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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==