This document discusses considerations for differentiating between language acquisition issues and learning disabilities in English language learners (ELLs). It notes that ELLs are often over-referred to special education due to language barriers being mistaken for disabilities. The document provides recommendations for teachers to consider, including assessing students' first language literacy, allowing adequate time for English acquisition, checking for social/cultural barriers, conducting proper assessments, and ensuring high-quality language instruction strategies are employed before considering a disability. It emphasizes the cognitive challenges of acquiring academic language and recommends seeing all ELLs as having a type of "learning disability" in their second language.

1. English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities
Considerations and Recommendations for Effective Remediation
“If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to
him in his own language, that goes to his heart.”
Nelson Mandela
In classrooms all over the world, students are learning second languages in increasing
numbers. By 2030, it is estimated that 40% of the entire school population of the United
States will be English language learners (ELLs) ( McKibbin and Brice, 2005). Not only
are the numbers increasing exponentially but students are not only learning the language
(in classrooms) but are more usually “pushed in” and having to learn the language “on
the fly”, in classrooms where the content too has to be mastered.
Teachers are confronted with the dual task of having to teach the curriculum and also
having to help students learn the language of instruction. Not an easy task for even a
specialist in English language instruction. Discrepancies in test results between ELLs and
non-ELLs have become alarming ( Goldenberg, 2008). Teachers are under a lot of
pressure and find it almost impossible to cope or keep up. The result of this situation is
the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education (Brown, 2005). Teachers and
administrators are too quick to refer ELLs to special education programs (for many
reasons – see Appendix A). This creates not only undo stress on the educational delivery
system but also a kind of “Mathew’s Effect” (Stanovich, 1986) whereby because of
inadequate language instruction, those ELLs assigned to special education fall further and
further behind until it is too late to catch up. On the other hand, if indeed a student does

2. have a learning disability and not a second language acquisition issue, they too can fall
further and further behind.
So we must understand more clearly the issues involved when differentiating between a
learning disability and a second language acquisition issue. Both to help stem the over-
referral of ELLs and also to correctly diagnose student learning disabilities. The question
is, how? Is a student who is having difficulties remembering words or writing basic
sentences in English, just in need of specific English language learning attention or do
they really need special needs assessment and treatment? How do we as teachers decide?
There are many important considerations that must be made.
The L1 – L2 Relationship – What causes the difficulty?
It is important to note “what” causes the difficulty in learning a language. This will help
us as teachers eliminate a lot of false notions when looking for the cause of an ELL’s
difficulty in our classroom
There have been a lot of causes attributed to language acquisition difficulties, most
notably; anxiety, motivation/effort, learning habits and “low” ability. However, these are
most often just masks hiding the real problem. Dinklage (1971) studied why some great
students at Harvard had problems learning a language. It didn’t seem right that such
excellent students would fail miserably at language. He found out that the cause was not
those normally assigned (effort, motivation, anxiety, access, strategies) but rather one of

3. “disability”. Dinklage’s remedy to the student’s language learning difficulty was to have
them taught in ways that worked for the learning disabled and in fact it worked.
What we need to realize is that almost all people suffer from a learning disability when it
comes to learning a second language. Especially after our early years (>9). Compared to
our first language (L1), our brain is clunky, our learning “stop and start”. It is no longer
natural and some subconscious processes of learning are cut off. So we teachers must
think of language learning ability along a continuum and further, fine tune our own
classroom instruction more towards that of special education delivery (specific strategy
focus, use of supports and modifications etc…). We should assume a wider range both in
terms of time and content when it comes to acquiring language. One might even go so
far as to suggest that because everyone does suffer from a second language learning
disability, we should not refer any students to special education that have difficulties with
language acquisition. If everyone has it, we should address the problem “systemically”
and not piece meal through special education. Brown alludes to this in her finally argued
work, “Reducing the Over-referral of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students
(CLD) for Language Disabilities”. She writes,
“One underlying problem consistently contributes to the over-referral of CLD students
for language disabilities: The characteristics of second language acquisition – a language
non-disorder – are mistaken for language disabilities. In other words, some language
aspects observed in CLD students who do not keep up with their peers are not necessarily
disorders, difficulties, or disabilities; they are simply an inherent feature of acquiring a
new language” (Brown, 2005, p. 227)

4. What causes a language acquisition difficulty is not precisely known. Memory, our
experiences and socialization, our physiology and the very nature of thought all play a
vital role. We might posit that how we learned our L1 (the deficits and nature of that
process) would effect our ability to acquire L2. Especially concerning age (1). They
exact nature of this dynamic is unknown but what counts is that we teachers respond with
instruction that takes this into account. Further, we can say with certainty that some
ELLs do have a learning disability as opposed to a language non-disorder (given that up
to 15% of students will (Root, 1994) and it is this issue of how to identify such, we now
must address.
Questions To Consider:
1. What is the student’s L1 literacy?
This is the most important question. In a perfect world, the teacher would speak both
English and the student’s mother tongue. The teacher would also have student records
from their L1 school. Assessment would be much more precise and easier. However
most often this isn’t the case and the teacher will have to interview the parents and
caregivers to gather a more precise learner history. Students who have significant
processing difficulties in their L1 are much more likely to experience difficulties in the
second language classroom than not. Perhaps, there is no learning disability but rather a
lacking in literacy in the L1 which is transferred to the L2. This is very often the case
and before any intervention takes place, the student’s literacy needs in the L1 should be

5. addressed through sheltered and intensive instruction. Primary language instruction can
provide modest gains to most students (Goldenberg, 2008).
2. Time. How long has the student been studying English?
Often, teachers don’t understand just how long it takes to become fluent in another
language. Students seem to make progress in social language and the classroom teacher
assumes that because he/she understands the teacher conversationally, he/she understands
academically. However, that is usually far from the case. It takes at least 7 years of study
to acquire the academic language needed for the classroom (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,
Saunders, Christian, 2006). Often, students need more time than the school system with
its test driven nature will allow. Individual differences play a much stronger role in
language acquisition than any other subject. Teachers should be aware time might be a
factor. It seems simplistic but too many students are wrongly referred to special education
because they rightly go through a “silent period” (normal for ELLs). Education should
not be run as a race, especially when it comes to language which is more organic and
deep than many content based disciplines. Language is of the heart, not the mind.
3. Are there any other barriers to learning?
Second language learners in many cases, are experiencing significant social displacement.
They arrive in a new language, without the traditional social supports. Teachers should
ask themselves whether the student is making a smooth transition and the student’s
learning is not being impeded by social factors such as social estrangement, culture shock,
family problems, income disparity etc… Very often, students are strongly affected by the
transition to a new country/land. Gonzalez (2001) suggests that much over referral to
special education is because of the cultural and social differences between instructors and

6. students. Further, perhaps the student isn’t getting enough integration into the wider
community to facilitate their language development? Given the multicultural dynamic in
many cities, this often is a factor dramatically slowing English language acquisition.
4. Have adequate formal assessments been done?
Too many second language students fall through the cracks in the system. They are
inadequately screened for problems and don’t receive the early intervention that is
imperative for success at school. Assessment should be done through a well coordinated
team (see Appendix B). Both formal and informal assessments should take place.
Assessments should be done in a culturally sensitive and appropriate (standard) manner.
If possible, they should be functional (for language is all about “function” ) and about
what the students “can do” and not just what they “know of”. If possible, the gold
standard of assessment in the L1 for cognitive and psychosocial development should be
given. If not available, at least assessment for phonological awareness in their L1 should
be provided. Ganschow and Sparks’ Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (LCDH),
states that difficulties with foreign language acquisition stem from deficiencies in one or
more of the linguistic codes in the student’s native language system (Schwarz, 1997).
Thus, a possible quick way to assess for underlying language processing disability would
be phonological testing in the L1.
5. Has everything been done right to assist the student in learning the
language?
Before any decision about language disability can take place, the teacher or school must
assure that adequate instruction and opportunity (also time – see point 2 above) was given

7. the student. In terms of language acquisition, children learn in so many different manners.
We should ask regarding effective classroom practices;
A) Has a variety of learning styles been accounted for in the instruction? Has the
instruction been clinical and strategy based?
B) Has there been adequate comprehensible input provided? (often not, in the U.S.
over 50% of ELLs receive all-English (according to the CREDE (Center for
Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence) in class immersive instruction
and are expected to “sink or swim” in many cases)
C) Has the curriculum / assessments been modified and instruction not just text or
oral in nature (audio support, leveled readings, visuals etc..)?
D) Has the curriculum been taught with a sensitivity to the student’s background and
cultural experiences?
E) Have explicit learning strategies been taught and the student / family given
support in their use?
F) Have the instructors and staff been given training in teaching ELLs and aware of
the normal phenomena and processes that accompany learning a second
language?
G) Has the student been given extra instruction and support? Was the intervention
intense enough and of a long enough duration?
H) Has peer assisted learning been put in place (we learn language through social
interaction and without this, language will be only slowly been acquired)?
I) Has the school provided the resources to make both English language learning
possible and for student integration into the wider culture?
J) Has the student been assessed and monitored enough to suggest that the learning
difficulty is not just something temporary or short term?
ELLs really face a hard struggle and we should lean on the side of caution when
thinking of referral to special education. ELLs face 2 times the cognitive load in a sense –
One, they must learn the content of lessons and second, they have to learn the language.
This is a big task and it isn’t any surprise that many have difficulty. It is probably even

8. more surprising that the gap between ELLs and non-ELLs in testing (mentioned at the
beginning of this paper) isn’t much wider.
The nature of language acquisition is still in the early stages of being discerned. Only a
few decades ago we thought that learning a language was simply a matter of repeating
phrases -- how different are our assumptions nowadays! I’ve tried to suggest some ways
that teachers and all stakeholders might reflect and look into the mirror their ELLs face
– how they might see the issues that mask the true nature of their language learning
difficulties. English language teaching would do well to borrow much of the
instructional focus and philosophical ground that special education has brought to the
pedagogical table. I believe that if we can see all ELLs in a sense as “learning disabled”
(or even defined by the term SLAAP (Second Language Acquisition – Associated
Phenomena) which Brown (2005) uses), we’d be much better at teaching them and much
better at catching those with real learning disabilities and who especially need rapid and
early intervention. Part of the challenge for the future in TESL will be to more clearly
delineate the line between language learning and language disability. Doing so will much
benefit our students and give teachers firmer ground to stand upon.
NOTES
(1) There is most definitely a relationship between the first language of a child (L1) and
their acquisition of a second (L2). However, among researchers, there is no clarity. Many
believe in an innate “language window” or “critical period hypothesis” ( Lennenberg,
1967). This suggests that there is a set time for learning a language correctly and that
outside this period, there is substantial difficulty in learning a second language, especially
in terms of syntax. These advocates point to a biological basis for language and content
that somehow through age, we have less and less access to our “Language Acquisition
Device” (Chomsky, 1959), either because the brain loses plasticity or it simply shuts off
certain functions. Others contend that language can be learned well and fluently at any
age, this is known as the “Relational Frame Theory”.

9. References
Brown, C.L. (2004), “Reducing the Over-Referral of Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse Students (CLD) for Language Disabilities. NAHE Journal of Research and
Practice 2 (1): 225-43. http://njrp.tomu.edu/2004/PDFs/Brown.pdf
Burnette, J. (1998). Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students
in Special Education (ERIC/OSEP Digest #E566. Arlington, VA: The ERIC
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. http://ericec.org/digests/e566.html
Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin and Alejandro Brice, (2005), What’s “Normal”, What’s
Not: Aquiring English as a Second Language,
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/5126
Chomsky, N. (1959), A Review of B.F. Skinners Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58,
Reprinted in.Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass:
M.I.T. Press
Dinklage, Kenneth T. "Inability to Learn a Foreign Language" in G. Blaine & C.
MacArthur(Eds.) Emotional Problems of the Student. New York, 1971: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Ganschow, Leonore, Richard Sparks & Elke Schneider. "Learning a Foreign Language:
Challenges for Students with Language Learning Difficulties." Dyslexia (Journal of the
British Dyslexia Association) 1, (1995):75-95.
Genesee, F. , Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.,and Christian, D. 2006, Educating
English Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press
Goldenberg, Claude, (2008), Teaching English Language Learners. What the research
does – and does not – say. American Educator, Summer. http://www.aft.org/pubs-
reports/american_educator/issues/summer08/goldenberg.pdf
Gonzalez, V. (2001). The role of socioeconomic and sociocultural factors in language
minority children’s development: An ecological research view. Bilingual Research
Journal, 25 (1&2), 1-30
Irujo, Suzanne, (2004), When an ELL has difficulty learning, is the problem a disability
or the Second Language Acquisition Process?, ELL Outlook, March / April,
http://www.coursecrafters.com/ELL-Outlook/2004/mar_apr/ELLOutlookITIArticle4.htm
Lennenberg, E. (1967), Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning Disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic
differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321-32.

10. Root, Christine, (1994), A guide to learning disabilities for the ESL Classroom
Practitioner, http://ldonline.org/article/8765
Schwarz, Robin L., (1977), Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning,
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6065
Sparks, Richard, & Leonore Ganschow. (1993), "The Impact of Native Language
Learning Problems on Foreign Language Learning: Case Study Illustrations of the
Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis." Modern Language Journal 77,i 58-74.
Appendix
A.
From: Brown, C.L., (2005) Reducing the Over- Referral of CLD
students for Language Disabilities, pg. 225-26

11. B.