This article highlights a set of principles and guidelines, developed by a diverse group of specialists in the field, for appropriately including English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities in large-scale assessments. ELLs with disabilities make up roughly 9% of the rapidly increasing ELL population nationwide. In spite of the small overall percentage of students that they represent, this group experiences significant learning and assessment challenges. In the context of successfully educating all students to high standards, it is important for state education agencies, policymakers, and local education agencies to improve achievement outcomes for these students. One of the first steps in improving test performance is to design and implement comprehensive and accessible assessment policies, and consequently assessments, that address the specific needs of ELLs with disabilities. Doing so will give them the chance to demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have, thus allowing the test results to more accurately show areas for school improvement.
AbediJ. (2007). English language proficiency assessment and accountability under NCLB Title III: An overview. In AbediJ. (Ed.), English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 3-12). Davis: University of California, Davis, School of Education.
2.
AbediJ. (2009). English language learners with disabilities: Classification, assessment, and accommodation issues. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2), 1-30.
3.
AbediJ.HofstetterC. H.LordC. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1-28. doi:10.3102/00346543074001001
4.
AbediJ.LeonS.KaoJ.BayleyR.EwersN.HermanJ.MundhenkK. (2011). Accessible reading assessments for students with disabilities: The role of cognitive, grammatical, lexical, and textual/visual features (CRESST Report 785). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
5.
AlbusD.BarreraM.ThurlowM.GuvenK.ShyyanV. (2004). 2000-2001 participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilities Report 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
6.
AlbusD.ThurlowM. (2007). English language learners with disabilities in state English language proficiency assessments: A review of state accommodation policies (Synthesis Report 66). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7.
AlbusD.ThurlowM.BarreraM.GuvenK.ShyyanV. (2004). 1999-2000 participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilities Report 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
8.
AlbusD.ThurlowM.LiuK. (2009). State reports on the participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities in 2006-2007 (Technical Report 54). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
9.
AlbusD.ThurlowM.LiuK.BielinskiJ. (2005). Reading test performance of English-language learners using an English dictionary. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 245-256.
10.
AltmanJ.LazarusS.ThurlowM.QuenemoenR.CuthbertM.CormierD. (2008). 2007 survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
11.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council for Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council for Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
AriasM.Morillo-CampbellM. (2008). Promoting ELL parental involvement: Challenges in contested times (ERIC No. 506652). Boulder: University of Colorado, Education and Public Interest Center.
14.
AugustD.HakutaK. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
15.
BoalsT.KenyonD.BlairA.CranleyM. E.WilmesC.WrightL. (2015). Transformation in K-12 English language proficiency assessment: Changing contexts, changing constructs. Review of Research in Education, 39, 122-164.
16.
BoltS.ThurlowM. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141-152.
17.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.WakemanS.TrelaK.BakerJ. (2006). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 309-321.
18.
CallahanR.WilkinsonL.MullerC. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 84-117. doi:10.3102/0162373709359805
19.
CawthonS.LeppoR.CarrT.KoprivaR. (2013). Toward accessible assessments: The promises and limitations of test item adaptations for students with disabilities and English language learners. Educational Assessment, 18, 73-98.
20.
ChouC. (2002). Developing the e-Delphi system: A web-based forecasting tool for educational research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 233-236.
21.
ChristensenL.AlbusD.LiuK.ThurlowM.KincaidA. (2013). Accommodations for students with disabilities on state English language proficiency assessments: A review of 2011 state policies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities.
22.
ClaytonM. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17, 373-386.
23.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). English language arts standards - reading: Foundational skills - kindergarten. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/K/
24.
CortiellaC. (2006). NCLB and IDEA: What parents of students with disabilities need to know and do. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25.
DalkeyN.HelmerO. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458-467.
26.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047-1085.
27.
DeMatthewsD.EdwardsD.NelsonT. (2014). Identification problems: U.S. special education eligibility for English language learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 27-34. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.002
28.
DeStefanoL.ShrinerJ.LloydC. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children, 68, 7-22.
29.
EchevarriaJ.VogtM.ShortD. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
EstradaK. (2013). Examining English language development among English language learners with specific learning disability (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3610109).
31.
FrancisD.RiveraM. (2007). Principles underlying English language proficiency tests and academic accountability for ELLs. In AbediJ. (Ed.), English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 13-32). Davis: University of California, Davis, School of Education.
32.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room”?Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1-27.
33.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32, 7-23; 42-44.
34.
GoodmanD.HambletonR. (2004). Student test score reports and interpretive guides: Review of current practices and suggestions for future research. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 145-220. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1702_3
35.
GuptaU.ClarkeR. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 53, 185-211.
36.
HakutaK. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40, 163-174.
37.
HardmanM.DawsonS. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 5-11. doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.2.5-11
38.
HarklauL. (1994). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability grouping for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6, 217-244. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(94)90012-4
39.
HooverJ.PattonJ. (2004). Differentiating standards-based education for students with diverse needs. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 74-78.
40.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
41.
JohnstoneC.MillerN.ThompsonS. (2006). Using the think aloud method (cognitive labs) to evaluate test design for students with disabilities and English language learners (Technical Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
42.
JohnstoneC.ThompsonS.MillerN.ThurlowM. (2008). Universal design and multi-method approaches to item review. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 25-36.
43.
Ketterlin-GellerL. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universal design for assessment. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(2). Retrieved from ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/archive
44.
Ketterlin-GellerL. (2008). Testing students with special needs: A model for understanding the interaction between assessment and student characteristics in a universally designed environment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 3-16.
45.
KiefferM.LesauxN.RiveraM.FrancisD. (2009). Accommodations for English language learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1168-1201. doi:10.3102/0034654309332490
46.
KlingnerJ.ArtilesA.BarlettaL. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108-128.
47.
KoenigJ. (Ed.). (2002). Reporting test results for students with disabilities and English-language learners: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
48.
KoprivaR. (2000). Ensuring accuracy in testing for English language learners. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
49.
KoprivaR.EmickJ.Hipolito-DelgadoC.CameronC. (2007). Do proper accommodation assignments make a difference? Examining the impact of improved decision making on scores for English language learners. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 11-20. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00097.x/full
50.
KutiL. M.XuY. (2012). Accommodations for English language learners on statewide English language proficiency assessment. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1, 1-18.
LinstoneH.TuroffM. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Newark, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
53.
LiuK.AndersonM. (2008). Universal design considerations for improving student achievement on English language proficiency tests. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 167-176. doi:10.1177/1534508407313242
54.
LiuK.BarreraM. (2013). Providing leadership to meet the needs of English language learners with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Administration, 26, 31-42.
55.
LiuK.BarreraM.ThurlowM.GuvenK.ShyyanV. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (1999-2000) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
56.
LiuK.GoldstoneL.ThurlowM.WardJ.HattenJ.ChristensenL. (2013). Voices from the field: Making state assessment decisions for English language learners with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners With Disabilities.
57.
LiuK.ThurlowM.BarreraM.GuvenK.ShyyanV. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (2000-2001) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
58.
LoL. (2005). Barriers to successful partnerships with Chinese-speaking parents of children with disabilities in urban schools. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 8, 84-95.
59.
LoL. (2012). Demystifying the IEP process for diverse parents of children with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 14-20.
60.
Martin-BeltranM.PeercyM. (2014). Collaboration to teach English language learners: Opportunities for shared teacher learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20, 721-737.
61.
MartinezR.HumphreysL. (2006). The best choice. Principal Leadership, 6(5), 12-15.
62.
MuellerT.SingerG.CarranzaF. (2006). A national survey of the educational planning and language instruction practices for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English language learners. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 242-254.
National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts (Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment, ElmoreR.RothmanR., Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
65.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq.
RiekeR.LazarusS.ThurlowM.DominguezL. (2013). 2012 survey of states: Successes and challenges during a time of change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
70.
RinaldiC.SamsonJ. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6-14.
71.
RogersC.ChristensenL. (2011). A new framework for accommodating English language learners with disabilities (Chapter 4). In RussellM.KavanaughM. (Eds.), Assessing students in the margin: Challenges, strategies, and techniques (pp. 89-104). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
72.
RotondiA.GustafsonD. (1996). Theoretical, methodological, and practical issued arising out of the Delphi method. In AdlerM.ZiglioE. (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (pp. 3-33). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
73.
RoweG.WrightG. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353-375.
74.
SharkeyJ.LayzerC. (2000). Whose definition of success? Identifying factors that affect English language learners’ access to academic success and resources. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 352-368.
75.
ShyyanV.ChristensenL.TouchetteB.LightborneL.GholsonM.BurtonK. (2013). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessment English language learners with disabilities (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Assessing Special Education Students and English Language Learners State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards, Council of Chief State School Officers.
76.
SopkoK.RederN. (2007). Public and parent reporting requirements: NCLB and IDEA regulations (In Forum). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
77.
SpicuzzaR.EricksonR.ThurlowM.LiuK.RuhlandA. (1996). Input from the field on assessing students with limited English proficiency in Minnesota’s basic requirements exams (Minnesota Report No. 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
78.
SpicuzzaR.EricksonR.ThurlowM. L.RuhlandA. (1996a). Input from the field on assessing students with disabilities in Minnesota’s Basic Standards Exams (Minnesota Report No. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
79.
SpicuzzaR.EricksonR.ThurlowM. L.RuhlandA. (1996b). Input from the field on the participation of students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities in meeting the high standards of Minnesota’s Profile of Learning (Minnesota Report No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
80.
ThompsonS.JohnstoneC.AndersonM.MillerN. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
81.
ThurlowM.BremerC.AlbusD. (2011). 2008-09 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 59). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
82.
ThurlowM.Ives WileyH. (2006). A baseline perspective on disability subgroup reporting. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 246-254.
83.
ThurlowM.LaitusisC.DillonD.CookL.MoenR.AbediJ.O’BrienD. (2009). Accessibility principles for reading assessments. Minneapolis, MN: National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.
84.
ThurlowM.LiuK.WardJ.ChristensenL. (2013). Assessment principles and guidelines for ELLs with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities.
85.
ThurlowM.QuenemoenR.LazarusS.MoenR.JohnstoneC.LiuK.. . . AltmanJ. (2008). A principled approach to accountability assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 70). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
86.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.SilversteinB. (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 260-270.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). Questions and answers regarding inclusion of English learners with disabilities in English proficiency assessments and Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/elswdfaq7182014.doc
89.
WangL.BeckettG. H.BrownL. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 305-328.
90.
WatkinsE.LiuK. (2013, Winter/Spring). Who are English language learners with disabilities? In LiuK.WatkinsE.PompaD.McLeodP.ElliottJ.GaylordV. (Eds.), Impact: Feature issue on educating K-12 English language learners with disabilities (Vol. 26, No. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved from https://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/261/2.html
91.
WelchM. (2000). Collaboration as a tool for inclusion. In WadeS. (Ed.), Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers (pp. 71-96). New York, NY: Routledge.
92.
ZehlerA.FleischmanH.HopstockP.StephensonT.PendzickM.SapruS. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP children and LEP children with disabilities: Summary of findings related to LEP and SpEd-LEP children (Policy report). Arlington, VA: Development Associates.
93.
ZeniskyA. L.HambletonR. K.SireciS. G. (2009). Getting the message out: An evaluation of NAEP score reporting practices with implications for disseminating test results. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(4), 359-375.
94.
ZiglioE. (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In AdlerM.ZiglioE. (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (pp. 3-33). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
