Julie Elmore's List: Disability

The authors argue that English language learner (ELL) language assessment policy and poor language tests partly account for ELLs’ disproportionate representation in special education. Previous research indicates that many states routinely assess ELLs’ first language (L1) at initial enrollment and that ELLs identified as limited in both languages have relatively high rates of identification in special education. Two common tests, the Language Assessment Scales–Oral (LAS–O) Español and the Idea Proficiency Test I–Oral (IPT) Spanish, are shown to identify 74% and 90%, respectively, Spanish-background ELLs (N = 145) as limited L1 students, whereas a natural language measure found only 2% of participants to have unexpectedly high morphological error rates. Correlations are provided. The authors recommend changes in language testing policies and practices for ELLs.

Assessments in English that are constructed for native English speakers may not provide valid inferences about the achievement of English language learners (ELLs). The linguistic complexity of the test items that are not related to the content of the assessment may increase the measurement error, thus reducing the reliability of the assessment. Language factors that are not relevant to the content being assessed may also be a source of construct-irrelevant variance and negatively impact the validity of the assessment. More important, the results of these tests used as the criteria for identification and classification of ELL students, particularly those at the lower end of the English proficiency spectrum, may be misleading. Caution must be exercised when the results of these tests are used for special education eligibility, particularly in placing ELL students with lower English language proficiency in the learning/reading disability category. This article discusses psychometric issues in the assessment of English language learners and examines the validity of classifying ELL students, with a focus on the possibility of misclassifying ELL students as students with learning disabilities.

How is it determined whether English language learners (ELLs) who struggle with reading have learning disabilities? What is the decision-making process? To what extent do the educators involved understand second language acquisition? What consideration is given to language issues? In this article, we explore these questions, focusing on what happens during Child Study Team (CST) meetings (also called Student Study Teams, Student Support Teams, and other names) and placement conferences (also called multidisciplinary team meetings, M-teams, staffings, or individualized educational plan [IEP] meetings).