My family moved to the United States almost twenty-three years ago from Ukraine. My younger brother turned six that summer and attended first grade in Washington. Our family moved before his third-grade year, marking the start of his struggle with school.

My parents don’t recall ever being notified of the placement. They say, I brought it to their attention at the end of his fifth-grade year when I asked them why he qualified for the SPED program. My parents first had me explain what SPED meant. Then, they contacted the school to ask the same question: what about my brother qualified him for SPED?

At the end of a lengthy conversation with administration and district interpreters, it became evident that he was placed into the program because of his accent. My brother could not pronounce the “th” sound. The Ukrainian language has a hard “t” and so many Ukrainian speakers struggle pronouncing this sound, making a “z” sound instead. A Ukrainian-speaking aide spoke to his third-grade teacher and recommended placing my brother in SPED.

Although there may be more to this story, this is the perspective of my parents.

By the time my brother entered middle school, he exited the program, but the damage was done. When I ask him what he remembers doing in his SPED class, my brother recalls spending three years drawing and coloring pictures. He lost three years of on-level education and spent the rest of his school years trying to catch up. He ended up getting his GED.

My brother’s story is not unique. Other English Language (EL) students also received inappropriate services, so my district’s current cautious procedures on SPED placement make sense. However, as an EL teacher, I am often frustrated to see how the label of “EL” prevents certain EL students from receiving needed support.

One student stands out to me in particular. Let’s call her Tanya. Tanya transferred to my school as a second grader after living in the U.S. for a year. Her English speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills were on par with students who only recently moved to the U.S. As the years progressed, she marginally improved in listening and speaking while her reading and writing skills remained at a Kindergarten level. She struggled retaining knowledge and blending sounds. Analyzing the trends in her first and second grade test scores as well as comparing those scores to EL peers with similar backgrounds, painted a concerning picture. Tanya was making little to no progress.

After speaking with parents, I learned she experienced similar issues when presented the same information and required to use the same skills in Ukrainian. My suspicions confirmed, I brought the data and parent interview first to her third-grade teacher and later the Student Intervention Team (SIT). The EL label immediately caught SIT’s attention. Two years of scores were not enough. They needed more data. Her limited English speaking and listening ability further supported the idea of a language issue versus a SPED issue.

This summer, before her fourth-grade year, Tanya’s parents reached out to me to help them find a private tutor. I used this information along with data from Title intervention to gather more evidence that her learning difficulties were not language based. Currently, with the addition of her third-grade test scores, Tanya is scheduled for another SIT review. Unfortunately, the online school model proves difficult for both Tanya and her parents to navigate, which leads to a decrease in attendance and thus a weaker case for SPED services.

Keeping Tanya’s case in mind, it’s no wonder that when another EL student was brought up to SIT, my counselor thought to use a contradiction in paperwork to pull her from EL, thinking it would be easier to get her approved for SPED services. However, a student’s EL status cannot simply be removed.

Just like with many other issues in education we are still trying to find an equitable approach to identifying EL students for SPED services. Equity is found in the intersection of data, family input, and educator awareness.