Participation of ELLs with Disabilities in ELP AssessmentsEnglish language learners (ELLs) with disabilities are a unique group of students in our schools today. The numbers of these students vary by state, but in some states ELLs represent a significant number of students (up to 31% of the total population of students with Individualized Education Programs-IEPs), with the result being a significant number of ELLs with disabilities (up to 9% of the total student population).1 It is important that schools address both the disability and language needs of these students. Too often, students who are ELLs with disabilities may be denied English language development services. Sometimes this is due to identification issues, but it also may be due to non-transparent information about this group of students. Exploring data on the participation of ELLs with disabilities in English language proficiency (ELP) assessments can provide states with important information on the extent to which, and the ways in which, ELLs with disabilities are participating in state ELP assessments. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has examined evidence about the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments. Several existing sources of data2 provide information that can be used to address questions about the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments. The purpose of this Brief is to use existing evidence to address the following questions:
To what extent do states' policies address the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments?Analyses of states' participation policies3 available online for 2011-12 indicated that 49 states addressed participation criteria for ELLs with disabilities in their ELP assessments. Of these states, 36 allowed for selective participation of ELLs with disabilities on the state ELP assessment, meaning that the student could participate in some domains but not others. Most often ELLs who were deaf/hard of hearing or who were blind/visually impaired were considered for selective participation. States rarely addressed what happened to the students' scores when the students were not able to participate in all domains of the ELP assessment. When states did indicate what happened to scores, it was generally to indicate either that a student's non-participation in some domains did not count against school participation rates or that, if an alternative means of assessing the student was used, the score was considered invalid. Policies in some states also suggested that ELLs with disabilities could be exempted from all ELL services. To what extent are states examining data or reporting publicly on the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments?In 2012, 11 states reported4 that they disaggregated ELP assessment results of ELLs with disabilities, a smaller number than disaggregated results of ELLs with disabilities for the general assessment (see Figure 1). These numbers are similar to, or higher than, the numbers of states disaggregating data for other assessments in which ELLs with disabilities participate. Ten states indicated that they disaggregated the results of ELLs with disabilities for the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) and five states indicated that they disaggregated the results of ELLs with disabilities for the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). An additional five states indicated that they would disaggregate results in response to a request to do so. Many fewer states reported data publicly on the participation of ELLs with disabilities.5 Analyses of state publicly reported data for the year 2010-11 indicated that only six states reported on the participation of ELLs with disabilities for the ELP assessment (see Table 1). Notably, more states (n = 21) publicly reported data on the participation of ELLs with disabilities for the AA-AAS. Figure 1. Assessments for Which Scores of ELLs Disaggregated
Table 1. States Reporting Participation Data for ELLs with Disabilities for AA-AAS and ELP Assessment
To what extent are ELLs with disabilities participating in part or all of state ELP assessments?States that do report on the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments do not do so in ways that are comparable. Many states simply present a number of students without the data needed to determine a participation rate. Data from five states collaborating on an Enhanced Assessment Initiative6 indicated that for those ELLs with disabilities who had participated in an ELP assessment, an average of about 2% did not participate in all components of the assessment (range = 0-3%). In these same states, similar numbers of ELLs without disabilities did not participate in all components of the assessment. The two components of the ELP assessment that were the most frequent ones in which ELLs with disabilities did not participate across states were reading and writing. In one state, listening was the area that most frequently had lower participation rates, followed by writing. In another state, speaking was the area that most frequently had lower participation rates, followed by writing and reading. What do experts recommend about the participation of ELLs with disabilities in assessment systems?Experts from special education, English language acquisition, and assessment who participated in a consensus-building process to generate principles and guidelines for the assessment of ELLs with disabilities7 identified the following principle on the participation of these students in state assessments:
This principle and the guidelines that support it (see sidebar) indicate the need for ELLs with disabilities to be included in assessments in general. ELP assessments are a critical part of the assessment context for ELLs with disabilities. What do practitioners understand about the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments?Focus groups with educators in five states8 indicated that the understanding of the need for participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments was sometimes lacking. Often, focus group participants indicated that if an ELL had a disability, the requirements for English language proficiency either allowed for exemption from the assessment because of a disability or should be changed (to allow exemption). For example, educators commented:
Other educators understood that all students took the ELP assessment:
Who made the decision about participation varied. In some states and districts, educators indicated that the ELL staff made the decision. In other states and districts, the decision was made by the IEP team. Conclusions and RecommendationsThis Brief addressed several issues related to the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments that can be informed by existing data. It summarized evidence from states' policies and databases, as well as input from experts and educators. This evidence contributes to identifying next steps for developing answers. It is clear from the evidence that states have taken a variety of approaches to addressing the participation of ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments. These approaches have varied from outright exclusion (exemption) to participation in some ELP components but not others, to full participation regardless of the potential challenges of the speaking and listening components for some students. It is less clear what is done by states as a result of the partial exclusion of ELLs with disabilities from assessments due to disability-related limitations on full participation. For example, some states seem to include the scores from alternate measures, while others do not because they are considered to produce invalid results. How results are handled for Title III accountability and for determinations about students' exit from ELL services is even less clear. Based on the available evidence, NCEO makes the following recommendations:
These recommendations should be subjected to further discussion and informed by research. Notes 1IDEA Data Center. (2014). 2012 IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments [Data file]. Retrieved from http://ideadata.org/tools-and-products. ResourcesAlbus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2013). 2010-11 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 68). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Christensen, L. L., Albus, D.A., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., & Kincaid, A. (2013). Accommodations for students with disabilities on state English language proficiency assessments: A review of 2011 state policies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities (IVARED). Liu, K. K., Goldstone, L. S., Thurlow, M. L., Ward, J. M. Hatten, J., & Christensen, L. L. (2013). Voices from the field: Making state assessment decisions for English language learners with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities (IVARED). NCEO. (2011, July). Understanding subgroups in common state assessments: Special education students and ELLs (NCEO Brief #4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Rieke, R., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Dominguez, L. M. (2012). 2012 survey of states: Successes and challenges during a time of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M. L., Liu, K. K., Lazarus, S. S., & Moen, R. E. (2005). Questions to ask to determine how to move closer to universally designed assessments from the very beginning, by addressing the standards first and moving on from there. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessments. Available at: www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/QuestionstoAskUniversallyDesignedAssessments.pdf Thurlow, M. L., Liu, K. K., Ward, J. M., & Christensen, L. L. (2013). Assessment principles and guidelines for ELLs with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities (IVARED).
|
|||||||||||
NCEO
Brief #8