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,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==