with ELLs Disabilities Report 3
Graduation Exam Participation and Performance (2000-2001) of English Language Learners with Disabilities
NATIONAL CENTER ON E D U C AT I O N A L OUTCOMES In collaboration with:
Council of Chief State School Ofcers (CCSSO) National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)
ELLs with Disabilities Report 3
Graduation Exam Participation and Performance (2000-2001) of English Language Learners with Disabilities
Kristi Liu Martha Thurlow Manuel Barrera Kamil Guven Vitaliy Shyyan
June 2005
All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as: Liu, K., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (2000-2001) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
NATIONAL CENTER ON E D U C AT I O N A L OUTCOMES This project is supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Ofce of Special Education Programs (Grant #H324D010023). Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Ofces within it.
NCEO Core Staff Deb A. Albus Ann T. Clapper Christopher J. Johnstone Jane L. Krentz Sheryl S. Lazarus Kristi K. Liu Jane E. Minnema Ross E. Moen Michael L. Moore Rachel F. Quenemoen Dorene L. Scott Sandra J. Thompson Martha L. Thurlow, Director
National Center on Educational Outcomes University of Minnesota 350 Elliott Hall 75 East River Road Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone [phone] Fax [phone] http://education.umn.edu/NCEO
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This document is available in alternative formats upon request.
Overview
The main tenet of the standards movement, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education, is that Schools, districts and state departments of education, along with students and families, are responsible for developing high levels of knowledge and skills in all students (NASBE, 2002, p. 7). In the past, some groups of students have been left out of educational reform movements because of barriers to high achievement. These might include a perception that English language learners (ELLs)1 and students with disabilities were not capable of challenging academic content, for example, and inequitable funding in urban schools with high concentrations of minority and low-income students (NASBE, 2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) made it clear that states, districts, and schools are to hold high expectations for all students and work to improve outcomes for low performing groups. A central part of these mandated improvement efforts is using data to identify groups of students who are achieving poorly on statewide tests and nd ways to improve instruction for the students so that they might achieve at higher rates in the future. NCLB requires that accountability data be disaggregated and reported for some specic subgroups of students. According to Thurlow and Liu (2001), one group for which NCLB does not clearly mandate the public reporting of assessment data is students who are limited English procient and also have disabilities. Students who are not tested, and students who are tested but whose data are not publicly reported, tend to remain invisible inside our educational system (Thurlow & Liu, 2001). Therefore, it is important for students with limited English prociency and disabilities, a rapidly growing group2, to be represented in discussions of standards-based assessment results. At the present time, fewer than 10 states report large-scale assessment participation or performance data on students with limited English prociency and disabilities (Albus, Thurlow, Minnema & Anderson, 2004). This report is part of a series aimed at providing an in depth look at one states data on the participation and performance of students with limited English prociency and disabilities in assessments mandated by NCLB. A previous report (Liu, Barrera, Thurlow & Shyyan, 2005) examined data from the 19992000 administration of a state graduation test. This report adds to those data with results from the 20002001 administration of the graduation test.
1 Students with limited English prociency are increasingly referred to as English language learners or ELLs. We recognize that a number of terms are used in the eld related to learners of English as a new or second language. We have adopted some of those terms for reference, but have chosen to use language and acronyms compliant with person rst protocol and to minimize lengthy terms where possible. In this document we use the term students with limited English prociency. 2 Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick and Stephenson (2003) have documented that English language learners with disabilities represent approximately 9% of all ELLs in public schools. Because the total number of ELLs is growing rapidly, it is logical to assume that the number of ELLs with disabilities is also growing.
NCEO
1
Background
In Minnesota, Basic Standards Tests (BSTs) are assessments that students must pass to receive a high school diploma. Assessments for the diploma are administered in reading and mathematics for the rst time in 8th grade and in writing for the rst time in grade 10. In each content area, students must achieve a scale score of 600 or higher by the 12th grade in order to receive a diploma. Tests may be re-taken several times if the students do not meet the passing scale score. In addition to their use as graduation requirement assessments, BSTs are also used as school accountability measures. Thus, the grade 8 reading and mathematics scores and the grade 10 writing scores were school accountability measures. During the 20002001 school year, additional components of the Basic Standards Tests at other grades were in the process of being implemented. This report examines only the participation and performance of students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) on the reading and mathematics components of the BST during their rst attempt on the grade 8 administration. The 20002001 technical manual for the Basic Standards Tests (Minnesota Department of Education [MDE], 2001) states that in that year exemptions from testing were allowed for some students with limited English prociency (SLEP). Students with limited English prociency must participate in the accountability testing unless they have been in the United States fewer than 12 months. Only these very few LEP students may be exempted from testing (Appendix C, p. 3). Also, during the time period represented in this report, students with disabilities could be exempted from the tests if the goals and objectives of their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) did not match the content of the state tests. The data in this report come from the year in which NCLB legislation was passed, but had not yet taken effect. Requirements for alternate assessments for students with severe disabilities and for at least 95% participation of students in a subgroup to be tested for accountability purposes had not yet been implemented. Accommodations and Modications Students who participated in the BSTs in 20002001 were allowed some accommodations and modications. The Minnesota Department of Education denes accommodations as minor changes that do not change the validity, reliability, or security of the test (MDE 2001, p. 5). Modications are changes in the standard, the test, or the testing circumstances that alter the level of difculty of what is being assessed (MDE, 2001, p. 6). Accommodations are permitted on the reading and mathematics portions of the test in 8th grade, when the test is used for accountability purposes, and on the writing portion in 10th grade. Modications are only allowed
2 NCEO
for students with disabilities in later retests. When they are used, they result in a student receiving a pass individual notation. The data les used for this report did not contain information about whether students received an accommodation or a modication. Therefore, the report does not address this topic. Data in the report represent numbers of students passing the reading or mathematics tests at the state level, meaning the state test is taken without modications.
Method
The Minnesota Department of Education collected the data compiled for this report. After preparing the data les and discarding unusable data, the researchers ran descriptive statistical analyses using the SPSS Information Analysis System. Numbers showing total student enrollment were based on fall counts and may differ from counts of students enrolled on the day of testing several months later. Following the presentation of the results of our analyses of participation and performance data for 20002001, we compare the 20002001 results to the data from 19992000.
Data
Participation in 20002001 As indicated in Table 1, in 20002001 eighth grade participation of subgroups taking the reading and mathematics BSTs ranged from 88% to 97%. At the time, these rates were considered to be relatively high. The 95% participation requirement for accountability for all subgroups that was implemented under NCLB in 2001 had not yet taken effect. Students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) had the lowest participation rates with 88% in both reading and mathematics. Students with limited English prociency (SLEP) and students with disabilities (SD) had slightly higher percentages of participation (90%91%). The total group of 8th grade students had the highest percent participating with 97%. This was nearly 10% higher than that of students with limited English prociency and disabilities. For each group, the percentage of students participating in reading versus mathematics was similar.
Participation of Students by Disability Category Table 2 shows the participation of students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) and all students with disabilities (SD) according to the students primary disability category. When looking at these data, readers are cautioned to keep in mind that some disability categories were quite small in size. Also, there were no students with limited English prociency and deaf-blindness in this particular year. In both the total group of students with disabilities and the students with limited English proNCEO 3
Table 1: Eighth Grade Participation for the 20002001 BST Reading and Mathematics Tests Reading 20002001 Enrolled Tested SLEPD SLEP SD ALL 302 2,586 8,500 66,513 Number 267 2,350 7,706 64,391 Percent 88% 91% 91% 97% Mathematics 20002001 Enrolled Tested 302 2,586 8,500 66,513 Number 265 2,360 7,667 64,213 Percent 88% 91% 90% 97%
Key: SLEPD = students with limited English prociency and disabilities; SLEP = students with limited English prociency without disabilities; SD = students with disabilities without limited English prociency; ALL = all 8th grade students
ciency and disabilities there was a great deal of variation in participation rates across disability categories. Participation in individual categories ranged from 0% to 100%. For both groups, students with speech/language impairments had the highest participation rates in reading (96% of SLEPD and 97% of all SD) and mathematics (93% of SLEPD and 96% of all SD). Students with specic learning disabilities also had comparatively high participation rates in both reading (94% of SLEPD and 96% of SD) and mathematics (93% of SLEPD and 96% of SD). Students with autism (65%67% of SD and 0% of SLEPD), students with Mild-to-Moderate Mental Impairments (67%69% of SD and 50%57% of SLEPD) and students with Moderate-to-Severe Mental Impairments (11%17% of SD and 20% of SLEPD) had the lowest participation rates. For the most part, the total group of students with disabilities in any given disability category tended to participate at somewhat higher rates than students with limited English prociency and disabilities in the same category. Anywhere from 1% to 10% higher participation rates for the total group of students within a particular disability category was typical. There were two exceptions, however. For students with moderate-severe mental impairments and students who were deaf or hard of hearing, greater percentages of limited English procient students with disabilities took the test than did the total population of students with disabilities in that same category. Figure 1 shows the information from the top half of the table in reverse; the percent of the students with limited English prociency and disabilities, by disability category, who did not participate in the 20002001 BSTs for Reading and Mathematics. The graphic highlights the fact that those students with limited English prociency and mild-moderate or moderate-severe mental impairments were the least likely to participate in the statewide test of basic skills. The same was true for students with autism in this particular year, but the data represent only one student.
Key: SLI= Speech Language Impairment; MMM = Mild-to-Moderate Mental Impairment; MSM= Moderate-to-Severe
4
NCEO
Table 2: Participation of all 8th Grade Students with Disabilities and Students with Limited English Prociency and Disabilities in the 20002001 BSTs for Reading and Mathematics READING Disability Group Speech/Language Impaired Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe Physically Impaired Deaf-Hard of Hearing Visually Impaired Specic Learning Disabilities Emotional/Behavioral Disorders Deaf-Blindness Other Health Impaired Autistic Traumatic Brain Injury Speech/Language Impaired Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe Physically Impaired Deaf-Hard of Hearing Visually Impaired Specic Learning Disabilities Emotional/Behavioral Disorders Deaf-Blindness Other Health Impaired Autistic Traumatic Brain Injury Enrolled 28 14 5 3 23 5 192 22 0 8 1 1 550 587 168 102 146 24 4,314 1,958 1 784 142 26 Tested Number Percent 27 96% 7 1 2 19 4 180 19 0 7 0 1 531 403 17 78 136 21 4,126 1,805 0 740 95 21 50% 20% 67% 83% 80% 94% 86% 0% 88% 0% 100% 97% 69% 10% 77% 93% 88% 96% 92% 0% 94% 67% 81% MATHEMATICS Enrolled 28 14 5 3 23 5 192 22 0 8 1 1 550 587 168 102 146 24 4,314 1,958 1 784 142 26 Tested Number Percent 26 93% 8 1 2 19 4 178 19 0 7 0 1 530 392 19 77 138 20 4,117 1,791 0 734 93 21 57% 20% 67% 83% 80% 93% 86% 0% 88% 0% 100% 96% 67% 11% 75% 95% 83% 96% 91% 0% 94% 65% 81%
SLEPD
ALL
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; ALL SD = All students with disabilities including SLEPD
NCEO
5
Figure 1. Percent of 8th Grade Students with Limited English Prociency and Disabilities Not Participating in the 2000-2001 BSTs for Reading and Mathematics
100
80
60 Reading Math 40
20
0
H I H EB D T A U I D H SL M M M O TB I SM SL D B PI VI M D
Mental Impairment; PI= Physical Impairment; DHH = Deaf/Hard of Hearing; VI= Visual Impairment; SLD= Specic Learning Disability; EBD=Emotional/Behavioral Disorder; DB= Deaf-Blind; OHI= Other Health Impairment; AUT= Autistic; TBI=Traumatic Brain Injury
Participation of Students By Language Group Table 3 presents participation data as a function of home language. Students from the states largest three home language groups are shown. The 20002001 participation rates for a particular language group tended to be similar regardless of whether the total language group was examined or just those students with limited English prociency and disabilities. In both cases, Hmong students had the highest participation rates, followed by those students from Spanish speaking backgrounds. Somali students had the lowest participation rates of the three groups. Participation rates for reading versus mathematics tended to be similar for most groups. Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities had the largest difference in the percentage of students participating in reading (71%) versus mathematics (86%). However, this large difference in percentage was the result of a small number of students. Performance in 20002001 In this section we examine student performance based on the percentage passing at the statedetermined passing rate. Table 4 illustrates that, of the four groups examined, students with limited English prociency and disabilities were the least likely to pass either the reading or the mathematics tests (10% and 12%, respectively).
6
NCEO
Table 3: Percent of Language Minority Students Participating in 20002001 BSTs for Reading and Mathematics Reading Tested Number Percent 124 91% 88 86% 6 86% 1,491 96% 875 86% 213 80% Mathematics Enrolled Tested Number Percent 137 123 90% 102 87 85% 7 5 71% 1,548 1,479 96% 1,014 891 88% 268 206 77%
Language Group SLEPD Hmong Spanish Somali Hmong Spanish Somali
Enrolled 137 102 7 1,548 1,014 268
ALL
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; ALL = 8th grade students who are Hmong, Spanish or Somali speaking regardless of prociency level
For any one group, the percentage of students passing reading typically varied little from the percentage passing mathematics, approximately 1%7% difference between the two content areas. There was no consistent directionality to the difference.
Table 4. Percent of 8th Graders Passing the 20002001 BSTs for Reading and Mathematics Reading Passed Percent Passing 27 10% 811 35% 2,935 38% 50,747 79% Mathematics Passed Percent Passing 265 32 12% 2,360 838 36% 7,667 2,395 31% 64,213 46,205 72%
Tested SLEPD SLEP SD ALL 267 2,350 7,706 64,391
Tested
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English prociency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English prociency; ALL = All 8th grade students
Performance of Students by Disability Category Table 5 provides more detailed data about which students with disabilities were more likely to pass the reading and mathematics tests at the state level on their rst attempt in 8th grade. The reader should be aware that the small numbers of students with limited English prociency and disabilities who were tested in certain disability categories did not allow performance data to be disaggregated for those categories (e.g., moderate-severe mental impairments, physical impairments).
NCEO
7
Table 5. Percent of All Students with Disabilities and Students Who Are Limited English Procient with Disabilities Passing the 20002001 BSTs for Reading and Mathematics Disability Group Tested Speech/Language Impaired Mentally Impaired: MildModerate Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe Physically Impaired Deaf-Hard of Hearing Visually Impaired Specic Learning Disabilities Emotional/Behavioral Disorders Deaf-Blindness Other Health Impaired Autistic Traumatic Brain Injury Speech/Language Impaired Mentally Impaired: MildModerate Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe Physically Impaired Deaf-Hard of Hearing Visually Impaired Specic Learning Disabilities Emotional/Behavioral Disorders Deaf-Blindness Other Health Impaired Autistic Traumatic Brain Injury 27 7 1 2 19 4 180 19 0 7 0 1 531 403 17 78 136 21 4,126 1,805 0 740 95 21 Reading Number Percent Passed Passed 5 19% * * * 3 * 15 2 0 * 0 * 276 10 0 41 54 11 1,347 799 0 339 51 7 * * * 16% * 8% 11% 0 * 0 * 52% 2% 0% 53% 40% 52% 33% 44% 0% 46% 54% 33% Mathematics Number Percent Passed Passed 26 9 35% 8 1 2 19 4 178 19 0 7 0 1 531 403 17 78 136 21 4,126 1,805 0 740 95 21 * * * 1 * 14 2 0 * 0 * 267 2 1 32 48 15 1,155 582 0 239 48 6 * * * 5% * 8% 11% 0 * 0 * 50% <1% 6% 41% 35% 71% 28% 32% 0% 32% 51% 29%
Tested
SLEPD
All SD
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; ALL SD = Students with disabilities including SLEPD; * = Data not disaggregated because fewer than 10 students tested in this category
One characteristic that stands out from the performance data is the amount of variation in the percentage of students from particular disability groups who passed either the reading or mathematics tests. For students with limited English prociency and disabilities, 0%19% passed reading and 0%35% passed mathematics. For the total population of students with disabilities,
8 NCEO
the variation is even greater. The percentage of these students passing ranged from 0%54% in reading and 0%71% in mathematics. The percentages of students with limited English prociency and disabilities who passed either the reading or mathematics test was often quite a bit smaller than the percentage passing from the total group of students with disabilities. The data were sufcient to document the gap in four disability categories. Students with limited English prociency and speech language impairments, specic learning disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, and those who were deaf and hard of hearing all had a 15%33% lower percentage passing reading or mathematics than their non-limited English procient peers in the same disability category. There were some consistent patterns of performance that were evident across the general population of students with disabilities and those with limited English prociency and disabilities. Students with speech-language impairments were among the highest achievers in both the total population of students with disabilities (52% passed reading and 50% passed mathematics) and for students with limited English prociency and disabilities (19% passed reading and 35% passed mathematics). Of the few groups that had disaggregated data, students with limited English prociency and learning disabilities had the smallest percentage of students passing the test (8% for both reading and mathematics). Of particular note is that students with specic learning disabilities had relatively low percentages of students passing in both the total population of students with disabilities (33% passed reading and 28% passed mathematics) and those with limited English prociency and disabilities (8% passed reading and mathematics). There were differences between the percentage of students passing reading and mathematics, but the direction of the difference was not always the same. For students with limited English prociency and disabilities, most of the groups with disaggregated data had the same or slightly smaller percentage of students passing reading than mathematics. This pattern was similar to what was observed in the data for the total population of students with disabilities as well. The only exception was students with limited English prociency and speech language impairments. Sixteen percent more of these students passed the mathematics test than the reading test. In the total population of students with disabilities, those with moderate-severe mental impairments and those with visual impairments were more likely to pass mathematics than reading. Performance of Students by Language Group Next we examined the performance of students with limited English prociency and disabilities by language group. The data in Table 6 show that all Hmong students (ALL) and Hmong students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) were the most likely of the three language groups to pass the test (43% for reading and 46% for mathematics for All Hmong and 9% for reading and 16% for mathematics of Hmong students with limited English prociency and disabilities). The number of Somali students with limited English prociency
NCEO 9
and disabilities was too small to make any inferences about performance. For the Hmong-, Spanish-, and Somali-speaking students with limited English prociency and disabilities there was not a consistent directionality of better performance on reading versus mathematics. Hmong students were more likely to pass the mathematics than the reading test. In contrast, Spanish- and Somali-speaking students were more likely to pass reading than mathematics. This pattern was also evident in the total population of Hmong- and Spanish-speaking students. The number of Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) was fewer than 10 so their performance data are not provided here.
Table 6: 20002001 8th Grade BST Reading and Mathematics Performance of Students who are Language Minority and Students with Limited English Prociency and Disabilities Language Group SLEPD Hmong Spanish Somali Hmong Spanish Somali Reading Passed Percent Passed 11 9% 7 8% * * 637 43% 324 37% 41 19% Mathematics Tested Passed Percent Passed 123 20 16% 87 5 6% 5 * * 1,479 674 46% 891 251 28% 206 29 14%
Tested 124 88 6 1,491 875 213
All
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; ALL = 8th grade students who are Hmong-, Spanish-, or Somali-speaking regardless of prociency level; * = Data not disaggregated because fewer than 10 students tested
Comparison across Years 20002001 and 19992000 The gures that follow place the 19992000 data next to the 20002001 data for the purposes of descriptive comparison. Two years of data are not enough to establish any trends in performance. Still, this preliminary look at how students did over a two-year period can form the basis for further work on trends when sufcient data are available. Tables with more detailed data are presented in Appendix A. Participation Participation in the 19992000 and 20002001 Basic Standards Tests for students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) compared to the other three groups that we discuss here (SLEP, SD, and ALL) is shown in Figure 2. In both reading and mathematics, there was a noticeable decline in the percentage of students with limited English prociency and disabilities who participated in a content test from one year to the next. In contrast, for the other groups shown in the gure (SLEP, SD, and ALL) there were relatively small changes in the percent of
10 NCEO
Figure 2. Comparison of Percentage Tested Across Groups for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001
100 Percent of Students Passing 80 60 1999-2000 40 20 0 SLEPD SLEP Reading SD ALL SLEPD SLEP Math SD ALL 2000-2001
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English prociency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English prociency; ALL = All 8th grade students
students participating in a content test from one year to the next. Overall participation rates for reading versus mathematics were similar across years.
Participation of Students by Disability Category The 19992000 and 20002001 reading test participation rates by disability category are shown in Figure 3. Participation varied across groups and years. Students with limited English prociency and speech language impairments, specic learning disabilities, and traumatic brain injuries had consistent reading test participation rates across the two years. Students with limited English prociency who had mild-moderate mental impairments, those who were deaf and hard of hearing, and those who were visually impaired had lower participation rates in 20002001 than in 19992000. Students with limited English prociency and moderate to severe mental impairments, physical impairments, and other health impairments had higher participation rates in 20002001 than in 19992000. Some of this variability, particularly for the categories of moderate-severe mentally impaired, physically impaired, visually impaired, other health impaired, and traumatic brain injury, is due to small numbers of students in the groups. Students with limited English prociency and autism are not included in the gure because there were none tested in either year.
NCEO
11
Figure 3. Comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Reading Test Participation Rates for Students with Limited English Prociency and Disabilities
100 Percent of Students Participating
80
60 19992000 40 20002001
20
0 SLI MMM MSM PI DHH VI SLD EBD DB OHI TBI Disability Categories
Key: SLI= Speech Language Impairment; MMM = Mild-to-Moderate Mental Impairment; MSM= Moderate-to-Severe Mental Impairment; PI= Physical Impairment; DHH = Deaf/Hard of Hearing; VI= Visual Impairment; SLD= Specic Learning Disability; EBD=Emotional/Behavioral Disorder; DB= Deaf-Blind; OHI= Other Health Impairment; TBI=Traumatic Brain Injury
Figure 4 shows the percentage of students in the various disability categories who participated in the 19992000 and 20002001 mathematics tests. As with reading, there was a great deal of variability in participation rates across the two years and no clear directionality by content area that held true for all groups. As with reading, the most consistent mathematics participation rates across years can be seen for students with limited English prociency and learning disabilities as well students with limited English prociency and traumatic brain injuries. Decreases in the percentages of students participating can be seen for students with limited English prociency and speech language impairments, mild-moderate mental impairments, those who were deaf and hard of hearing, those with visual impairments and those with emotional-behavioral disabilities. Increases in the percentage of students participating were observed for students with limited English prociency and moderate-severe mental impairments, physical impairments, and other health impairments. Students with limited English prociency and autism are not included in the gure because there were none in 1999-2000 and the one autistic student in 2000-2001 was not tested.
Participation of Students by Language Group Figure 5 compares the 19992000 and 20002001 reading participation rates for students by language groups. All groups showed changes in participation rates across the two-year time period, but there was no consistent directionality to the change and the size of the difference varied by group. Four of the six groups shown (All Hmong, All Spanish, SLEPD Spanish, and SLEPD
12 NCEO
Figure 4. Comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Mathematics Test Participation for Students Limited with English Prociency and Disabilities
100
Percent of Students Participating
80 60 40 20 0
SLI MMM MSM PI DHH VI SLD EBD DB OHI TBI Disability Category
1999-2000 2000-2001
Key: SLI= Speech Language Impairment; MMM = Mild-to-Moderate Mental Impairment; MSM= Moderate-to-Severe Mental Impairment; PI= Physical Impairment; DHH = Deaf/Hard of Hearing; VI= Visual Impairment; SLD= Specic Learning Disability; EBD=Emotional/Behavioral Disorder; DB= Deaf-Blind; OHI= Other Health Impairment; TBI=Traumatic Brain Injury
Somali) showed decreases in the percentage of students taking the reading test in 20002001 than in 19992000. Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities showed the largest decrease in the percentage of students participating in the reading test across the twoyear period. Two groups (SLEPD Hmong and All Somali) showed increases in the percentage of students taking the reading test in 20002001 compared to 19992000.
Figure 5. Comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Reading Test Participation by Language Group and Disability Status
Percent of Students Participating 100 80 60 40 20 0 All SLEPD All SLEPD All SLEPD Hmong Hmong Spanish Spanish Somali Somali Language Group and Disability Status
19992000 20002001
Key: SLEPD= Students with limited English prociency and a disability; ALL = All Hmong-, Somali-, or Spanish-speaking students regardless of language prociency
NCEO
13
The same type of information is provided for mathematics tests in Figure 6. Most language groups, except the total population of Somali-speaking students, showed a decrease in the percentage of students participating in the 20002001 mathematics test. The change in the percentage of students passing the 19992000 versus the 20002001 mathematics test was relatively small for all groups except Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities.
Figure 6. Comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Mathematics Test Participation by Language Group and Disability Status
Percent of Students Participating 100 80 60 40 20 0 All SLEPD All SLEPD All SLEPD Hmong Hmong Spanish Spanish Somali Somali Language Group and Disability Status
19992000 20002001
Key: SLEPD= Students with limited English prociency and a disability; ALL = All Hmong-, Somali-, or Spanishspeaking students regardless of language prociency
Performance Figure 7 shows the percent of students passing the 19992000 and 20002001 BSTs by subgroup. Within a subgroup, the percentage of students passing the test from one year to the next was fairly similar for most groups in both reading and mathematics. Students with limited English prociency and disabilities showed the largest increase in the percentage of students passing reading and mathematics in 20002001. The increase in the percentage of these students passing mathematics was slightly larger than the increase in the percentage passing reading.
Performance by Disability Category Figure 8 shows 19992000 and 20002001 reading performance by disability category for students with limited English prociency and disabilities in those groups with enough data to disaggregate. For three of the four groups shown, there was a slightly larger percentage of students passing the reading test in 20002001 than in 19992000 (Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Specic Learning Difculty, and Emotional/Behavioral Disorder). The fourth group (Speech Language
14 NCEO
Figure 7. Comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Performance for Reading and Mathematics
100 80 60 40 20 0
SLEPDSLEP SD ALL SLEPD SLEP SD ALL
Percent Passing
1999-2000 2000-2001
Reading
Mathematics
Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English prociency and disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English prociency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English prociency; ALL = All 8th grade students
Impairment) showed similar percentages of students passing the reading test in both years. Among the groups that had disaggregated data, students with limited English prociency and learning disabilities were the least likely to pass the reading test in both of the years shown.
Figure 8. Students with Limited English Prociency and a Disability Passing the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Reading Test
100 80
Percent Passing
60 40 20 0 SLI DHH SLD EBD
1999-2000 2000-2001
Students by Disability Category
Key: SLI= Speech Language Impairment; DHH = Deaf/Hard of Hearing; SLD= Specic Learning Disability; EBD=Emotional/Behavioral Disorder
NCEO
15
Figure 9 shows similar data on the mathematics performance of students with limited English prociency and disabilities, by disability category, in 19992000 and 20002001. There were observable differences in the percentages of students passing within a disability category, but there was no clear directionality to the differences. Students with limited English prociency and speech language impairments, along with students with limited English prociency who were deaf and hard of hearing, passed the mathematics test in greater numbers in 20002001 than in 19992000. The increase in the percentage of students with speech language impairments who passed was striking. In contrast, a smaller percentage of students with limited English prociency and emotional/behavioral disorders passed the test in 20002001 than passed it in 19992000.
Figure 9. Students with Limited English Prociency and a Disability Passing the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Mathematics Test
100 80 60 1999-2000 40 20 0 2000-2001
Percent Passing
SLI
DHH
SLD
EBD
Students by Disability Category
Key: SLI= Speech Language Impairment; DHH = Deaf/Hard of Hearing; SLD= Specic Learning Disability; EBD=Emotional/Behavioral Disorder
Performance by Language Group Figure 10 shows the percentage of students passing the reading assessments in 19992000 and 20002001 by language group. In most of the groups shown, percentages of students in each of the three main language groups who passed the reading test, including those with limited English prociency and disabilities, varied little across the two years. The exception was Spanish-speaking students with limited English prociency and disabilities. A larger percentage of these students passed the reading test in 20002001 than in 19992000. Fewer than 10 Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities were tested and their performance data were not disaggregated.
16
NCEO
Figure 10. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Reading Performance for Students with Limited English Prociency by Language Group
100
80
Percent Passing
60
40
1999-2000
20
2000-2001
0
All Hmong SLEPD Hmong All Spanish SLEPD Spanish All Somali SLEPD Somali
Students by Language Group
Key: SLEPD= Students with limited English prociency and a disability; ALL = All Hmong-, Somali-, or Spanishspeaking students regardless of language prociency
Figure 11 contains performance data for the 19992000 and 20002001 mathematics test by language group. Four of the six groups shown had the same, or slightly higher, percentage of students participating in the mathematics test from one year to the next. The exception was Spanish-speaking students with limited English prociency and disabilities. This group of students showed a slight decrease in the percentage of students passing the mathematics test in 20002001 compared to 19992000.
Figure 11. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001Mathematics Test Performance for Students with Limited English Prociency and a Disability by Language Group
g 100 80 Percent Passing 60 19992000 40 20 0 All Hmong SLEPD Hmong All Spanish SLEPD Spanish All Somali SLEPD Somali 20002001 g p
Students by Language Group
Key: SLEPD= Students with limited English prociency and a disability; ALL = All Hmong-, Somali-, or Spanishspeaking students regardless of language prociency
NCEO
17
For most groups, the difference in the percent of students passing in 19992000 versus 2000 2001 was small. The one exception was Hmong students with limited English prociency and disabilities. Roughly 10% more of these students passed the mathematics test in 20002001 than in 19992000.
Summary of Findings The data on the participation and performance of students with limited English prociency and disabilities that are presented in this report are important because they are among some of the rst that have been publicly reported and analyzed. Despite their importance, they still must be viewed with some caution, particularly when considering data by disability category, because of the limited number of students.
Participation in 20002001 In 20002001, students with limited English prociency and disabilities (SLEPD) had the lowest participation rates of all the groups discussed (SLEP, SD, and All 8th graders) in this report for both reading and mathematics. Participation rates for this group were slightly under 90%, but the rates were 9% lower than the participation rates for the total group of 8th grade students. Within disability categories, students with limited English prociency and disabilities tended to participate at lower rates than their peers in the total group of students with disabilities in that same disability category. Participation rates by disability category varied and were impacted by small numbers of students with limited English prociency and disabilities. Typically, students with speech/language disabilities and learning disabilities had the highest participation rates for students with limited English prociency and disabilities. Students with autism, mild-moderate mental impairments, and moderate-severe mental impairments had the lowest participation rates. In a few categories, participation rates were different in reading versus mathematics. However, in most cases the participation rates for students in a particular disability category were the same for both subjects. There was no consistent pattern of participation across all language groups and content tests. Hmong students with limited English prociency and disabilities tended to have the highest participation rates of the three language groups examined. They were followed by Spanishspeaking students and, nally, by Somali students. Performance in 20002001 Of the four groups examined, students with limited English prociency and disabilities were the least likely to pass either the reading or the mathematics tests. The passing rate was approximately 10%12% for students with limited English prociency and disabilities, which was
18 NCEO
at least 20% lower than the passing rate for either students with disabilities or students with limited English prociency. This disparity grew even larger when students with limited English prociency and disabilities were compared to the total student population. Small numbers of students with limited English prociency and disabilities in some disability categories limited the observations that could be made about performance. There were enough students to provide data showing that students with limited English prociency and speech/language impairments had the highest percentage passing of all the disability categories. Students with mild-moderate mental impairments along with students with learning disabilities had the lowest percentage passing. In general, the percentage of the Hmong-, Spanish-, and Somali-speaking students with limited English prociency and disabilities who passed the BSTs was typically 20% to approximately 35% lower than the percentage of all students from the same language group who passed the tests. In general, the percentage of Hmong students with limited English prociency and disabilities passing either the reading or mathematics test was the highest of all three groups of students with limited English prociency and disabilities. There was no consistent pattern of better performance in one of the two years that held true across each of the three language groups and for both content tests. The number of Somali students with disabilities was too small to disaggregate performance data.
Participation Compared Across Two Years Participation rates for students with disabilities, students with limited English prociency, and the total student population tended to be similar in 19992000 and 20002001 for both reading and mathematics. Even so, students with limited English prociency and disabilities had the most noticeable decrease in the percentage of students participating. When data were examined by disability category, there was a great deal of variation in participation rates for students with limited English prociency and disabilities in both years. In reading, students with limited English prociency and speech-language impairments, learning disabilities, and traumatic brain injuries had consistent participation rates across the two years. In contrast, students with limited English prociency and mild-moderate mental impairments, visual impairments, and those who were deaf and hard of hearing had lower participation rates in 20002001 than in 19992000. Students with moderate-severe mental impairments, physical impairments, and other health impairments had higher reading participation in 20002001 than in 19992000. In mathematics, those with limited English prociency and learning disabilities or traumatic brain injury had the most consistent participation rates across years. Students with limited English prociency and speech language impairments, mild-moderate mental impairments, visual impairments, emotional-behavioral disabilities, and those who were deaf and
NCEO 19
hard of hearing had lower mathematics participation rates in 20002001. Students with limited English prociency and moderate-severe mental impairments, physical impairments, and other health impairments showed an increase participation rates in mathematics for 20002001. When we examined data by language group and disability status there was no common pattern of increased performance on the reading test in one year compared to the other. Hmong students with limited English prociency and disabilities had slightly increased participation rates in reading for 20002001 while Spanish-speaking and Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities had decreases in the percent of students participating. In mathematics Hmong-, Spanish-, and Somali-speaking speaking students with limited English prociency and disabilities all had lower participation rates in 20002001 than in 19992000. The decrease was most noticeable for Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities. Performance Compared Across Two Years Compared to students with disabilities, students with limited English prociency, and the total 8th grade population, students with limited English prociency and disabilities were the least likely to pass either the reading or the mathematics test in either year. When data were examined by disability category, certain patterns could be seen in those disability categories with large enough numbers of students. Students with limited English prociency and speech-language impairments had the highest percentage of students passing either reading or mathematics. Typically, the percentage of students in a disability category who passed mathematics versus reading was the same or slightly different. Exceptions to this pattern were noted for students with speech-language impairments who had a noticeable increase in the percentage of students passing mathematics in 20002001 compared to 19992000. Typically, there were small changes in the percentages of Hmong-, Spanish-, and Somalispeaking students with limited English prociency and disabilities who passed the reading and mathematics test in either year examined. However, there was no consistent directionality to the changes. A slightly lower percentage of Hmong students passed the reading test in 20002001 while a slightly higher percentage of Spanish-speaking students passed the reading test that same year as compared to the previous year. A slightly higher percentage of Hmong- and Spanishspeaking students passed the mathematics test in 20002001 compared to the previous year. In both years, the numbers of Somali students with limited English prociency were too small to disaggregate data.
Discussion and Conclusion
There were very small numbers of Somali students with limited English prociency and disabilities that were enrolled in the years covered by this report. One important contextual factor
20 NCEO
to understand in interpreting these results is that Somali students are among the most recent immigrants to Minnesota. At the time these data were collected, many Somali students may have been so new to the United States that teachers were not yet referring them for special education assessment in the belief that they needed time to learn English rst. Somali students might also have qualied for the short-term exemption from testing due to their recent arrival in the United States. Although disaggregating statewide assessment data for students who have both limited English prociency and disabilities is not currently mandated by NCLB, there are advantages for educators in having these data available to them. This report has shown that while students with limited English prociency and disabilities tended to pass the statewide tests at lower percentages than their peers who were in the larger groups of all students with disabilities or all students with limited English prociency, it was not true that all students with limited English prociency and disabilities were performing poorly. Some of these students passed this states 8th grade tests of basic skills in reading and mathematics at the state-determined level on their rst attempt. Clearly, these are success stories that should be celebrated. However, this examination of the data shows that as recently as 20002001 there was a much larger group of students with limited English prociency and disabilities who required increased support in order to achieve prociency on basic skills. A closer examination of the standards-based instruction that these students receive in the classroom and how it aligns with the state content standards assessed by the test may be in order. One such group that warrants close attention is students with limited English prociency...