Home | About NCEO | Topics | Reports | Presentations | Teleconferences | State Policies | Tools | Accommodations Bibliography | Data Viewer | + Larger Font | - Smaller Font

2000-2001 Participation and Performance of English Language Learners with Disabilities on Minnesota Standards-based Assessments

ELLs with Disabilities Report 4

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by:
Deb Albus • Manuel Barrera • Martha Thurlow • Kamil Guven • Vitaliy Shyyan

June 2004

Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Albus, D., Barrera, M., Thurlow, M., Guven, K. & Shyyan, V. (2004). 2000-2001 Participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilities Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDisReport4.html

Introduction

More attention has been given to English language learners, and students with disabilities, following the legislative changes that require states to include these students in assessments and accountability systems. However, a knowledge gap exists where these two groups overlap in the student population. Although assessment documents include more data for limited English proficient1 students (Albus, Thurlow, & Liu, 2002) and students with disabilities (Thurlow, Wiley, & Bielinski, 2003) there is very little data reported for students with limited English proficiency who also have disabilities (Thurlow, & Liu, 2001). Given that these students are among those facing the biggest challenges within current education systems, it is important to examine how they are doing. This report is an effort to focus attention on the progress being made by these students in state assessments. The analyses conducted to produce this report are a part of a larger project examining instruction of limited English proficient students with disabilities and its relation to large scale and classroom assessment information.

In this report we focus on the performance of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs). The MCAs are used for accountability purposes at the district level for grades 3 and 5 in Reading and Mathematics. Newly developed MCAs in grades 10 (reading) and 11 (mathematics) that were introduced in the 2000-2001 school year are not the focus of this study. The grade 3 and 5 tests are used for tracking progress toward the high academic content standards. Therefore, focusing attention on the performance of this group of students on these tests is important in order to gauge how well they are progressing towards the high grade level standards set for all students.

As with many assessment systems, Minnesota’s has evolved over time. An analysis of the performance of limited English proficient students with disabilities on the 1999-2000 MCAs in grades 3 and 5 (Albus, Thurlow, Barrera, Guven, & Shyyan, 2004) indicated that participation was about 81-84% in grade 3 and 82-85% in grade 5. Most of these students performed at the lowest proficiency level, in both mathematics and reading, although more spread across the proficiency levels was evident in mathematics than in reading.

In the past, the former Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL), now Minnesota Department of Education, reported test scores for the MCAs according to four proficiency levels (I, II, III, IV). Beginning in 2000-2001, the state changed its reporting procedures so that scores were reported on five levels instead of four (I, IIa, IIb, III, IV). A brief definition and description of these five levels were provided in a parent brochure (Minnesota Department of Education, 2001) and are reproduced as follows:

Level IV - Students at this level demonstrate superior performance, knowledge and skills well beyond what is expected at the grade level.

Level III - Students at this level are working above grade level and demonstrate solid performance in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory work in the state’s content standards. Many are proficient with challenging subject matter.

Level IIb - Most students in this level are working on-grade level material and are on track to achieve satisfactory work in the state’s content standards.

Level IIa - Students in this level have partial knowledge and skills necessary for the state’s content standards. They typically are working on slightly below grade-level material in one or more content areas.

Level I - Students at this level have gaps in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory work in the state’s content standards. These students typically are working significantly below grade level and typically need additional instruction to progress beyond finding obvious answers and simple details.

The four and five level systems are similar in that they are both tied to a student’s long-term achievement of high standards. These are the standards that were in place during 2000-2001 and prior to that. (The standards were replaced in 2003-2004.)

The purpose of this study was to examine the participation and performance of limited English proficient students with disabilities on the 2000-2001 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments. We wanted to do this as a function of language group (Hmong, Somali and Spanish) and as a function of disability (the 12 Minnesota categories not including 504 status). In addition, we wanted to examine performance across years, from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001.

¹Students with limited English proficiency are increasingly referred to as English language learners or ELLs. We recognize that a number of terms are used in the field 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 first” protocol and to minimize lengthy terms where possible. In this document we use the term "students with limited English proficiency."
 

Method

The data analyzed in this report were provided by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning (CFL), now the Minnesota Department of Education, through the Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System (MARSS), Minnesota’s data management system. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS after the file was organized and unusable data were excluded.

Converting Data to 5 Levels

The data file we received from the state was organized by the previous year’s four level system, even though the state had already begun to convert to a five level system of reporting the data, splitting Level II into IIA and IIB. Thus, we manually converted the four levels of reporting to five levels. This was done by adding a column to the data set so that the data from the four level system was preserved. Although Level II was the only level affected by the change, there was a need to determine the range of scores for every proficiency level to ensure accuracy of reporting. An online table we retrieved from the Web page provided score ranges for the five levels. However, with recent changes to Minnesota’s Web site, this table is no longer available online. Because the data had already been run using the database derived levels, these ranges may differ slightly from reports produced elsewhere. These procedures were used with both the 2000-2001 data and the 1999-2000 data so that we could look at participation and performance across years.

Complications with Data

The information provided to us by the state explained that the only level that needed adjusting was Level II. Students within Level II who scored below 1420 were Level 2A and students at or above 1420 were Level 2B. All other levels remained the same. This information helped us set the cut points between Level II A and Level IIB. However, other complications developed from trying to reconcile an online table with the score ranges in the actual database. Students in the database achieved scale scores that according to the chart boundaries would not be clearly placed into any level. These “grey areas” required us to rely on the database to guide the placement of these students.

Using the database, we sorted the reading and mathematics scores by grade level and achievement level indicated under the four level system. Using the sorted data, we obtained the score ranges (the upper and lower boundaries) for levels I, II and IV. After comparing these score ranges to information provided by the state we arrived at the score ranges for achievement levels as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. MCA Cut Score Levels

Data Exclusion

During the analysis process of 1999-2000 data we realized that the sum of the students across achievement Levels I thru V was sometimes larger than the number of the total tested students in certain categories. The reason for this was that there were some students in the data base who were marked as “did not take test” who had performance indicated by a scale score or achievement level. This problem was not nearly so evident (approximately 180 students in grade 3, and 150 students in grade 5) for the 2000-2001 mathematics and reading data. Across both years, all of these types of students were excluded from the data analysis.

Limitations

There are several areas where caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings of this report. These areas include how a student’s grade level, primary disability category, and primary language are reported.

Children are counted in different ways for different purposes. For example, federal requirements base counts on age rather than grade level for total numbers of students enrolled with special education status. Therefore, totals reported in a grade here may be different from other reported totals. In addition, student mobility may influence yearly counts if they are calculated at a time when students are less likely to be present (e.g., migrant students).

There are positives and negatives to reporting by primary disability for students in special education. While doing so reduces errors of double counting, important information about whether students have multiple disabilities is then lost. For example, a student with a single disability such as a sensory impairment may be well accommodated by enlarging a text. However, another student counted within this same primary disability may have an additional learning disability not reflected in the available data. This information could be influential in interpreting participation and performance data, but we are unable to address these issues.

Categorizing students by primary language group is necessary in this report. We acknowledge that this sometimes simplifies the reality of student experiences with multiple languages, dialects, or variants. Also, we did not have access to native language fluency information; this is likely to be a crucial factor in interpreting the data of students with limited English proficiency.

Due to small numbers and the need to maintain confidentiality of individual student performance, we have used an asterisk to mark those performance categories with fewer than 10 students tested. If there were no students tested, these are marked with a “0.” Categories with dashes indicate that there were no students in that category.

Results

Participation, Grade 3

We examined participation in the 2000-2001 MCAs for four groups: students with limited English proficiency who also have disabilities, students with only limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and all grade 3 students (including those in the previous groups). Table 2, summarizes the numbers and percentages participating in the grade 3 mathematics and reading results during 2000-2001. As shown in the table, there is little difference in percentage of students participating across groups. Students with disabilities (SD), as well as students with limited English proficiency and disabilities (SLEPD) had slightly lower percentages participating in both content areas. For these two groups, slightly more students were tested in mathematics than reading. These results are also presented in Figure 1 where it is evident that the All students group had participation rates 4-14 percentage points higher than for the other groups. Participation rates for students with disabilities (SD) and students with limited English proficiency and disabilities (SLEPD) were in the 80s, whereas students with limited English proficiency had participation rates at 91% and All students had rates at 95%.

Table 2. 2000-2001 MCA Participation, Grade 3

Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English proficiency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English proficiency.

 

Figure 1. 2000-2001 MCA Participation, Grade 3

Table 3 and Figure 2 summarize grade 3 MCA participation by language group. Although participation by Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students was generally similar for mathematics and reading, the Hmong and Spanish speaking students with disabilities had a slightly greater percentage of students (3-8%) tested in mathematics than reading. A slight difference across language groups for reading was also evident with 77% of Spanish-speaking students with disabilities tested compared to 84% and 87% of their Hmong and Somali peers. Among All students, regardless of English proficiency or disability, Somali students participated at a rate of 78% compared to a range of 86% to 95% of their Hmong and Spanish-speaking peers.

Table 3. 2000-2001 MCA Participation by Language, Grade 3

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.
¹All students in this table includes the population of all Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students regardless of language proficiency.

 

Figure 2. Percentage of Students Tested in Three Language Groups with Disabilities, Grade 3

Table 4 shows the participation of students with limited English proficiency and disabilities (SLEPD), according to the students’ primary disability. The numbers of students in many categories are quite small. One category within this group did not have any students: Deaf-Blindness. The largest category of students enrolled and tested for this group was in Speech/Language Impaired and Specific Learning Disabilities, with a range of 76% to 99% tested in mathematics and reading. Students with limited English proficiency and disabilities (SLEPD) had a higher percentage (98-99%) tested in the Speech/Language Impaired category than the All students with disabilities group (47-52%, n = 50) of the same category. Visually Impaired students with limited English proficiency participated at rates of 57% to 71% in reading and math (n=4 to 5) and physically impaired students with limited English proficiency participated at rates of 50 to 60% (n= 6 to 5), whereas the percentages of All students with disabilities for these categories ranged from 71 to 80% (n ranged from 31 to 32 for Visually Impaired and 103 to 95 for Physically Impaired).

Table 4. 2000-2001 Grade 3 MCA Mathematics Participation for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency and All Students with Disabilities by Disability Group
 

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; All SD = All students with disabilities including SLEPD; 0 = No students tested; Dashes = No students were in that category.

 

Performance, Grade 3

In this section, we examine student performance based on five levels of proficiency. In the five level system, Levels IIB and above are considered “on track” for achieving academic standards in upper grade levels.

In Table 5, the performance data for mathematics and reading for 2000-2001 show that the majority of students in each group, except for All students, were in Levels I and IIA, with slightly more students in Level I for reading than for mathematics, for these same three student groups. Limited English proficient students with disabilities had the highest percentage of students in Level I for mathematics (63%) and reading (77%). This is approximately double the percentage of All students in Levels I and IIA combined. See Figure 3 for a graph of these data.

Table 5. 2000-2001 MCA Performance Levels, Grade 3

Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English proficiency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English proficiency.

 

Figure 3. 2000-2001 MCA Performance Across Groups, Grade 3

Table 6 presents the mathematics data for limited English proficient students with disabilities from Hmong, Spanish, and Somali language backgrounds compared to all students from these language backgrounds. The majority of students with disabilities across language groups were in Levels I or IIA. Hmong students with disabilities had a slightly higher percentage in Level IIA than in Level I. In comparison, although 63-83% of the All students were also in these lower two levels for mathematics, there was more spread across these groups into higher performance levels.

Table 6. 2000-2001 Mathematics Performance Levels by Language Group, Grade 3

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.
¹All students in this table includes the population of all Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students regardless of language proficiency
*Indicates fewer than 10 students tested.

 

Table 7 presents the reading data for the same groups of students. Here, even more students with disabilities were in Level I (76-100%). In comparison, 46-63% of the All group were in Level I and 74-81% of the All group were in the lowest two levels. Therefore, a slightly higher percentage of students were in the lowest levels for reading than for mathematics.

Table 7. 2000-2001 Reading Performance Levels by Language Group, Grade 3

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.
¹All students in this table includes the population of all Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students regardless of language proficiency.* Indicates fewer than 10 students tested.
 

Figure 4 shows these data graphed. It should be noted that the Somali numbers should be interpreted with caution because there was only a small number tested.

Figure 4. 2000-2001 Performance of Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Language Group

Table 8 shows the MCA performance of limited English proficient students with disabilities (SLEPD) and all students with disabilities (SD) by disability category. We have used an asterisk to mark those categories with fewer than 10 students tested. If there were no students tested, these are marked with a “0.” Categories with dashes all the way across indicate that there were no students in that category.

Table 8. 2000-2001, MCA Mathematics Performance by Disability Category, Grade 3

SLEPD by Disability Category	Mathematics On track: Level IIB & above			Reading On track: Level IIB & above
	Tested	N	%	Tested	N	%
Speech/Language Impaired	95	22	23	94	16	23
Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate	7	*	*	5	*	*
Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe	0	0	0	0	0	0
Physically Impaired	6	*	*	5	*	*
Deaf-Hard of Hearing	17	1	1	14	0	0
Visually Impaired	4	*	*	5	*	*
Specific Learning Disabilities	82	5	1	74	0	0
Emotional/Behavioral Disorders	13	1	1	12	0	0
Deaf-Blindness	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other Health Impaired	12	1	1	13	0	0
Autistic	1	*	*	1	*	*
Traumatic Brain Injury	2	*	*	2	*	*
All SD by Disability Category	Level IIB & above			Level IIB & above
	Tested	N	%	Tested	N	%
Speech/Language Impaired	2401	1344	56	2390	1317	55
Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate	264	8	3	237	4	2
Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe	7	*	*	7	*	*
Physically Impaired	103	30	29	95	33	35
Deaf-Hard of Hearing	134	44	33	126	37	29
Visually Impaired	32	14	44	31	13	42
Specific Learning Disabilities	2074	519	25	1986	285	14
Emotional/Behavioral Disorders	764	264	35	718	249	35
Deaf-Blindness	5	*	*	5	*	*
Other Health Impaired	449	121	27	442	106	24
Autistic	167	56	34	158	61	39
Traumatic Brain Injury	16	2	12.5	14	2	14

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; All SD = All students with disabilities including SLEPD; 0 = No students tested; Dashes = No students were in that category; *Indicates fewer than 10 students tested.

 

For mathematics and reading, the percentages of limited English proficient students with disabilities achieving Level IIB and above were very small. Most categories only showed 0-1% “on track,” with the exception of Speech/Language Impaired, which had 23% “on track” for mathematics and reading. Although this 23% looks better in comparison to the other percentages among this group of students, they are still performing only about half as well as this same category for All students with disabilities, which had 55-56% “on track.”

Even for those categories with larger numbers of limited English proficient students with disabilities tested (e.g., Speech/Language Impaired, Deaf-Hard of Hearing, Specific Learning Disabilities, and Other Health Impaired), the difference in percentages of these students “on track” were well below those of All students with disabilities. Figures 5 and 6 present the percentages of this subset of students at the performance levels for mathematics and reading. These graphs include the percentage of students not tested at the lowest level. Categories without data either did not have students in that category or had fewer than 10 participating in the test.

Figure 5. 2000-2001 MCA Mathematics Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 3

Figure 6. 2000-2001 MCA Reading Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 3

Participation, Grade 5

Table 9 shows participation for fifth graders for 2000-2001 by student groups: students with limited English proficiency and disabilities (SLEPD), students with limited English proficiency (SLEP), students with disabilities (SD), and All students, which refers to the total population of students enrolled in grade 5 in the state. Participation rates were fairly consistent across groups for both content areas. Further, both groups with disabilities (SLEPD and SD) were comparable in their percentages tested, slightly below that of the other two groups. Figure 7 also shows these data.

Table 9. 2000-2001 MCA Participation Across Groups, Grade 5

Grade 5	Number Enrolled*	Number Tested Mathematics	Percent Tested Mathematics	Number Tested Reading	Percent Tested Reading
SLEPD SLEP SD All students1	413   3439   9002 66560	352   3185   7729 62687	85 93 86 94	350   3196   7710 63126	85 93 86 95

 

 

 

 

 

Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English proficiency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English proficiency.
¹All students in this table refers to the total population of students enrolled in grade 5 in the state.


 

Figure 7. 2000-2001 MCA Participation Across Groups, Grade 5

Table 10 and Figure 8 show the participation of Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students with and without disabilities for fifth grade. Participation rates for students with disabilities in these groups are slightly lower than the All group for both content areas. Hmong students, with and without disabilities, had slightly higher participation rates overall with 87-97% tested in mathematics, and 86-97% tested in reading. As before, caution is needed in interpreting the Somali data because there were very small numbers of these students enrolled.

Table 10. 2000-2001 MCA Participation by Language, Grade 5

Number Enrolled			Number Tested Mathematics	Percent Tested Mathematics	Number Tested Reading	Percent Tested Reading
SLEPD	Hmong	181	158	87	156	86
	Spanish	138	115	83	116	84
	Somali	13	8	61	9	69
All1	Hmong	1857	1807	97	1807	97
	Spanish	1421	1234	87	1251	88
	Somali	286	226	79	234	82

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.
¹All students in this table includes the population of all Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students regardless of language proficiency.

 

Figure 8. 2000-2001 MCA Participation for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Language Group, Grade 5

Table 11 presents the 2000-2001 participation data for fifth grade students with limited English proficiency and disabilities according to disability categories. The small numbers result in fluctuations in the percentages of those tested in math and reading, so caution must be observed in interpreting these findings.

Table 11. 2000-2001 MCA Participation for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities and All Students with Disabilities by Disability Group, Grade 5

	Disability Group	Enrolled	Mathematics Tested		Reading Tested
			N	%	N	%
SLEPD	Speech/Language Impaired	92	84	91	87	95
	Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate	19	11	58	11	58
	Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe	6	0	0	0	0
	Physically Impaired	8	7	87	6	75
	Deaf-Hard of Hearing	25	17	68	16	64
	Visually Impaired	1	1	100	1	100
	Specific Learning Disabilities	223	202	91	199	89
	Emotional/Behavioral Disorders	21	17	81	17	81
	Deaf-Blindness	0	-	-	-	-
	Other Health Impaired	12	11	92	11	92
	Autistic	3	0	0	0	0
	Traumatic Brain Injury	3	2	67	2	67
All SD	Disability Group	Enrolled	Mathematics Tested		Reading Tested
			N	%	N	%
	Speech Language Impaired	2191	2081	95	2107	96
	Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate	547	278	51	277	51
	Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe	173	2	1	3	2
	Physically Impaired	121	87	72	92	76
	Deaf-Hard of Hearing	174	146	84	139	80
	Visually Impaired	30	26	87	25	83
	Specific Learning Disabilities	3877	3515	91	3475	90
	Emotional/Behavioral Disorders	1332	1146	86	1148	86
	Deaf-Blindness	5	3	60	3	60
	Other Health Impaired	732	649	89	637	87
	Autistic	207	129	62	135	65
	Traumatic Brain Injury	26	19	73	19	73

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; All SD = All students with disabilities including SLEPD; 0 = No students tested; Dashes = No students were in that category.
 

Similar to third grade, the highest numbers of limited English proficient students with disabilities were in the Speech/Language Impaired (N=84) and Specific Learning Disabilities (N=87) categories. Also, there were no limited English proficient students in the Deaf-Blind category. For mathematics and reading, there were comparable percentages of students with limited English proficiency and disabilities participating. For example, the percentage of limited English proficient students with speech or language impairments tested in mathematics was 91%, and in reading 95%. The percentage tested of students with mild to moderate mental impairments was 58% in mathematics and reading. Percentages tested across the All group were also similar by content area. Comparing the All group to students with limited English proficiency also shows similar percentages of students tested by category and by content area.

Performance, Grade 5

Fifth grade performance levels for student groups are presented in Table 12. Again, the majority of each student group, except for All students, performed in Level I and Level IIA, below the levels considered to be “on track” for success in the upper grades. Limited English proficient students with disabilities had the highest percentages in Level I for mathematics (65%). The other groups had almost half that percentage of students or less in Level I (11-35%) for mathematics. Looking at percentages “on track” for these groups, limited English proficient students with disabilities had 10% on track for mathematics, in contrast to the other groups that ranged between 31-67% on track for mathematics.

Table 12. 2000-2001 MCA Performance Levels, Grade 5

	Number Tested	Level I		Level II a		Level II b		Level III		Level IV
		#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Mathematics SLEPD SD SLEP All students1	352 3185 7729 62687	228 1021 2667 7003	65 32 35 11	89 1196 2295 13485	25 38 30 22	25 462 1011 10504	7 15 13 17	10 448 1415 23452	3 14 18 37	0 58 341 8243	0 2 4 13
Reading SLEPD SD SLEP All students1	350 3196 7710 63126	260 1264 2911 7036	74 39 38 11	56 1006 1774 9550	16 3123 15	18 357 731 6867	5 11 9 11	14 492 1689 24474	4 15 22 39	2 77 605 15199	6 2 8 24

Key: SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities; SLEP = Students with limited English proficiency without disabilities; SD = Students with disabilities without limited English proficiency.
¹All students in this table refers to the total population of students enrolled in grade 5 in the state.

 

For reading, students with disabilities and limited English proficiency also had the highest percentage in Level I (74%). The other groups had 11-39% of their students in Level I. Looking at percentages “on track,” limited English proficient students with disabilities had 15% on track (IIB and above) for reading, slightly higher than 10% for this same group in mathematics. The other groups ranged from 28-74% on track for reading. With the exception of All students with disabilities (SD = 28%), there were slightly higher percentages on track for “reading” than for mathematics overall.

Table 13 shows the mathematics performance of limited English proficient students with disabilities from Hmong, Spanish and Somali speaking backgrounds compared to All students in these language backgrounds. Among students with disabilities (SLEPD), there were fairly high percentages in Level 1 for (63-75%) for mathematics. In contrast, All students in these language groups had 30-54% in Level I for mathematics.

Table 13. 2000-2001 Mathematics Performance Levels by Language, Grade 5

		Number Tested	Level I		Level II a		Level II B		Level III		Level IV
			#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
SLEPD	Hmong	158	106	67	43	27	5	3	4	3	0	0
	Spanish	115	72	63	28	24	9	8	6	5	0	0
	Somali	8	6	75	2	25	0	0	0	0	0	0
All1	Hmong	1807	542	30	693	38	277	15	271	15	24	1
	Spanish	1234	444	36	450	36	167	14	154	13	19	1
	Somali	226	122	54	77	34	11	5	15	7	1	0

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.
¹All students in this table includes the population of all Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students regardless of language proficiency.
* Indicates fewer than 10 students tested.

 

Compared to mathematics, the percentages of students in Level I for reading (see Table 14) was generally higher for both limited English proficient students with disabilities and the All group. For reading, students with disabilities (SLEPD) had 67-79% in Level I, and the All groups had a range of 41-51% in this same level.

Table 14. 2000-2001 Reading Performance Levels by Language, Grade 5

		Number Tested	Level I		Level II a		Level II B		Level III		Level IV
			#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
SLEPD	Hmong	156	124	79	22	14	6	4	4	3	0	0
	Spanish	116	83	72	19	16	7	6	5	4	2	2
	Somali	9	6	67	3	33	0	0	0	0	0	0
All1	Hmong	1807	747	41	609	34	183	10