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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==