State Reports on the Participation and Performance of English Language Learners with Disabilities in 2006-2007. Technical Report 54 (original) (raw)

2009, National Center on Educational Outcomes University of Minnesota

NCLB legislation focuses attention on high expectations for all students in learning grade level academic content, and requires that disaggregated participation and performance data be reported for students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs). Although not required by law, some states have reported data disaggregated for students with disabilities who are also ELLs. This study summarizes the extent to which states reported these data in 2006-2007, and how the online reporting of participation and performance for these students in 2006-2007 compared to previous years. Overall, many states still were not reporting on this population on state assessments. From 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the number of states reporting either participation or performance, or both, on any state assessment increased from 3 to 20 states. More states (N=17) reported these data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), followed by English language proficiency assessments for Title III accountability (N=7). The number reporting these data for regular state assessments actually decreased (N=1). In 2006-2007, more states reported other types of information for this population, including data on accommodated administration on state assessments, on other language versions of state assessments, and data for an alternate reading assessment in English. The performance of ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS compared to the total number of students taking AA-AAS was somewhat surprising given that previous data reports have suggested that ELLs with disabilities tend to have a lower percentage of students scoring proficient than their English proficient peers on regular assessments. The findings suggest that the ELLs with disabilities taking the AA-AAS across several states either (1) receive excellent instruction as a group to have a higher number scoring proficient than all students assessed, (2) have less severe disabilities than their English proficient peers, or (3) have been inappropriately placed in the AA-AAS. Language acquisition issues also could interact with these or other possible explanations. It may be that the AA-AAS has fewer barriers that affect ELLs than do other assessments. The number of students in these data is low, so we also note caution in interpreting the practical significance of the differences in performance. On English language proficiency assessments, ELLs with disabilities usually had an equal or lower percentage scoring proficient compared to ELLs without disabilities on measures of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. However, in a couple of states, there were data that showed a higher percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient on a portion of a state assessment (e.g., listening and speaking) than the total of all ELLs who took the assessment in a particular grade. It is important to continue to focus on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities in order to gauge how well they are doing in the various state assessments and accountability systems of which they are a part. Further, it is important not only to describe whether and how states are reporting on this diverse subpopulation, but ultimately to look at how they are doing on state assessments and to use that information to improve their education.