Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL Shannon Wells Ph.D. 1

Guidelines for Reclassification Assessment of language proficiency on CELDT Teacher evaluation Parent opinion and consultation Performance on a statewide assessment of basic skills in English 2

Reclassification Criteria Language Proficiency Early advanced or higher overall No lower than intermediate on each domain – Listening – Speaking – Reading – Writing Performance on Basic Skills Objective test of basic skills Such as CST/CMA basic or higher – Page 18 specifies “Statewide Assessment” 3

Reclassification of ELs with Severe Cognitive Disabilities Same opportunities to RFEP as those without disabilities IEP team may determine appropriate measure of English language proficiency and performance in basic skills – EC sections and 56345[b] When assessed with alternate, receive LOWEST OBTAINABLE SCORE (LOS) 4

Possible Alternate Assessments 5

There is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative criteria” to classify a student as EL even upon entry if it is deemed that the student is an English learner based on the home language survey. The IEP team may determine if the student needs an alternative assessment to CELDT and what that alternative will be (this must be an IEP team decision). 5 CCR §

Research Questions 1.What are RFEP rates overall and by disability? 2.Are there any differences in RFEP rates by disability? 3.How do RFEP rates for students with disabilities compare to students who do not have a disability? 4.What are the differences in CELDT performance level and domain by disability? 5.Which domains do students with disabilities typically struggle with the most? 7

Research Questions cont. 6.Are there any differences in performance by domain and disability? 7.How do students with disabilities compare to students who do not have a disability, in each CELDT domain? 8.What does CELDT movement (overall and by domain) look like for students with disabilities in comparison to students who do not have a disability? 9.How do students with disabilities who have not reclassified during the seven year study period perform on the CELDT in relation to the CST ELA? 8

WHAT ARE RFEP RATES OVERALL AND BY DISABILITY? Research Question #1 9

10 Frequency of Disability Codes in Sample DisabilityCodeCountPercentCumulative Percent Mental Retardation Hard of Hearing Deafness Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairment Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Deaf-Blindness Multiple Disabilities Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Total The most common disability designation in the sample was specific learning disability, followed by speech or language impairment.

Specific Learning Disability Disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. – perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. 11

12 RFEP Rates by Disability Code DisabilityCodeCountRFEPRFEP Rate (%) Mental Retardation Hard of Hearing Deafness Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairment Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Deaf-blindness Multiple Disabilities Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Total Disabled students with speech or language impairment had the highest reclassification rate (46.2%) during the study period, followed by students with orthopedic impairments (42.3%).

ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES IN RFEP RATES BY DISABILITY? Research Question #2 13

14 n = 4* n= 52 n = 4* n = 1* n = 1595 n = 71 n = 26* n= 21* n = 7* n = 489 n= 3 * n = 37 n = 90 Students with orthopedic impairments and speech or language impairments were more likely to reclassify within the study period than students with a specific learning disability. * Caution should be taken when interpreting results of groups with less than 30 students.

HOW DO RFEP RATES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES COMPARE TO STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY? Research Question #3 15

16 The reclassification rate for students with disabilities within the study period was much lower (20%) than for students with no disabilities (55%). On average, students with disabilities took 6.7 years to reclassify relative to 5.98 years for students with no disabilities. Table 4: RFEP Summary by Student Status Student StatusHas DisabilityNo Disability Just Speech/Language and Ortho Count RFEP RFEP Rate Typical Years to RFEP Mean Std Dev Min31 3 Max77 7 Median76 6

17 N = 1 As can be seen in the graph, few students with disabilities were able to reclassify in three or four years, while more than a quarter of students with no disabilities were able to do so.

4. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN CELDT PERFORMANCE LEVEL AND DOMAIN BY DISABILITY? 5. WHICH DOMAINS DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES TYPICALLY STRUGGLE WITH THE MOST? 6. ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE BY DOMAIN AND DISABILITY? Research Question # * Caution should be taken when interpreting results of groups with less than 30 students.

19 Students with visual impairments performed well on the listening portion of the CELDT. Students with traumatic brain injuries and autism tended to not perform as well in this domain.

20

HOW DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES COMPARE TO STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY, IN EACH CELDT DOMAIN? Research Question #7 21

22 N No Sped = Sped = Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT overall. This is the trend for all domains, though with slight variations in some areas.

23 N No Sped = Sped = Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Listening portion of the assessment, though presence in the top two categories is greater in this domain relative to overall performance.

24 N No Sped = Sped = Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Speaking portion of the assessment, though a larger proportion scored in the top two performance levels, relative to the overall and listening portions.

25 N No Sped = Sped = Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Reading, and this tended to be the most challenging portion of the assessment for them.

26 N No Sped = Sped = Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Writing, and this domain also appeared to be a challenge.

WHAT DOES CELDT MOVEMENT (OVERALL AND BY DOMAIN) LOOK LIKE FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN COMPARISON TO STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY? Research Question #8 27

28 PL Overall F-G 2007 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 560 Total Total % PL Overall G-H 2008 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 550 Total Total % PL Overall H-I 2009 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 670 Total Total % PL Overall I-J 2010 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 650 Total Total % Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities on the CELDT Overall.

29 PL Listening F-G 2007 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 200 Total Total % PL Listening G-H 2008 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % PL Listening H-I 2009 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % PL Listening I-J 2010 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Listening domain.

30 PL Speaking F-G 2007 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % PL Speaking G-H 2008 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % PL Speaking H-I 2009 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % PL Speaking I-J 2010 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB 0524 EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Speaking domain.

31 PL Reading F-G 2007 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA 773 A 210 Total Total % PL Reading G-H 2008 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA 8114 A 110 Total Total % PL Reading H-I 2009 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 240 Total Total % PL Reading I-J 2010 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 7220 Total Total % Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Reading domain. The gap between groups seems to widen further with this domain in particular.

32 PL Writing F-G 2007 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA 664 A 120 Total Total % PL Writing G-H 2008 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 340 Total Total % PL Writing H-I 2009 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 1370 Total Total % PL Writing I-J 2010 Negative Movement No Movement Positive MovementTotal No DisabilityB EI I EA A Total Total % DisabilityB EI I EA A 1120 Total Total % Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Writing domain. In 2007 and 2008, students with disabilities tended to demonstrate less negative movement, but this may be due to floor effects.

HOW DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO HAVE NOT RECLASSIFIED DURING THE SEVEN YEAR STUDY PERIOD PERFORM ON THE CELDT IN RELATION TO THE CST ELA? Research Question #9 33

34 CSTPLELA2007 FBBBBBPATotal PLOVerallFB EI I EA A % of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2007 scored Basic or Below on the CST ELA that year.

35 CSTPLELA2008 FBBBBBPATotal PLOVerallGB EI I EA A % of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced or Advanced on the CELDT in 2008 scored Basic or Below on the CST ELA that year.

36 CSTPLELA2009 FBBBBBPATotal PLOVerallHB EI I EA A % of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2009 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year. 43% of students with disabilities who scored Advanced on the CELDT in 2009 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

37 CSTPLELA2010 FBBBBBPATotal PLOVerallIB EI I EA A % of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2010 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year. 63% of students with disabilities who scored Advanced on the CELDT in 2010 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

38 CSTPLELA2011 FBBBBBPATotal PLOVerallJB EI I EA A % of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2011 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year. 56% of students with disabilities who scored Advanced on the CELDT in 2011 scored Basic or below on the CST that year.

Summary of Findings Among students with disabilities the RFEP rate was the highest for the students with speech or language impairments (46.2%) followed closely by students with orthopedic impairment (42.3%). When looking at the percent of students who reclassify within 7 years it was found that students with orthopedic impairments (42.3%) and speech or language impairments (46.2%) were more likely to reclassify than students with a specific learning disability (12.7%). If you compare RFEP rates for students with disabilities with students who do not have a disability it was found that the reclassification rate for students with disabilities was much lower (20%) than for student with no disabilities (55%). On average, students with disabilities took 6.7 years to reclassify relative to 5.98 years for students with no disabilities. For overall CELDT scores it was found that students with visual impairments and orthopedic impairments tended to earn the highest performance. Across all domains, students with visual impairment tended to earn the highest performance. The Reading and Writing domains tended to be the most difficult domains for all students with disabilities. 39

Summary of Findings cont. When comparing students with disabilities to those without it was found that students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have a disability, on the CEDLT overall as well as within each domain. It was found that the Reading domain was the most difficult for students with disabilities. When comparing students with disabilities CELDT movement to those students without disabilities, it was found that students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to- year relative to students without disabilities. This trend was seen throughout the domains, but the gap between the groups seemed to widen within the Reading domain. When looking at students with disabilities CST ELA and CELDT scores it was found that in 2011 students who scored Early Advanced (51%) or Advanced (56%) on CELDT scored Basic or below on the CST ELA. 40

41

Questions? 42