Leaving No Child Behind: Are English Language Learners With Disabilities Considered?

1. Martha Thurlow, Jane Minnema, and Michael Anderson National Center on Educational Outcomes http://education.umn.edu/nceo With Charlene Rivera Center for Equity and Excellence in Education CCSSO, 2003 Leaving No Child Behind: Are English Language Learners With Disabilities Considered?

2. To includeALLstudents in states’large-scale assessment and accountability programs ALL means ELLs, students with disabilities, andELLs with disabilities NCEO’s Mission …

3. Standards-based instruction on grade-level – ALL! Participation in large-scale assessment and accountability programs – ALL! English language proficiency assessed annually – ELLs! No Child Left Behind Act, 2001

4. Martha Thurlow National Center on Educational Outcomes University of Minnesota Lessons Learned about Including Students with Disabilities in Assessment Systems

5. Three critical aspects of inclusion of students with disabilities in assessment systems • Written guidelines • Public reporting • Accountability +

6. Written Guidelines Must address PARTICIPATION How, not whether Decision making process Principles to guide best practice Must address ACCOMMODATIONS Which ones are okay (research-based?) Decision making process Principles to guide best practice

7. 1990 Less than half of the states had written policies about participation or accommodations 2000 All of the states had written policies about participation and accommodations

8. Policy analyses revealed tremendous variability in practice, thus pushing a research agenda – especially related to accommodations

9. Public reporting is essential – without it, children can remain hidden (“left behind”) for a long time! Public reporting probably has to be required!

10. 11 states disaggregated data on the participation of students with disabilities 13 states disaggregated data on the performance of students with disabilities

11. Public Reporting NH 2002 Study WA MT ND VT MN ME SD OR WI ID MA WY MI NY IA NE PA RI OH IL IN CT NV UT CO WV NJ KS MO KY VA DE CA OK TN MD NC AR AZ NM SC MS AL General Assessments LA TX GA FL HI AK No disaggregated data (n=6) Performance data only for some tests (n=2) Performance and Participation data for some tests (n=10) 38 disaggregated participation Performance data only for all tests (n=4) Performance and Participation data for all tests (n=28) 44 disaggregated performance

12. 14 states disaggregated data on the participation of students with disabilities 17 states disaggregated data on the performance of students with disabilities

13. Public Reporting 2002 Study VT NH WA MT ND MN ME SD OR WI ID WY MI NY MA IA NE RI PA IL OH CT IN NV UT CO NJ WV KS MO KY VA DE CA OK TN NC MD AR AZ NM SC MS AL LA TX GA Alternate Assessments FL AK HI No disaggregated data (n=25) Participation data only (n=10) Performance data only (n=2) Participation and Performance data (n=13)

14. Reporting has revealed that including the scores of students with disabilities: (1) sometimes raises the average school score (2) can show dramatic improvements in performance

15. Accountability + • When students count – really count – the attention they receive is increased • Retrofitting does not work as well as starting from the beginning – e.g., universally designing assessments • What are viewed as assessment issues often really are instructional and expectation issues