The advent of standards-based reform during the past 10 years has ushered in a variety of challenges for policymakers and practitioners alike. Such concerns were accentuated by the legislative mandates of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act which required year-to-year academic performance to be measured by states’ standards-based large-scale assessments for all subgroups of students in U.S. schools. While schools and their staff generally support the theory of action that underlies initiatives like NCLB, such as that explicated in Testing, Teaching, and Learning (Elmore & Rothman, 1999), it is still a challenge to provide instruction based on challenging, grade-level content standards. In addition, there is often a concern that some students, especially those with disabilities or limited English proficiency, may not be capable of achieving the academic content deemed appropriate for the grades in which they are enrolled in school. It is also suggested that these students are not able to fully participate in large-scale assessments that were designed for their peers. While concerns have been raised for students with disabilities as a subgroup and English language learners as a subgroup for some time, it is only recently that including students with both disabilities and English learning challenges in states’ large-scale assessment and accountability programs have been considered.

With the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and NCLB, both of which clearly required that students with disabilities be included in state assessments, states are making progress toward including all students in their standards-based testing. Rates of participation for students with disabilities and English language learners have been improving over time (Thompson & Thurlow, 2003). However, there are few data that can demonstrate improved academic results for English language learners with disabilities. In fact, there are few sources of public data that report results for these students (Albus & Thurlow, 2005). Only recently, English language learners with disabilities have begun to receive marginal attention in the literature (Minnema, Thurlow, Anderson, & Stone, 2005). The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has, for the past four years, conducted research on large-scale assessment and instructional issues for English language learners with disabilities, but neither NCEO’s research nor any other research study has yet described large-scale assessment experiences at the local school level for English language learners with disabilities.

This study was designed, in part, to clarify some of the issues that surround including English language learners in states’ large-scale assessment programs. More specifically, we gathered practical information at the local school level to understand these students’ large-scale assessment experiences from a variety of perspectives, to describe the characteristics of English language learners with disabilities as well as the characteristics of their schools, and to make known the level of awareness that students and their families have about large-scale assessments.

This study was conducted in a large western state with a total estimated population of 35,484,453 in 2003. The breakdown by ethnicity in 2000 was 59.5% White persons, 6.7% Black or African American persons, 1.0% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, 10.9% Asian persons, 0.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 16.8% persons reporting some other race, 4.7% persons reporting two or more races, 46.7% White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, and 32.4% persons of Hispanic or Latino origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Across these subgroups, 26.2% were foreign born for an estimated total of 8,864,188. The region in which these individuals were born was Europe (7.9%, a total of 696,578), Asia (32.9%, a total of 2,918,642), Africa (1.3%, a total of 113,255), Oceania (0.8%, a total of 67,131), Latin America (55.6%, a total of 4,926,803), and North America (1.6%, a total of 141,779). Of those 5 years of age or older, 39.5% (a total of 31,416,629) of this state’s population spoke a language other than English at home, 60.5% spoke only English at home, and 39.5% (a total of 12,401,756) spoke a language other than English at home. Again, as of 2000, there were 5,923,361 individuals in this state who were 5 years old or older.

The school district in which we collected data is an urban unified school district located in the southern region of the state. The district serves approximately 97,000 students in 95 public schools from four different cities. As the third largest school district in the state, it serves the most diverse large city in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). The students in the district speak 46 different languages and are required to wear school uniforms through grade 8. Any student at the end of grade 3 who is reading below grade level attends mandatory summer school, because the district no longer practices social promotion. This district was the first in the nation to introduce these district-wide reforms. Because of outstanding educational practices and student outcomes, this district recently received a national award for being one of the top urban school districts in the United States.

The Elementary School

The elementary school in which data were collected educates 1,204 students in kindergarten through grade 5. The school is located in a residential neighborhood on the west side of the city. Students represent a wide range of ethnic groups, including 73.9% Hispanic/Latino, 10.4% African-American, 9.8% Filipino-American, 2.4% Pacific Islander, 2.1% White (Not Hispanic), 1.3% Asian-American, and 0.1% American Indian or Alaska Native. A recent push for class size reduction has resulted in a teacher/student ratio of 1:20 in kindergarten through grade 3. The teacher/student ratio for grades 4 and 5 is 1:33. All 56 classrooms in the school are described on the school district Web site as staffed by dedicated teachers offering direct, explicit instruction in basic skills and higher level thinking skills. Students are instructed on the state content standards with the goal of every student achieving grade level expectations as defined by the state’s performance standards. Standard proficiency is measured by the state’s large-scale assessment program, district benchmark tests of basic mathematics facts, performance tasks in mathematics and writing, and student portfolios.

The Middle School

The middle school that participated in the research project serves 1,760 students in grades 6 through 8. It is a year-round neighborhood school in the northern area of the city that is noted for its cultural diversity. Students represent a wide range of ethnic groups that include 58.8% Hispanic/Latino, 26.1% African-American, 5.2% Asian-American, 4.8% Pacific Islander, 3.9% White (Not Hispanic), 0.8% Filipino-American, 0.4% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1% Other. The average class size at the middle school varies by subject area, from 31 in English classes to 40 in science classes. Daily goals for the students and staff are driven by the school’s mission, "to educate all students to enable them to participate in their education and contribute to their school and society." Their education is guided by the district’s content standards, and students recently met their targeted growth areas in reading, language, and mathematics according to the state academic performance index. Departmental and grade level teacher-developed tests are administered in addition to the state’s large-scale program.

The High School

Data were collected in a high school that is a state distinguished school that educates 4,376 students in grades 9 though 12. The school operates under the vision that, the "high school will foster a positive and open atmosphere that guarantees academic success, enhances self-esteem, and promotes respect for others within a culturally diverse society." The diverse student body is comprised of 30.5% Asian-American, 29.2% African-American, 17.5% Hispanic/Latino, 13.1% White (Not Hispanic), 6.6% Filipino-American, 2.8% Pacific Islander, and 0.3% American Indian or Alaska Native. In grade 9, each student is assigned to a four-year academy according to a particular field of interest. The academies include: math and science, business world preparation, media, visual performing and applied arts, special education, English language development, and a partnership academy. These academies prepare each student for a future at a four-year university. Vocational training is also available at this high school. Ultimately, the school curriculum is determined by state and district content standards. Students are assessed using the state large-scale assessment program and must pass the state high school exam to receive a high school diploma.

Students in grades 11 or 12 who wish to accelerate their studies in a focus on passing the high school exit exam may attend the upper division academy. This 18 classroom program is located one block off of the high school campus. Approximately 550 students attend this academy to take advantage of the accelerated instructional pace.

Students may complete a year long course in a semester, as each 10 unit class meets daily for 90 minutes. Instead of the typical 60 credits a year, these students may complete 80 plus credits each school year. Students at the upper division academy are able to participate in all activities offered to students at the high school, as well as additional activities special to the academy such as the student commission. The goal of this program is to graduate each student with regular high school diplomas.

Large-Scale Assessment Program

We collected data in a state where the large-scale assessment program for the school year 2003–2004 consisted of four core assessments: (1) a standards-based measure administered to students in grades 2 through 11 in English-language arts and mathematics, a written composition portion for students in grades 4 and 7, a history-social science portion for students in grades 8, 10, and 11 and a science portion administered to students in grade 5, 9, 10, and 11; (2) an alternate assessment that is designed for students with severe cognitive disabilities in grades 2 through 11 that assesses English-language arts and mathematic skills; (3) an "off-the-shelf" test that serves as the norm-referenced segment of the standards-based measure and that assesses skills in reading/language, spelling, and mathematics in grades 2 through 8, and reading/language, mathematics, and science in grades 9 through 11; and (4) a norm-referenced test used to assess Spanish-speaking students for primary language assessment component of the state’s large-scale assessment program. This test measures skills in reading, spelling, language, and mathematics for Spanish-speaking students in grades 2 through 11. These students must be identified as English language learners (ELLs) who have been in the states’ schools for less than 12 months.

Extending beyond the large-scale assessment program is an English language development test, that is a standards-based assessment of listening and speaking in grades kindergarten through 1, and listening, speaking, reading, and writing in grades 2 through 12. This assessment helps determine a student’s level of English language acquisition and comprehension. Lastly, the state requires students in grade 10 to take a state-developed standards-based high-stakes assessment of language arts and mathematics skills that students are required to pass in order to graduate from high school with a regular diploma.

Research Questions

We addressed two broad research questions in our study:

1) What perceptions do educators, parents, and students have about the experiences of English language learners with disabilities who participate in large-scale assessments?

2) What are the characteristics of schools that test English language learners with disabilities in large-scale assessments?

Research Design

Our case study research design, in which one school is defined as a case, used a mixed method approach to collect quantitative and qualitative data from four sources of data. Data were collected on site in three schools and one alternative school program in a large urban school district located in a large western state.

Sample

Using a purposive sample, we included students with disabilities (n = 24), their parents (n = 30), special and general education teachers (n = 72), and administrators (n = 5). The schools from which our sample was drawn were recruited by the assistant superintendent of special education and the program specialist of special education/English language learners. Within each school, one staff member served as a contact person for the study. Their primary responsibility was to recruit parents and students for the face-to-face interviews. All participants received a gift card from a local department store as a thank you for their time invested in our research activities.

Instruments

We used a variety of self-developed data collection instruments that included a written survey, interview protocols, and document review data collection sheets (see Appendix A for copies of the survey and interview protocols).

Procedures

The written surveys were distributed in teachers’ school mailboxes with a request to return the surveys to the school’s main office by the end of that school day. As a follow up procedure, we worked with our contact person in each school to encourage those teachers who had not responded on the first day to return their survey by the end of the week. In one school where we were unable to distribute the survey while working on-site, we mailed the surveys to the principal who distributed and collected them during a staff meeting.

Our face-to-face interviews with parents and teachers were conducted at school in either small groups or individually depending on the participants’ preferences. Each interview was tape recorded for subsequent transcription and data analysis. An English speaking researcher conducted all of the school staff interviews. All of the parent interviews were conducted in Spanish except one where a Latina parent indicated that English was her dominant language. A bilingual researcher whose ethnic heritage was the same as the Spanish-speaking parents in our case study interpreted the Spanish and English for the English-speaking researcher who conducted the interviews. All three researchers interviewed the students in English according to their preferences. Students were interviewed at school during noninstructional time. Depending on the size of the group, teacher and parent interviews required from 30 to 45 minutes to complete with individual interviews requiring less time. Student interviews were typically less than 10 minutes in duration.

A school staff member was contracted to collect data for the document review of students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and cumulative files. Rather than conducting a direct review of students’ files, the assistant director of special education requested to first gather any data available in the districts’ computerized student information database. These variables included language assessment results, special education services, prior school history, attendance, behavior, and grades. If this information was missing in the district database, data were gathered from students’ master special education files or cumulative files directly. We provided data collection sheets for this data collection activity that were completed and returned to us in the mail. Any follow up questions were answered by e-mail or telephone.

Data Analysis

To analyze our narrative data, we first transcribed all English portions of the educator and parent interviews verbatim. For the Spanish portions of our parent interviews, the bilingual researcher transcribed the Spanish data and then translated these data to English. All narrative data were then subjected to a content analysis that yielded themes of results. Throughout the qualitative analysis process, English data were compared back to Spanish translated data to ensure accuracy of our interpretations. We use both the original Spanish and the translated English for any supportive quotations taken from the parent interview data. Since the student interview responses were briefer than the parent and educator narrative data, these interviews were not tape recorded. Instead, student responses were written down during the interviews. To analyze the student interview data, we tabulated categories of responses rather than creating themes of results. We employed descriptive statistics to analyze the document review and survey data.

The findings from the document review, written survey, and face-to-face interviews are each presented in different formats. These varying organizational schemes allowed us to highlight the most interesting and useful findings from each data collection activity.

Document Review

For the document review, results are presented by school level so that we can understand each school at an individual student level. Data for nine students at the elementary level are presented with seven students’ data at the middle school level and eight students’ data at the high school level. Within each school level, student demographic and language assessment results are reported. Student demographic variables included grade level, grade promotion history, school transfer history, disability category, special education services, and school behavioral concerns. Unfortunately, data on the number of years spent in the U.S. and the country of origin, two variables listed on our original data collection protocol, were not available.

Language assessment results were comprised of proficiency levels from a standardized English proficiency measure that was used on a large-scale basis. A second English measure, which consisted of a series of checklists that were organized from levels 0–7, was completed by an educator familiar with a child’s communicative patterns. The second instrument was used when the severity of an English language learner’s disability prevented their participation in the large-scale assessment of English proficiency. These students were typically deaf, nonverbal, or significantly cognitively impaired.

Elementary School. The grade level, years enrolled in the district, disability category, and retention status for each elementary school student are presented in Table 1. These students were enrolled in 1st (n = 1), 2nd (n = 1), 4th (n = 4), and 5th (n = 3) grades. Three students had been retained at some point during elementary school. All but one of the students attended school in only this district since kindergarten. The remaining student enrolled in this school in the 4th grade, after attending elementary school in another city in the state for at least one year prior to moving into this district. Years of enrollment in this school district ranged from one to nine years.

The number of elementary students in each proficiency level based on the scores from the state developed English language proficiency test is presented in Table 2. Each student’s English language development was assessed in the areas of oral language, reading, and writing. They were scored as having beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, or advanced emerging English. Generally speaking, most students’ proficiency levels were beginning and early intermediate for both the content areas and overall levels.

Two students were administered the Kendall Conversational Proficiency Levels (KCPL) test in lieu of the state English proficiency test due to the severity of the students’ disabilities. The KCPL measured expressive communicative competence, organized from level 0 to 7, via a series of checklists completed by one or more adults who were knowledgeable about the student’s communication patterns. The district used the KCPL as an alternative to the state English proficiency test for students who are deaf, non-verbal, or significantly cognitively impaired. The KCPL test results are in levels, which are then converted to the states’ English proficiency test descriptor scores. One student scored a KCPL level of 3, converted to an overall early intermediate English proficiency level and the other student scored a KCPL level of 0, converted to an overall beginning English proficiency level. These two students’ test results are only included in the overall category in Table 2.

Middle School. The grade level, number of years enrolled in the district, disability category, and retention status for each middle school student is presented in Table 3. The students at the middle school were enrolled in 6th (n = 2), 7th (n = 3), and 8th (n = 2) grades and had attended school in this district from two to ten years.

Two of the 7 students had attended schools outside of the district in elementary school. One student had no school records prior to 3rd grade where the student presumably attended school in another country, attended 3rd through 5th grades at other schools in the U.S., and enrolled in this district in 6th grade. The other student attended elementary school in another city in the U.S. until being retained in 3rd grade. Upon enrollment in this district, the student repeated 3rd grade.

Most of the English language learners at the middle school had learning disabilities with one additional student who had an orthopedic impairment (OI). Four students had been retained at some point in their school history, and two of those students were retained twice. In terms of special education services, four students, including the student with an orthopedic impairment, attended a segregated special day class in the middle school. One of those students also received special transportation and behavioral intervention services. The other three students received resource specialist program services. Five students were reported as having some behavioral concerns.

The number of middle school students in each proficiency level based on the scores from the state-developed English language proficiency test is presented in Table 4. In terms of English oral skills, the majority of students were at an early intermediate or intermediate level. Most students were functioning from beginning to intermediate levels of proficiency in reading and writing, which was true for the overall level as well.

High School. The grade level, years enrolled in the district, disability category, and retention status for each high school student is presented in Table 5. The students at the high school were enrolled in 9th (n = 5), 10th (n = 2), and 12th (n = 1) grades. Three of the 7 students had attended schools outside of the district prior to 2002–2003 school year. One student attended a school in another state for 7th grade, but school attendance for 6th and 8th grade was not documented. Another student had no educational records prior to 4th grade when enrolled in the district. The final student attended seven different elementary and middle schools in the U.S. before enrolling in the district mid-way through the 10th grade.

All of the English language learners at the high school had specific learning disabilities. One student was retained in two different grades. One student received resource specialist services while the remaining students participated in a special day class that was a segregated program within the high school. Two of those students also received vocational education training and speech and language therapy. Five of the 8 students were reported as having some behavioral concerns.

The number of high school students in each proficiency level derived from the results of the state-developed English proficiency test is presented in Table 6. One student was administered the KCPL test in lieu of the state English proficiency test due to the severity of the student’s disability. This student’s score is included in the overall category only. High school students’ oral proficiency levels were mostly at the intermediate level. Reading proficiency levels ranged from beginning to intermediate with writing skills predominately at the early intermediate level. The overall level also fell predominately at the early intermediate level.

Written Survey

The written survey data were compiled across all schools involved in this district case study. A total of 77 (n = 77) teachers and administrators completed the survey. The 21 survey items were organized into four categories: (1) participation-related data elements; (2) performance-related data elements; (3) student and parent-related data elements; and (4) teachers-related data elements. Each category is presented separately with the frequencies and percentages of responses reported for each item in a tabular format. Survey items included the proper name of the state tests and district terminology for describing English language learners with disabilities, but to preserve the anonymity of the district, large-scale assessments were referred to as "state test" with any references to the district eliminated in this report. Also, the term "blank" indicated "no response" to that survey item.

In reporting on the survey findings, the results are organized by the data analysis approach. First, we present all of the results from the closed items for all school levels and sample subgroups. This allows us to understand opinions and perceptions across schools. Next, our findings are organized according to the sample subgroup analyses of school levels and educator role to look at results at a more detailed level. In turn, the sample subgroup analysis informs the interpretation of the aggregated results by pointing to similarities and differences within the data set as a composite whole.

Participation-Related Data Elements. "Usually" was the most frequently selected response to all but three of the nine items in this category of items. On three items, "rarely" was selected most frequently for English language learners with disabilities use only second language accommodations to take the state tests (item 4), English language learners with disabilities complete about half of the state test items (item 7), and English language learners with disabilities complete ten or less state test items (item 8). The results from participation-related survey items are presented in Figure 1. (see Appendix B for Table B1 of participation-related item results with complete survey item content).

The majority of respondents indicated that English language learners with disabilities "always" (42%) or "usually" (52%) take the state tests (item 1), and "always" (30%) or "usually" (55%) use some form of accommodations (item 2). Approximately 15% of the respondents reported that these students "rarely" use accommodations. Two participants did not respond to these survey items. These accommodations are more likely to be designed for special education than for English language learners; 69% of the respondents indicated that these students "usually" or "always" use only special education accommodations to take the state tests (item 3), and 58% indicated that these students "rarely" or "never" use only second language accommodations to take the state tests (item 4). Combining these two types of accommodations groups may be more popular, in that 21% and 47% of the respondents reported that these students "always" and "usually" use both accommodations for English language and disability-related reasons (item 5), while 18% and 10% indicated that this "rarely" or "never" occurs. Only 3 participants failed to respond to this item.

Most English language learners with disabilities typically complete all the items on the state tests with 29% and 47% responding that this "always" or "usually" occurs, respectively, and 20% indicated that this "rarely" occurs (item 6). Four participants did not respond to this item. Some respondents indicated that English language learners with disabilities only partially completed the state tests; 43% reported that these students "usually" or "always" complete no more than half of the state test items (item 7), and 30% reported that these students "usually" or "always" complete ten or less state test items (item 8), with seven and ten respondents failing to answer these two items respectively.

In terms of alternate assessment participation, nearly 40% of respondents indicated that English language learners with disabilities "usually" participated in this large-scale assessment while almost 15% and 24% thought the their participation was "always" or "rarely," respectively (item 9). Yet, nearly 18% of the educators who responded to this survey item thought that these students "never" took an alternate assessment. Only five respondents did not answer this survey item.

1) English language learners with disabilities take the state test.

Never █ 1.3% (n = 1)

Rarely ▒ 2.6% (n = 2))

Usually ██████████████████████████ 51.9% (n = 40)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 41.6% (n = 32)

2) English language learners with disabilities use accommodations to take the state test.

Never 0.0%

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 14.3% (n = 11))

Usually ███████████████████████████ 54.5% (n = 42)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 29.9% (n = 23)

3) English language learners with disabilities use only special education accommodations to take the state test.

Never ██ 3.9% (n = 3))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 23.4% (n = 18)

Usually ████████████████████████████ 55.8% (n = 43)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒ 13.0% (n = 10)

4) English language learners with disabilities use only second language accommodations to take the state test.

Never ██████ 11.7% (n = 9))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 45.5% (n = 35)

Usually ██████████████ 28.6% (n = 22)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒ 9.1% (n = 7)

5) English language learners with disabilities use both special education and second language accommodations to take the state test.

Never █████ 10.4% (n = 8))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 18.2% (n = 14)

Usually ███████████████████████ 46.8% (n = 36)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 20.8% (n = 16)

6) English language learners with disabilities complete all state test items.

Never 0.0%%

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 19.5% (n =15)

Usually ███████████████████████ 46.8% (n = 36)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 28.6% (n = 22)

7) English language learners with disabilities complete about half of the state test items.

Never ██████ 13.0% (n = 10))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 35.1% (n = 27)

Usually ███████████████ 29.9% (n = 23)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒ 13.0% (n = 10)

8) English language learners with disabilities complete ten or less state test items.

Never ████████████ 23.4% (n = 18)

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 33.8% (n = 26))

Usually █████████ 18.2% (n = 14)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒ 11.7% (n = 9)

9) Most of the English language learners with disabilities in my school participate in an alternate assessment to the state test.

Never █████████ 18.2% (n = 14))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 23.4% (n = 18)

Usually ███████████████████ 37.7% (n = 29)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 14.3% (n = 11)

Blank ███ 6.5% (n = 5)

Performance-Related Data Elements. On the five items in this category, "Usually" was again the most frequently selected response. This was the case for all except two items where "Rarely" was selected most frequently for English language learners with disabilities are proficient on the state tests (item 12) and English language learners with disabilities do pass high stakes tests (item 14). The results for the performance-related survey items are presented in Figure 2 (see Appendix B, Table B2 for performance-related item results with complete survey items content).

Nearly 20% of the educators who responded to this survey reported that English language learners with disabilities are "always" able to demonstrate their knowledge and their abilities on the state tests, and only 3% responded that this "never" happens (item 10). Approximately 48% and 27% responded that English language learners with disabilities are "usually" or "rarely" able to do so, respectively, and 2 respondents failed to answer this item. Similarly, 20% of respondents reported that English language learners with disabilities are "always" able to achieve a level of proficiency on the state test (item 11), with 40%, 31%, and 7% responding "usually," "rarely," or "never" to this item, respectively. Two participants did not respond to this item. This is in contrast to only 10% of the respondents who reported that these students "always" are proficient on the state tests (item 12). More responded that these students are "usually" or "rarely" proficient, with a 23% and 53% response to item 12, respectively. Also, 8% of the respondents indicated that these students are "never" proficient on the state tests; four participants did not respond to item 12.

Most of the respondents (42%) reported that these students "usually" can pass high stakes tests (item 13), 34% reported that this "rarely" occurs, 13% reported that this "always" occurs, and 7% reported that this "never" occurs; four respondents did not answer item 13. In contrast, most of the respondents (46%) reported that these students "rarely" do pass high stakes tests (item 14), followed by a 30% response that this "usually" occurs, and 8% for both responses that this "always" or "never" occurs; seven respondents did not answer item 14.

Never █ 2.6% (n = 2))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 27.3% (n = 21)

Usually ████████████████████████ 48.1% (n = 37)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 19.5% (n = 15)

11) English language learners with disabilities can be Proficient on the state test.

Never ███ 6.5% (n = 5))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 31.2% (n = 24)

Usually ████████████████████ 40.3% (n = 31)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 19.5% (n = 15)

12) English language learners with disabilities are proficient on the state test.

Never ████ 7.8% (n = 6))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 53.2% (n = 41)

Usually ████████████ 23.4% (n = 18)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒ 10.4% (n = 8)

13) English language learners with disabilities can pass high stakes tests.

Never ███ 6.5% (n = 5))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 33.8% (n = 26)

Usually █████████████████████ 41.6% (n = 32)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒ 13.0% (n = 10)

14) English language learners with disabilities do pass high stakes tests.

Never ████ 7.8% (n = 6))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 45.5% (n = 35)

Usually ███████████████ 29.9% (n = 23)

Always ▒▒▒▒ 7.8% (n = 6)

Blank █████ 9.1% (n = 7)

Student- and Parent-Related Data Elements. Overall, "usually" was the most frequently selected response for all four student and parent related items garnering nearly 70% or more responses for each item. The results for the student and parent-related survey items are presented in Figure 3 (see Appendix B, Table B3 for performance-related item results with complete survey items content).

Respondents reported that parents of English language learners with disabilities "usually" understand what the state tests are (69%); 20% reported "rarely," 7% reported "always," and 4% reported that these parents "never" understand the concept of state tests (item 15). Only one participant failed to respond to this item. Similarly, 75% of the respondents reported that these parents "usually" understand what test accommodations are; 14% reported "always," 8% reported "rarely," and 3% reported that these parents "never" comprehend the meaning of test accommodations (item 16). All respondents answered this item.

Respondents indicated that these students "usually" understand what state tests are (68%), and that 17% reported that they "rarely" understand, 13% reported that they "always" understand, and 1% reported that they "never" understand what the state tests are (item 17). Only one respondent did not answer this item. Again, a majority of respondents indicated that these students "usually" understand what test accommodations are (69%), and that both the "always" and "rarely" answers received a 14% response (item 18). No respondents indicated that these students "never" understand what test accommodations are, and two respondents did not answer this item.

15) English language learners with disabilities’ parents understand what the state tests are.

Never ██ 3.9% (n = 3))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 19.5% (n=15)

Usually ██████████████████████████████████ 68.8% (n = 53)

Always ▒▒▒ 6.5% (n = 5)

Never █ 2.6% (n = 2))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒ 7.8% (n = 6)

Usually ██████████████████████████████████████ 75.3% (n = 58)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 14.3% (n = 11)

Never █ 1.3% (n = 1))

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 16.9% (n = 13)

Usually ██████████████████████████████████ 67.5% (n = 52)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒ 13.0% (n = 10)

Never 0.0%%

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 14.3% (n = 11)

Usually ██████████████████████████████████ 68.8% (n = 53)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 14.3% (n = 11)

Blank █ 2.6% (n = 2)

Teacher-Related Data Elements. Three survey items pertained to either teachers themselves or to teachers as member of IEP teams. The results for these items are presented in Figure 4. For 19, a little more than 85% of the respondents indicated that someone with second language expertise "usually" or "always" attended IEP team meetings for English language learners. Only 13% responded that this "rarely" happened and approximately 1% of the participants left the item blank. Regarding the members of IEP teams for English language learners with disabilities who selected test accommodations for statewide testing (item 20), almost 60% of 167 responses thought special education teachers made the selection with almost 56% indicating that general education teachers made the selection. Less respondents thought that second language teachers and parents selected state test accommodations. Nearly 28% of the respondents thought second language teachers made the selection and another 28% thought that parents did. Almost 15% of 167 responses indicated that the student made the test accommodations selection with nearly 30% responding that "other" individuals did so. Approximately 5% indicated "don’t know" who selected test accommodations for English language learners with disabilities. Item 21 requested who knew the family background for English language learners and about 66% thought that general education teachers and nearly 63% special education teachers knew this information. Second language teachers at approximately 35% and parents at nearly 25% thought that the student knew, with a little more than 14% indicating that the information was known by "others" and approximately 14% did not know.

19) There is someone with second language expertise on English language learners with disabilities’ IEP teams in my school.

Never 0.0%%

Rarely ▒▒▒▒▒▒ 13.0% (n = 10)

Usually ██████████████████████████ 51.9% (n = 40)

Always ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 33.8% (n = 26)

20) People who select test accommodations for English language learners with disabilities’ use in state testing.

Out of a total 167 responses:
a. Special education teacher(s)██████████████████████████████ 46 59.7%

b. Second language teacher(s) ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 21 27.3%

c. General education teacher(s)████████████████████████████ 43 55.8%

d. Parent(s) ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 21 27.3%

e. SPELL ███████ 11 14.3%%

f. Other ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 21 27.3%

g. Don’t know ███ 4 5.2%

21) People who know English language learners with disabilities’ family background.

b. Second language teacher ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 27 35.1%

c. General education teacher █████████████████████████████████ 51 66.2%

d. Parent(s) ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 27 35.1%

e. Student ████████████ 19 24.7%

f. Other ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 11 14.3%

g. Don’t know █ 2 2.6%

Written Survey: Between School Results

To gain a different perspective on the data, results are reported in this section on a school by school basis. The same group categories are used here as in the previous section. A total of 20 elementary school educators (n = 20), 36 middle school educators (n = 36), and 21 secondary school educators (n = 21) completed the survey. The elementary school educators primarily had experience teaching general education (70%), followed by English as a second language (ESL; 25%), and special education (20%; Figure 5). These educators had an average of seven years as an educator, with a minimum of two years teaching, and a maximum of 15 years teaching (Figure 6). The middle school educators primarily had experience teaching general education (86%), followed by special education (19%), ESL (6%), and other (3%; Figure 7). These educators had an average of eight years as an educator, with a minimum of two years in the profession, and a maximum of 29 years in the profession (Figure 8). The secondary school educators primarily had experience teaching special education (91%), followed by general education (43%), ESL (14%), and other (2%; Figure 9). These educators had an approximate average of 10 years teaching, with a minimum of two years as an educator, and a maximum of 28 years as an educator (Figure 10).

English language learners with disabilities "usually" or "always" use accommodations when taking the state test at the elementary (100%), middle (75%), and the secondary school (86%) levels (Figure 13). However, the type of accommodations used varies by school. The majority of elementary (80%), middle (64%), and secondary (62%) school participants indicated that these students "usually" or "always" use both special education and second language accommodations (Figure 14). Similarly, when English language learners with disabilities use one type of accommodations, elementary (50%), middle (72%), and secondary (81%) respondents indicated that they use only special education accommodations (Figure 15). In contrast, while the elementary (80%) and secondary (62%) school participants responded that these students "rarely" or "never" use only second language accommodations, 59% of the middle school participants responded that these students "usually" or "always" use only second language accommodations (Figure 16).

In terms of completing the state test, there is a general pattern of full completion. At the elementary school level, participants responded that English language learners with disabilities "usually" or "always" complete all of the state test items (55%; Figure 17). Only 20% indicated that these students "usually" or "always" complete about half of the state test items (Figure 18), and 5% indicated that these students "usually" or "always" complete ten or less state test items (Figure 19). Responses from the secondary school educators followed a similar pattern, decreasing from 76% to 43% to 10%, respectively. There was also a decrease in the middle school educators’ responses; 86% reported that these students "usually" or "always" complete all the items (Figure 17) and 56% reported that they "usually" or "always" complete about half the items (Figure 18), but 55% also reported that these students "usually" or "always" complete ten or less items (Figure 19).

Teacher-Related Data Elements. When asked if someone with second language expertise is on the IEP teams of English language learners with disabilities, the most frequent response at all grade levels was "usually," with 55% of the elementary, 55% of the middle, and 43% of the secondary school educators responding in this manner. "Always" was the second most frequent response, with 30%, 39%, and 29% selecting this response at the elementary, middle, and secondary school level, respectively. The elementary school educators responded that the special education teachers (55%) typically decide on the test accommodations these students will use to take the state tests while the middle school educators reported that the general education teachers (81%) complete this task. The secondary school educators selected, by majority response, four individuals who decide on test accommodations for English language learners with disabilities: special education teachers (95%), parents (67%), second language teachers (62%), and other (52%). Finally, respondents were asked to select which individuals know the most about these students’ family backgrounds. The elementary school participants reported that the special education teachers (70%) and general education teachers (55%) know this information while 86% of the middle school participants responded that general education teachers know these students’ family backgrounds the most. Again, the secondary school educators selected, by majority response, four groups of individuals who they generally believed knew this information well: special education teachers (91%), second language teachers (67%), parents (67%), and students (57%).

In a third and final perspective on the data, results are reported in this section based on the participants’ professional role: special education teachers (n = 30), general education teachers (n = 54), second language teachers (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Due to the small number of participants classified as other, this group was not included in these analyses. The special education teachers had an average of 10 years as an educator, with a minimum of two years and a maximum of 28 years (Figure 23). The general education teachers had an average of eight years in the profession, with a minimum of two years and a maximum of 29 years (Figure 24). The second language teachers had an average of 14 years as an educator, with a minimum of five years and a maximum of 29 years (Figure 25)..

Teacher-Related Data Elements. The majority of special education (73%), second language (80%), and general education (85%) teachers responded that there is "usually" or "always" someone with second language expertise on IEP teams for English language learners with disabilities. The general education teacher participants indicated that general education (63%) and special education (57%) teachers typically decide on the test accommodations these students will use to take the state tests. Second language teacher participants echoed this response, indicating that special education (90%) and general education (50%) teachers make this decision. Special education teacher participants indicated that four groups of individuals make this decision: special education teachers (90%), general education teachers (57%), second language teachers (53%), and parents (53%). Participants were also asked to indicate which individuals know the most about these students’ family background. General education teacher participants selected general education teachers (80%) and special education teachers (61%) as knowing the most about the family backgrounds. Second language teacher participants selected four groups of individuals: special education teachers (100%), second language teachers (80%), general education teachers (80%), and parents (50%). Special education teacher participants selected the same four groups of individual as did special education teachers: special education teachers (93%), second language teachers (60%), general education teachers (57%), and parents (57%).

• Parents perceived teachers at the elementary school as generally available and open to communicating. This subset of parents typically found their child’s classroom teacher at school to speak informally about any questions or concerns that they had. For the most part, these conversations focused on their child’s behavior or academic progress. Some parents did call teachers on the telephone, but the telephone was used less frequently to communicate with teachers at school. In response to the bilingual researcher asking whether three parents in the small group interview ever communicated with the school by telephone (“Hablan con ellos por telefono?”), all parents responded, “No.” Teachers usually tended to call the parents first. Their purposes for calling parents were to make an appointment for a conference at school or to discuss an immediate concern about the child. Parents reported attending conferences at school as the chief means of communicating with teachers, followed by informal conversations before or after school.

• The frequency of communication between parents and teachers varied widely ranging from frequent to infrequent. Those parents who communicated frequently with their child’s classroom teacher tended to have children with more severe disabilities. In one case, parent-teacher communication occurred daily through the use of a notebook that was sent back and forth between home and school. Otherwise, parents who provided transportation to and from school for their child tended to initiate contact with teachers informally with more frequency and greater ease. At the opposite end of the continuum were those parents who only came to school when requested to do so. This was usually for the annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) team meeting that parents reported rarely missing.

• Parents attended conferences most frequently with their child’s special education teachers about their child’s progress in the content areas tested by the statewide assessment. Each parent reported talking to his or her child’s special education teacher more often than other specialists or general education teachers. By and large, these conversations focused on the child’s progress in math and reading. The exception to this finding is the difference in the content of parent-school communication for those students whose disabilities were severe. For these students, teachers typically relayed information about the child’s daily routines at school such as how they ate lunch or behaved during a specific activity.

• Interpreters were always provided for formal communication at pre-determined meetings between parents and teachers. Parents indicated that there was always someone available to interpret any English spoken at conferences or IEP team meetings. In these settings, parents thought that they understood everything that was said to them although sometimes teachers used specialized educational terms that were not comprehended easily. Some parents participated actively in these instances saying that they asked questions until they understood the information about their child. Parents who participated passively did not understand most of the English conversation. A parent rarely requested a more qualified interpreter because she did not understand the English interpretation. Rather often, parents indicated that they did not think that teachers understood what they said through an interpreter because the conversation generally focused on what the teachers wanted to tell the parents and not on what the parents wanted to tell the teachers.

· Parents expressed some concern about the use of bilingual interpreters when conversing with English-speaking teachers. A few parents indicated that they found communicating with Spanish-speaking teachers much easier than with English-speaking teachers. Some described informal situations where no interpreter was available so that a child was recruited to interpret the conversation. Another parent preferred talking directly to the teacher without having to use another speaker to facilitate the communication. Other parents expressed concerns about the interpreters themselves by explaining the difference between a bilingual interpreter who learned to speak both Spanish and English at a young age compared to English speakers who acquired Spanish skills as adults. Even so, parents thought communication with English-speaking teachers was satisfactory.

• Most formal written communication and some informal written communication from school to home is translated into Spanish. The parents interviewed for this project indicated understanding written communication more easily because it was written in Spanish. Even hand written notes from teachers were translated by a Spanish literate person. One parent reported that written information from her child’s teacher enhanced communication between her child and herself. According to some parents, IEPs that were translated into Spanish and sent home were understood more easily than the interpreted English at team meetings. Parents reported reading these documents even though written educational “jargon” was just as confusing when written as when spoken.

• Parents had heard of the state administered test, but understood its purpose to be one of student accountability. Parents were familiar with the term “state test,” but indicated that the purpose was to measure students’ academic progress in reading and math. No parent indicated understanding a connection between newspaper reports of schools’ achievement levels and the state test, although many parents had read these newspaper articles. Most parents reported learning about the state test through flyers in Spanish that the school sent home explaining how parents could prepare their children for test day. A few parents were aware of testing because of older siblings in the family, but even fewer of these reported that they remembered discussing the state test at that child’s IEP team meeting.

• Parents of ELLs with severe disabilities were not aware of alternate assessments. The few parents interviewed whose children participated in an alternate assessment were not aware of this testing process nor of what purpose the assessment served. They also did not understand an alternate assessment to be an element of a state’s standards-based testing and accountability program.

• When the terms “IEP” and “accommodation” were described to them, parents knew what they were. Most parents were aware of what IEPs and accommodations were when these terms were described in basic English words and interpreted to them in Spanish. In other words, parents seemed to understand that an IEP contained their children’s educational goals and an accommodation was to help them learn in a general education classroom. Yet, only one set of parents recalled a discussion of either statewide testing or accommodations during an IEP team meeting.

• Parents at the elementary school indicated that some teachers asked them questions about their culture. Parents of elementary-aged children indicated that they had some opportunities to share information about their child’s culture at school. This was not the case for children whose disabilities were the most severe. Speaking generally, parents welcomed more opportunities to explain their cultural heritage at school.

• There was no pattern in responses about whether Spanish-speaking and English-speaking parents mingled and communicated at school events. When at school, some Spanish- and English-speaking parents communicated either with or without someone to interpret. In some cases, their children interpreted so that parents could understand one another. Other parents indicated that parents only communicated with other parents whose native languages were the same.

• Overall, parents at the elementary school had no suggestions for improving communication. The parents interviewed for this project were well satisfied with communication with their child’s teachers.

Parents of English Language Learners with Disabilities at the Middle School. Eight themes of results emerged from the analysis of the interviews with parents of English language learners with disabilities who were middle school age.

• Parents of English language learners with disabilities at the middle school reported infrequent communication with their child’s teachers. Frequency of communication between teachers and parents ranged from approximately once a month to twice a year among the middle school parents interviewed for this project. Typically, teachers contacted parents by telephone to make arrangements for a formal meeting at school. There were few instances of informal communication between parents and teachers. For the most part, teachers contacted parents by telephone; parents rarely called teachers first. Parents tended to only talk to those teachers who contacted them, and when meeting, only discussed teacher concerns about their children’s inappropriate behavior or inadequate academic progress. Those parents who communicated more frequently with their children’s teachers thought teachers were generally available to them, but still relied on teachers to initiate the contact.

• Some middle school parents were well informed about educational procedures and terms while other parents were not at all informed. Parents of middle school-aged students fell into two groups according to their level of information about their child’s schooling. The first group demonstrated complete awareness of the term “IEP” as the paperwork that contained their child’s instructional goals. These same parents recognized the state test when asked, often indicating that their older children had taken the test in previous school years. While none of them understood system accountability as the purpose of statewide testing, they did indicate that the test measured their child’s academic progress in specific content areas. Further, they understood the purpose of accommodations appropriately. One parent even generated an example of a test accommodation as a test that was administered with breaks for her child. On the other hand, another group of parents indicated that they were not familiar with the terms “IEP” or “accommodation” even when descriptions were provided in basic English and interpreted in Spanish. There was some uncertainty as to whether they had received a Spanish translation of their children’s IEPs. Most parents who did not recognize the term “IEP” reported that they did not read papers that they received even when translated versions were sent to them at home. Across these two groups of parents who were either informed or not informed, no parent recalled discussing their child’s participation in statewide testing during an IEP team meeting.

No parent at the middle school recalled being asked about their cultural background so that teachers with a non-Hispanic background could better understand their Spanish-speaking students’ customs and values. At one point, when their children first entered the middle school, parents recalled being asked what language(s) were spoken most frequently at home. But otherwise, parents were not invited to share any cultural information with their children’s teachers.

• Spanish-speaking parents at the middle school did not mingle with English-speaking parents at school events. For the most part, parents of middle school-age children typically attended only those events at school to which they were invited to specifically talk about their own child. Since these events were usually attended by only one family at a time, they were generally unable to indicate whether Spanish- and English-speaking parents communicated with one another.

• Some Spanish-speaking parents assumed that communication through an interpreter was well understood while others were less certain. When asked, parents responded that Spanish-speaking parents and English-speaking teachers understood one another through interpreters. Yet, no parents described ways in which they checked teachers’ comprehension or teachers checked to make sure that parents comprehended. Some parents emphasized that communicating with Spanish-speaking teachers was easier than communicating with English-speaking teachers because interactions were more straightforward and less problematic. These parents reported understanding only some of what was said to them through an interpreter while thinking that English-speaking teachers understood only some of what was interpreted to them. One parent indicated that an advocate from an outside agency generally interpreted for her who made sure that she understood all that was said in English.

• A few parents were frustrated by the lack of available interpreters for informal communication with middle school staff. There were instances where parents described situations at school where their home language impeded clarification of their specific questions about their child. Both times, parents attempted to communicate with office personnel when no interpreter was readily available. Unfortunately, parents either spent a lengthy amount of time waiting for an interpreter, or in another situation, attempted to communicate with school staff using a student to interpret. In both cases, parents were not able to understand the answers to their questions.

• Overall, parents indicated that their native language was a barrier to good communication between parents and teachers at the middle school. When asked to recommend suggestions for improving family and school communication, various parents suggested ensuring effective communication through consistently available Spanish-speaking staff who would not require interpretation to field their questions.

· Parents suggested that communication could be improved with more Spanish-speaking staff at the middle school. The only suggestion that a few parents made to improve communication between themselves and the school was to make sure that Spanish-speaking staff were readily available to serve as interpreters. Two parents described unfortunate situations at school that could have been resolved with an interpreter. One parent stopped in the school office with a concern about her child. She waited for at least 30 minutes, had only a student to interpret her question, and left without resolution to her issue.

Parents of English Language Learners with Disabilities in the High School. The results of a group interview of parents of English language learners with disabilities who attended the high school yielded nine themes, which are described and followed by selected supportive quotations.

· Parents of ELLs with disabilities communicated infrequently with teachers at the high school. Most of the parents in this group interview indicated that they rarely communicated with teachers at school. In fact, many parents did not know the general education teachers’ names even though their children were included in classes with their peers without disabilities. They did know the special education teacher’s name and reported that they did communicate with him whenever they were requested to do so. Parents also reported the same for the speech teacher. Otherwise, parents seemed to not know specific high school teachers and their roles at school. Conferences at school were prearranged with the teacher typically contacting the parents by telephone, although some parents in the group indicated that they had not received phone calls from the school. All parents did report that they communicated more frequently with elementary and middle school teachers.

· When parents communicated with high school staff, they tended to focus on one specific concern about their adolescent. Parents who frequently initiated contact with the school tended do so about one concern. For instance, one parent whose daughter tended not to attend school called the school office every school day to make sure that her daughter was in class. Otherwise, she reported infrequent communication with her daughter’s teachers.

· Parents’ perceptions of how frequently the school contacted them regarding their adolescent varied widely. Throughout the conversation, it became clearer that parents had different perceptions and expectations for how often the high school contacted them. Some parents indicated that school staff contacted them regularly while other parents said that they either rarely or never called them. Most parents seemed to use elementary and middle schools as their reference for how often the school was contacting them, and thus wished for more frequent contact from the high school. They did seem to understand that it was, in part, their responsibility to initiate communication with teachers themselves.

· Most parents needed verbal descriptions to be able to recognize special education procedures and terms. Parents in this group only recognized the terms “IEP” and “accommodation” after a verbal description was interpreted to them in Spanish. All parents were aware of meetings where the IEP document was discussed, but only a few parents were able to recall discussions about learning and test accommodations. Parents were able to generate examples of test accommodations such as small group administration and extended test time, but did not do so until prompted. In terms of the process of developing an IEP, parents indicated that they understood that they would be contacted annually to attend a meeting at school with various teachers and that they would receive a translated copy of the IEP in the mail at home. They also recalled signing the document with their child present who also signed the IEP.

· Overall, parents were aware of their children’s participation in statewide testing. When asked about the state administered test, all parents in this group interview indicated familiarity with the SAT-9. Although not recalling any discussion about test participation during the IEP team meeting or written information within the child’s IEP regarding the state test, all parents were aware of the test from either older siblings or from information about preparing their child for test day that was mailed to their home. A few parents reported discussions with their child about what the school was doing to maximize test performance.

· High school students tended to be either “success stories” or “crisis stories.” There were times in the group interview process when parents began speaking about their individual children that pointed to the wide disparity between student experiences. Two parents described severe social issues with their children with disabilities that had resulted in violent acts directed to themselves or others. Other parents reported that their children were beginning to understand and verbalize their frustration with having a disability that embarrassed them at school. Their families attributed their students’ reluctance or refusal to go to school to these experiences. On the other hand, another parent described her child’s effort and perseverance to excel in spite of a disability. In this case, academic success is resulting in a scholarship for post-secondary education. No parent reported school experiences that fell between the extremes of success and crisis for their students.

· Hispanic English proficient parents experience communication difficulties with the high school. One fully proficient English speaker who has a Mexican heritage and is raising English-speaking children with disabilities typically receives written communication from the high school that is translated into Spanish. Since she was raised in an English-speaking environment, she is not literate in Spanish. Even when using a dictionary, she has difficulty comprehending the Spanish narrative. Spanish-speaking school staff also place phone calls to the family, which are not understood by her fully proficient English-speaking children. Even though each family member had Mexican names, they did not need interpreters or translations since Spanish is not their dominant or preferred language.

· Parents tended to only speak to other Spanish-speaking parents on the rare occasions that they attended school functions. When this group of parents was at school, they tended to seek out only Spanish-speaking parents to engage in conversation. There was no indication that Spanish- and English-speaking parents mingled in conversation during school activities. For example, when the bilingual interpreter asked whether a parent spoke to English- or Spanish-speaking parents at school (“Por eso, si se sienta a platicar, en ingles on en espanol?”), the interpreted response was, “He said yeah, they just sit down and chat, and they’ll chat in Spanish.” Within the group interview, there were three parents who indicated that they had never attended a school activity.

· Parents of high school-age students requested more group meetings where they could interact with one another. When asked how communication between the high school and families could be improved, parents suggested more meetings that were more like the group interview. It seemed as though they enjoyed the interaction with each other in an open-ended approach to discussion of specific issues. Even when some parents raised complaints about a service provision for their child, other parents took issue by defending special education programming in particular and the school in general. By doing so, parents supported and learned from one another through thought provoking and challenging feedback.

Parents of English Language Learners who Attended an Additional High School Site. Three findings emerged from the results of the interviews with the parents of English language learners who attended the Poly Academy of Accelerated Learning (PAAL).

· Communication was impeded by non-Spanish speaking staff. Parents said that it was difficult to communicate with English-speaking PAAL staff when interpreters were not readily available for informal conversations. Sometimes students would interpret for their parents, but formal communication was described as more efficient because interpreters facilitate Spanish-English conversations.

· Spanish-speaking parents found school materials difficult to comprehend even when translated into Spanish. Even when materials that described school procedures and policies are written in Spanish, parents still indicated that it was difficult to understand the meaning. Parents were literate in Spanish, but some educational terms have different meanings when translated into Spanish, or in some cases, English words cannot be translated into Spanish at all.

· Parents who attended parent-teacher conferences wished for discussions beyond their students’ academic progress. This group of parents indicated that they attended pre-arranged conferences when requested to do so and for which they expressed gratitude. While they thought that it was important to remain updated about their children’s academic progress, they expressed a need to discuss other topics that pertained to their children’s social behavior at school.

Across the three schools, students generally recognized the name of the state test. All English language learners with disabilities at the high school were aware of the test. According to students at all three schools, teachers informed them about statewide testing, along with family members and newspapers making elementary students aware of the test, and friends at the high school sharing this information. Only some of the elementary age students understood the purpose of the state test, but the middle and high school age students understood the purpose well. All of the student responses indicated that they took the state test in English.

Most of the English language learners with disabilities at all three schools were not aware of the term “test accommodations.” With additional probing, that in some cases included providing examples of accommodations, students were able to identify the accommodations that they used during testing. All students indicated that these accommodations were helpful.

Overall, most of the students across the three schools recognized the term “IEP meeting” and indicated that they had attended a meeting. There was less awareness about whether state tests and test accommodations were discussed at their IEP team meetings.

There was one student in particular who, as a first grader, was too young to participate in our student interviews. Her remarkable academic success in general education is worth noting; especially in light of her relatively recent exposure to learning English as a young child with autism.

Teachers. There are four overall areas of thematic findings that were derived from the results of the face-to-face interviews with the elementary, middle, and high school teachers. These areas include (I) teacher-parent communication, (II) large-scale assessments, (III) special education procedures, and (IV) other language learning. Within each of these four areas, we further organized the themes into categories for clearer presentation. All themes are then followed by supportive quotations taken directly from the teachers’ responses.

Within the general area of teacher-parent communication, our content analysis yielded seven categories of thematic findings, which illuminate across and within school differences.  

            (1) Communication Form.

            (2) Initiating Communication.

            (3) Interpreter Use.

            (4) Teacher Roles

      (5) Communication Content.

            (6) Communication Strategies.

            (7) Obstacles to Communication.

The quoted response below, titled “At Open House,” emerged from our teacher interviews and is an example of a possible misunderstanding when English-speaking teachers are communicating with culturally and linguistically diverse parents. In response to the conversation being interpreted into Spanish, the English-speaking teacher assumed that the parent was unwilling to discuss her child’s disability. While that may be true, the parent may have simply felt uncomfortable talking about sensitive issues in a public setting such as an open house at school.

            (8) Suggestions to Improve Communication.

II. Large-Scale Assessments. Two thematic findings emerged from the teacher interview data that further highlight differences between and across schools.

            (1) State Tests.

            (2) Test Accommodations.

III. Special Education Procedures. One general category of findings emerged from teachers’ interviews that pertained specifically to the unique process of implementing IEP team procedures with families of English language learners with disabilities.

IV. Native Language Issues. Thematic findings that highlight native language issues are organized according to three general areas.

            (1) Parent Involvement.

            (2) Family background information.

On rare occasion in our interview process, a teacher demonstrated unique understandings for cultures other than his or her own native culture. The following narrative demonstrates this type of respect when teaching in multi-cultural settings.

     (3) Sharing native cultures.

Differences within Schools

Our content analysis of teacher interview data also yielded unique differences in teacher responses within the middle school and the high school.

According to special education teachers at the middle school:

Yet, general educators and English language development teachers indicated:

On another line of interview questioning, results from special educators at the middle school were:

 However, results from general educators were:

Differences across Schools

Differences across the schools also emerged across the schools that show how the these schools are unique entities within this case study. For instance, the only teachers who indicated sending handwritten notes home were elementary special education teachers. Translated written communication for parents of English language learners with disabilities from the middle and high schools tended to be sent out in mass from either the school or district office.

District and School Administrators. An assistant superintendent of special education and a program specialist of special education/English language learners were interviewed to garner district level perspectives on inclusive large-scale assessment and accountability programs for English language learners with disabilities. To understand administrative views from the school perspective, we also interviewed principals at each school site. It should be noted though that our findings from the district level administrators and elementary principal are fleshed out more fully because data collection resources allowed for more in depth interviewing. Interpreting interview results from the middle and high school perspective should be done with caution due to limited interview data. The following thematic findings point to features of this district and four of its schools where inclusive large-scale assessment and accountability programs are a priority. Our findings are organized by grand themes each of which is followed by explanatory subthemes.

The interview opened with questions about these district and school administrators’ views of inclusive large-scale assessment and accountability programs.

Since the high rate of participation in statewide testing can be difficult to achieve (Elliott, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1996), we specifically asked the assistant superintendent of special education what factors contributed to the participation rate in this district. Citing that “one factor was not most important,” the assistant superintendent indicated that large-scale assessment inclusiveness was grounded in “a systemic approach to [school] change. …You can’t just go at the target. You’ve got to go underneath it, around it, behind it, below it so it is a systemic approach. … My approach to everything is systemic.”

All district and school level personnel interviewed for this case study mirrored a mandated, albeit assumed, policy of including all students in statewide testing. This practice incorporated any subgroups of students with disabilities such as those whose native language is not English. A story describing initial planning with the assistant superintendent of special education demonstrates this district mandate.

Believing that improved student academic outcomes reflected in improved accountability outcomes begins by upgrading the delivery of standards-based instruction, all staff development is organized and delivered by the Office of Curriculum and Development. In doing so, the responsibility for inclusive accountability is shared across the district rather than resting solely in the office of special education or within individual schools. Testing all students becomes an issue for all teachers—not just special education teachers. The assistant superintendent explained, “It [inclusive accountability] is founded in good instruction. …You have to understand that this is not a special education-drive issue. It is comes from the Office of Curriculum and Development. It’s really professional development.”

Staff development targets a variety of stakeholders including principals in a variety of settings such as departmental meetings at the school site or administrative meetings that pull principals together from across the district. This district-wide endeavor rolls out the policy intent into daily educational practice within all schools. While information may be adjusted for the unique differences among groups of educators, the overall message of inclusiveness is always retained. According to the assistant superintendent, “It’s professional development from the Office of Curriculum and Instruction to the school site, the principals’ meetings, and our special education department meetings. It’s not just one [group]. You have to hit it at every angle.” Further, she added, “It’s definitely working with special education teachers to understand the concept around ‘inclusive assessment and accommodations.’ Once they understand it, then they can talk to other [staff members] in the IEP process about it.”

When responding to how she had learned that all students were to be included in statewide testing, the program specialist reflected the systemic approach to information flow within the district. “I guess it comes down the chain of command from the assistant superintendents to the principals. Then in special education, it comes through the mechanism of the administrator for teaching and learning to the team leaders who are assigned to specific sites. It’s explained at monthly meetings with department heads and lead teachers …who convey the information to people at their sites.” School-based administrators described this flow of information in a similar fashion reflecting the understanding that the message was to be emphasized continually with their staff members.

When district level administrators target desired teaching practices, staff development activities and materials are developed to provide “hands on” experience that support changes in current procedures. For instance, based on a recently published assessment textbook (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2002), “there are a couple of checklists that teachers can use for [selecting] accommodations. Teachers have been provided with those and used them in doing case study reviews [during professional development].” The assistant superintendent then explained that these checklists were translated into changes in students’ IEP forms.

Described as the “main thing that we’ve changed,” specific teacher practices were modified to better support high-quality decision making about how students with disabilities, including English language learners with disabilities, could demonstrate the best state test performance possible. Changes are internally consistent with other special education components in that key aspects of staff development are embedded in special education teachers’ practices. To that end, the assistant superintendent said, “I changed the entire IEP pages for accommodations to reflect six boxes [derived from accommodation-related staff development content]. Teachers are ‘forced’ through the IEP process to identify instructional accommodations according to those ‘six boxes’ … for instructional accommodations, classroom assessment accommodations, and state and district assessment accommodations.”

While this leadership approach complicated administrators’ day to day work load, each principal was expected to work outside of their office daily. Direct contact with staff and students was built into their job description. The assistant superintendent assumed the same role in that, “I’m in the schools every morning between 7:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. I go out and teach and read to the kids, and model, and visit with the principals, and problem solve and troubleshoot. … Every administrator in the central office should be required to be out in the schools. I don’t care if you’re a budget person or whatever. It’s really, really critical for people who are movers and shakers and changers—who are really about accountability—to be out. … That’s the culture in our district. Principals are told they need to be in the classrooms two to three hours out their day. We [district administrators] model that by being out [in the schools].”

We found this practice to be true throughout our data collection process in the individual schools. Building principals were rarely in their offices, but rather seen in classrooms or hallways interacting with students, staff, and parents. In fact, we found principals in their offices only before and after school hours or for meetings with parents or students that required a confidential setting. The program specialist also indicated that she “keeps her hand in there with the teachers because I find that that really helps me in my job. … They know me. Then when something comes down through the pipeline from me, they tend to pay attention to it.” This personal contact with the teaching staff is further exemplified by the following story.

Both of the district level professionals bring a wealth of school and community experiences to the administrative aspects of providing special education services to English language learners and their families. The assistant superintendent of special education had a high-level of special education experience at the local, state, and national level of American education. In addition, she is an author of multiple large-scale assessment books and reports as well as having provided state-level technical assistance in this area. Just as unique in experience, the program specialist in special education/English language learners was a bilingual speaker of English and Spanish with extensive educational experiences that cross general education, special education, English language learning, and educational leadership. “I was in general education for ten years … that I think was probably the single most valuable thing that prepared me to work in special education. … Just understanding the life of the classroom and the pressures on the teachers [helps to] establish contacts that way.”

Another portion of the face-to-face interview with district and school administrators addressed the inherent challenges to providing special education services for English language learners identified with a disability.

Even though this district has made significant strides in developing inclusive statewide testing programs that are used for accountability purposes, their focus remains on continuing to improve student outcomes across all of the schools in their district.

            The assistant superintendent of special education indicated that she “didn’t think that we’re where we need to be right now. I think the biggest challenge is making sure the kids have access to the curriculum they need in order to show what they know and can do. … If we’re looking at accountability practices based on test scores, we have to make sure that the kids are first being given access to good instruction that addresses their language needs.”  

Identifying the teachers as the last recipients of information shared from the district officers, the program specialist said, “We’re finding that a lot of information gets lost in …the conveyance from the department head/lead teacher meeting over to the actual people in the trenches at the sites.  Further, she offered reasons that this break in the chain of communication was happening. “In the press for time, just the frantic day-to-day trying to run the program, it’s hard for some of them to organize meetings to get the information out in an orderly fashion. Or to do the kind of follow up where, if so-and-so was out at the bus taking care of students and missed the meeting ...”  Suggesting that teachers are not necessarily expected to think systemically as administrators are, the program specialist said, “Lead teachers and department heads are chosen by their peers, but that doesn’t necessarily give them the ability to think more like an administrator. They are used to taking care of kids, but not taking care of each other.” In elaborating further, she suggested that “teachers do not necessarily think innately … about scheduling meetings and presenting information in a way that is user friendly.”

After acknowledging the break down in communication to teachers in the schools, the program specialist indicated that “we worked with lead teacher and the department heads …to get some important information out. We brought them together and talked about the content of the message. Then we worked with them a little bit on how to present that. It’s almost like you have to think about the content. That’s step 1 and then step 2 is how do I relay this content so that it makes an impact.”

To reinforce what is presented verbally, teachers also receive multiple district newsletters that are sent out from the director’s office reiterating the information in a written format for future reference. One newsletter in particular is prepared by the office of the assistant superintendent of special education that is more of “a communication piece with general education than specifically transmitting information to special education people.”

In addressing how student outcomes could be improved, the program specialist indicated that, “If most of our kids [students with disabilities] are going to be saved by general education teachers who have resources at their schools and are well backed up by people with know-how in particular areas.” She went on to indicate that, “I don’t see general education teachers like I would like to.”

Another overarching theme that emerged from the district interviews concerned linguistically diverse parents of English language learners with disabilities.

The assistant superintendent of special education commented that, “The superintendent has parent forums on a monthly basis that we [district staff] attend. They revolve around different things …especially for special education … it’s about compliance.” There were a variety of types of meetings from parent forums to parent-teacher association meetings either with or without a preset agenda. Native language interpreters are provided as needed. The bilingual elementary principal often speaks Spanish when interacting with Spanish-speaking parents.

For the most part, linguistically diverse parents in attendance at monthly parent meetings tended to receive information passively without comments or questions. The assistant superintendent of special education did comment though, “The issue of accommodations is coming out more. Parents of English language learners [without disabilities] are now starting to rattle about high school classroom teachers specifically not providing accommodations for classroom assessments. Special education teachers are, resource room teachers are, but the general education teachers are not.” There were no particular issues identified with parents of English language learners with disabilities although the assistant superintendent of special education said, “I assume it’s coming.”

When parent meetings had preset agendas that were developed by district staff, “typically any kind of parent meeting that you have, especially for special education, is not about large-scale assessment and accommodations. It’s about compliance.”  Her comments further described the perspectives and priorities that separate district administrators from other educators and parents. “When you get into a special education world like I’m in right, accommodations and accountability are huge. That’s the driving force behind all that I do. But it’s ‘a blip on the radar screen’ for principals, teachers, and parents.”

In responding to the interview questions, the assistant superintendent described patterns of group behavior and perceptions that were consistent with her understanding of parent perspectives and priorities. When asked is she thought that linguistically diverse parents knew much about statewide testing, she responded, “Probably not. They may know that there are testing windows and they that there are testing times, but I would say that most don’t know the constructs that are being measured. They just know that is it a district test.”

Believing that “every administrator in the central office should be required to be out in the schools,” the assistant superintendent of special education begins every school day in the schools. Commenting further, “I don’t care if you’re a budget person or whatever. It is really, really critical for people who are movers and shakers and changers—who are really about accountability—to model that by being out [in the schools].”

Every school day between 7:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., the assistant superintendent of special education is visiting classrooms. “I go out and teach and read to kids, and model, and visit with the principals, and problem solve and troubleshoot.” Describing this approach to leadership as “the culture in our district, principals are also told they need to be in the classrooms two to three hours out of their day. We [district administrators] model that by being out.”  

By directly observing teaching in process, one can “see what’s going on. You see who is and who doesn’t.” It is a way to “always have your finger on the pulse.” While time spent out in the schools compromises the time that the assistant superintendent can focus on office work as evidenced by, “It would be a lot easier to stay in my office all day. But you can’t do systemic change and you can’t hold yourself and other people accountable if you sit in your office.”

When asked if she was aware of specific issues that linguistically diverse parents raised about statewide assessments, the assistant superintendent’s response was consistent with her systemic view of educational leadership. Acknowledging no awareness of parent issues about state tests, she stated, “It goes back to my position and what I’m in charge of. I don’t go to IEP meetings, so I’m not at the level.” In other words, as “a systemic person,” she was aware of patterns at the group level concerning families in her school district, although she did not know families at an individual level. Yet, while thinking systemically, she did understand individuals within specific home language groups as evidenced by, “I also look at Spanish families different than Vietnamese families who are different because the culture is different. You start with the group, but it always boils down to individuals.”

In addressing the reality of cultural bias in state test items, the assistant superintendent discussed what is sometimes called a cultural bias as often being an experiential issue. For instance, she did comment that “you can pick up any test at any time and find issues” for most children… “[not just for] kids coming from poverty backgrounds. We have kids here who live six blocks from the ocean. They’re in 5th, 6th, and 7th grade and have never been to the ocean.”  Further, and by qualifying that she did not have state-level information about how the state test was reviewed for cultural bias, she stated that, “Depending on the district that you are working in, you’re going to find that there’s stuff in any assessment that may be culturally inappropriate. If there’s a word problem or a ready comprehension problem about camp, as in going on a camping trip—that freaks out some of our second language learners because they came from [refugee] camps.”

Generally speaking, the families that the assistant superintendent interacts with are monolingual and are “just so happy to be here.” Because of that, “They aren’t going to rock the boat, per se, which is very frustrating. We are trying to figure out a way to get around that.”  One way in which the district is trying to elicit more feedback from this subgroup of parents, “We’ve started tacking them on to what’s called the District Parent Group for English language adults to start getting those parents [of English language learners with disabilities] involved in special education issues.”

In terms of communicating with monolingual parents whose native language is not English, the assistant superintendent reported that there were no issues in obtaining an interpreter for district level meetings. “We have fabulous interpreters. The biggest frustration is … people who say at the last minute, ‘I forgot to get an interpreter.’ We have community workers who are bilingual and if I need somebody at the last minute, we will have those folks step in and interpret.” For those languages that were less prevalent in the district, “We have them [interpreters]. You might have to work a little harder.”  But interpreting for the less commonly spoken languages was always possible.

In order to discern the useful information that emerged from these findings, we compared school level and sample subgroup results for a discussion that concludes this report. By the nature of the case study research design for this project, our findings cannot be directly generalized to other school sites, but do point to noticeable school characteristics, policies, and procedures that are important considerations for policymakers, administrators, and practitioners who strive to better include English language learners with disabilities in states’ large-scale assessment and accountability programs. We have identified seven such important considerations.

From the office of the assistant superintendent of special education through the practitioners in the classrooms, we heard one consistent message regarding the need to include English language learners with disabilities in statewide testing. The large-scale assessment policy appears to be understood and implemented consistently throughout the district. Leaders in this school district described a systemic approach to disseminating policy information. From our cross sectional look at large-scale assessment practices in this district, accurate policy interpretation and implementation seems to have permeated all components of the school system both within and across the various schools in which we collected data.

Administrators in both the schools and the district provided multiple forms of communication, from specific teacher training sessions to monthly e-newsletters to weekly verbal reminders, highlighting the importance of full participation in state testing. Students pointed out that even the signs in front of the school buildings announced the test dates.

As statewide test data are analyzed and interpreted, information filters through the school system in a logical and predictable manner. This information system is a written action plan that is implemented as originally decided. In passing along statewide test results, school leaders are allowed adequate time to digest the results prior to distribution to the public media. Information that could potentially impact public opinion about any one school is handled professionally to avoid undue embarrassment or alarm. These data, while sometimes troubling, are intended to improve instructional delivery and thus, student outcomes.

While acknowledging the extensive strain of completing a daily schedule that leaders have in place in this district, their consistent daily contact with practitioners, students, and parents provides the opportunity to follow up any issues arising from assessment policy mandates. Policy interpretation is clarified, issues requiring administrative problem solving can be handled more efficiently, and leaders have first-hand knowledge about instructional delivery that provides the starting place for improving assessment and accountability outcomes. In other words, this district not only "talks" about assessing all students, but leaders "walk their talk," so to speak.

Even those closest to the students who may have had first hand experience with student concerns about statewide testing appreciated the need for students to participate in standards-based testing. This was evident in parents’ attempts to adequately prepare their children for test day as guided by school flyers sent home and teachers’ personal requests. Or, high school age students stressing the need to pass a high stakes test in order to graduate. No participant interviewed for this research study voiced any resistance to including English language learners with disabilities in statewide testing, save one family whose child had severe physical and cognitive disabilities. In this case, the parent did not seem to understand the connection between an alternate assessment and reporting that test data with the entire school test performance. The necessary next step for this district albeit many school districts is to begin articulating the intent of an alternate assessment program for including all students in accountability programs.

For the most part, all administrators, teachers, parents, and students who participated in our case study understand the use of accommodations during testing. While there were varying levels of technical knowledge, participants recognized the term, could identify which accommodations were in place on students’ IEPs, and indicated an awareness of the general purpose of accommodating tests. Even though a language barrier was evident throughout our data collection activities with parents of English language learners with disabilities, this sample subgroup—again, for the most part—were familiar with test accommodations. A noteworthy finding that may apply to other home language groups is the difficulty of interpreting and translating "accommodation" to Spanish. Instead of having one Spanish word that can be used synonymously with this U.S. school practice, it was necessary to describe the general concept and process of accommodating tests. This finding points to the need for educators and policymakers to take extreme care when communicating across languages to ensure that appropriate messages are received and legal mandates are properly met. Our case study results indicated that parent-teacher communication may not always be well understood even with the use of a bilingual interpreter and translated materials.

As would be expected, parents of English language learners with disabilities whose children were in elementary school tended to communicate more frequently with teachers at school. They attended school functions more regularly than parents of students in middle and high school as well as appearing to have more detailed information about their child’s academic performance at school. Yet, parents from all three school levels did speak to the importance of their students’ inclusion in statewide testing. While possibly not knowing the exact purpose of these tests, parents of students in elementary, middle, and high school alike were aware of the academic areas tested and the importance of a passing performance.

No federal or state mandates, including NCLB, 2001, require school districts to disaggregate large-scale assessment performance and participation data by the discrete group of English language learners with disabilities. The fact that this school district does not do so is not unusual across U.S. schools. For best student outcomes, it would be helpful for all schools to consider disaggregating test data for English language learners with disabilities as a separate subgroup. Additionally, for use in school improvement planning, it would be beneficial to disaggregate large-scale assessment data for English language learners with disabilities by disability category and home language group.

There was a general overall understanding for both the purpose and the procedures in the implementation of statewide testing across all sample subgroups. We did uncover isolated instances of misinformed practitioners. This was particularly true regarding teacher information about test accommodations. Even though testing issues were continually addressed through multiple means to improve accommodated testing, there were still some teachers who did not fully understand the purpose or how to best provide test accommodations for English language learners with disabilities. Because of this, it is even more imperative for all school administrators to critically re-think how test accommodation information is presented to their teachers and how the appropriate use of test accommodations can be ensured.
 

This report is a first step toward describing the participation of English language learners with disabilities in statewide testing at one point in time for one large, urban school. Yet, much remains to be learned about how to best include these students in states’ standards-based assessments and accountability programs. Just as importantly, research has only begun to demonstrate how these students perform and whether they can fully show what they actually know and can do.

It is critical for future research to begin teasing apart the influence of critical, confounding variables such as the variety of cultural and linguistic differences across home language groups, the length of time families have been in the U.S. and students have been in U.S. schools, previous educational experiences including how disability issues were addressed in native countries, educational backgrounds of parents and other family members, various cultural interpretations of disability issues and the affects on student academic performance, and finally—but not at all least importantly—the interaction of disability effects and various levels of English language proficiency as an effect on student large-scale assessment performance. Another important challenge is to understand how students with a variety of disabilities and levels of English language proficiency can best be accommodated during testing so that test data are both valid indicators of students’ standards-based progress and useable for school improvement planning purposes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2005). Beyond subgroup reporting: English language learners with disabilities in 2002–2003 online state assessment reports (ELLs with Disabilities Report 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Elliott, J. L., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1996.) Assessment guidelines that maximize the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: Characteristics and considerationss (Synthesis Report 25). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (Eds.). (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Minnema, J., Thurlow, M., Anderson, M., & Stone, K. (2005). English language learners with disabilities and large-scale assessments: What the literature can tell us (ELLs with Disabilities Report 6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

United States Census Bureau. (2005). Stateand county quickfacts. Retrieved April 2, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
 

  Top of page