Promoting equitable reclassification

PROMOTING EQUITABLE RECLASSIFICATION OF ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES Sara E.N. Kangas APRIL 2024

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 1 Introduction In U.S. K–12 schools, students dually identified as English learners (ELs) and students with disabilities are a growing population. From 2006 to 2020, the percentage of ELs with disabilities increased by over 50%, with some states experiencing even greater growth rates (Cooc, 2023). With these increases, 16.1% of all ELs in public schools have identified disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Despite their prevalence among ELs, in 2018, dually identified students constituted only 0.8% of the 14.2% of ELs reclassified as English proficient and just 3.6% of the 27.4% of ELs making progress in their English language proficiency (ELP; U.S. Office of English Language Acquisition, 2021). As a consequence, a large proportion of ELs with disabilities eventually become long-term ELs (LTELs; Burke et al., 2016; Kieffer & Parker, 2016; Shin, 2020), students who have been receiving language services for five years or more. Although percentages vary across the U.S., in some states, nearly half of ELs with disabilities reach LTEL status (Sahakyan & Ryan, 2018). While receipt of language services is a civil right guaranteed for all ELs, remaining in language services for prolonged periods of time can be associated with unequal learning opportunities, including limited access to peers, rigorous content-area instruction, and college preparatory courses (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016; Dabach, 2014; Menken et al., 2012; Thompson, 2015). At the same time, prematurely reclassifying ELs with disabilities can deprive them of the language services they need to access the general education curriculum as well as disability-related services. Given such disparities, ensuring equitable reclassification—whereby ELs with disabilities are not unnecessarily retained in nor prematurely exited from language services—is important for their learning and life chances. The purpose of this policy brief is twofold: (1) to provide the latest trends and research findings regarding equitable reclassification for dually identified students (2) to promote collaboration between EL and special education state education agency (SEA) leaders The purpose of this policy brief is twofold. First, it provides state education agency (SEA) leaders with: (a) a portrait of the reclassification policy landscape in the U.S., (b) the latest research findings regarding equitable reclassification, and (c) recommendations for promoting reclassification policies and procedures that consider the unique needs of dually identified students. In developing this policy brief, current reclassification policies for ELs with and without disabilities were identified for all 50 states and the District of Columbia and then were independently verified by SEA leaders primarily from EL departments1. Recommendations featured in this brief are drawn from these policy trends, reclassification guidance from states, and the latest empirical research. Second, this brief seeks to promote collaboration at the SEA level between EL and special education departments. SEA leaders commonly report working in siloes (Hopkins et al., 2022), further contributing to a lack of coherence in systems at the state level. In reclassification, such siloes result in policies and initiatives that do not fully consider the multiple intersecting needs of ELs with disabilities. To more fully account for disabilities in reclassification, EL and special education state leaders can utilize this policy brief to anchor their collaborative discussions, as they together refine state policies and support local educational agencies (LEAs). 1 Verification of reclassification policies were received for 46 states and the District of Columbia in summer and fall 2023.

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 2 Reclassification State Policies: Current Trends and Findings A review of current reclassification policies indicates that states have developed three primary pathways to exiting ELs with disabilities: (1) standard policies, (2) alternate policies, and (3) exemption policies. Standard policies are intended for all ELs who take the general ELP assessment, including those with disabilities. Alternate policies pertain to ELs with significant cognitive disabilities who participate in alternate ELP assessments. Exemption policies is an umbrella term for waivers that allow either individual students or specific student populations, such as ELs with disabilities, to be exempted from certain reclassification criteria. Trends in Standard Policies In accordance with federal guidance, all 50 states and the District of Columbia use standardized ELP assessment scores as the anchoring reclassification criterion (U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ] & U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2015). Forty-two states use ELP assessment scores as the sole criterion for reclassification. Across all policies, the composite proficiency score or level operates as the primary cut score. Some states, however, require additional cut scores for components of the ELP assessments, including either (1) literacy composite scores or (2) domain scores (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, or writing scores). In addition to meeting ELP cut scores, nine states require additional evidence of English proficiency for ELs to exit (Table 1). The evidence varies but commonly includes scores on standardized academic or reading assessments, teacher or team input, and other local evidence (e.g., class assessments, observation of student in content-area courses). Other less common evidence includes class performance, student portfolios, and parent/family consultation (Figure 1). To exit under a standard policy, ELs with disabilities, like their EL peers, must meet these the specified criteria. For more detailed information regarding specific states’ standard reclassification policies, see interactive reclassification map in Figure 3. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Local Evidence Teacher/Team Input Student Portfolio Parent Consultation Standardized Academic/Reading Assessments Class/Course Performance Number of States Figure 1. Other evidence besides ELP scores used to exit ELs

3 Table 1. State Reclassification Criteria for Standard Policies (Grades 1–12) Standardized General ELP Assessment Standardized Assessments Class or Course Performance Student Portfolio Teacher or Team Input Parent Consultation Other Local Evidence Individual Exemption/ Pathway Composite Score/Level Domain Scores Literacy Composite Score Academic Scores Reading Scores AL ✔ AK ✔ AZ ✔ ✔ AR ✔ ✔ CA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ CO ✔ ✔ ✔ CT ✔ ✔ DE ✔ DC ✔ FL ✔ GA ✔ ✱ HI ✔ ID ✔ ✔ IL ✔ IN ✔ ✔ IA ✔ KS ✔ ✔ ✔ KY ✔ LA ✔ ✔ ME ✔ MD ✔ MA ✔ ✔ ✔ MI ✔ MN ✔ ✔ ✱ MS ✔ ✔ MO ✔ ✔ ✔

4 Table 1. State Reclassification Criteria for Standard Policies (Grades 1–12) Standardized General ELP Assessment Standardized Assessments Class or Course Performance Student Portfolio Teacher or Team Input Parent Consultation Other Local Evidence Individual Exemption/ Pathway Composite Score/Level Domain Scores Literacy Composite Score Academic Scores Reading Scores MT ✔ NE ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✱ NH ✔ NJ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NM ✔ NY ✔ ✱ NC ✔ ND ✔ ✔ OH ✔ OK ✔ ✱ OR ✔ PA ✔ ✔ RI ✔ SC ✔ ✔ SD ✔ ✱ TN ✔ ✔ TX ✔ ✔ ✔ UT ✔ ✔ VT ✔ VA ✔ WA ✔ WV ✔ WI ✔ ✱ WY ✔ ✔ * When ELs achieve a composite proficiency score that is near to—but does not meet—the required threshold for exiting, additional criteria are considered.

Trends in Alternate Policies For ELs with disabilities who take alternative ELP assessments—which is a relatively small number of ELs—36 states have established alternate reclassification policies, while 12 have not developed or are in the process of developing these policies (Figure 2). The remaining two states have explicit policies that do not permit those taking alternate ELP assessments to exit language services. Mirroring trends in standard policies, meeting a composite proficiency level or cut score on alternate ELP assessments is the most common criterion required for reclassification eligibility—used in 26 states (Figure 2). As another criterion, some states permit exiting when in essence a plateauing effect in ELP scores has occurred (Figure 2). For this criterion, LEAs must compare cut scores from multiple years and exit when ELs with disabilities experience limited to no gains (e.g., achieving same proficiency level on two recent consecutive test administrations). Other states require literacy composite, receptive/productive composite, or domain specific cut scores. For alternate policies, other forms of evidence are more limited but include, individualized education program (IEP) team recommendation, reading assessment scores, and other local data (Table 2). Trends in Exemption Policies While a majority of states have standardized reclassification criteria for all ELs, a few states have developed exemption policies. These policies take two forms: (1) individual exemptions and (2) population-wide exemptions. Individual exemptions permit LEAs to make a case for exiting individual dually identified students who are otherwise unable to meet the criteria established in the standard and/or alternate reclassification policies. Individual exemption policies vary, but commonly they constitute a case-by-case individualized approach to reclassification. For example, an individual exemption policy may permit teachers or teams (e.g., IEP or EL teams) conferring, evaluating additional evidence, making an exiting recommendation, and then submitting that recommendation for SEA approval. Populationwide exemptions have separate reclassification criteria for all ELs with disabilities, regardless of the ELP assessment they take. Over the past several years, population-wide exemptions have been implemented and later retracted across states. At present, only one state has an active population-wide exemption policy in place. Details of specific states’ alternate and exemption reclassification policies can be found in the interactive reclassification map (Figure 3). Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 5 26 2 1 6 17 Figure 2. States with Alternate ELP Score Criterion composite ELP score/level composite ELP and composite literacy scores domain scores consecutive ELP composite scores none Number of States with Individual Exemptions to Standard Policy 4 Number of States with Individual Exemptions to Alternate Policy 4

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 6 Figure 3. Interactive Reclassification Policy Map To view details of specific states' standard, alternate, and exemption reclassification policies, click on the map.

7 Table 2. State Reclassification Criteria for Alternate Policies (Grades 1–12) Standardized Alternate ELP Assessment Standardized Academic or Reading Assessments Class or Course Performance Student Portfolio Teacher or Team Input Parent Consultation Other Local Evidence Individual Exemption/ Pathway No Criteria Listed Composite Score/Level Domain Scores Literacy Composite Score Composite Score Comparison (2 or 3 test administrations) AL ✔ ✔ AK ✔ AZ ✔ AR ✔ CA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ CO ✔ ✔ ✔ CT ✔+ DE ✔ DC ✔ FL ✔ GA ✔ ✔ HI ✔ ID ✔ IL ✔ IN ✔ IA ✔ KS ✔ KY ✔ LA ✔ ME ✔ MD ✔ MA ✔ MI ✔ MN ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ MS ✔ MO ✔

8 Table 2. State Reclassification Criteria for Alternate Policies (Grades 1–12) Standardized Alternate ELP Assessment Standardized Academic or Reading Assessments Class or Course Performance Student Portfolio Teacher or Team Input Parent Consultation Other Local Evidence Individual Exemption/ Pathway No Criteria Listed Composite Score/Level Domain Scores Literacy Composite Score Composite Score Comparison (2 or 3 test administrations) MT ✔ NE ✔ NV ✔ NH ✔ ✱ ✔ NJ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NM ✔ NY ✔ NC ✔ ND ✔ OH ✔ OK ✔ ✱ OR ✔ PA ✔ ✱ ✔ RI ✔ SC ✔ SD ✔ TN ✔ ✔ TX ✔ UT ✔ VT ✔ VA ✔ WA ✔ WV ✔ WI ✔ ^ WY ✔ * When ELs achieve a composite proficiency score that is near to—but does not meet—the required threshold for exiting, additional criteria are considered. + Requires composite scores for productive domains (writing, speaking) and receptive domains (listening, reading). ^ When ELs with significant cognitive disabilities achieve a composite proficiency cut score, they then take the general ELP assessment.

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 9 Reclassification Research: Latest Findings Reclassification of ELs with disabilities is an underexamined topic in educational research. However, with the low rates of exiting among dually identified students, studies are beginning to examine the barriers that may decrease students’ reclassification eligibility. To date, both research and guidance address policy-based and school-based challenges to equitable reclassification for ELs with disabilities. Policy-based Challenges The following are the challenges to promoting to equitable reclassification in state policies: Challenge #1: Singular exit criterion A majority of state policies require an ELP assessment score as the sole exit criterion. Yet, multiple stakeholder groups, including ELP assessment consortia, recommend using additional evidence in conjunction with an ELP score to make reclassification decisions (Linquanti et al., 2016; Park & Chou, 2019; WIDA, 2023). Given the complex learning needs of ELs with disabilities, a singular assessment score is unlikely to provide educators with a comprehensive understanding of dually identified students’ ELP growth and progress toward reclassification (Park & Chou, 2019). Challenge #2: Adoption of alternate ELP assessments While most states now have a designated alternate ELP assessment for ELs with significant cognitive disabilities, some states only have a general ELP assessment for all ELs, regardless of their disability status. For a small percentage of the dually identified population who have significant cognitive disabilities, however, taking a general ELP assessment, even with accommodations, may yield inaccurate ELP scores that directly influence their reclassification eligibility (Schissel & Kangas, 2018). Challenge #3: Parent and student consultation At present, parent notification (i.e., notifying parents that their child has exited language services) is more common than parental/family engagement in reclassification procedures. Because exiting is a high-stakes educational decision, research has challenged the lack of parent/family and student consultation in reclassification procedures (Brooks, 2023; Burho & Thompson, 2021). For dually identified students, initial research has found that even when parents participated in reclassification meetings, they had unanswered questions and were not consulted about exiting decisions involving their children (Burho & Thompson, 2021). Challenge #4: Multi-year ELP score comparisons Comparing ELP assessment scores from multiple years can assist LEAs in understanding whether ELs with and without disabilities are making gains in their ELP. When used as a criterion for reclassification, multi-year score comparisons tend to require a plateauing ELP score on either the general or alternate ELP assessment, with the assumption that ELs with disabilities are no longer benefiting from language services and thus should be exited. One study found that as a criterion for reclassification, multi-year score comparisons can be difficult for LEAs to navigate, especially when ELP assessments are updated and revised, resulting in significant changes to ELs with disabilities’ reclassification eligibility (Kangas & Schissel 2021).

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 10 Challenge #5: Alternate ELP assessment cut scores To date, some state policies have not specified a cut score on alternate ELP assessments that would enable ELs with significant cognitive disabilities to exit. Without a threshold established, LEAs may lack clear understanding regarding the reclassification eligibility of ELs with disabilities. In addition, a few states have explicit prohibitions on exiting with an alternate ELP assessment score, citing that alternate ELP scores—of any kind—do not meet grade-level standards of ELP. Such prohibitions may result in a permanent placement of ELs with cognitive disabilities in language services. School-based Challenges The following are the challenges to promoting to equitable reclassification in LEAs: Challenge #1: Access to dual services Although access to both language and disability-related services is a civil right for dually identified students (U.S. DOJ & ED, 2015), both research and federal guidance have reported inadequate support for the ELP needs of ELs with disabilities (U.S. DOJ & ED, 2015; Zehler, 2003). It is common for LEAs to wrestle with the demands of dual service provision, often delivering only one set of services but not the other (Kangas, 2014, 2018). In cases when language services are relinquished, dually identified students do not receive the targeted linguistic support needed to (a) advance their ELP—the primary criterion for reclassification—and (b) access the curriculum and their disabilityrelated services. Challenge #2: Quality of learning opportunities In addition to providing dual services, LEAs must work to ensure ELs’ and students with disabilities’ access to the general education curriculum (IDEA, 1975; U.S. DOJ & ED, 2015). While providing services, LEAs may struggle to maintain ELs’ and students with disabilities’ access to the curriculum. For instance, ELs with disabilities may experience more restrictive placements wherein dual services are provided, however, content-area instruction is below grade-level standards and exposure to grade-level English is likewise constrained (Kangas & Cook, 2020, 2023). Challenge #3: Collaborative decision-making In states that require teacher or team input as a criterion for reclassification, research has indicated that collaborative decision-making is a challenge for LEAs (Estrada & Wang, 2018; Hill et al., 2014). One study found that a summer release of standardized ELP assessment data—when teachers are typically off-contract—can limit communication and consultation among members of IEP teams (Kangas & Schissel, 2021). Without opportunities for meaningful consultation, individual language specialists may function as the sole decision-makers, determining on their own whether ELs with disabilities should be reclassified. With sparse collaborative decision-making, especially with special education colleagues, reclassification recommendations can overlook important insights regarding dually identified students’ disabilities, needs, and goals. Challenge #4: Use of evidence When teacher input, or judgment, is required for reclassification, research suggests that teachers experience difficulties making data-based recommendations (Estrada & Wang, 2018; Hill et al. 2014). Specifically, when prompted to provide input, teachers may rely on subjective or anecdotal evidence in their reclassification recommendations. For dually identified students, in particular,

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 11 teachers may use “gut instinct” to determine whether disability is the root cause of students’ most recent standardized ELP scores (Kangas & Schissel, 2021). As these studies suggest, reliance on anecdotal evidence to determine whether ELs with and without disabilities should be exited can hinder efforts to promote equitable reclassification in LEAs. Challenge #5: Perceptions of student ability Multiple studies report that dually identified students are often perceived in deficit terms because of their language, disability, and race (Cioè-Peña, 2021; Martínez-Álvarez, 2023). At times, educators may believe that the ELs with disabilities have a limited cognitive capacity for language learning (Paradis et al., 2021). As research suggests, deficit views of ELs with and without disabilities can inform the use and interpretation of student data during reclassification, prompting teachers to exit or keep students in language services (Estrada & Wang, 2021).

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 12 Recommendations for SEA Leaders To promote equitable reclassification for dually identified students, there are five principal recommendations for current and future policy guidance that SEAs may wish to consider. These recommendations cannot be enacted effectively without collaboration among state EL and special education departments. Specifically, these recommendations can provide a collective purpose for EL and special education state leaders to forge and strengthen their collaborative capacities. Through cross-department collaboration, the recommendations featured below can promote more equitable reclassification policies for ELs with disabilities that account for their multiple intersecting learning needs. When possible, links to relevant guidance, resources, and examples are provided for SEA leaders to consult. Recommendation 1: Move toward multiple forms of ELP evidence • Consider additional evidence of ELP: While states must use a standardized ELP assessment score for reclassification, requiring additional evidence of ELP may benefit all ELs with disabilities because of their complex learning needs. Given that prior research has found that standardized academic assessments when used as a criterion for reclassification can prevent ELs from exiting (Linquanti, 2001; Robinson-Cimpian & Thompson, 2016), states may want to consider other local data that demonstrates ELP. Such data can include student portfolios, performance in grade-level academic courses, parent/family consultation, among others. While considering exit policies, states may find the interactive reclassification map as well as summarizing Tables 1 and 2 helpful. • Recommend viable local data: When local data are considered as evidence in reclassification, additional clarification on what “counts” as data may be necessary. Specifically, to create safeguards that reduce the inclusion of subjective and anecdotal evidence that may introduce biased and deficit-oriented beliefs about ELs with disabilities, states may wish to develop lists of recommended data for LEAs to consult. In some states that require locally determined data of ELP, LEAs have been provided with lists of viable data sources. An example of such lists comes from Colorado. • Establish procedures for missing domains scores: In some cases, ELs with disabilities may not be able to complete certain domains (e.g., reading, speaking) in the general and alternate ELP assessments. In these instances, a composite proficiency score will be missing. Without these scores, ELs with disabilities may be unable to exit. States should support LEAs by establishing procedures for ELs with disabilities who are exempt from particular assessment domains to be eligible for exiting. An example of such procedures can be found in Michigan’s Entrance and Exit Protocol and Georgia’s Standardized Statewide English Learner Exit Procedures. If states require LEAs to calculate missing composite scores, LEAs would benefit from calculator tools, such as those developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, to reduce human error. These recommendations should be enacted through collaboration among state EL and special education departments

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 13 Recommendation 2: Support multi-stakeholder decision-making • Promote team-based approaches: While some states require teams of educators to oversee reclassification procedures, other states have not clarified the stakeholders that should be involved in exiting. For ELs with disabilities, who have multiple learning needs, teambased approaches for reclassification are advisable (Park & Chou, 2019). Because ELs with disabilities already have an IEP that is required to include a language specialist (U.S. DOJ & ED, 2015), future EL and special education guidance from states should clarify the role of IEP teams in monitoring the ELP growth of ELs with disabilities and recommending their reclassification. One possibility identified in research is the integration of reclassification discussions and decision-making into annual IEP meetings when multiple stakeholders are present (Burho & Thompson, 2021). • Engage parents as decision-makers: Parent engagement is a protection afforded to the parents of students with disabilities, including dually identified students, through IDEA (1975). Further, parents have unique insights into the language skills, needs, and goals of their children, and should have a voice in whether their language services are discontinued (Burho & Thompson, 2021). For these reasons, state leaders may want to consider incorporating parent consultation as a criterion for exiting dually identified students. Parent consultation can come in many forms (e.g., meetings, phone calls, written feedback) and thus, states may need to consider what forms of consultation will result in meaningful parent engagement. If recommending reclassification meetings, states may wish to adapt promising practices from special education for engaging culturally and linguistically diverse parents as authentic decision-makers (e.g., EPIC Model – Explain, Provide, Inquire, and Coordinate). • Empower older ELs with disabilities: IDEA (1975) requires students with disabilities, when appropriate, to attend IEP meetings, and for their engagement in their own transition plans. Given the importance of exiting in shaping access to learning opportunities, states should consider how ELs with disabilities in secondary grades would benefit from being involved in their own reclassification. States may want to revise exit procedures to account for students’ needs, interests, and goals for the future. The perspectives of dually identified students regarding their language learning and language services can be integrated into already existing processes, such as IEP meetings or reclassification meetings. To understand the importance of empowering older students with disabilities in the everyday decisions that affect their learning, state leaders may want to consult Minnesota’s resources on a “personcentered” practices. Recommendation 3: Refine policies for alternate ELP assessments • Establish exit criteria: Across the U.S., alternate ELP assessments are in a dynamic state, with more than one assessment undergoing revisions, resulting in new versions of the assessments. Once complete, states will need to establish updated cut score criterion. As recommended above, a cut score should not be the only ELP evidence required for exiting. While revising alternate reclassification policies, states may use the opportunity to incorporate additional criteria that will provide a fuller portrait of the language skills and needs of ELs with significant cognitive disabilities.

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 14 • Eliminate exiting prohibitions: In tandem with the recommendation above, SEAs should eliminate policies that bar reclassification for ELs with disabilities who take alternate ELP assessments. With these policies, ELs with significant cognitive disabilities effectively become stuck in language services, which may contribute to two broader disproportionality trends: (1) the overrepresentation of ELs with disabilities among LTELs and (2) the overrepresentation of ELs in secondary grades in special education (Umansky et al., 2017). For state-level estimates of ELs’ special education representation, please review the Office of English Language Acquisition’s recent report. • Exercise caution with year-over-year score comparisons: Some states require a comparison of composite scores from several consecutive administrations of an alternate ELP assessment. Although these comparisons can shed light into ELP growth of ELs with significant cognitive disabilities, states would do well to offer careful guidance to LEAs when new, updated versions of ELP assessments are released. For example, in alignment with the guidance of assessment agencies, states should provide LEAs with equivalency scores that allow for valid score comparisons across versions of an alternate ELP assessment. Also, states would benefit from considering how the validity of year-over-year score comparisons can be compromised when students (a) are unable to complete the assessment in a given year and (b) experience largescale interruptions to schooling (e.g., pandemic, natural disasters). Recommendation 4: Seek deeper understanding of exemption policies • Understand the current landscape: At present, there is considerable variation among exemption policies. Some states have implemented procedures that allow the submission of case-by-case waivers, while others have developed a set of individualized criteria for ELs with significant cognitive disabilities. Both function as individual exemptions to the criteria established in standard and alternate policies. Other states have introduced population-wide exemptions, an altogether separate reclassification pathway for all ELs with disabilities. State leaders should bear in mind that exemption policies in reclassification are relatively new for dually identified students, and that much remains unknown about their implementation (e.g., impact on reclassification rates, introduction of new exiting challenges, etc.). • Seek guidance on exemption policies: Given the variability among exemption policies, SEA leaders should seek additional guidance from ED regarding the alignment of each exemption approach with federal mandates. In recent years, population-wide exemptions, in particular, have been enacted but later rescinded, suggesting that there is lingering uncertainty about the compliance of this policy. To promote equitable reclassification, EL and special education state leaders may wish to advocate for greater clarity from ED about individual and population-wide exemptions. Recommendation 5: Elevate practices and mindsets that support ELs with disabilities • Collaborate to shift educator mindsets: Despite federal guidance ensuring dually identified students’ access to language and disability-related services, the mindset that disability takes precedence over language remains common in the service delivery practices in LEAs. Without

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 15 access to high-quality language services, dually identified students lack the support they need for ELP growth. Other mindsets that focus on the perceived limited cognitive and linguistic capabilities of ELs with disabilities are also pervasive among educators. Because such beliefs challenge efforts to effectively support the linguistic and academic development of dually identified students, EL and special education SEA leaders are encouraged to collaborate on initiatives that aim to shift educator mindsets. For example, LEAs may benefit from “myth busting” resources and professional learning sessions that challenge long-held deficit views of ELs with disabilities. The National Center for Systemic Improvement’s resources on Pursuing Equity at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Disability may be useful to SEA leaders in their efforts to challenge misconceptions. • Encourage opportunities for educators to come together: As siloes remain a barrier to collaborations in LEAs for dually identified students (Kangas, 2017), opportunities for EL and special educators to come together will be valuable. State leaders across EL and special education offices could partner on summits and workshops that address topics of relevance to both parties, including reclassification. For states that require team-based approaches to exiting, in particular, workshops on interpreting student ELP data and making evidencebased reclassification recommendations would be valuable. • Support the examination of learning opportunities: High-quality instruction and services are necessary for the linguistic and academic growth of ELs with disabilities. Yet, dually identified students face barriers in accessing rigorous instruction and dual services. In response, SEAs should encourage LEAs to examine the learning opportunities of dually identified students by advocating for observations of instruction and for audits of students’ schedules and courses. Through these data, LEAs can better understand whether ELs with disabilities have access to high-quality learning opportunities. An example of LEAs auditing their practices for dually identified students is featured in The New Mexico Guide on Identifying and Serving English Learner Students with Disabilities. In the wake of new and revised general and alternate ELP assessments, many states are revisiting their reclassification criteria and procedures for ELs with disabilities. The above the trends, research findings, and related recommendations aim to assist SEA leaders in these efforts as they strive for equitable reclassification policies of dually identified students in their states. The research reported in the brief was made possible by a grant from the Spencer Foundation (#202300087). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Spencer Foundation. Suggested citation: Kangas, S.E.N. (2024). Promoting equitable reclassification of English learners with disabilities. The Center for Promoting Research to Practice. College of Education. Lehigh University

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 16 References Brooks, M. D. (2023). What does ESL mean to her?: An analysis of women of color recounting their attempts to exit EL instructional services. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231195878 Burho, J., & Thompson, K. (2021). Parent engagement in reclassification for English learner students with disabilities. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 4(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.53956/jfde.2021.155 Burke, A. M, Morita-Mullaney, T., Singh, M. (2016). Indiana emergent bilingual student time to reclassification: A survival analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1310–1342. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216667481 Callahan, R. M., & Shifrer, D. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students: Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x16648190 Cioè-Peña, M. (2021). (M)othering labeled children: Bilingualism and disability in the lives of Latinx mothers. Multilingual Matters. Cooc, N. (2023). National trends in special education and academic outcomes for English learners with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 57(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669221147272 Dabach, D. B. (2014). “I am not a shelter!”: Stigma and social boundaries in teachers’ accounts of students’ experience in separate “sheltered” English learner classrooms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(2), 98–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.954044 Estrada, P., & Wang, H. (2018). Making English learner reclassification to fluent English proficient attainable or elusive: When meeting criteria is and is not enough. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 207–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217733543 Hill, L. E., Weston, M., & Hayes, J. M. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in California. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/rs_archive/pubs/report/R_114LHR.pdf IDEA (1975). 20 U.S.C. §1400. Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4), 273–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968070 Kangas, S. E. N. (2017). A cycle of fragmentation in an inclusive age: The case of English learners with disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.016

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 17 Kangas, S. E. N. (2018). Breaking one law to uphold another: Service provision for English learners with disabilities. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 877–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.431 Kangas, S. E. N. (2020). Counternarratives of English learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1807424 Kangas, S. E. N., & Cook, M. (2023). Navigating competing policy demands: Dual service provision for English learners with disabilities in middle school. Language Policy, 22(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-023-09653-8 Kangas, S. E. N., & Schissel, J. L. (2021). Holding them back or pushing them out?: Reclassification policies for English learners with disabilities. Linguistics and Education, 63, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100927 Kieffer, M. J., & Parker, C. E. (2016). Patterns of English learner student reclassification in New York City Public Schools. REL 2017-200. Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569344.pdf Linquanti, R. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability for English Learners (No. 2001-1). WestEd, University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hw8k347 Linquanti, R., Cook, H. G., Bailey, A. L., & MacDonald, R. (2016). Moving toward a more common definition of English learner: Collected Guidance for States and Multi-State Assessment Consortia. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/MoreCommonDefinition-Final_0.pdf Martínez-Álvarez, P. (2023). Teaching emergent bilingual students with dis/abilities: Humanizing pedagogies to engage learners and eliminate labels. Teachers College Press Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”: Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2012.665822 National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). English learners in public schools. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. F. (2021). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (3rd ed.). Brookes. Park. S., & Chou, F. (2019). CCSSO framework on supporting educators to prepare and successfully exit English learners with disabilities from EL status. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED593499.pdf Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., & Thompson, K. D. (2016). The effects of changing test-based policies for reclassifying English learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(2), 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21882

Promoting Equitable Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities 18 Sahakyan, N., & Ryan, S. (2018). Long-term English learners across 15 WIDA states: A research brief (WIDA Research Brief No. RB-2018-1). https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/ WIDA-Brief-Long-Term-English-Learners%20.pdf Schissel, J. L., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2018). Reclassification of emergent bilinguals with disabilities: The intersectionality of improbabilities. Language Policy, 17(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9476-4 Shin, N. (2020). Stuck in the middle: Examination of long-term English learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(3), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1681614 Thompson, K. (2015). Questioning the long-term English learner label: How categorization can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511701203 Umansky, I. M., Thompson, K. D., & Díaz, G. (2017). Using an ever-English learner framework to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917707470 U.S. Departments of Justice & Education. (2015). Dear colleague letter. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf U.S. Office of English Language Acquisition. (2021). Profile of English learners in the United States. https://ncela.ed.gov WIDA. (2023). ACCESS for ELLs interpretive guide for score reports grades K–12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Interpretive-Guide.pdf Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education. http://onlineresources.wnylc.net/pb/orcdocs/LARC_Resources/LEPTopics/ED/ DescriptiveStudyofServicestoLEPStudentsandLEPStudentswithDisabilities.pdf

PROMOTING EQUITABLE RECLASSIFICATION OF ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES

Made with FlippingBook

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==