Overview

Although No Child Left Behind legislation does not require states to report enrollment, participation and performance data for English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities either online or in print-based reports, there is increasing interest in the academic success of this subgroup of students, estimated at about 357,325 nationwide (Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, & Stephenson, 2003). This interest is heightened by the fact that the current context of grade level standards-based reform has prioritized the educational success for all students, including those with limited English proficiency who also have disabilities.

In previous searches for state data on this subgroup of students, there have been little if any data reported. In a 2000 National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) report for a Harvard Civil Rights Conference (Thurlow & Liu, 2001), only New Jersey was found to have reported information on ELLs with disabilities, though limited to participation data without performance. In this same report, a search for school year 1998-1999 data among the top five states ranked by percentage of ELLs nationwide, showed that none of these states reported data publicly at the state level. Even in a more recent update (Albus, Liu, & Thurlow, 2002), only three states reported participation data for ELLs with disabilities in a general state assessment. One of these states could also have reported performance data if the number of students tested had reached the minimum number required for maintaining confidentiality.

As the consequences associated with assessments increase and as the number of students who are English language learners with disabilities increase, it is likely that states will determine that it is important not only to keep track of their assessment data but also to publicly report those data. The purpose of this report is to examine the extent to which states report enrollment, participation rates in state administered tests, and the percent of those students who are proficient and above during 2002-2003. This was the first year that states were required to publicly report AYP data by the fall following the spring of the year during which the data were collected. This requirement caused a flurry of reporting activity in states. There are several factors that could potentially influence the data that states report. These factors also may influence our findings. The factors are:

• ELLs with disabilities are not defined the same way across states. The greatest differences in defining these students exist at the exiting and monitoring end of the service continuum. During spring 2003, federal officials proposed that students who had met a state’s English proficiency requirements could continue to be counted in the subgroup of limited English proficient students for two years after the proficiency determination. Nevertheless, the definitions of "proficient" in the upper levels still vary across states.

• ELLs with disabilities may be either over or under identified from state to state, which affects participation numbers. Although misidentification between two disability categories may also occur, this does not generally affect the numbers of ELLs identified as having a disability participating in large-scale assessments, except when looking at data for specific disability categories.

• Variability among state tests nationwide make performance comparisons of these students across states problematic. Therefore, we discourage across-state comparisons of performance. We present the data in order to highlight the educational needs of these students with respect to each state’s own standards.

• Participation rates may also vary across states due to differences in the time of year that student totals are counted for enrollment. For example, numbers enrolled at the time of testing would be more accurate than calculating participation rates using enrollment from a different point in the school year.

With these factors in mind, the information in this report is meant to focus needed attention on the participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities at the national level. It is also meant to promote discussion about specific concerns (e.g., appropriate minimum numbers of students able to be reported) within the larger conversation of how best to meet the educational needs of this diverse subgroup of students.

Method

Staff searched for data on ELLs with disabilities between September 17, 2003, and December 22, 2003. Because a few states had communicated during this time that their data would be updated on their Web sites in early January, actual collecting and updating of data continued until the end of January, 2004.

Charts were created to send to state assessment directors in order to check the accuracy of the data found on state Web sites. A copy of the e-mailed verification request is provided in Appendix A. The data chart attachment is included in Appendix B. The chart includes whether a state reported data on the enrollment, participation, or performance of ELLs with disabilities for any state tests.

These verification requests and chart attachments were sent to state assessment directors in early January in order to evaluate the accuracy of our collected data and to update any data not yet found on state Web sites. Sixty-one verification e-mails were sent out to the 50 states and additional unique states that receive special education funds (e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Defense, Guam, Mariana Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Puerto Rico). A total of 30 states responded to the request for verification. Of these, 29 responded that the data found were accurate, and 1 provided a link to data not previously found. One state that verified the accuracy of our data decided to post its state’s data in response, and three other states offered non-posted data to us for inclusion in our public data collection efforts. Seven of the original e-mails were undeliverable, and thus were followed by attempts to re-send verification requests with updated contact information. Two months after the first notification, a second request was sent. The final date for verifying or collecting data from states was February 29, 2004..

During the verification process, some states made comments in addition to whether the data found were accurate. These comments are also presented in the results section in a format that maintains the anonymity of the states from which the comments originated.

Participation and performance data for state tests are presented in this report by grade level ranges. The elementary, middle, and high school grades are those of 4^th, 8^th, and 10^th grade students respectively, and have been chosen to be representative of the educational levels because most states have content assessments in these grades. Where states do not have a test in one of these three grades, our practice was to use the next grade below if tested, and if not, to use the next grade above, if tested. For the complete data collected by state for each grade, see Appendix C.

Results

States Reporting Enrollment

Before presenting the results for those states that reported data for participation or performance of English language learners with disabilities, we want to first show those states that, at a minimum, had reported enrollment information for these students on their state Web sites. Enrollment information by grade is important because it provides the basis for figuring the participation rates for state assessments by grade. Table 1 shows the six states (Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) that reported at least some data on state enrollment totals of ELLs with disabilities. Three of these states provided data for selected grades and three states provided overall enrollment totals. Dashes in the table show where no data were reported or provided.

Table 1.  States That Reported Enrollment of English Language Learners with Disabilities

Note: Dashes indicate no data reported or provided.

Of these six states, Kentucky reported the disability categories of students who were receiving ESL services (English as a Second Language). These totals were not reported by grade, but rather reported as state totals for each disability category. The numbers reported for Kentucky are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Special Education Enrollment Reported by Students Receiving Services in English as a Second Language.  

Kentucky

 Dashes indicate no student in category.

^aMMD= Mild Mental Disability, FMD= Functional Mental Disability, HI = Hearing Impairment, S/L= Speech or Language Impairment, VI= Visual Impairment, EBD= Emotional/Behavioral Disorder, OI = Orthopedic Impairment, OHI= Other Health Impaired , SLD= Specific Learning Disability, D/B= Deaf-Blind, MD= Multiple Disabilities, AUT= Autistic, TBI= Traumatic Brain Injury, DD= Developmental Delay.

States Reporting Participation and Performance

Table 3 shows those states that reported participation or performance data for ELLs with disabilities by type of state test, grouped as "General" or "Other" State Assessments. General state assessments include assessments given to all students in the state for measuring reading, mathematics, science, social studies, writing, and other subjects. We include in this category the reporting of assessment data for other language versions of the general tests, such as Texas’ Spanish version of the TAKS assessment, and other language assessments, such as California’s SABE/2. Although a state may be listed as reporting data under "General State Assessment," this does not mean that the state reports data on all of its general state assessments. In the table, "Other State Assessments" includes alternate assessments for students receiving special education services, and state assessments designed for English language learners to measure language proficiency. Two states (California and Texas) provided data across all three types of state tests, general, special education alternate, and language proficiency assessments.

Table 3. States Reporting Assessment Data for ELLs with Disabilities By Type of Assessment

 ¹ Indicates non-identical version of general state test in another language.

² Indicates version of general state test in another language.

 Table 4 also presents this same information, but for those states that did not have the data publicly posted online. These states, which submitted the data directly to NCEO, were Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Alaska provided participation and performance information on its general state assessment and its special education alternate test. Pennsylvania and Wyoming provided these data for their general state assessments.

The following maps (Figures 1-3) show the regular states, and unique states that reported data for English language learners with disabilities by type of information reported (e.g., participation or performance) and type of assessment reported.

Table 4. States That Provided Assessment Data for ELLs with Disabilities to NCEO Though Not Reported on Web Site

Figure 1. States That Reported Participation and Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities on at Least One General Assessment

Figure 2. States That Reported Participation and Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities on State Special Education Alternate

Figure 3. States That Reported Participation and Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities on a Language Proficiency Test

Several states also reported additional information in unique ways. These are described for California, Colorado, and Delaware.A

California: For the California alternate assessment for special education students, the state reports by English language learner status with additional disaggregation of test performance by type of language service provided. The state reported data by general ELD (students receiving English learner services only), ELD with SDAIE (English learners receiving specially designed academic instruction in English with a minimum of two academic subjects taught), and ELD with SDAIE with native language support.

Colorado: For the Spanish version of the Colorado Reading and Writing tests, the state reported additional information by disability category and accommodations. More specifically, for the Lectura and Escritura tests for 3^rd and 4^th grades the state reported the number tested and performance by grade, for each disability category. The reports also provided the number of students who used a certain accommodation and how those students performed. However, it is not clear whether student performance was reported for students who may have used more than one accommodation on the test, or whether they were reported once by a primary accommodation if they had used more than one. Also, because the accommodation data do not separate ELLs from ELLs with disabilities in the reporting of accommodated performance, it is not clear how these data were reported for students who may have used accommodations for both language proficiency and disability related needs.

Delaware: Delaware’s Web site allows users to generate reports for selected criteria in an interactive format. Although it is possible to generate reports for any general state assessments for ELLs with disabilities, the numbers in the state are so small by grade tested that often the numbers are too small to report for privacy reasons. We note that of all grades and tests reported in 2002-03, only 8^th grade Science and Social Studies had the required minimum number (i.e.,15 for Delaware) of students to be able to show performance data.

Participation and Performance for General State Assessments

Participation and performance data for the general state assessments are presented by content area (i.e., reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and writing) including participation data, participation rates if available, and performance.

Nine states reported data for ELLs with disabilities on at least one content area for a general state assessment (see Table 5). Of these, all nine states reported on reading and mathematics, three states reported on science, one reported on social studies, and eight states reported on writing. Only six states reported on general state assessments in English. The other three states (California, Colorado and Texas) reported on Spanish language tests across content areas.

Table 5.  States with Participation and Performance Data on General State Assessments by Content Area and by Language of Assessment