IDEA Series English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families National Council on Disability
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
IDEA Series
English Learners and Students
from Low-Income Families
National Council on Disability
February 7, 2018
National Council on Disability (NCD) 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20004 (IDEA Series) English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families National Council on Disability, February 7, 2018 Celebrating 30 years as an independent federal agency This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability (NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following information: ncd@ncd.gov Email 202-272-2004 Voice 202-272-2022 Fax The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
National Council on Disability
An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress
to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.
Letter of Transmittal
February 7, 2018
President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit this report titled
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families. This report is part of a five-report
series on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that identifies the challenges
facing English learners with disabilities and their families as well as the unique needs facing
students with disabilities from low-income families and examines how they fare in the public
education system.
As you know, the right of students with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment is solidly rooted in the guarantee of equal
protection under the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution. In 2014, 9.3 percent of
all public school students were English learners and approximately 20 percent of children were
from families living in poverty. English learners with disabilities and students with disabilities
from low-income families may confront extraordinary challenges in their efforts to receive
a high-quality, inclusive education. Families may not be familiar with navigating the school
system. Parents may be unaware of their rights or feel unequipped to effectively advocate on
their child’s behalf, and may not be proficient in English themselves. To be eligible for services
under IDEA, a student must be identified as having a disability and needing special education
services. Identification as a child with a disability can provide students with access to needed
accommodations and services and rights under the law—poverty and language barriers may
impact that identification.
This report includes an examination of the identification, placement, and performance (where
available) of students with disabilities who are also English language learners and students
with disabilities who come from low-income families. It also looks at how supports, including
Parent Training and Information Centers, are serving these students and their families in getting
needed services and accessing their rights under the law, and provides recommendations for
improvement.
1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 1
NCD stands ready to assist the Administration in ensuring the right to a free and appropriate public
education for students with disabilities as set forth in IDEA.
Respectfully,
Clyde E. Terry
Chairperson
(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives.)
2 National Council on DisabilityNational Council on Disability Members and Staff
Members
Clyde E. Terry, Chairperson
Benro T. Ogunyipe, Vice Chairperson
Billy W. Altom
Rabia Belt
James T. Brett
Bob Brown
Daniel M. Gade
Wendy S. Harbour
Neil Romano
Staff
Vacant, Executive Director
Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy
Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor
Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor
Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor
Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach
Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist
Lisa Grubb, Director of Operations and Administration
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 34 National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments
NCD thanks Selene Almazan, Denise Marshall, and Melina Latona of the Council of Parent Attorneys
and Advocates; and Laura A. Schifter of the Harvard Graduate School of Education for the research
conducted in developing this report.
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 56 National Council on Disability
Contents
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acronym Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Research Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Qualitative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Policy Analysis and Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Quantitative Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chapter 1: Rates of Identification and Placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Students from Low-Income Families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chapter 2: Current Supports from the Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Parent Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Guidance and Support for English Learners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Model Demonstration Projects for Literacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Title III Supports and Inclusion in Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Office for Civil Rights and Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Chapter 3: Supports from Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Protection and Advocacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Independent Living. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 4: Challenges in Addressing Needs of English Learners
and Students from Low-Income Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Disproportionality in Identification and Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 7Family Engagement and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Service Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Specific Challenges for English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Chapter 5: Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter 6: Recommendations to Congress, the Department of Education,
and State Policymakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8 National Council on DisabilityExecutive Summary
S
tudents with disabilities who are also local administrators, state administrators, and
English learners (ELs) and students with researchers.
disabilities who are from low-income In this report, we identify key findings about
families face unique challenges in accessing a students with disabilities who are also English
high-quality education. Given the challenges, learners and students with disabilities from low-
these students experience worse outcomes and income families. We found the following:
perform significantly below their peers on reading
■■ Expectations: Too often, educators have
and mathematics assessments. To better meet
lower expectations for students with
the needs of these students and their families,
disabilities who are also English learners and
teachers, school administrators, and policymakers
students with disabilities from low-income
acknowledge needing additional support and
families.
research.
To better understand the experiences of these
■■ Disproportionality: English learners
students, NCD undertook research to study with disabilities are both over- and
English learners with disabilities and students underrepresented in special education,
with disabilities from low-income families, in part, and students with disabilities from low-
asking the following: income families are disproportionately
identified for special education. Additionally,
■■ What are the challenges faced by English both populations of students are
learners with disabilities, students with disproportionately placed in substantially
disabilities from low-income families, and separate classrooms.
their families in receiving services under ■■ Family engagement and family
IDEA? How can schools, districts, and
education: Stakeholders identified
states better meet their needs?
challenges effectively engaging families. In
To address these questions, the NCD particular, they acknowledged challenges
research team conducted a mixed-methods effectively educating and supporting parents
study gathering relevant policy and qualitative in understanding the language of special
and quantitative information. In particular, the education and their rights under the law.
NCD research team convened forums to gather ■■ Service coordination: Schools, districts,
parent and student perspectives and interviewed and states face challenges in effectively
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 9coordinating services and supports for families. States and districts should use
English learners and students from low- the data to support professional learning
income families who are also eligible for to improve opportunities for these
special education services. students.
■■ Identification and exit for language-based ■■ Support parent training and access to
services: Educators, districts, and states ensure parents understand their child’s
face challenges in developing effective needs, the special education process, and
policies for determining entry and exit for their rights under the law.
language-based services for English learners
■■ Incentivize collaboration across programs
with disabilities.
to ensure that the services more effectively
To address these findings, we recommend support the student rather than remain
Congress, the Department of Education, and segmented by program.
state policymakers:
■■ Support research and disseminate
■■ Collect, report, and analyze data on the information on entrance and exit from
identification, placement, and performance language-based services to ensure district
of English learners with disabilities and and state policy effectively consider the
students with disabilities from low-income needs of English learners with disabilities.
10 National Council on DisabilityAcronym Glossary
COPAA Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection
CPRCs Community Parent Resource Centers
DOJ Department of Justice
ED Department of Education
EL English learner
ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act
IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IEP Individualized Education Program
LRE least restrictive environment
MTSS multitiered system of supports
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NCD National Council on Disability
NCEO National Center on Education Outcomes
NLTS-2012 National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012
OCR Office for Civil Rights
OSEP Office of Special Education Programs
OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
P&As Protection and Advocacy agencies
PTI Parent Training and Information Centers
TAC technical assistances centers
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 11English learners (ELs) and students with
disabilities from low-income families enter
school with additional challenges to learning
that are not directly associated with their
disability. As a result, ELs and students
from low-income families may confront
extraordinary challenges in their efforts to
receive a high-quality, inclusive education.
12 National Council on Disability
DisabilityIntroduction
F
or the past 50 years, the federal role in than students with disabilities who are not ELs,
education has focused on increasing and students with disabilities from low-income
equity by providing additional funds families perform worse than students with
targeted toward specific populations of students. disabilities from non-low-income families.4
Specifically, it has provided states and districts Students with disabilities who are also
support for students with disabilities through the ELs and students with disabilities from low-
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),1 income families enter school with additional
support for students from low-income families challenges to learning that are not directly
through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary associated with their disability.5 As a result, ELs
Education Act (ESEA),2 and support for English and students from low-income families may
learners (ELs) through Title III of ESEA.3 In confront extraordinary challenges in their efforts
developing these programs, the Federal to receive a high-quality, inclusive education.
Government has recognized the additional For instance, families may not be familiar with
challenges districts may face in meeting the navigating the school system, and parents
needs of these students and therefore provides may be unaware of their rights or may feel
the funding to cover some of the excess unequipped to effectively advocate on their
cost associated with educating students with child’s behalf.6
additional needs. Policymakers need additional information
Despite these efforts, gaps in educational about the experiences of ELs and students
performance exist between students with from low-income families to ensure that IDEA
disabilities and students without disabilities, is effectively meeting the needs of these
between ELs and students who are not English underserved student populations. The National
learners, and students from low-income families Council on Disability (NCD) sought to gather
and students from non-low-income families. that information. In this report, we address the
Additionally, gaps are largest for students following questions:
who may be eligible to receive services from
■■ What data is available on the identification,
multiple programs. For instance, in examining
placement, and performance of ELs with
performance on the National Assessment of
disabilities and students with disabilities
Educational Progress (NAEP), students with
from low-income families?
disabilities who are also ELs perform worse
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 13and Protection and Advocacy Organizations
Research Questions Addressed engage with families of ELs or low-income
in Report students?
■■ What data is available on the identification, Research Methods
placement, and performance of ELs with To address these questions, the NCD research
disabilities and students with disabilities team conducted a mixed-methods study
from low-income families? gathering stakeholder perspectives, as well as
■■ What are the challenges faced by ELs with policy and quantitative information. With this
disabilities, students with disabilities from information, we describe experiences for these
low-income families, and their families in populations of students; identify any potential
receiving services under IDEA? How can gaps in services, policy, and research; and make
schools, districts, and states better meet recommendations to improve opportunities for
their needs? ELs with disabilities and students with disabilities
from low-income families.
■■ How does the Department of Education
support states in addressing the needs Qualitative Analysis
of ELs with disabilities and students from
To gather stakeholder perspectives, the NCD
low-income families with disabilities?
research team conducted interviews and held
■■ How do Parent Training and Information four regional forums and one national forum.
Centers, Centers for Independent Living, Specifically, we conducted 20 semistructured
and Protection and Advocacy Organizations interviews with Department of Education
engage with families of ELs or low-income officials, state and local administrators,
students? researchers, representatives from disability
rights organizations, and parent organizations
to determine current challenges and supports
for ELs with disabilities and students from low-
■■ What are the challenges faced by ELs with
income families with disabilities.
disabilities, students with disabilities from
In the second phase of research, we gathered
low-income families, and their families in
perspectives from parents and students through
receiving services under IDEA? How can
four regional focus groups in California, Illinois,
schools, districts, and states better meet
Texas, and Virginia. NCD recruited participants
their needs?
through the Council of Parent Attorneys and
■■ How does the Department of Education Advocates (COPAA)’s member network,
support states in addressing the needs of local parent networks, and state and national
ELs with disabilities and students from low- partners in the forum locations. In total,
income families with disabilities? 72 people participated in the regional forums.
■■ How do Parent Training and Information Only 30 percent of regional forum participants
Centers, Centers for Independent Living, were COPAA members and 70 percent were
14 National Council on Disabilitynon-COPAA members. Of the 72 participants in Department of Education on indicators related
the regional forum, 38 percent were parents of to IDEA implementation. The Department of
students of color. Education compiles this data and releases the
The third phase of data collection occurred data in an annual Report to Congress.8 We also
during an online forum at COPAA’s national use data from the National Center of Education
conference. In total, 58 people participated in Statistics, which annually compiles data,
the forum. Twenty-three percent were people including demographic and enrollment data, on all
of color. An additional 23 people responded public schools in the country.9
through an email address.7 In addition to the Additionally, we reviewed available data
72 participants at the forum, there was a total from the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).
of 81 people who responded in the focus The CRDC,10 a survey conducted every few
groups, the national forum, and the email years by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the
responses. Department of Education, contains additional
In all settings, NCD used a semistructured information about state, district, and school-level
question protocol to gain perspectives about enrollment; college and career-readiness; and
parent and child experiences with IDEA. Data discipline, including bullying and harassment
was recorded and transcribed to identify themes and restraint and seclusion. Frequently, this data
among the experiences (see appendix for is disaggregated and can be cross-tabulated
protocols). by disability and EL status, but they do not
disaggregate by economic disadvantage.
Policy Analysis and Literature Finally, we reviewed performance data from
Review NAEP for students with disabilities, ELs, and low-
To understand the policy context, we reviewed income students in English and math.11
Department of Education regulations and
guidance to determine the extent it currently Limitations
provides supports to states to meet the needs of In this study, NCD recruited participants
ELs with disabilities and students with disabilities through COPAA’s member network, local parent
from low-income families. We have also reviewed networks, and state and national partners in the
research on current challenges and best practices forum locations. Additionally, we purposefully
that have been identified to better meet the need selected interview participants based on location
of these students and their families. and position. Therefore, the qualitative data
identified in the report should not be viewed
Quantitative Data as generalizable, but rather as perspectives of
We gathered available data from the IDEA annual individuals within those positions. The qualitative
performance reports related to the identification, data offers individual first-person perspectives
placement, and performance for these students. to complement the quantitative aspects of
As required by IDEA, states annually report to the this report.
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 1516 National Council on Disability
Chapter 1: Rates of Identification and Placement
T
o be eligible for services under IDEA, across states, with a low of 0.7 percent in West
a student must be identified as having Virginia to a high of 22.7 percent in California. A
one of 13 disabilities and need special majority of these students (76.5%) speak Spanish
education services.12 Once identified, an as their home language.17
Individualized Education Program (IEP) team In 2015–2016, approximately 10 percent
convenes to determine the specific special of the 6 million students eligible for special
education and related services the child needs education services across the country were
to make progress in the general education also identified as ELs.18 This identification rate
curriculum.13 IDEA requires that IEP teams is generally proportionate to the identification
ensure students with disabilities are educated rate for ELs in the overall student population.
in the “least restrictive California, however,
environment” (LRE) showed disproportionate
In 2015–2016, approximately
where they are identification, with ELs
educated with students
10 percent of the 6 million students representing 31 percent
without disabilities eligible for special education of all students with
to the “maximum services across the country were disabilities but only about
extent appropriate.”14 also identified as ELs. 23 percent in the overall
Additionally, IDEA population. Other states
requires states report special education with the highest numbers of EL populations
identification and placement information by race, (Texas,19 New York, and Florida) show more
ethnicity, language proficiency status, gender, proportionate identification. According to the
and disability category.15 National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS-
2012), students with specific learning disability
English Learners (12%) and hearing impairment (13%) have
Nationally, in 2013–2014, 9.3 percent of public higher proportions of students also identified as
school students (4.5 million students) were EL, whereas students with autism (4%), deaf-
identified as ELs receiving English language blindness (4%), emotional disability (5%), and
services.16 The percent of students receiving multiple disabilities (3%) have lower proportions
English language services varies considerably of students also identified as ELs.20
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 17Nationally, ELs with disabilities have a higher in Mississippi. Student eligibility for free and
rate of placement in substantially separate reduced-priced lunch is frequently used as a
classrooms (17.0%) than do all students with proxy for income status, with about 50 percent
disabilities (13.5%).21 The rates of placement in of public school students eligible for free or
substantially separate classrooms for ELs varied reduced-price lunch.26 IDEA does not require
in the states with high numbers of ELs from states to report identification and placement
9 percent in Texas to 23.8 percent in California.22 data by family income status or eligibility for
In fact, in both Texas and Florida placement in free or reduced-price lunch. Therefore, national
substantially separate classrooms for ELs with IDEA data on identification and placement
disabilities was lower than the substantially in special education for students from low-
separate placement rate for all students with income families is not available. Under Title I,
disabilities. states do report the number of eligible Title I
ELs with disabilities perform worse students who are also children with disabilities.
academically and are more likely to be Nationally, approximately 13.6 percent of
disciplined in school students served in
than are ELs without schoolwide programs
Nationally, approximately
disabilities. For instance, and targeted assistance
on the NAEP, ELs with 13.6 percent of students served in programs under Title I
disabilities perform schoolwide programs and targeted are also children with
26 points below ELs assistance programs under Title I disabilities (3.4 million
without disabilities are also children with disabilities children).27
on the eighth-grade Past studies have
(3.4 million children).
reading assessment examined associations
and 28 points below on between poverty and
the eighth-grade mathematics assessment.23 disability using community factors, rather than
Additionally, according to the CRDC, even student-level information, to represent poverty.28
though ELs with disabilities make up These studies are limited though because they
approximately 11.9 percent of the population were unable to examine the relationship between
of ELs, ELs with disabilities represent 21.5 poverty and income at the student level. A few
percent of the ELs receiving one or more out- recent studies have examined the relationship
of-school suspension.24 between income level and poverty at the student
level and found that students from low-income
Students from Low-Income Families families were considerably more likely to be
Nationally, in 2013–2014, 20 percent of 5 identified for special education.29 According
through 17-year-olds (10.7 million students) to the NLTS-2012, 58 percent of students
were identified as living in poverty.25 The eligible for special education were from low-
percentage of students living in poverty also income households compared to 46 percent for
varies considerably across states, with a low of students without IEPs.30 Students identified with
12 percent in Maryland to a high of 29 percent intellectual disability (71%), emotional disability
18 National Council on Disability(62%), and specific learning disability (61%) were and placement of low-income students in
most likely to live in low-income households, special education as evidenced by differences by
whereas students identified with autism (37%) community factors and differences in performance
were least likely.31 Data on the placement of levels.35 Additional information is needed to
students from low-income families eligible for better understand the rates of identification and
special education is also limited. In a study in placement for low-income students.
Massachusetts,32 the researchers found that Students with disabilities from low-income
the rate of placement in households perform
substantially separate [S]tudents with disabilities from worse academically than
classrooms for low- low-income students
low-income households perform
income students was without disabilities.
39 points below on the eighth-
more than double For instance, on the
the placement in grade reading assessment and 37 NAEP, students with
substantially separate points below on the eighth-grade disabilities from low-
classrooms for non-low- mathematics assessment than income households
income students. perform 39 points below
do low-income students without
Many of the past on the eighth-grade
disabilities.
studies that have reading assessment and
examined the relationship 37 points below on the
between poverty and disability have attributed the eighth-grade mathematics assessment than do
correlation to increased prevalence of disability low-income students without disabilities.36 In
among people living in poverty.33 Children living in looking at discipline rates, the CDRC and IDEA
poverty more often experience factors relating to data collections do not disaggregate discipline
disability such as low birthweight and increased data by income status, and therefore no national
exposure to lead.34 However, despite the increased estimates are available for low-income students
risk, there may also be elements of systemic bias with disabilities.
factoring into determinations about identification
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 1920 National Council on Disability
Chapter 2: Current Supports from the Department
of Education
T
he Department of Education (ED) provides parents of children with disabilities, including
some supports through guidance and low income parents, parents of limited
grants for students with disabilities who English proficient children, and parents with
are also ELs and students with disabilities from disabilities, have the training and information
low-income families. Specifically, IDEA authorizes the parents need to enable the parents to
funding for Community Parent Resource Centers participate effectively in helping their children
and National Activities to, in part, address the with disabilities.”39 In 2016, ED, through OSEP,
needs of these students and their families. Under awarded $2.3 million in grants to 23 CPRCs
Title III of ESEA, ED has offered guidance and has across 17 states.
developed a tool-kit for meeting the needs of ELs Though not specifically targeted to serve
with disabilities. As for these populations, PTIs
support and coordination are located in every
with Title I of ESEA, ED Under Title III of ESEA, ED has state and also provide
officials from the Office offered guidance and has developed training and supports
of Special Education a tool-kit for meeting the needs of to parents and families
Programs (OSEP) and serve ELs and
ELs with disabilities.
acknowledge being low-income families.
involved with the regulations, guidance, and In total, parent centers received $27.4 million
state planning for the reauthorized ESEA, known in FY16 to fund 65 PTIs, 30 CPRCs, and 9
as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), but technical assistances centers (TAC).40 Taken
did not identify any additional initiatives targeted together, the centers provide information and
for students with disabilities from low-income training to over 1 million parents, guardians,
families. educators, and other professionals annually. Six
of the TACs are regional, and three are national
Parent Training centers, two of which provide support toward
Authorized under Part D of the IDEA, Community specific populations (military families and Native
Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs)37 and Parent American children).
Training and Information Centers (PTI)38 provide CRPC and PTI grants are awarded to
training and support to families. CPRCs are nonprofit organizations with missions to serve
intended to “help ensure that underserved children from birth through age 26 and across
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 21all disability categories. They provide training to of English Language Acquisition to address areas
parents in supporting the educational needs of of support for ELs with disabilities on several
children with disabilities as well as training on issues, including identification and assessment.
parents’ rights under the law. One PTI/CPRC In January 2015, ED, along with the
director acknowledged that they have needed Department of Justice (DOJ), issued a Dear
to expand beyond traditional outreach with Colleague letter outlining the requirements of
parents because they are seeing more diversity civil rights laws to ensure that ELs, including
across support structures, with grandparents ELs with disabilities, do not face discrimination
as legal guardians, more youth in foster care, in school.44 Specifically, the guidance clarifies
youth in the juvenile justice system, and that to guarantee ELs are provided with a free
children who are homeless or at risk of being appropriate public education:
homeless. They have expanded their work to
foster liaisons and train social workers and 1. Evaluations must be conducted in the
other professionals within the system regarding appropriate language based on the student’s
disability, stigmatization, and rights under needs and language skills,
the law. The director said that these are the
2. Any determination
“families who are the
of special education
most marginalized and A PTI director also commented on
eligibility is based on
ignored” and that PTIs the underfunding, noting, “our grant factors related to the
need to ensure they are
funds 2.5 full-time employees, but student’s abilities rather
reaching those families.41
we serve 70,000 children with IEPs.” than language skills,
Dr. Thomas Hehir, a
researcher and former director of OSEP, added 3. Language services and special education
that centers for parent training “do great work, services are provided simultaneously for the
but are underfunded,” and to be most effective student, and
in serving the intended populations, the centers
4. Any IEP also considers the student’s
have had to raise considerable amounts of money
language-related needs.
outside the federal support.42 In fact, funding
for PTIs was cut in 2013 by about $1.5 million To support ELs, ED has developed a
and has not been restored. A PTI director also corresponding tool-kit for practitioners that
commented on the underfunding, noting, “our includes a chapter outlining supports for ELs
grant funds 2.5 full-time employees, but we with disabilities.45 The tool-kit offers policy
serve 70,000 children with IEPs.”43 recommendations for states and districts,
including the suggestion that local districts submit
Guidance and Support for English in their special education plans to the states,
Learners their policies related to the referral, identification,
ED officials identified cross-office initiatives assessment, and service delivery for ELs with
between the Office of Special Education and disabilities. The tool-kit also includes a matrix for
Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) and the Office helping differentiate language differences and
22 National Council on Disabilitydisabilities in identification, a checklist support role of the IEP team in assessment decisions,
for developing an IEP for an EL with a disability, accommodations and alternate assessments, and
instructions on using the CRDC to find data decisions about exiting from EL status.
on ELs with disabilities, and considerations for Passed in 2015, Title III under ESSA included
accommodations for ELs with disabilities. critical new provisions addressing the needs of
ELs with disabilities. Specifically, Title III now
Model Demonstration Projects requires reporting on the number and percentage
for Literacy of ELs making progress toward English proficiency
OSEP is also currently funding model by disability status.48 In September 2016, ED
demonstration projects to address the needs of issued guidance on Title III under ESSA, which
ELs with disabilities. The model demonstration included a section devoted to ELs with disabilities.
projects have focused on addressing literacy The guidance describes the professional
needs for ELs with disabilities. Specifically, knowledge teachers of ELs should have:
the 2016 grant competition funded a project to
Instruction for English learners with
“(a) improve literacy outcomes for [ELs with
disabilities should take into account their
disabilities] in grades three through five, within
specific special
a multitiered system
education and related
of supports (MTSS) OSEP is also currently funding model services needs, as
framework; (b) use demonstration projects to address well as their language
culturally responsive
the needs of ELs with disabilities. needs. Teachers
principles; and (c) be
should have an
implemented by educators and sustained in
understanding of the second language
general and special education settings.”46 Three
acquisition process, and how this might
projects at Portland State University, American
be influenced by the child’s individual
Institutes of Research, and the University of
development, knowledge of EL effective
Texas Austin received funding.
instructional practices and, if relevant, the
child’s disability.49
Title III Supports and Inclusion
in Assessment Additionally, to heighten the attention on
Recognizing the challenges associated with language proficiency, ESSA included language
appropriate inclusion of ELs with disabilities in proficiency as a required indicator in the state
assessments, ED has provided supports to states accountability system under Title I.50
and districts. In 2014, OSERS issued a questions The Title I assessment regulations go
and answers document on the inclusion of ELs further to support the assessment of ELs
with disabilities on English language proficiency who are also students with disabilities.
assessments. This guidance remains in
47
The regulations clarify that when assessing
effect through the 2016–2017 school year as language proficiency, if a student’s disability
states transition to new plans under ESSA. precludes them from accessing an assessment
This guidance includes information about the in one domain (listening, speaking, reading
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 23and writing) educators must assess students’ also provides protections to parents. Schools
language proficiency using the other domains.51 have a legal duty to ensure both parents and
Additionally, when making determinations for students are able to access programs, services,
participation on the Alternate Assessment aligned and information in their primary language. Title VI
with Alternate Achievement Standards, decisions of the Civil Rights Act of 196456 prohibits federally
cannot be made based on the student’s disability assisted programs to deny the benefits for or
or EL status.52 Finally, any educators who work subject individuals to discrimination on the basis
with students with disabilities, including teachers of national origin, color, or race. Discrimination
of ELs, must receive training on administering based on language is considered discrimination
assessments and the use of accommodations.53 based on national origin.57 Therefore, parents
To better understand assessment policies cannot be discriminated against because their
and practices for students with disabilities, native language is not English.
ELs, and ELs with disabilities, the Office of In 2010, DOJ and OCR entered into a
Special Education Programs funds the National settlement with Boston Public Schools after an
Center on Education Outcomes (NCEO) at the investigation found the district was not providing
University of Minnesota.54 NCEO collects and appropriate services for ELs. The original
analyzes data on assessments, accommodations, settlement included a stipulation ensuring
and accountabilities, and they disseminate that EL students who are also students with
information on evidence-based practices to assist disabilities are appropriately referred, evaluated,
states and districts in implementing inclusive and served for both language services and
assessment systems. special education services.58 In another case, in
January 2015, OCR completed an investigation
Office for Civil Rights and of Jersey City Public schools, finding
Department of Justice noncompliance with Title VI. In the resolution
In addition to OSEP monitoring compliance with letter, OCR noted, in particular, “school districts
IDEA, OCR at ED and the Civil Rights Division may not maintain ‘no dual services’ policies
of the DOJ have the authority to investigate or practices for EL students with disabilities.
complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act If an EL student with disabilities needs both
of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunity alternative language services and special
Act to ensure ELs have equal opportunity to education services, the student should be given
education.55 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 both types of services.”59
24 National Council on DisabilityChapter 3: Supports from Other Agencies
Protection and Advocacy Agencies information in a language they can understand
and ensuring students are protected from
Protection and Advocacy agencies (P&As),60
inappropriate disciplinary measures, including
authorized through various federal statutes,
seclusion and restraint.
not including IDEA,61 are intended to provide
legal representation and advocacy services for
people with disabilities. The agencies represent Independent Living
and advocate for people with disabilities Authorized under Title VII of the Rehabilitation
across a variety of areas, including health care, Act, Centers for Independent Living are
housing, employment, and education. They are intended to provide services to promote
intended to provide legal support and advocacy independent living among people with
for unserved and underserved populations, disabilities. Importantly, they are consumer-
including individuals from low-income families controlled organizations and, among other
and monolingual non-English-speaking families. supports, provide self-advocacy training and
In education, some of the support many involve peer mentoring. In 2014, Congress reauthorized
requesting information from the school, filing the program through the Workforce Innovation
state complaints, filing federal complaints, and and Opportunity Act .62 In the reauthorization,
litigation. In speaking with representatives from Congress added a focus on youth transition to
P&As, many of their concerns for ELs and low- the core services of the program for individuals
income families involved ensuring parents have with significant disabilities.63
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 2526 National Council on Disability
Chapter 4: Challenges in Addressing Needs of English
Learners and Students from Low-Income Families
S
takeholders identified several challenges however stakeholders identified low expectations
in effectively meeting the needs of as a problem plaguing ELs with disabilities
ELs with disabilities and students with and students with disabilities from low-income
disabilities from low-income families. Importantly, families. One local administrator discussed the
stakeholders noted that these populations are challenges around the mind-set, stating, “We
overlapping. One local administrator stated it is have a problem of lowered expectations if you
“hard to separate” the two because many of the belong to one or more of these subgroups. How
students are the same. For instance, according we can move the mindset piece so that teachers
to an administrator in in front of students
California, 70 percent believe that they can
of their students with [A]ccording to an administrator in achieve?”64 Another state
disabilities are also California, 70 percent of their students administrator recognized
identified in one or with disabilities are also identified the need to support
more of the following cultural competency to
in one or more of the following
subgroups: students in address the “implicit bias
poverty, ELs, or students
subgroups: students in poverty, ELs, of educators towards
in foster care. With this or students in foster care. students who are poor
overlap, students and and students of color.”
families across the different subgroups face The administrator continued to acknowledge that
many common challenges. “changing attitudes and practices is a daunting
In this section, we describe the common task.”65
challenges related to expectations,
disproportionality, service coordination, and Disproportionality in Identification
family engagement and then highlight some and Placement
specific challenges for ELs. Previous researchers have acknowledged
a “paradox” related to special education
Expectations identification.66 Identification for special
Educators and policymakers alike have education can provide students with access to
acknowledged the importance of having high interventions, accommodations, and rights under
expectations for students with disabilities, the law. Simultaneously, though, identification
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 27The IDEA statute and regulations include
Special Education Paradox important provisions on evaluation to help ensure
students are appropriately identified for special
Identification for special education education services. The local school district
can provide students with access to must use a “variety of assessment tools and
interventions, accommodations, and rights strategies,” evaluation materials should not be
under the law. Simultaneously, though, “discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis,”
identification can result in segregation from and assessments are “administered in the
general education, lower expectations, and language and form most likely to yield accurate
stigmatization information.”73 Of importance, the statute
includes an exclusionary clause prohibiting
determination of eligibility if the determining
factor is “lack of appropriate instruction in
can result in segregation from general education, reading,” “lack of appropriate instruction in
lower expectations, and stigmatization.67 Given math,” or “limited English proficiency.”74 The
this paradox, policymakers have tried to ensure statutory definition of specific learning disability
students are identified for special education also excludes learning issues primarily related
appropriately. After years to “environment,
of research documenting cultural, or economic
One special education director
disproportionality for disadvantage.”75
students of color in mentioned that, in her district, ELs Despite these
special education,68 IDEA “who need interventions get sent to statutory provisions,
2004 included provisions special education.” stakeholders
requiring that states identified challenges
address significant disproportionality by race and in differentiating language needs, impacts
ethnicity for identification and placement.69 of poverty, and disability needs. One local
Policies to address disproportionality in administrator noted, “There is a challenge
identification and placement for students understanding language need versus disability
with disabilities are limited to focus on need. With the overall pervasiveness of testing,
disproportionality by race and ethnicity. schools don’t have the time to wait for language
However, previous research has acknowledged to occur.”76 In examining the exclusionary clause
concerns with both underidentification and as it relates to economic disadvantage, Dr. James
overidentification of ELs,70 and research from Ryan has argued that given the impacts of
Massachusetts identified concerns with poverty on the brain, trying to force differentiating
overidentification of students from low-income between disability and economic disadvantage is
families in special education.71 One special problematic when students need the additional
education director mentioned that, in her district, services and supports.77
ELs “who need interventions get sent to special Researchers have also noted that referral
education.”72 procedures for ELs vary from district to district.78
28 National Council on DisabilitySome districts apply the same referral policies conversations and supports that are now
regardless of EL status, while others include happening or are in the works.”83 Yet, a state
additional policies to guide the evaluation administrator still has concerns, noting that
process. Even with the statute suggesting that disproportionality for these populations is an
children should be evaluated in an appropriate issue “we need to address,” and “teachers need
language, one parent noted her school only professional development on what to do.”84
evaluates students in Disproportionality is
the English language not exclusively related to
[G]iven the impacts of poverty
regardless of the child’s issues of identification,
language proficiency. In
on the brain, trying to force but also placement in
her school, if the child is differentiating between disability substantially separate
not proficient in English, and economic disadvantage is settings and discipline.
he or she could not be problematic when students need the One stakeholder noted
evaluated effectively that some of the youth
additional services and supports.
for special education.79 they work with who had
A representative from a P&A also raised this been in substantially separate placements say
challenge, describing a deaf student who had they “survived special education” or they were
grown up reading his mother’s lips. Despite a “victim of special education.” She added that
this, the district refused to evaluate him in his part of the problem is that the law “perpetuates
family’s native language claiming that he had segregation” and “the next reauthorization of
“no dominant language.” She added that some IDEA [should address the] embedded separation
districts in her state are between general
requiring students to “Some of the things we know about education and special
have lived in the state education.”85
low-income students is that they
for a specified amount of Dr. Thomas Hehir
time before permitting
are more apt to be segregated than raised concerns about
referrals to special non-low-income students, and those the overrepresentation
education.80 placements are associated with of low-income students
To address these poorer outcomes.” in substantially separate
challenges, researchers placements: “Some
—Dr. Thomas Hehir
and practitioners have of the things we
focused on developing culturally responsive know about low-income students is that they
evaluation practices81 and ensuring that MTSS are more apt to be segregated than non-low-
appropriately include all students.82 One income students, and those placements are
representative for the state chiefs highlighted associated with poorer outcomes.” He also
this work, noting he is “encouraged by more noted that parents with fewer financial resources
conversation occurring around [supports for ELs are considerably less likely to exercise their
with disabilities]. I hear about it everywhere— due process rights under the law should they
organizations, funded centers, more good disagree with a placement decision, and when
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 29the cost of the assessment and preparing for
the hearing, and therefore they do not have due
process rights.”88
In fact, representation is not limited to
families with incomes above the poverty line.
There are a number of special education attorney
practitioners who represent families using
the fee-shifting provisions of the IDEA.89 Any
civil rights fee-shifting provision is designed to
encourage litigants to protect their civil rights.
The courts have long recognized “. . . its more
specific purpose was to enable potential plaintiffs
to obtain assistance of competent counsel in
vindicating their rights.”90 There is training for
attorneys who desire to represent families using
the fee-shifting provisions.91
A few states and districts have tried to
address issues related to disproportionality
among ELs or students from low-income families.
For instance in 2016, California passed legislation
requiring the state’s Department of Education
develop a manual “on identifying, assessing,
supporting, and reclassifying ELs who may
qualify for special education services and pupils
they do, exercising their rights are not as effective with disabilities who may be classified as ELs.”92
without representation. He added, “Even if a few The manual was due to the California legislature
students can get access it has impact on school on June 30, 2017.
districts. We need representation for low-income To address disproportionality among students
students on issues of placement. P&As could be from low-income families, the Massachusetts
funded to represent low-income parents seeking Department of Elementary and Secondary
more inclusive placements.”86 One parent also Education started the Low-Income Education
acknowledged barriers to families with fewer Access Project.93 Through the program, the
means in accessing their rights under IDEA, state is working collaboratively with local school
noting, “The game is set up to benefit people districts to assess and address disproportionality
who have more.”87 Another parent stated, “I’m among low-income students. The state supports
real big on seeing there being two special eds— more tailored professional development for
one special ed system for students who have districts that, based on their data, demonstrate
money, and one for those who do not. A family higher rates of disproportionality for low-income
who earns below the poverty income cannot students in identification and placement and may
possibly challenge a district program, considering require districts to use some of their allowable
30 National Council on Disability15 percent of IDEA funds for coordinated early understand what is intellectual disability.”97
intervening services for this purpose.94 They also Another parent described understanding and
offer universal professional development through engaging with IDEA is “twice as difficult” for
online support and a train-the-trainers model to non-English-speaking parents because of the
consider the impacts of poverty on learning. A barrier to getting information in a language
key goal of the program, according to one state parents understand.98
administrator, is to “make the general education A PTI director noted challenges that non-
settings more accommodating and supportive English-speaking families face: “Monolingual
of the student . . . to make sure we don’t families have the challenge of not knowing the
misidentify students as law, and school districts
having disabilities” and to don’t take the time.
Language, and in particular the
“think about the student Nobody is explaining
language of special education, can
as a whole, including what IDEA means—
their families” to address represent a significant barrier to mostly not getting
any barriers to learning.95 family engagement. relevant documents
The state is currently in translated.” She added
its first years of implementation and is collecting that many parents “are learning English and
data to examine the program’s results in getting by in their jobs but the special education
improving opportunities for low-income students. language is different with the terms, acronyms.
Their English is not at that level yet.”99 Several
Family Engagement and Education advocates representing non-English-speaking
Several stakeholders noted concerns about families also noted that even if an interpreter is
schools being able to effectively engage present, the “parent receives the interpretation
families of ELs and low-income families. from the school secretary.” The interpreter may
A local administrator not understand the IDEA
commented, “We need jargon and therefore
The interpreter may not understand
additional supports for cannot effectively relay
the IDEA jargon and therefore
schools and more training the information to
at the school level on cannot effectively relay the parents.100
how to appropriately information to parents. Representatives
engage families. This is a from P&As added that
huge thing.”96 even though there are some requirements
Language, and in particular the language of that information be translated for parents, the
special education, can represent a significant implementation of these provisions is ineffective
barrier to family engagement. One parent and variable. For instance, they noted instances
described her experience with her son and his where entire IEPs were not translated but merely
school, “We just believe everything that they the headers, translations of documentations
[the educators] say,” adding “for somebody that were only in audio format, and documents
comes from a different country . . . 15 years related to evaluations were not translated at all.
ago, 16 years ago, it was quite difficult to even One attorney noted, even in a school district
English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 31You can also read
