A Long-Term English Learner Stuck at Intermediate Proficiency

Diego fits the profile of a long-term English learner: oral fluency in everyday English, several years in U.S. schools, a plateau at intermediate proficiency, and literacy scores that lag far behind oral skills. His reading score of 3.2 and writing score of 3.0 are consistent with a student who has had too little explicit academic literacy instruction and too much exposure to simplified ESL coursework. The fact that he has been in ESL 2 for three years suggests a placement pattern that may have capped his access to grade-level text and writing. His statement “I just don’t like reading” is also typical of a student who has experienced years of frustration and avoids tasks that expose his gaps.

The data do not yet support a disability hypothesis. Attendance is 92%, there is no prior special education history, and we lack evidence of instruction-resistant difficulty after appropriate intervention. A disability hypothesis would require data showing that his reading and writing problems persist despite high-quality explicit instruction and are not explained by language acquisition, interrupted schooling, or lack of opportunity to learn. We also need to consider that his reading level is measured in English only; a Spanish assessment would help show whether the problem is language-specific. The disagreement among teachers is a signal to gather better data, not to make a referral by vote.

Tier 1 would change the quality and intensity of his core ESL and ELA experience. Diego needs grade-level content with scaffolds, not simplified texts that keep him at a low reading level. I would co-plan with his ELA teacher to use shorter grade-level informational texts, explicit vocabulary instruction, and writing tasks with models and rubrics. In ESL, I would teach academic language functions-compare, explain, argue-and use reciprocal reading and sentence-combining routines. I would connect the work to his interests and to a realistic postsecondary goal so that the tasks do not feel like remediation for its own sake.

Tier 2 would be a small-group intervention three times per week for 12 weeks, focused on fluency, comprehension strategy, and paragraph writing. Progress monitoring would include a weekly maze or oral reading fluency measure and a biweekly writing probe scored on a simple organization-and-evidence rubric. I would also assess his Spanish reading to inform the team. The decision rule would be set in advance: if he does not show a positive trend after 12 weeks of consistent intervention, the team would consider a special education evaluation, while continuing to rule out exclusionary factors. If he does respond, we would maintain the intervention and move toward reclassification rather than referral.

I would start with Diego rather than with the placement. He says he does not need ESL and does not like reading; that is useful information. I would ask him what he wants after high school, what he reads outside school, and what makes reading feel pointless. Then I would build a short cycle of high-interest, accessible texts connected to his goal-sports, mechanics, music, or a career pathway-and give him choices in topics and response formats. I would also explain the reclassification criteria and show him what progress looks like, so ESL does not feel like an indefinite sentence. A student who understands the path out is more likely to invest in it.

With his parents, I would use Spanish and acknowledge their concern directly: they want him in regular English, and they see ESL as embarrassing. I would explain that exiting him now without literacy support would likely increase his failure in ELA, not reduce stigma. I would show the reading and writing scores and the 12-week plan, and I would invite them to a review meeting with a clear decision point. I would avoid framing Diego as lazy or disabled. The message should be that the team is raising expectations, not lowering them, and that Diego’s voice and goals are part of the plan.