NCEO Logo
Bookmark and Share

 

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


ELLs with Disabilities Report 4

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

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

June 2004


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

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


Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Students with limited English proficiency are increasingly referred to as English language learners or ELLs. We recognize that a number of terms are used in the field related to learners of English as a new or second language. We have adopted some of those terms for reference, but have chosen to use language and acronyms compliant with “person first” protocol and to minimize lengthy terms where possible. In this document we use the term "students with limited English proficiency."
 


Method

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

Converting Data to 5 Levels

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

Complications with Data

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

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

Table 1. MCA Cut Score Levels

 

Four Level Ranges

 

Five Level Ranges

Grade

Content

Level

Range

Grade

Content

Level

Range

3

Mathematics

Level 1

70-1190

3

Mathematics

Level 1

70-1190

Level II

1210-1490

Level IIA

1210-1410

Level IIB

1420-1490

Level III

1510-1720

Level III

1510-1720

Level IV

1790-2390

Level IV

1790-2390

Reading

Level I

440-1260

Reading

Level I

440-1260

Level II

1280-1490

Level IIA

1280-1410

Level IIB

1420-1490

Level III

1510-1670

Level III

1510-1670

Level IV

1710-2050

Level IV

1710-2050

5

Mathematics

Level I

170-1230

5

Mathematics

Level I

170-1230

Level II

1240-1490

Level IIA

1240-1410

Level IIB

1420-1490

Level III

1510-1670

Level III

1510-1670

Level IV

1710-2280

Level IV

1710-2280

Reading

Level I

310-1240

Reading

Level I

310-1240

Level II

1260-1480

Level IIA

1260-1410

Level IIB

1420-1480

Level III

1510-1680

Level III

1510-1680

Level IV

1720-2190

Level IV

1720-2190

Data Exclusion

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

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


Results

Participation, Grade 3

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

Table 2. 2000-2001 MCA Participation, Grade 3

 

 

 

Number Enrolled*

Mathematics

Reading

Number Tested

Percent Tested

Number Tested

Percent Tested

Grade 3

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

   279

 3794

 7183

63002

 

    239

  3467

  6177

59695

 

86

91

86

95

 

   225

 3460

 5984

59652

 

81

91

83

95

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

 

Figure 1. 2000-2001 MCA Participation, Grade 3

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

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

 

Number Enrolled

Mathematics

Reading

Number Tested

Percent Tested

Number Tested

Percent Tested

SLEPD

Hmong 

  101

  88

87

85

84

Spanish

  120

  102

85

92

77

Somali

      8

      7

87

7

87

All1

Hmong 

1828

1732

95

1733

95

Spanish

1566

1383

88

1355

86

Somali

  224

   177

79

174

78

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

Disability Group

 

Enrolled

Tested in Mathematics

 

Tested in Reading

N

%

N

%

 

 

 

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

96

95

99

94

98

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

16

7

44

5

31

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

2

0

0

0

0

Physically Impaired

10

6

60

5

50

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

19

17

89

14

74

Visually Impaired

7

4

57

5

71

Specific Learning Disabilities

97

82

84

74

76

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

15

13

87

12

80

Deaf-Blindness

0

-

-

-

-

Other Health Impaired

13

12

92

13

100

Autistic

2

1

50

1

50

Traumatic Brain Injury

2

2

100

2

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

All SD

 

 

Disability Group

 

Enrolled

Mathematics

Reading

N

%

N

%

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

507

264

52

237

47

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

130

7

5

7

5

Physically Impaired

133

103

77

95

71

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

154

134

87

126

82

Visually Impaired

40

32

80

31

77

Specific Learning Disabilities

2301

2074

90

1986

86

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

878

764

87

718

82

Deaf-Blindness

6

5

83

5

83

Other Health Impaired

534

449

84

442

83

Autistic

274

167

61

158

58

Traumatic Brain Injury

18

16

89

14

78


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

 

Performance, Grade 3

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

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

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

 

Total

Tested

Level I

Level II A

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Mathematics

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

239

3467

6177

59695

 

 

151

892

1757

5704

 

63

26

28

10

 

54

1382

2051

14903

 

23

40  

33

25

 

11

398

709

7668

 

5

12

12

13

 

21

675

1318

23295

 

9

20

21

39

 

2

120

342

8125

 

1

4

6

14

Reading

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

225

3460

5984

59652

 

174

1535

2742

9535

 

77

44

46

16

 

33

957

1151

10084

 

15

28

19

17

 

7

514

775

10814

 

3

15

13

18

 

9

392

950

19592

 

4

11

16

33

 

2

62

366

9627

 

1

2

6

16


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

 

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


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

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

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

 

Number

Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

88

51

58

23

26

4

4

10

11

0

0

Spanish

102

72

71

20

20

6

6

4

4

0

0

Somali

7

5

71

1

14

1

14

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1732

414

24

673

39

220

13

363

21

62

3

Spanish

1383

427

31

575

42

137

10

207

15

37

3

Somali

177

90

51

56

32

11

6

19

11

1

1

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

 

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

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

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

85

65

76

13

15

3

4

3

4

1

1

Spanish

92

72

78

15

16

2

2

3

4

0

0

Somali

7

7

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1733

806

46

492

28

252

14

160

9

23

1

Spanish

1355

623

46

353

26

189

14

154

11

36

3

Somali

174

109

63

31

18

21

12

12

7

1

1

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

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

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

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

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

 

SLEPD by Disability Category

Mathematics On track: Level IIB & above

Reading On track: Level IIB & above

Tested

N

%

Tested

N

%

Speech/Language Impaired

95

22

23

94

16

23

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

7

*

*

5

*

*

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

0

0

0

0

0

0

Physically Impaired

6

*

*

5

*

*

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

17

1

1

14

0

0

Visually Impaired

4

*

*

5

*

*

Specific Learning Disabilities

82

5

1

74

0

0

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

13

1

1

12

0

0

Deaf-Blindness

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other Health Impaired

12

1

1

13

0

0

Autistic

1

*

*

1

*

*

Traumatic Brain Injury

2

*

*

2

*

*

 

All SD by Disability Category

 

Level IIB & above

 

Level IIB & above

Tested

N

%

Tested

N

%

Speech/Language Impaired

2401

1344

56

2390

1317

55

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

264

8

3

237

4

2

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

7

*

*

7

*

*

Physically Impaired

103

30

29

95

33

35

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

134

44

33

126

37

29

Visually Impaired

32

14

44

31

13

42

Specific Learning Disabilities

2074

519

25

1986

285

14

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

764

264

35

718

249

35

Deaf-Blindness

5

*

*

5

*

*

Other Health Impaired

449

121

27

442

106

24

Autistic

167

56

34

158

61

39

Traumatic Brain Injury

16

2

12.5

14

2

14

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

 

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

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

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

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

Participation, Grade 5

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

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

 

Grade 5

 Number Enrolled*

Number Tested Mathematics

Percent Tested Mathematics

Number Tested Reading

Percent Tested Reading

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students1

    413

  3439

  9002

66560

    352

  3185

  7729

62687

85

93

86

94

    350

  3196

  7710

63126

85

93

86

95

 

 

 

 

 

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


 

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


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

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

 

Number Enrolled

Number Tested Mathematics

Percent Tested Mathematics

Number Tested Reading

Percent Tested Reading

SLEPD

Hmong 

181

158

87

156

86

Spanish

138

115

83

116

84

Somali

13

8

61

9

69

All1

Hmong 

1857

1807

97

1807

97

Spanish

1421

1234

87

1251

88

Somali

286

226

79

234

82

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

Disability Group

 

Enrolled

Mathematics Tested

 Reading Tested

N

%

N

%

 

 

 

 

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

92

84

91

87

95

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

19

11

58

11

58

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

6

0

0

0

0

Physically Impaired

8

7

87

6

75

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

25

17

68

16

64

Visually Impaired

1

1

100

1

100

Specific Learning Disabilities

223

202

91

199

89

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

21

17

81

17

81

Deaf-Blindness

0

-

-

-

-

Other Health Impaired

12

11

92

11

92

Autistic

3

0

0

0

0

Traumatic Brain Injury

3

2

67

2

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

All SD

 

 

Disability Group

 

Enrolled

Mathematics Tested

Reading Tested

N

%

N

%

Speech Language Impaired

2191

2081

95

2107

96

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

547

278

51

277

51

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

173

2

1

3

2

Physically Impaired

121

87

72

92

76

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

174

146

84

139

80

Visually Impaired

30

26

87

25

83

Specific Learning Disabilities

3877

3515

91

3475

90

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

1332

1146

86

1148

86

Deaf-Blindness

5

3

60

3

60

Other Health Impaired

732

649

89

637

87

Autistic

207

129

62

135

65

Traumatic Brain Injury

26

19

73

19

73

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

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

Performance, Grade 5

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

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

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II b

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Mathematics

SLEPD

SD

SLEP

All students1

 

352

3185

7729

62687

 

228

1021

2667

7003

 

65

32

35

11

 

89

1196

2295

13485

 

25

38

30

22

 

25

462

1011

10504

 

7

15

13

17

 

10

448

1415

23452

 

3

14

18

37

 

0

58

341

8243

 

0

2

4

13

Reading

SLEPD

SD

SLEP

All students1

 

350

3196

7710

63126

 

260

1264

2911

7036

 

74

39

38

11

 

56

1006

1774

9550

 

16

3123

15

 

18

357

731

6867

 

5

11

9

11

 

14

492

1689

24474

 

4

15

22

39

 

2

77

605

15199

 

6

2

8

24

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

158

106

67

43

27

5

3

4

3

0

0

Spanish

115

72

63

28

24

9

8

6

5

0

0

Somali

8

6

75

2

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1807

542

30

693

38

277

15

271

15

24

1

Spanish

1234

444

36

450

36

167

14

154

13

19

1

Somali

226

122

54

77

34

11

5

15

7

1

0

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


 

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

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

 

 

Number Tested

    Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

156

124

79

22

14

6

4

4

3

0

0

Spanish

116

83

72

19

16

7

6

5

4

2

2

Somali

9

6

67

3

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1807

747

41

609

34

183

10

240

13

28

2

Spanish

1251

514

41

334

27

124

10

233

18

46

4

Somali

234

118

51

64

27

22

9

26

11

4

2

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

 

For students above Level IIA, the limited English proficient students with disabilities groups had 0-13% on track in mathematics and 0-12% on track in reading. For the All groups these ranges were 12-31% in mathematics and 22-32% in reading. Spanish speaking students with and without disabilities had a slightly higher percentage “on track” for mathematics and reading.

The performance of limited English proficient students with disabilities by category is presented in Table 15. Dashes indicate that there were no students in a category and a “0” means that there were either no students tested or no students achieving Levels IIB or above to be ”on track.” Despite relatively low numbers of students with disabilities and limited English language proficiency, the highest percentage of students on track for achievement in mathematics and reading was in the following categories: Speech/ Language Impaired (25-26%), Deaf Hard of Hearing (12-18%), Other Health Impaired (18% for mathematics), and Emotional/Behavioral Disorders (12%). However, these percentages are at best only half the percentage of those on track among All students with disabilities in these same categories. In comparison, for the All students with disabilities group, 25% is at the lower end of the performance range, with only one category below this at 2% (Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate).

Table 15. 2000-2001 Performance for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Disability Group, Grade 5

 

 

Disability Group

Mathematics “On Track”

Reading “On Track”

Tested

N

%

Tested

N

%

 

 

 

 

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

84

 21

25

87

22

26

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

11

0

0

11

0

0

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

0

0

0

0

0

0

Physically Impaired

7

*

*

6

0

0

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

17

2

12

16

3

18

Visually Impaired

1

*

*

1

*

*

Specific Learning Disabilities

202

8

4

199

6

3

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

17

1

6

17

2

12

Deaf-Blindness

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other Health Impaired

11

2

18

11

1

1

Autistic

0

0

0

0

0

0

Traumatic Brain Injury

2

0

0

2

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

All SD

 

 

Disability Group

Mathematics “On Track”

Reading “On Track”

Tested

N

%

Tested

N

%

Speech Language Impaired

2081

1239

59

2107

1375

65

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

278

5

2

277

4

1

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

2

*

*

3

*

*

Physically Impaired

87

30

34

92

39

42

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

146

56

38

139

52

37

Visually Impaired

26

11

42

25

13

52

Specific Learning Disabilities

3515

868

25

3475

847

24

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

1146

360

31

1148

464

40

Deaf-Blindness

3

*

*

3

*

*

Other Health Impaired

649

175

27

637

207

32

Autistic

129

52

40

135

53

39

Traumatic Brain Injury

19

6

31

19

3

16

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

Figures 9 and 10 show the graphed percentages of limited English proficient students with disabilities at each level. In addition, these graphs show the percentage of students not tested, indicated by the bottom level of each category. Categories with fewer than 10 students participating are indicated by an asterisk. These performance data are not graphed to retain confidentiality of students. Other categories without data and without an asterisk indicate there were no students in that category.

Figure 9. 2000-2001 MCA Mathematics Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Disability, Grade 5

 

Figure 10. 2000-2001 MCA Reading Performance for Limited English Students with Disabilities by Disability, Grade 5These figures give more detail for the levels achieved by each group. As shown in Table 15, only a few categories of limited English proficient students with disabilities were on track for reaching content standards. These figures show that many of the students within the range considered “on track” are actually in the lowest level of that range, in Level IIB. Students in some categories performed in the higher Levels. Students in the Speech/Language Impaired, Deaf-Hard of Hearing, and Emotional/Behavioral Disorder categories performed at Level III, and a small percentage of students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders performed in Level IV for reading.
 

Table 15. 2000-2001 Performance for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Disability Group, Grade 5

 

 

Disability Group

Mathematics “On Track”

Reading “On Track”

Tested

N

%

Tested

N

%

 

 

 

 

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

84

 21

25

87

22

26

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

11

0

0

11

0

0

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

0

0

0

0

0

0

Physically Impaired

7

*

*

6

0

0

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

17

2

12

16

3

18

Visually Impaired

1

*

*

1

*

*

Specific Learning Disabilities

202

8

4

199

6

3

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

17

1

6

17

2

12

Deaf-Blindness

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other Health Impaired

11

2

18

11

1

1

Autistic

0

0

0

0

0

0

Traumatic Brain Injury

2

0

0

2

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

All SD

 

 

Disability Group

Mathematics “On Track”

Reading “On Track”

Tested

N

%

Tested

N

%

Speech Language Impaired

2081

1239

59

2107

1375

65

Mentally Impaired: Mild-Moderate

278

5

2

277

4

1

Mentally Impaired: Moderate-Severe

2

*

*

3

*

*

Physically Impaired

87

30

34

92

39

42

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

146

56

38

139

52

37

Visually Impaired

26

11

42

25

13

52

Specific Learning Disabilities

3515

868

25

3475

847

24

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

1146

360

31

1148

464

40

Deaf-Blindness

3

*

*

3

*

*

Other Health Impaired

649

175

27

637

207

32

Autistic

129

52

40

135

53

39

Traumatic Brain Injury

19

6

31

19

3

16

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


Comparison Across Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

Participation, Grade 3

Participation in the MCAs by students with limited English proficiency and disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and all students for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 is shown in Figure 11. Different pictures of participation across years are seen in the two content areas (e.g., for students with disabilities there was a decrease in mathematics but an increase in reading.) None of the changes in participation is extremely large. (See Table A in Appendix for the data used to create Figure 11.)

Figure 11. Comparison of Percentage Tested Across Groups for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, Grade 3

Participation by language group across two years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001) is shown in Figure 12. Here again, there appears to be no patterns across languages or by content area. The only indication of any change is for the Somali speaking students with disabilities. However, this change is based on only 7 or 8 students, and thus is not a reliable indication of change in participation. The actual numbers and percentages for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 are shown in Table B in the Appendix.

Participation rates for 3rd grade limited English proficient students with disabilities are presented in Figure 13 and 14 for specific categories of disabilities. For mathematics (Figure 15), the participation rates were fairly consistent across the three categories: Speech Language Impaired, Specific Learning Disabilities, and Deaf-Hard of Hearing. For reading, the participation rates show slightly larger changes between years, with increases in percent tested (SLI) and decreases (SLD and DHH). (See Table C in the Appendix for the data used to create Figures 15 and 16.)

Figure 12. Percentage of Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities Tested Across Years by Language Group, Grade 3


Figure 13. 1999-2001 Mathematics Participation Rates for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 3

Figure 14. 1999-2001 Reading Participation Rates for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 3

Performance, Grade 3

Figures 15 and 16 compare the percentage of students at each performance level for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 by student group. Only slight differences in performance across years are evident for the limited English proficient students with disabilities. (See Table D in the Appendix for the specific numbers and percentages that correspond with these figures.) The largest percentage of students was in Levels I and IIA, with slightly more students in Level I for reading (77-78%) than for mathematics (59-63%). For mathematics, the percentage of limited English proficient students with disabilities in Level I was almost double the percentage of students in this same level for the separate language and disability status groups. For reading, the limited English proficient students with disabilities did even less well, but there was less contrast because the other groups also did less well in reading across years. (See Table D in Appendix for data used to create Figures 15 and 16.)

Figure 15. 1999-2000 MCA Performance for Math Across Groups, Grade 3


Figure 16. 1999--2001 MCA Performance for Reading Across Groups, Grade 3


Figures 17 and 18 present the percentages of limited English proficient students with disabilities at the performance levels for mathematics and reading for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. In mathematics (Figure 17), most students across language groups were in Levels I or IIA for both years. Hmong speaking students showed a slight increase of 6% for Levels IIB and above, and Spanish students stayed about the same. The percentage of Somalis across performance levels are not shown due to small numbers tested. The All students language groups also made slight gains. (See Tables E and G in the Appendix for these tables as well as those by language and disability status.)

Figure 17. 1999-2001 Mathematics Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Language Group, Grade 3

Figure 18. 1999-2001 Reading Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Language Group, Grade 3

Figure 18 shows the reading performance levels for the same years. Gains in reading across years were smaller as well for students with disabilities in these language groups, with the percentage of Spanish students “on track” staying about the same and only a slight increase of 4% more Hmong students “on track.” The All groups also made fewer gains in reading, (See Tables F through H in the Appendix for All language groups and groups by language and disability.)

Figures 19 and 20 present the percentages of limited English proficient students with disabilities “on track” for reading and mathematics for the top three categories of disability based on numbers tested for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. These top three categories were Speech/Language Impaired (SLI), Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), and Deaf-Hard of Hearing (DHH). As shown here, the most gain for mathematics and reading was seen among limited English proficient students with Speech/Language Impairments. The other two disability categories did not show comparable gains in either content area. (See Table I in Appendix for the data used to create Figures 19 and 20.)

Figure 19. 2000-2001 MCA Mathematics Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 3

Figure 20. 2000-2001 MCA Reading Performance of Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 3

Participation, Grade 5

Figure 21 shows the percentages of each student group taking the mathematics and reading tests for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. This graph shows that the percentage of students participating in the mathematics and reading tests across groups was fairly consistent across years. Although limited English proficient students with disabilities had a slight increase (3%) in those taking the reading test, the overall participation for this group is still the lowest of all groups for both content areas, slightly below that of all students with disabilities. (See Table J in the Appendix.)

Figure 21. Participation in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Mathematics and Reading MCAs Across Groups, Grade 5

Figure 22 shows the participation rates of limited English proficient students with disabilities for Hmong, Spanish, and Somali students in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. This figure suggests small increases in participation for both Hmong and Spanish speaking limited English proficient students with disabilities, but a decrease in participation for Somali students with limited English proficiency and disabilities. (Table K in the Appendix provides the actual numbers used to produce Figure 22.)

Figure 22. Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities Participation for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 for Math and Reading by Language Group, Grade 5

Figures 23 and 24 show the participation rates of fifth grade limited English proficient students with disabilities in the three disability categories with most students tested. For mathematics (Figure 23), students with Speech/Language Impairments, and students who were Deaf-Hard of Hearing showed a slight decrease in the percent tested. For reading (Figure 24), students with Speech Language Impairments and Specific Learning Disabilities showed slight increases in percent tested. All groups shared minor fluctuations except perhaps for the students who were deaf and hard of hearing, where a noticeable drop in participation seemed to occur from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001. For numbers of students enrolled and tested in each category for both years see Table L in the Appendix.

Figure 23. 1999-2001 Mathematics Participation Rates for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 5

Figure 24. 1999-2001 Reading Participation Rates for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities, Grade 5

Performance, Grade 5

Figures 25 and 26 show the percentage of students in 5th grade at each performance level for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 by student group. Only a slight difference in performance across years was evident for the limited English proficient students with disabilities. (See Table M in the Appendix for the specific numbers used to create these figures.)

Figure 25. 1999-2000 MCA Performance for Mathematics Across Groups and Years, Grade 5


Figure 26. 1999--2001 MCA Performance for Reading Across Groups and Years, Grade 5


Figures 27 and 28 present the mathematics and reading performance of Hmong, Spanish, and Somali speaking students with disabilities by language group. The most gain was found for Spanish speaking students. This group had an increase of 5% in Levels IIB and above. (See Tables N and P in the Appendix for the specific data for All students in these language groups and for the data used to create Figure 27.)

Figure 27. 1999-2001 Mathematics Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Language Group, Grade 5


 

Figure 28. 1999-2001 Reading Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Language Group, Grade 5



Figure 28 presents the reading performance for this same group of students. Most of these students (88-100%) were also below Level IIB. As for mathematics, the only gain observed across years was for the Spanish group achieving Levels IIB and above in reading (approximately 6% more). The numbers of Somali students tested each year were quite small, so the performance percentages are not able to be shown. (See Tables O and Q in the Appendix for the data for All students in these language groups as well as the data used to create Figure 28.)

Figures 29 and 30 show the performance of limited English proficient students with disabilities by the top three disability categories according to the number tested for years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Slight increases are seen across years for students with learning disabilities and deaf and hard of hearing students for both content areas. Larger increases were evident for students with Speech and Language Impairments. (See Table R in the Appendix for the numbers used to create these figures.)
 

Figure 29. MCA Mathematics Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Top Three Disability Categories Across Years, Grade 5

Figure 30. MCA Reading Performance for Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities by Top Three Disability Categories Across Years, Grade 5


Summary

Grade 3 Participation and Performance, 2000-2001

Limited English proficient students with disabilities had the lowest percentage tested of all groups (86-81% tested) in mathematics and reading. Within the top three language groups (i.e., Hmong, Somali, and Spanish) participation rates were similar by content area. The percentage of limited English proficient students with disabilities by disability category fluctuated due to low enrollments across these categories. Some categories had noticeably lower percentages tested compared to All students with disabilities for a particular group (i.e., visually and physically impaired).

Most limited English proficient students with disabilities performed at Levels I and IIA. Among these students, 15-17% more students were performing at Level I for reading than for mathematics. This pattern of apparent difficulty that students were having in reading was also seen in the data by language groups, for students with and without disabilities. These students showed only 0-1% of students “on track” for most disability categories, with the exception of Speech/Language Impaired students who had 23% “on track” for mathematics and reading.


Grade 5 Participation and Performance, 2000-2001

Overall, limited English proficient students with disabilities had the lowest participation percentage of all groups (85%), slightly below that of all students with disabilities (86%). As with third graders, there were generally small percentages of limited English proficient students with disabilities who participated across disability categories. Yet, similar categories had higher participation in grade 5 as in grade 3: Speech/Language Impaired and Specific Learning Disabilities. Fifth grade had fewer students tested in the Deaf-Hard of Hearing category for both content areas.

As in third grade, most limited English proficient students with disabilities in fifth grade performed below Level IIB, with most in Level I. Across disability groups, the highest percentage of limited English proficient students with disabilities on track for achievement in mathematics and reading were: Speech/Language Impaired, Deaf Hard of Hearing, Other Health Impaired, and Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. It is important to point out that the percentage of these students on track is still only about half that of students in these categories who are not limited English proficient. Also, most of these students are still in the lowest level (Level IIB) within the range considered to be “on track” for achievement in upper grades.


Comparison Across Years

Participation across years showed only minimal differences. Yet, for third graders, some categories of students by disability had noticeably lower percentages tested compared to All students with disabilities for a particular group (i.e., visually and physically impaired). In 5th grade, there were some changes in 5th grade participation by language group with slight increases in participation across content areas for Hmong and Spanish speaking students. Also, there was approximately 3% more limited English proficient students with disabilities who took the reading test in 5th grade in 2000-2001.

Performance data across years were also similar. For 3rd grade, there were only minimal gains made in the percentage of students with limited English proficiency who were on track for reading across language groups (0-4%). In 5th grade, small gains were found for Spanish speaking students with 5% more students “on track” for mathematics and 6% more “on track” for reading. It appears that the Spanish speaking groups made the most gains in reading and mathematics overall, and for students with disabilities within that language group.

Reading appears to be more difficult than mathematics with fewer percentage gains in the “on track” proficiency levels across years. Also, for students with both disabilities and limited English proficiency, across years and disability categories, the difference in percentage of students “on track” is well below those of all students with disabilities.


Discussion

From the data, it is evident that there are more students with disabilities and limited English proficiency in Level I for reading, than for mathematics in both grades across years. This emphasizes the fact that this group of students apparently needs more help in reading. It is also interesting to point out that 5th grade students in 2000-2001 had slightly higher percentages of students “on track” for reading (15-74%) across all groups (except the SD group) in contrast to mathematics (10-67%). This difference may be due to changes in content across grades in these subject areas, increased efforts by teachers in reading skills or other factors. Overall, the difference is minimal.

Third grade student data by language group show that a high percentage of students in the Hmong, Somali, and Spanish speaking groups with and without disabilities, were in Level I for reading. Combined with a low percentage of students “on track” observed across years, we suggest that reading may be more difficult than mathematics for most of these students. Although performance in 5th grade was very similar, it appears that the Spanish speaking groups, with or without disabilities, showed slightly more improvement in reading and mathematics overall. The reasons for these differences across language groups may be due to the length of time a student has been in the U.S., literacy background, the quality of instructional support in a student’s first language, second language or both, or perhaps other factors.

Performance data for mathematics and reading by disability was also fairly consistent across years, which means that these students were generally performing noticeably lower than their English proficient peers. This also clearly suggests that the needs of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency could be better met to enable them to achieve at higher levels.


References

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2004). 1999-2000 participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (LEP Projects Report 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at: http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/LEP1.html

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2002). 1999-2000 participation and performance of English language learners reported in public state documents and web sites (LEP Projects Report 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/LEP3.pdf

Minnesota Department of Education (2001). Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs): Parent’s Guide to the 3rd and 5th Grade Test Results.[Brochure]. Available from the Minnesota Department of Education Web site, http://education.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/translatedcontent/pub_intro_mca_parents.jsp

Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2001). State and district assessments as an avenue to equity and excellence for English language learners with disabilities (LEP Projects Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/LEP2.html

Thurlow, M., Wiley, H. I., & Bielinski, J. (2003). Going public: What 2000-2001 reports tell us about the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical35.htm


Appendix

Table A. Grade 3 Participation Across Groups for Years: 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

 Grade 3

 Number Enrolled*

Mathematics

Reading

No. Tested

% Tested

No. Tested

% Tested

1999-2000

SLEPD  SLEP

SD

All students

 

253

3209

7417

63498

 

213

2916

6315

59923

 

84

91

85

94

 

206

2942

6250

60261

 

81

92

84

95

2000-2001

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

279

3794

7183

63002

 

239

3467

6177

59695

 

86

91

86

95

 

225

3460

5984

59652

 

81

91

83

95

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

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

 

Number Enrolled

Mathematics

Reading

No. Tested

% Tested

No. Tested

% Tested

1999-2000

SLEPD

Hmong 

99

86

87

81

82

Spanish

98

79

81

78

80

Somali

8

8

100

7

87

1999-2000

All Students1

Hmong 

1792

1709

95

1722

96

Spanish

1259

1074

85

1076

85

Somali

172

141

82

145

84

2000-2001

SLEPD

Hmong 

101

88

87

85

84

Spanish

120

102

85

92

77

Somali

8

7

87

7

87

2000-2001

All Students1

 

Hmong 

1828

1732

95

1733

95

Spanish

1566

1383

88

1355

86

Somali

224

177

79

174

78

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



Table C. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Grade 3 MCA Participation for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency

 

Grade 3

 

Disability Group

 

Enrolled

 

Tested in Mathematics

 

Tested in Reading

N

%

N

%

1999-2000

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

81

76

94

73

90

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

19

16

84

17

89

Specific Learning Disabilities

94

82

87

81

86

2000-2001

SLEPD

 

Speech/Language Impaired

96

95

99

94

98

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

19

17

89

14

74

Specific Learning Disabilities

97

82

84

74

76

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.



Table D. Percent of Grade 3 Students in Each Performance Level in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

Year and content

Total Tested

Level I

Level II A

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

99-00 – Mathematics

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

213

2916

6315

59923

 

125

933

1955

6284

 

59

32

31

11

 

 58

1194

2014

14890

 

 27

41

32

25

 

16

411

924

10949

 

7

14

14

18

 

13

347

1186

22428

 

6

12

19

37

 

1

31

236

5372

 

0

1

 4

9

99-00 – Read

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

206

2942

6250

60261

 

161

1639

3074

10733

 

78

56

49

18

 

31

864

1380

12430

 

15

29

22

21

 

10

250

673

10211

 

5

8

11

17

 

4

170

902

19942

 

2

6

14

33

 

0

19

221

6945

 

0

1

4

11

00-01 – Mathematics

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

239

3467

6177

59695

 

151

892

1757

5704

 

6326

28

10

 

54

1382

2051

14903

 

2340

33 

25

 

11

398

709

7668

 

5

12

12

13

 

21

675

1318

23295

 

9

20

21

39

 

2

120

342

8125

 

1

4

6

14

00-01 – Read

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

All students

 

225

3460

5984

59652

 

174

1535

2742

9535

 

77

44

46

16

 

33

957

1151

10084

 

15

28

19

17

 

7

514

775

10814

 

3

15

13

18

 

9

392

950

19592

 

4

11

16

33

 

2

62

366

9627

 

1

2

6

16

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

Table E. 1999-2000 MCA Mathematics for Grade 3, Performance Levels by Language

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

86

53

62

21

24

7

8

3

4

1

1

Spanish

79

49

62

19

23

7

8

3

  4

1

1

Somali

8

4

50

4

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1709

541

32

710

41

214

12

222

13

22

1

Spanish

1074

374

35

406

38

163

15

118

11

13

1

Somali

141

59

42

61

43

11

8

10

7

0

0

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



Table F. 1999-2000 MCA Reading for Grade 3, Performance Levels by Language

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

81

65

80

12

15

3

4

1

1

0

0

Spanish

78

63

81

9

11

4

5

2

3

0

0

Somali

7

7

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1722

1020

59

502

29

121

7

74

4

5

0

Spanish

1076

529

49

314

29

109

10

104

10

20

2

Somali

145

88

61

33

23

11

8

11

8

2

1

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



Table G. 2000-2001 MCA Mathematics for Grade 3, Performance Levels by Language

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

88

51

58

23

26

4

4

10

11

0

0

Spanish

102

72

71

20

20

6

6

4

4

0

0

Somali

7

5

71

1

14

1

14

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1732

414

24

673

39

220

13

363

21

62

3

Spanish

1383

427

31

575

42

137

10

207

15

37

3

Somali

177

90

51

56

32

11

6

19

11

1

1

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


 

Table H. 2000-2001 MCA Reading for Grade 3, Performance Levels by Language

 

Number Tested

Level I

Level II a

Level II B

Level III

Level IV

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

SLEPD

Hmong

85

65

76

13

15

3

4

3

4

1

1

Spanish

92

72

78

15

16

2

2

3

4

0

0

Somali

7

7

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

All1

Hmong

1733

806

46

492

28

252

14

160

9

23

1

Spanish

1355

623

46

353

26

189

14

154

11

36

3

Somali

174

109

63

31

18

21

12

12

7

1

1

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


 

Table I. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Grade 3 MCA Performance for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency

 

Grade 3

 

Disability Group

 

Tested in Math

 Percent On Track Mathematics

 

Tested in Reading

 Percent On Track Reading 

N On Track

%

N On Track

%

1999-2000

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

76

9

12

73

3

4

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

16

1

6

17

0

0

Specific Learning Disabilities

82

2

2

81

0

0

2000-2001

SLEPD

Speech/Language Impaired

95

22

23

94

16

23

Deaf-Hard of Hearing

17

1

1

14

0

0

Specific Learning Disabilities

82

5

1

74

0

0

SLEPD = Students with limited English proficiency with disabilities.



Table J. Grade 5 Participation Across Groups for Years: 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

 

Grade 5

Number Enrolled*

No. Tested Mathematics

Percent Tested Mathematics

No. Tested Reading

Percent Tested Reading

1999-2000

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

all students

 

316

2735

9152

65696

 

267

2500

7796

61675

 

85

91

85

94

 

259

2510

7779

62202

 

82

92

85

95

2000-2001

SLEPD

SLEP

SD

all students

 

413

3439

9002

66560

 

352

3185

7729

62687

 

85

93

86

94

 

350

3196

7710

63126

 

85

93

86

95


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Table K. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Participation by Language, Grade 5

 

Number Enrolled

No. Tested Mathematics

Percent Tested Mathematics

No. Tested Reading

Percent Tested Reading

1999-2000

SLEPD

Hmong 

148

121

82

116

78

Spanish

102

82

80

79

77

Somali

6

5

83

6

100

1999-2000

All1

 

Hmong 

1786

1695

95

1695

95

Spanish

1071

953

89

953

89

Somali

219

165

75

165

75

2000-2001

SLEPD

Hmong 

181

158

87

156

86

Spanish

138

115

83

116

84

Somali

13

8

61

9

69

2000-2001

All1

Hmong 

1857

1807

97

1807

97

Spanish

1421

1234

87

1251

88