Please check, just in case…

Quick questions or quandaries?

English Language Learners (ELLs) and Special Education and ELL Services: Rules, Regulations, Problems, and Pitfalls.

Topics: Federal requirements for identification of ELLs and provision of ELL services. Disproportionate representation of ELLs Problematic points in the process of: identification of ELLs, diagnosis of disabilities for ELLs, and determination of appropriate services. Proactive steps to mitigate the disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education and assure educational equity.

Federal Laws Implicated Federal Requirements Federal laws governing education for ELLs and students with disabilities: Process Federal Laws Implicated Identification of ELLs Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Diagnosis of disabilities Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Determination of appropriate services EEOA NCLB IDEA

Identification of ELLs - ESSA School districts must proactively identify ELLs: Must identify potential ELLs by seeking out students with a primary or home language other than English (PHLOTE) Most districts use a Home Language Survey at time of enrollment Must assess the English language proficiency within 30 days of enrollment and annually thereafter: Must measure speaking, listening, reading, and writing Must use a valid and reliable instrument, aligned with state’s English language proficiency standards

Diagnosis of Disabilities for ELLs IDEA imposes a "Child Find" obligation: District Obligation: Districts must have procedures to seek out and identify students with disabilities School Level Obligation: Schools must assess when there is reason to suspect a child has a disability and may need special education services

Diagnosis of Disabilities for ELLS School Liability for Shirking “Child Find” Obligation under IDEA: school staff overlooked clear signs of disability no rational justification for not evaluating resulted in a substantive harm to the child

Diagnosis of Disabilities for ELLs IDEA also regulates the assessment of students for eligibility for special education Assessments must be: Selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis, Provided and administered in the child’s native language unless clearly not feasible to administer, and Valid for the purposes with which they are used.

Determining Services IDEA mandates: Limited English proficiency may not be the determinant factor for special education Parent must have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process of developing an IEP Language assistance: interpreters at meetings, document translation Parental requests must be seriously considered IEP team should include professionals with expertise in second language acquisition Services must be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Determining Services EEOA mandates: Schools must provide sound and effective language assistance services to ELLs Must be reasonably calculated to enable ELLs to attain both English proficiency and parity of participation in the standard instructional program within a reasonable period of time Teachers must be qualified to provide language assistance services ELLs must receive language services in the “least segregative manner”

Determining Services OCR Warns against Routine Waivers of ELL services Schools may not recommend that parents decline ELL services for any reason Parental decision to opt out of an ELL program must be knowing and voluntary Must monitor at least annually progress of students who have opted out of ELL programs, inform parents if lack of progress

Disproportionate Representation of ELLs Context matters! Grade level (Samson & Lesaux, 2009) Access to inclusive settings (de Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi, & Park, 2006; Sullivan, 2011) Access to different types of ELL services (Romero, 2014): Impacted rates of disproportionate representation (Finn, 1982) Impacted educational setting/placement (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higaredo, 2005) Under-represented K-1, over-represented by grade 3

Problematic Points: Identification of students as ELLs** Disability diagnosis for ELLs Determination of services** **These need much more attention!

Disproportionate representation of ELLs receiving special education services Four possibilities: Not ELL No disability Yes ELL No disability Not ELL Yes disability Yes ELL Yes disability

Problems in ELL ID process: Where is the problem occurring? Problems in ELL ID process: PHLOTE students not referred for language proficiency testing (under- representation) Inaccurate language proficiency test results (over-representation): Influence of disability Inappropriate instrument or assessment process

Relevant Research Disproportionate identification of students with disabilities as ELLs: de Valenzuela, Copeland, & Mayette (2010): Fewer students with ID (31%) were administered a language proficiency assessment than students with other disabilities (42%) (under- representation) More students with ID (92%) were identified as ELLs than students with other disabilities (66%) (over-representation) Result: Representation of ELLs in special education may not appear to be disproportionate, especially for disabilities with related language impairment and/or students with severe disabilities

Where is the problem occurring? Problems in special education ID process: ELLs not referred for special education evaluation* (under representation) ELLs students inaccurately identified as having a disability* (over representation) * Samson & Lesaux, 2009

Relevant Research Romero (2014): PHLOTE students not disproportionately represented in special education. ELLs were over-represented in special education in general. ELLs were much more likely to be identified with learning disability (55%) than non-ELLs (34%).

Access to Alternative Language Services (ALS) Romero (2014): ELLs with disabilities had significantly less access to ESL and Bilingual Education programs than their peers without disabilities. 86% of ELLs with disabilities received ESL vs. 97% of ELLs without disabilities 9% ELLs with disabilities were in Bilingual Education programs, in contrast to 31% of typically developing ELL peers. Only students with OHI, LD, and SLI had access to Bilingual Education programs. Romero (2014) found that English language learners (ELLs) receiving special education services within one school district in the Southwestern US were significantly less likely to receive federally mandated language development services than their ELL peers who were not identified with disabilities. Additionally, while ELLs with disabilities had less access to both ESL and bilingual education programs than their peers without disabilities, this disparity was greatest for bilingual education programs; Romero found that less than 9% of ELLs with disabilities were placed in bilingual education classes while more than 30% of language-minority students without disabilities received bilingual education.

Access to Alternative Language Services (ALS) de Valenzuela et al (2014): ELLs with disabilities are “waived” from ELL services. Special Education perceived as more important than ELL services. de Valenzuela, Correa, & Copeland (2015): ELLs with severe disabilities had inconsistent access to services, supports, and instruction in the home language. Parents value learning both English and Spanish, even for children with severe disabilities for multiple reasons, including communication with family and preservation of cultural heritage and identity. Romero (2014) found that English language learners (ELLs) receiving special education services within one school district in the Southwestern US were significantly less likely to receive federally mandated language development services than their ELL peers who were not identified with disabilities. Additionally, while ELLs with disabilities had less access to both ESL and bilingual education programs than their peers without disabilities, this disparity was greatest for bilingual education programs; Romero found that less than 9% of ELLs with disabilities were placed in bilingual education classes while more than 30% of language-minority students without disabilities received bilingual education.

Best Practices: Identification of students as ELLs: Assess language proficiency of all students with a home language other than English. If assessments are inappropriate, supplement with alternative techniques. Disability diagnosis for ELLs: Conduct diagnostic assessments in both languages. Consider combined language profile. Encourage use of performance assessments by general educators (de Valenzuela, 1998).

Best Practices: Determination of services: Involve ESL/Bilingual staff in team meetings. Do not assume special education services are more important than ELL services. Do not encourage waiver of ELL services. Encourage general education placements. Consider pushing in services to bilingual or ESL classrooms, rather than pulling out.

Quick Write: Based on what you read in the two articles, what might be some questions you could ask to figure out how members of a community see and identify diverse abilities within their community. For example, what does it mean to “be gifted” in their community? How do they know when a child has a disability? What does it mean to have a disability in their community?

Small Group Activity Get into your final project groups . Each member will share their understandings of Romero (1994) AND Bevan-Brown (1999). Take 3 minutes per person to share, without interruptions, questions, or comments from other group members, and take 30 seconds for silent reflection in between. Then, share your ideas about possible interview questions (think about your quick write responses).

Please take a minute for the minute paper. And don’t forget to turn your phone back on.