1

Seeing Beyond Single Labels: Multilingual Learners with Disabilities and Exclusion from

Bilingual Education

Name

Professor

Course

Date
 2

Seeing Beyond Single Labels: Multilingual Learners with Disabilities and Exclusion from

Bilingual Education

Thesis statement: In the American schools, multilingual students with disabilities are

never called multilingual students or learners with disabilities, but only either, and it is a one-axis

system, which constitutes the bedrock of systematic marginalization of bilingual education

programs and unfair academic, linguistic, and social achievement.

Introduction

Although at the forefront of American education, individual identities tend to exclude

multilingual learners with disabilities (MLwDs), even though they are at the forefront of

American education. They are generally accommodated as multilingual students or students with

disabilities, but rarely with integrated support. This classification is the single-axis one that

compels their systematic exclusion of bilingual education, which is caused by the policies,

ideologies, and practices that brazen an unachievable decision between language support and

disability services. Based on ableism and gentrification of bilingual programs, the resulting

circumstances of such marginalization entail a severely unequal academic, linguistic, and social

performance. Destruction of these barriers is necessary to have justice in education.

Intersectional Gap and Disproportionality

Studies always show disproportion in detecting and referring MLwDs, and an

intersectional approach helps in explaining it. According to scholars, schools tend to switch

between a language problem or a disability problem based on how they frame the needs of a

student and use different data systems, eligibility criteria, and accountability systems on the one

hand or the other (Ortiz et al., 2020; Umansky et al., 2017). This dichotomy has brought an

intersectional divide between the policy regimes of two groups of students: the Individuals with
 3

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and language education policy such as Title III of the Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Cioè-Peña, 2017). The patterns demonstrated by national and

district-level statistics indicate the complexity regarding the phases of under-identification of

MLwDs to special education at younger grades and then over-representation in segregated

environments at older stages as evidence of delayed systems and wrong diagnoses (Umansky et

al., 2017).

This disproportionality is not an objective event but a way of displaying structural

inequities. A recent example of this type of mixed-methods research is a study by Cuba &Tefera

(2024), which shows the interaction between race, language, and disability to create such

patterns, proposing that disproportionality reflects at least partial inadequacies in the delivery of

repetitive and rigorous, inclusive, instructional practices instead of weaknesses in students

themselves. The intersectional gap guarantees the fact that the dual identity of MLwDs does not

become prominent in policy and accountability narratives because the systems are not designed

to acknowledge and address the students as complete individuals. As a consequence, the

marginalization of MLwDs has been common due to the perception of them as too complicated

to be integrated into the mainstream or bilingual classes (Cooper et al., 2024). Such framing

transfers the burden of failures in institutions onto the perceived lack in students so that systems

do not have to change to accommodate those changes.

The Ever-EL Model Focuses on Longitudinal Patterns of Identification

One of the most important developments in knowledge of disproportionality is the so-

called ever-English Learner (ever-EL) framework, in which all students who come to school with

the English Learners designation are followed regardless of later reclassification (Umansky et al.,

2017). This framework stabilizes the cohort and reveals patterns that cross-sectional studies of
 4

"current ELs" overlook. Based on longitudinal administrative data from two states, Umansky et

al. (2017) discovered that current ELs are overrepresented in special education at the secondary

level; however, ever-ELs are underrepresented in general in special education. Reclassification

patterns offer an explanation for this paradox. EL students with disabilities have much lower

chances to leave EL services than their non-disabled colleagues, and a reclassification

phenomenon leads to the overrepresentation of dually identified students in the EL subgroup in

higher grades.

Study analyses show that ever-ELs had only between 25 and 33 percent of never-ELs'

probabilities of ever being detected with special education in their K-12 career (Umansky et al.,

2017). Such a trend indicates the existence of a systematic under-identification in their lower

grades, and that can deprive the MLwDs of early interventions. These patterns were premised on

the type of the disability as well: In one state, one middle school had the right amount of ever-

ELs in the Speech or Language Impairment (SLI) and overrepresented them in the Specific

Learning Disability (SLD). These results contribute to the narrowing down of the issue of

disproportionality so that the local policy, practice, and distribution of resources is not a national

issue but a local phenomenon that needs specific interventions on the part of localities in terms of

needs.

Labeling, Timing, and the Consequences of Dual Identification

The dates and names of the identification would play a significant role in the educational

process with the MLwDs. Simple descriptions of over-identification are inconvenient to

longitudinal studies. As an example, a regression discontinuity study by Murphy and Johnson

(2023) has found that being designated, early in life, as an English Learner (EL) to a particular

standard of proficiency cut-score did not predict an ultimate induction into special education,
 5

implying the EL designation itself does not automatically cause disability labeling. Nevertheless,

this is not the long-run picture. In longitudinal research, which is the case of Umansky et al.

(2017), it is clear that learners who enter school as ELs and with disabilities have lower chances

to be labeled as English proficient; consequently, they turn into the so-called long-term EL

subgroup, who cannot leave the linguistic support program but might end up in a repressive

environment.

This subgroup constitutes a vulnerable segment of the dually identified adolescents that

are literally caught up in a system that is inappropriate to them. The placement decisions made

over several years, rather than based on a single eligibility occasion, determine whether MLwDs

receive language services or special education, but not both in a bilingual special education

setting. This dichotomous approach forces individuals to make an intellectual choice, which

overlooks a crucial aspect of their identity and the essential requirements of being a student. This

methodology has the effect that the MLwDs tend to get placed in English-only special education

classrooms, which not only deprives them of the academic and identity-affirming benefits of

bilingual education, but research has also shown that bilingual education is particularly

beneficial to this population (National Academies, 2017).

Ideological Barriers

These ideological obstacles, which are nothing but ableism, are the causes of the non-

inclusion of MLwDs in the bilingual programs. It is ableism, in other words, the devaluation of

disability (Cioe-Pena, 2021), that promotes the assumption according to which the disabled

students should do something that non-disabled students are able to do. In education, it is

expressed in the position held on the idea that bilingual education is an unnecessary amount of

cognitive load for students that are already experiencing a disability (Menken et al.,
 6

forthcoming). This ideology sees bilingualism as a superpower of high-achieving students and

places the DLBE programs as academically elite but not something that can be integrated with

disability (Cioe-Pena, 2017). It is an ideological gentrification approach that excludes MLwDs

(Menken et al. forthcoming).

Teachers and administrators popularize these ideologies of deficit. A qualitative study

that employed the interview method on school leaders in New York City established that most of

the leaders had a general perception that DLBE is seen as burdensome to the MLwDs and that

transitional bilingual education (TBE) is seen as less cumbersome to accommodate the students

(Menken et al., forthcoming). One of the leaders inquired, "Why should I subject you to such

pain when you are the one with disabilities?" This tactic upholds a paternal and an ableist

viewpoint that removes the right of MLwDs to a rigorous, enriching education (Baker and

Wright, 2021). These ideologies have a direct effect on the decisions of placement, and as such,

the MLwDs are forced out of the bilingual programs and instead into the English-only special

education, where assessments rely on their current ability and not on their potential.

The Gentrification of Dual Language Bilingual Education

The gentrification of Dual Language Bilingual Education (DLBE) intensifies ableism-

based exclusion. When the initially socially just and equity-focused programs such as the DLBE

start being marketed to and filled with White, English-privileged, and wealthy families, it is

called gentrification. This transformation transforms DLBE into a commoditized process of

enrichment or a gifted program and thus brings a change in its core meaning. This, as Menken et

al. (forthcoming) argue, is ideological gentrification as much as it is demographic gentrification,

with bilingualism as a competitive value instead of a right.

In this refurbished setting, the MLwDs are perceived as unworthy of the intensive, high-

end milieu of DLBE. Their marginalization forms a strategy of sustaining the elite perception of

the program. A study in New York City determined that the leaders at the schools opened DLBE

programs to re-engineer the characteristics of their student body because they recruited more

White, advantaged students (Mathewson, 2023). In that setting, the inclusion of MLwDs,

especially the ones with severe disabilities, is considered a derailment of the prestige and

academic brand of the program. This method of exclusion uses disability as a justification and

represents a way to merge ableism with neoliberal market logic in education.

Systemic Barriers to Policy and Practice

Ideological barriers are implemented by definite systemic arrangements. The first

impediment is the gap between the bureaucratic systems of special education and those of

language acquisition. Practically, this implies that an IEP for a student, which is regulated by

IDEA, usually overrules the policy requirements of language education. An MLwD's IEP must

state their desire for a bilingual education. Nonetheless, because special education processes

generally lack language proficiency considerations, IEPs rarely include such requirements

(Baker & Wright, 2021). Indicatively, in New York City, only 14% of MLwDs had an IEP

designation for home language instruction, directly linked to the 11.18% who were enrolled in

any bilingual program.

Moreover, the two administrative offices, which are special education and multilingual

learner services, are usually isolated, where few leaders or teachers are qualified in both fields.

Such a division leads to a logistical hitch; to implement a bilingual special education program,

one must negotiate between two different sets of bureaucracies, find a certain number of students

to staff the disability service, and cluster sufficient numbers of MLWDs whose language
 8

backgrounds overlap within a single school—a hurdle that is often impossible to overcome

(Menken et al., forthcoming). According to one of the district leaders, the initiation of a program

needed a sufficient number of students with a bilingual recommendation of the same language,

the same student-to-staff ratio, and the same location, which is hardly ever a reality (Menken et

al., forthcoming). Such stationary fragmentation of the system makes English-only placement the

default.

The Bilingual Educator Shortage

The acute and chronic national shortage of dually certified bilingual special education

teachers sustains this crisis. One of the initial explanations provided by the schools and districts

as to why they lack integrated bilingual special education programs is the unavailability of

qualified personnel (Umansky et al., 2017). Bilingual education and special education are two

subject areas with high needs in which New York City recruits teachers. The language most

affected in the special education setting is not Spanish. This is a root cause and effect issue in

that low demand of such programs results in low staffing of such programs, and it also means

that without teachers to train, there is no reason to generate a program, and without a program,

no reason to train teachers.

The institutional bureaucracy is also in its path. Menken et al. (forthcoming) interviewed

a district leader who said that she could not take a bilingual special education position once she

became bilingual certified to affix her special education license because the position was

intended to be a new job in the district. These kinds of disincentives in policy discourage the

development of a skilled labor force. As such, the deficit is compounded by the absence of

combined courses in teacher preparation that would integrate bilingual and special education
 9

pedagogy so that the teachers are ill-equipped to address the complex needs of MLwDs (Ortiz et

al., 2020).

Empirical Evidence of Exclusion

The data from the large school district on quantitative measures illustrates this exclusion

in a significant manner. In impending research conducted by Menken et al. utilizing the New

York City Public Schools (NYCPS), which is the largest school district within the United States,

they discovered that 27% of all MLLs are MLwDs, but the access to bilingual education is

critically low. During the 2023-24 school year, 85.41 percent of MLwDs were registered in an

English as a New Language (ENL) monolingual program versus 77.29 percent of all MLLs. In

DLBE programs, only 4.94% of MLwDs were enrolled, and in Transitional Bilingual Education

(TBE), only 6.24% were enrolled (Menken et al., forthcoming). This decline is notwithstanding

the local laws (CR Part 154) that require MLLs to be bilingually educated at the point of

numbers (Menken et al., forthcoming).

The results of the NYCPS data indicate that TBE is mostly preferred to DLBE as an

option for MLwDs and when they are in self-contained classrooms. In 2022, of the 153 bilingual

special education programs that existed citywide, 107 were TBE and only 46 were DLBE.

Moreover, the access differed tremendously across districts, which is not dependent on the

number of MLwDs, which serves as evidence that the district leadership discretion bears an

important role (Menken et al., forthcoming). The indiscriminate nature of these access rights

highlights how a problem is systemic; it is not the need and right of students to attend that

schools enroll them according to their local understanding of ability and language capacity,

revealing the ableist ideologies that have been found in qualitative research.

Qualitative Insights
 10

A qualitative study of educational leaders sheds light on the practice of these ideologies.

The interviews with the district superintendents of NYCPS partially showed that there is a

widespread opinion that DLBE is too academically and linguistically challenging for MLwDs.

According to one of the leaders, the sentiment is more like, “Well, it would be more convenient

to house these students in a TBE” (Martínez-Álvarez et al., 2020). This perspective is based on a

deficit approach that considers disability as failure to manage the linguistic rigor. Leaders

frequently presented DLBE as an enrichment program, where one of them remarked that they do

not usually want to put special education ELLs in the dual language program, as it is so much

work.

These stories shed light on the gentrification phenomenon, where gifted and talented

programs often overlap with DLBE. Other systemic reasons as cited by the leaders included the

IEP process and teacher shortages, although these are symptoms of a deeper ideological failure

to make bilingualism a priority for the disabled students. The interviews demonstrated a sharp

difference in the districts; the majority of leaders internalized these barriers, whereas a minority

strove to address the gap, which proves that another, inclusive, but not systemic way of working

can be offered (Menken et al., forthcoming). This difference corroborates that leadership attitude

is a very essential variable in perpetrating or defying exclusion.

The Effects of English-Only Placement on Students

The implications of denying MLwDs access to bilingual education are many and

manifold in nature. According to the body of research synthesized by Ortiz et al. (2020), English-

only placements are more often related to watering-down of the curriculum, reduced academic

expectations, less exposure to grade-level curriculum, and more remedial rather than intellectual

improvement. For MLwDs, it means losing the chance to be literate and academically skilled in
 11

their native language, which is part of their identity and family ties. Such a policy of

monolingualism can suppress intellectual growth and educational performance, which is not the

case, as studies indicate that bilingualism has cognitive advantages for all learners, including

students with disabilities (Bialystok, 2017; National Academies, 2017).

Segregation into English-only special education places may socially and emotionally

isolate children in terms of fun and lingo as well as in cultural identity, damaging self-esteem

and cultural identity. In the long term, the practices restrict the academic and economic prospects

of future generations by depriving them of the asset of bilingualism and biliteracy. It is also

found in case studies that teachers without readiness to assist MLwDs in bilingual classrooms are

also more likely to decrease the demands based on language than to adjust the instruction and

supply students with the linguistic experience.

Emerging Initiatives and Interactive Patterns

In spite of the institutionalized niche, the new research shows favorable accommodative

models. Leaders who deliberately avoid deficits usually lead effective initiatives. As an

illustration, a district leader in NYCPS called Kelly implemented DLBE Integrated Co-Teaching

(ICT) programs since she did not want a parent to decide which side is more significant between

special ed services and language (Martínez-Álvarez et al., 2020). In the same fashion, a principal

by the name Elizabeth has created DLBE ICT classes for each grade, and it has proven to be

viable and beneficial. These instances indicate that when leaders have dual-capacity perceptions

of the student, they are able to work through the systemic constraints to develop inclusive

programs.

On the instruction level, translanguaging structures provide a pedagogical channel.

Translanguaging pedagogy enlists students and their complete linguistic repertoires as a tool to
 12

learn, legitimizing the home languages, and as a tool to help in understanding and engaging

(García & Li, 2014). In the example of MLwDs, this is most effective, as it is not making them

have some sort of silence but in fact a further extension of their already existing communicative

abilities. Besides, special education teacher training, as well as bilingual certification, has to be

added to these. Such practices are beneficial news, and they guarantee that the problem was not

the students but rather the system's inability to generate capacity around them.

Federal/State Society Recommendations

Multi-level changes are required to break down the exclusion of MLwDs. To begin with,

the federal policy has to close the intersectionality gap and require the integration of IDEA and

Title III of ESSA, in which the IEP team must have language acquisition specialists and bilingual

education be the norm and the least restrictive setting for MLwDs. A federal awareness of the

issue was recently observed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2024), which

recommended better data and procedures to identify ELs with disabilities. States need to redefine

the IEP process to incorporate clear and informed remarks pertaining to the language of

instruction and abandon the default of mandated English-only.

Additionally, repositories of the information regarding the enrollment in bilingual

programs are necessary to become more transparent and accountable. The states must use the

framework of ever-EL in their data systems to precisely trace the results of those students who

come in as ELs and have special education identification and receive services (Umansky et al.,

2017). This information will be able to reveal inequalities and lead to specific resource

distribution. States must also offer insights and discretion on reclassification rules of the MLwDs

that would remove the bottleneck of reclassification that leaves them at EL status (Umansky et

al., 2017).
 13

District and School Practice Recommendations

Districts will have to invest in a dually certified workforce by providing tuition incentives

and alternative certification approaches, and they will have to cut bureaucracies, such as tenure

penalties imposed on getting additional certification. The issue of ableist and monolingual

ideologies in professional development needs to address all teachers, including the

superintendents (Martínez-Álvarez et al., 2020). Bilingual and special education staff should be

required to undergo joint professional development in the districts to develop a common ground

and a teamwork practice. The school leaders are to be facilitated in establishing the inclusive

bilingual programs, such as the DLBE ICT, and to enroll the MLwDs into the programs actively

by proactively reaching out to the families.

Districts must also eliminate bureaucracy. This involves the establishment of a central

office or task force to manage IEP development and program placement for MLwDs, ensuring

language requirements are never left behind. Linguistically responsive Multi-Tiered System of

Supports (MTSS) of screening and intervention within schools should be adopted to avoid

unnecessary referrals to special education as well as failure to identify the actual presence of

disability (Ortiz et al., 2011). Lastly, the advocacy needs to enable the families of MLwDs to

insist on the right of their child to bilingual education, which will offset the historically more

dominant advocacy community in special education (Menken et al., forthcoming).

Addressing the Gentrification of Bilingual Education

We should counter the gentrification of DLBE by once again dedicating ourselves to

social justice. The design of the policies and programs should put back the needs of the

marginalized multilingual communities that the initial programs are supposed to be serving. The

first step should be through the adoption of robust enrollment policies that place MLLs, such as
 14

MLwDs, and oppose the temptation to use DLBE as a form of demographic engineering or

school "turnaround" (Mathewson, 2023). MLwDs should be provided with set-asides in

admission lotteries so that they could be properly represented. Program evaluation should not

focus on standardized test scores in English but contain measurements of biliteracy development,

inclusion rates, and the social-emotional well-being of all student subgroups.

The national education debate on bilingual education ought to be transformed to not

dwell on it as an extra benefit to the privileged but as a basic right and an effective practice for

all learners, even the disabled. Professional development should be used to help teachers identify

and combat the gentrification ideologies that reinforce the principles of academic rigor and

exclusiveness. Through planned inclusion strategies, DLBE programs can be exemplars of equal

education that can empower and not marginalize their populations of interest.

Conclusion

The systematic deprivation of bilingual education for multilingual learners with

disabilities is a crucial wrong based on the intersection of ideologies of ableism and educational

gentrification. The systemic structures that govern disability services and linguistic support

choices compel the placement of multilingual learners with disabilities (MLwDs) in English-only

programs due to processes that perpetuate the belief that these learners are deficient in abilities

and capabilities. This deprives them of the historically documented academic, cognitive, and

socio-emotional advantage of bilingualism and supports the social hierarchy. Nonetheless, the

study also shows that other options can be used in case leaders and systems develop a deliberate

attitude and approach to an intersectional and asset-based framework. The way to go is to jointly

address the issue of refining policies, interfering with discriminatory ideologies, training

teachers, and placing the rights of MLwDs at the heart of the agenda. Bilingual education is not
 15

only about compliance but also an inherent matter of social justice and equity in education for

this group of individuals.

References

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (7th

ed.). Multilingual Matters.

Cioè-Peña, M. (2017). The intersectional gap: How bilingual students in the United States are

excluded from inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(9), 906–919.

[Link]

Cioè-Peña, M. (2021). Raciolinguistics and the education of emergent bilinguals labeled as

disabled. The Urban Review, 53(3), 443-469. [Link]

Cooper, B., Wang-Kildegaard, B., & Chinchilla, A. (2024). Investigating the Intersectional Gap

for Multilingual Students in Special Education. Journal of Critical Study of

Communication and Disability, 2(2), 20-40.

[Link]

Cuba, M. J., & Tefera, A. A. (2023). Contextualizing Multilingual Learner Disproportionality in

Special Education: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Teachers College Record.

[Link]

García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave

Macmillan. [Link]

Martínez-Álvarez, P., Son, M., & Arana, B. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ decision-making:

Efforts to mediate learning with bilingual children with disabilities. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 91, 103044. [Link]

Mathewson, T. G. (2023). Kids with disabilities blocked from bilingual programs. The

Hechinger Report. [Link]

bilingual-programs/

Menken, K., Espinet, I., Cioè-Peña, M., & Sánchez, M. (forthcoming).

Ableism, gentrification, and the exclusion of multilingual learners with

disabilities from bilingual education programs. Bilingual Research

Journal (expected 2026 publication)

Murphy, M., & Johnson, A. (2023). Dual identification? The effects of English learner (EL)

status on subsequent special education (SPED) placement in an equity-focused district.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 45(2), 311–335.

[Link]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational

success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies

Press. [Link]

success-of-children-and-youth-learning-english

Ortiz, A. A., Fránquiz, M. E., & Lara, G. P. (2020). The education of emergent bilinguals with

disabilities: State of practice. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(3), 245–261.

[Link]

Umansky, I. M., Thompson, K. D., & Díaz, G. (2017). Using an ever–English learner framework

to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 76–96.

[Link]

UnidosUS. (2021, December 22). English learners with disabilities are excluded from the

learning programs that could help them most. UnidosUS Progress Report Blog.
 18

[Link]

learning-programs/