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31(4), 187–198.
31.
NathanR. G.StanovichK. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30, 176–184.
32.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Reading 201 (NCES 2012–458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
33.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
34.
OrtizA. A.KushnerM. I. (1997). Bilingualism and the possible impact on academic performance. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 6, 657–679.
35.
OrtizA. A.Maldonado-ColonE. (1986). Recognizing learning disabilities in bilingual children: How to lessen inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 2(1), 43–56.
36.
PetscherY.KimY. S. (2011). The utility and accuracy of oral reading fluency score types in predicting reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 107–129.
37.
RaudenbushS. W.LiuX. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387–401.
38.
SalendS. J.DuhaneyL. M.MontgomeryW. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 289–299.
39.
SamsonJ. E.LesauxN. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 148–162.
40.
ScarboroughH. S.ParkerJ. D. (2003). Matthew effects in children with learning disabilities: Development of reading, IQ, and psychosocial problems from Grade 2 to Grade 8. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 47–71.
41.
SchullJ.WinklerA. M. (2011). Shifting trends in special education.
42.
ShifrerD.MullerC.CallahanR. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 246–257.
43.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44.
StanovichK. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
45.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, various years, and unpublished tabulations. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt055.asp
46.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.GarzaN.LevineP. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED494935)
47.
YoungG.BrowningJ. (2005). Learning disabilities/dyslexia and employment: A mythical view. In ReidG.FawcettA. (Eds.), Dyslexia in context: Research, policy and practice (pp. 25–59). London, UK: Whurr.
48.
ZehlerA. M.FleischmanH. F.HopstockP. J.PendzickM. L.StephensonT. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities: Special topic report #4—Findings on special education LEP students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.
