Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

42
Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL Shannon Wells Ph.D. 1

description

Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL. Shannon Wells Ph.D. Guidelines for Reclassification. Assessment of language proficiency on CELDT Teacher evaluation Parent opinion and consultation Performance on a statewide assessment of basic skills in English. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Page 1: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are

LTELShannon Wells Ph.D.

1

Page 2: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Guidelines for Reclassification

• Assessment of language proficiency on CELDT• Teacher evaluation• Parent opinion and consultation• Performance on a statewide assessment of

basic skills in English

2

Page 3: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Reclassification Criteria

Language Proficiency• Early advanced or higher

overall• No lower than intermediate

on each domain– Listening – Speaking– Reading – Writing

Performance on Basic Skills• Objective test of basic skills• Such as CST/CMA basic or

higher– Page 18 specifies “Statewide

Assessment”

3

Page 4: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Reclassification of ELs with Severe Cognitive Disabilities

• Same opportunities to RFEP as those without disabilities

• IEP team may determine appropriate measure of English language proficiency and performance in basic skills– EC sections 56342 and 56345[b]

• When assessed with alternate, receive LOWEST OBTAINABLE SCORE (LOS)

4

Page 5: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Possible Alternate Assessments

5

Test Name Skills Assessed

Organization or Publisher Contact Information

Alternative Language Proficiency Instrument(ALPI)

Listening Speaking

Orange CountyDept.of Education

714-966-4120

Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM)

ListeningSpeaking

San Jose UnifiedSchool District

http://www.cal.org/twi/EvalToolkit/appendix/solom.pdf

Basics 2 (Checklist for functional reading and writing)

Listening, SpeakingReading, Writing

Lakeshore http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/home/home.jsp

Sandi Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing

SEACO http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/materials/SANDI_Riverside.pdf

Page 6: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

• There is no provision that allows an LEA to use “alternative criteria” to classify a student as EL even upon entry if it is deemed that the student is an English learner based on the home language survey. The IEP team may determine if the student needs an alternative assessment to CELDT and what that alternative will be (this must be an IEP team decision).

• 5 CCR § 11303

6

Page 7: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Research Questions1. What are RFEP rates overall and by disability?2. Are there any differences in RFEP rates by disability?3. How do RFEP rates for students with disabilities

compare to students who do not have a disability?4. What are the differences in CELDT performance

level and domain by disability?5. Which domains do students with disabilities

typically struggle with the most?

7

Page 8: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Research Questions cont.6. Are there any differences in performance by domain and

disability?7. How do students with disabilities compare to students who

do not have a disability, in each CELDT domain?8. What does CELDT movement (overall and by domain) look

like for students with disabilities in comparison to students who do not have a disability?

9. How do students with disabilities who have not reclassified during the seven year study period perform on the CELDT in relation to the CST ELA?

8

Page 9: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

WHAT ARE RFEP RATES OVERALL AND BY DISABILITY?Research Question #1

9

Page 10: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

10

Frequency of Disability Codes in SampleDisability Code Count Percent Cumulative Percent

Mental Retardation 210 90 3.8 3.8Hard of Hearing 220 37 1.5 5.3

Deafness 230 3 0.1 5.4Speech or Language Impairment 240 489 20.4 25.8

Visual Impairment 250 7 0.3 26.1Emotional Disturbance 260 21 0.9 27Orthopedic Impairment 270 26 1.1 28

Other Health Impairment 280 71 3 31Specific Learning Disability 290 1595 66.5 97.5

Deaf-Blindness 300 1 0 97.5Multiple Disabilities 310 4 0.2 97.7

Autism 320 52 2.2 99.8Traumatic Brain Injury 330 4 0.2 100

  Total 2400 100  

• The most common disability designation in the sample was specific learning disability, followed by speech or language impairment.

Page 11: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Specific Learning Disability• Disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes

involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.– perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,

dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.• Does not include a learning problem that is primarily the

result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

11

Page 12: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

12

RFEP Rates by Disability CodeDisability Code Count RFEP RFEP Rate (%)

Mental Retardation 210 90 6 6.7Hard of Hearing 220 37 6 16.2

Deafness 230 3 0 0.0Speech or Language Impairment 240 489 226 46.2

Visual Impairment 250 7 1 14.3Emotional Disturbance 260 21 4 19.0Orthopedic Impairment 270 26 11 42.3

Other Health Impairment 280 71 16 22.5Specific Learning Disability 290 1595 202 12.7

Deaf-blindness 300 1 0 0.0Multiple Disabilities 310 4 1 25.0

Autism 320 52 14 26.9Traumatic Brain Injury 330 4 0 0.0

  Total 2400 487  

• Disabled students with speech or language impairment had the highest reclassification rate (46.2%) during the study period, followed by students with orthopedic impairments (42.3%).

Page 13: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES IN RFEP RATES BY DISABILITY?Research Question #2

13

Page 14: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

14

Men tal Retar d atio n

Har d o f Hear i n g

Deaf

Sp eech or Lan gu age Imp ai r men t

Vi su al Imp ai r men t

Emo tio n al D is tu r b an ce

O r th op ed ic Imp ai r men t

O th er Heal th Imp ai r men t

Sp ecifi c Lear n in g Disab i l i ty

Deaf -B l in d n ess

Mu l tip le Di sab i l i ties

A u tism

Tr au matic Br ai n In ju r y

6.7

16.2

0.0

46.2

14.3

19.0

42.3

22.5

12.7

0.0

25.0

26.9

0.0

93.3

83.8

100.0

53.8

85.7

81.0

57.7

77.5

87.3

100.0

75.0

73.1

100.0

Percentage of students who reclassify within 7 years by disabilityRFEPd No RFEP

%

Disa

bilit

y

n = 4*

n= 52

n = 4*

n = 1*

n = 1595

n = 71

n = 26*

n= 21*

n = 7*

n = 489

n= 3 *

n = 37

n = 90

• Students with orthopedic impairments and speech or language impairments were more likely to reclassify within the study period than students with a specific learning disability.

* Caution should be taken when interpreting results of groups with less than 30 students.

Page 15: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

HOW DO RFEP RATES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES COMPARE TO STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY?

Research Question #3

15

Page 16: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

16

• The reclassification rate for students with disabilities within the study period was much lower (20%) than for students with no disabilities (55%).

• On average, students with disabilities took 6.7 years to reclassify relative to 5.98 years for students with no disabilities.

Table 4: RFEP Summary by Student Status

Student Status Has Disability No Disability Just Speech/Language and Ortho

Count 2400 17055 515RFEP 487 9386 237

RFEP Rate 20.3 55.0 46.0Typical Years to RFEP

Mean 6.7 5.98 5.63Std Dev 0.746 1.243 1.092

Min 3 1 3Max 7 7 7

Median 7 6 6

Page 17: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

17

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.7

7.6

19.9

22.5

28

21.3

0 0

3.8

13.3

15.4

29.9

37.7

Percent of SWD vs. Non SWD That Were Reclassified Within Seven Years

No Disability Disability

N = 59

N = 697

N = 1832

N = 2072

N = 2630

N = 2068

N = 1

• As can be seen in the graph, few students with disabilities were able to reclassify in three or four years, while more than a quarter of students with no disabilities were able to do so.

Page 18: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

4. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN CELDT PERFORMANCE LEVEL AND DOMAIN BY DISABILITY?5. WHICH DOMAINS DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES TYPICALLY STRUGGLE WITH THE MOST?6. ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE BY DOMAIN AND DISABILITY?

Research Question #4-6

18* Caution should be taken when interpreting results of groups with less than 30 students.

Page 19: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

19• Students with visual impairments performed well on the listening portion of the CELDT. • Students with traumatic brain injuries and autism tended to not perform as well in this

domain.

Mental Retardation

Hard of Hearin

gDeaf

Speech or L

anguage Impairm

ent

Visual Im

pairment

Emotional Dist

urbance

Orthopedic

Impairm

ent

Other Health

Impairm

ent

Specific L

earning Disabilit

y

Deaf-Blin

dness

Multiple Disabiliti

es

Autism

Traumatic Brain In

jury

Combined MR, M

D, TBI

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Percentage of SWD Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by Disability (Ag-gregate of CELDT Overall D-J)

B EI I EA A

Page 20: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

20

Reading Writing Listening Speaking Reading Writing Listening Speaking Reading Writing Listening SpeakingSpeech or Language Impairment Specific Learning Disability Combined MR, MD, TBI

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Percentage of SWD Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by Disability for Each Domain

B EI I EA A

Page 21: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

HOW DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES COMPARE TO STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY, IN EACH CELDT DOMAIN?

Research Question #7

21

Page 22: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

22NNo Sped = 79642Sped = 13567

B EI I EA A0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3.7

12.0

41.2

33.69.5

24.7

30.8

33.4

9.71.4

Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD (Aggregate of CELDT Overall E-J)

No Special Education Special Education

• Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT overall.

• This is the trend for all domains, though with slight variations in some areas.

Page 23: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

23NNo Sped = 79642Sped = 13567

B EI I EA A0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3.2

11.7

34.8

32.517.7

15.0

26.6

34.3

17.86.4

Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD (Aggregate of CELDT Listening E-J)

No Special Education Special Education

• Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Listening portion of the assessment, though presence in the top two categories is greater in this domain relative to overall performance.

Page 24: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

24NNo Sped = 79642Sped = 13567

B EI I EA A0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2.07.7

30.2

34.1

26.0

9.119.4

36.5

23.9

11.1

Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD (Aggregate of CELDT Speaking E-J)

No Special Education Special Education

• Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Speaking portion of the assessment, though a larger proportion scored in the top two performance levels, relative to the overall and listening portions.

Page 25: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

25NNo Sped = 67896Sped = 11918

B EI I EA A0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

17.4

18.3

40.0

17.56.8

58.8

19.6

16.9

3.70.9

Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD (Aggregate of CELDT Reading E-J)

No Special Education Special Education

• Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Reading, and this tended to be the most challenging portion of the assessment for them.

Page 26: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

26NNo Sped = 66046Sped = 11673

B EI I EA A0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6.6

16.4

42.4

25.39.3

39.9

29.4

24.1

5.51.1

Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD (Aggregate of CELDT Writing E-J)

No Special Education Special Education

• Students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have any disabilities, on the CELDT Writing, and this domain also appeared to be a challenge.

Page 27: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

WHAT DOES CELDT MOVEMENT (OVERALL AND BY DOMAIN) LOOK LIKE FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN COMPARISON TO STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY?

Research Question #8

27

Page 28: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

28

PL Overall F-G

2007 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 300 674 EI 117 777 1555 I 346 3134 2570 EA 376 900 426 A 99 161 0 Total 938 5272 5225 11435Total % 8.2 46.1 45.7 100.0Disability B 0 463 315 EI 111 300 237 I 88 267 116 EA 21 22 7 A 5 6 0 Total 225 1058 675 1958

Total % 11.5 54.0 34.5 100.0

PL Overall G-H

2008 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 96 353 EI 31 345 1162 I 109 2184 2640 EA 297 1035 482 A 134 215 0 Total 571 3875 4637 9083Total % 6.3 42.7 51.1 100.0Disability B 0 272 304 EI 69 261 291 I 64 353 143 EA 32 34 12 A 5 5 0 Total 170 925 750 1845

Total % 9.2 50.1 40.7 100.0

PL Overall H-I

2009 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 26 97 EI 20 185 407 I 123 1696 1599 EA 328 1169 469 A 164 232 0 Total 635 3308 2572 6515Total % 9.7 50.8 39.5 100.0Disability B 0 186 154 EI 56 253 230 I 95 407 165 EA 41 60 12 A 6 7 0 Total 198 913 561 1672

Total % 11.8 54.6 33.6 100.0

PL Overall I-J

2010 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 19 35 EI 20 125 216 I 118 1178 1013 EA 366 1152 344 A 177 246 0 Total 681 2720 1608 5009Total % 13.6 54.3 32.1 100.0Disability B 0 125 113 EI 47 194 183 I 118 371 165 EA 48 103 21 A 6 5 0 Total 219 798 482 1499

Total % 14.6 53.2 32.2 100.0

• Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities on the CELDT Overall.

Page 29: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

29

PL Listening F-G

2007 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 150 629 EI 146 624 1367 I 837 1733 2322 EA 805 736 981 A 672 433 0 Total 2460 3676 5299 11435Total % 21.5 32.1 46.3 100.0Disability B 0 184 263 EI 119 229 255 I 218 215 185 EA 97 59 57 A 57 20 0 Total 491 707 760 1958

Total % 25.1 36.1 38.8 100.0

PL Listening G-H

2008 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 45 432 EI 46 336 1402 I 270 1087 1881 EA 573 879 631 A 908 593 0 Total 1797 2940 4346 9083Total % 19.8 32.4 47.8 100.0Disability B 0 125 217 EI 61 223 328 I 117 212 200 EA 103 89 50 A 91 29 0 Total 372 678 795 1845

Total % 20.2 36.7 43.1 100.0

PL Listening H-I

2009 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 18 95 EI 29 149 613 I 184 1004 1213 EA 655 965 570 A 602 418 0 Total 1470 2554 2491 6515Total % 22.6 39.2 38.2 100.0Disability B 0 87 120 EI 61 131 254 I 125 287 188 EA 152 100 57 A 86 24 0 Total 424 629 619 1672

Total % 25.4 37.6 37.0 100.0

PL Listening I-J

2010 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 15 48 EI 20 110 260 I 194 720 994 EA 572 866 354 A 585 271 0 Total 1371 1982 1656 5009Total % 27.4 39.6 33.1 100.0Disability B 0 69 92 EI 38 121 149 I 147 248 224 EA 142 138 40 A 64 27 0 Total 391 603 505 1499

Total % 26.1 40.2 33.7 0.0

• Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Listening domain.

Page 30: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

30

PL Speaking F-G

2007 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 96 347 EI 31 334 1045 I 371 1738 2282 EA 904 1208 979 A 1165 935 0 Total 2471 4311 4653 11435Total % 21.6 37.7 40.7 100.0Disability B 0 95 150 EI 33 151 264 I 133 365 248 EA 148 128 63 A 117 63 0 Total 431 802 725 1958

Total % 22.0 41.0 37.0 100.0

PL Speaking G-H

2008 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 22 136 EI 28 200 736 I 176 1095 2130 EA 581 1206 1050 A 834 889 0 Total 1619 3412 4052 9083Total % 17.8 37.6 44.6 100.0Disability B 0 56 82 EI 30 135 223 I 121 347 285 EA 145 152 99 A 110 60 0 Total 406 750 689 1845

Total % 22.0 40.7 37.3 100.0

PL Speaking H-I

2009 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 13 45 EI 5 74 384 I 102 677 1142 EA 535 1218 735 A 866 719 0 Total 1508 2701 2306 6515Total % 23.1 41.5 35.4 100.0Disability B 0 44 55 EI 26 102 177 I 97 267 250 EA 168 207 85 A 123 71 0 Total 414 691 567 1672

Total % 24.8 41.3 33.9 100.0

PL Speaking I-J

2010 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 5 24 EI 9 42 183 I 101 471 838 EA 462 859 864 A 466 685 0 Total 1038 2062 1909 5009Total % 20.7 41.2 38.1 100.0Disability B 0 39 43 EI 21 83 135 I 80 242 208 EA 160 200 124 A 86 78 0 Total 347 642 510 1499

Total % 23.1 42.8 34.0 0.0

• Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Speaking domain.

Page 31: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

31

PL Reading F-G

2007 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 1598 1866 EI 335 611 1709 I 311 2834 1339 EA 139 236 139 A 59 72 0 Total 844 5351 5053 11248Total % 7.5 47.6 44.9 100.0Disability B 0 1102 319 EI 90 70 80 I 55 113 40 EA 7 7 3 A 2 1 0 Total 154 1293 442 1889

Total % 8.2 68.4 23.4 100.0

PL Reading G-H

2008 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 778 1292 EI 226 321 1245 I 367 2334 1639 EA 168 306 227 A 71 109 0 Total 832 3848 4403 9083Total % 9.2 42.4 48.5 100.0Disability B 0 896 356 EI 122 67 113 I 73 125 67 EA 8 11 4 A 1 1 0 Total 204 1100 540 1844

Total % 11.1 59.7 29.3 100.0

PL Reading H-I

2009 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 351 677 EI 144 226 744 I 326 1605 1305 EA 203 418 270 A 71 175 0 Total 744 2775 2996 6515Total % 11.4 42.6 46.0 100.0Disability B 0 613 403 EI 84 105 134 I 80 135 60 EA 20 23 9 A 2 4 0 Total 186 880 606 1672

Total % 11.1 52.6 36.2 100.0

PL Reading I-J

2010 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 269 342 EI 134 286 376 I 444 1675 739 EA 358 1230 233 A 148 626 0 Total 1084 4086 1690 6860Total % 15.8 59.6 24.6 100.0Disability B 0 501 267 EI 120 148 156 I 140 217 63 EA 41 50 13 A 7 22 0 Total 308 938 499 1745

Total % 17.7 53.8 28.6 0.0

• Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Reading domain. The gap between groups seems to widen further with this domain in particular.

Page 32: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

32

PL Writing F-G

2007 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 645 1126 EI 141 848 1952 I 358 2875 2017 EA 280 459 267 A 149 131 0 Total 928 4958 5362 11248Total % 8.3 44.1 47.7 100.0Disability B 0 813 321 EI 72 209 194 I 45 155 61 EA 6 6 4 A 1 2 0 Total 124 1185 580 1889

Total % 6.6 62.7 30.7 100.0

PL Writing G-H

2008 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 255 617 EI 86 496 1353 I 254 2281 1919 EA 419 584 446 A 177 196 0 Total 936 3812 4335 9083Total % 10.3 42.0 47.7 100.0Disability B 0 554 371 EI 67 203 230 I 64 219 78 EA 22 15 14 A 3 4 0 Total 156 995 693 1844

Total % 8.5 54.0 37.6 100.0

PL Writing H-I

2009 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 97 226 EI 50 371 623 I 291 1701 1316 EA 382 631 333 A 245 249 0 Total 968 3049 2498 6515Total % 14.9 46.8 38.3 100.0Disability B 0 381 238 EI 63 270 175 I 104 261 97 EA 35 25 3 A 13 7 0 Total 215 944 513 1672

Total % 12.9 56.5 30.7 100.0

PL Writing I-J

2010 Negative

MovementNo

MovementPositive

Movement TotalNo Disability B 0 45 120 EI 36 207 555 I 161 1053 1079 EA 279 714 283 A 240 237 0 Total 716 2256 2037 5009Total % 14.3 45.0 40.7 100.0Disability B 0 237 191 EI 57 209 272 I 65 252 111 EA 34 48 10 A 11 2 0 Total 167 748 584 1499

Total % 11.1 49.9 39.0 0.0

• Students with disabilities tended to demonstrate less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities in the CELDT Writing domain. In 2007 and 2008, students with disabilities tended to demonstrate less negative movement, but this may be due to floor effects.

Page 33: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

HOW DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO HAVE NOT RECLASSIFIED DURING THE SEVEN YEAR STUDY PERIOD PERFORM ON THE CELDT IN RELATION TO THE CST ELA?

Research Question #9

33

Page 34: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

34

B

EI

I

EA

A

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

69.2

49.8

32.5

10.0

0.0

26.0

32.8

40.0

30.0

0.0

4.5

16.7

20.0

20.0

0.0

0.3

0.7

5.8

20.0

100.0

0.0

1.7

20.0

0.0

Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST Per-formance Level 2007

FBB BB B P A

% CST PL

% C

ELDT

PL

CSTPLELA2007

    FBB BB B P A TotalPLOVerallF B

69.2 26.0 4.5 0.3 0.0 100.0

  EI 49.8 32.8 16.7 0.7 0.0 100.0  I 32.5 40.0 20.0 5.8 1.7 100.0  EA 10.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0  A 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

• 60% of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2007 scored Basic or Below on the CST ELA that year.

Page 35: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

35

B

EI

I

EA

A

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

70.5

57.1

31.3

25.0

0.0

17.1

35.1

37.5

25.0

0.0

4.8

7.1

28.6

50.0

0.0

3.4

0.0

2.7

0.0

50.0

4.1

0.6

0.0

50.0

Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST Per-formance Level 2008

FBB BB B P A

% CST PL

% C

ELDT

PL

CSTPLELA2008

    FBB BB B P A TotalPLOVerallG B

70.5 17.1 4.8 3.4 4.1 100.0

  EI 57.1 35.1 7.1 0.0 0.6 100.0  I 31.3 37.5 28.6 2.7 0.0 100.0  EA 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0  A 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 100.0

• 50% of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced or Advanced on the CELDT in 2008 scored Basic or Below on the CST ELA that year.

Page 36: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

36

B

EI

I

EA

A

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

40.2

23.5

13.1

6.3

0.0

39.2

31.6

20.4

21.9

14.3

12.7

25.4

29.1

34.4

28.6

4.8

14.3

22.5

21.9

42.9

3.2

5.1

14.9

15.6

14.3

Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST Per-formance Level 2009

FBB BB B P A

% CST PL

% C

ELDT

PL

CSTPLELA2009

    FBB BB B P A TotalPLOVerallH B

40.2 39.2 12.7 4.8 3.2 100.0

  EI 23.5 31.6 25.4 14.3 5.1 100.0  I 13.1 20.4 29.1 22.5 14.9 100.0  EA 6.3 21.9 34.4 21.9 15.6 100.0  A 0.0 14.3 28.6 42.9 14.3 100.0

• 63% of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2009 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

• 43% of students with disabilities who scored Advanced on the CELDT in 2009 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

Page 37: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

37

B

EI

I

EA

A

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

8.1

4.5

4.5

5.2

0.0

52.5

48.6

19.6

3.4

12.5

24.2

33.6

37.0

34.5

50.0

6.1

11.4

23.5

36.2

25.0

9.1

1.8

15.4

20.7

12.5

Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST Per-formance Level 2010

FBB BB B P A

% CST PL

% C

ELDT

PL

CSTPLELA2010

    FBB BB B P A TotalPLOVerallI B

8.1 52.5 24.2 6.1 9.1 100.0

  EI 4.5 48.6 33.6 11.4 1.8 100.0  I 4.5 19.6 37.0 23.5 15.4 100.0  EA 5.2 3.4 34.5 36.2 20.7 100.0  A 0.0 12.5 50.0 25.0 12.5 100.0

• 43% of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2010 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

• 63% of students with disabilities who scored Advanced on the CELDT in 2010 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

Page 38: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

38

B

EI

I

EA

A

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

42.2

28.1

11.1

2.1

0.0

29.7

38.4

26.3

12.8

0.0

14.1

24.1

34.2

36.2

55.6

10.9

6.9

14.9

20.2

22.2

3.1

2.5

13.6

28.7

22.2

Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST Per-formance Level 2011

FBB BB B P A

% CST PL

% C

ELDT

PL

CSTPLELA2011

    FBB BB B P A TotalPLOVerallJ B

42.2 29.7 14.1 10.9 3.1 100.0

  EI 28.1 38.4 24.1 6.9 2.5 100.0  I 11.1 26.3 34.2 14.9 13.6 100.0  EA 2.1 12.8 36.2 20.2 28.7 100.0  A 0.0 0.0 55.6 22.2 22.2 100.0

• 51% of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2011 scored Basic or Below on the CST that year.

• 56% of students with disabilities who scored Advanced on the CELDT in 2011 scored Basic or below on the CST that year.

Page 39: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Summary of Findings• Among students with disabilities the RFEP rate was the highest for the students

with speech or language impairments (46.2%) followed closely by students with orthopedic impairment (42.3%).

• When looking at the percent of students who reclassify within 7 years it was found that students with orthopedic impairments (42.3%) and speech or language impairments (46.2%) were more likely to reclassify than students with a specific learning disability (12.7%).

• If you compare RFEP rates for students with disabilities with students who do not have a disability it was found that the reclassification rate for students with disabilities was much lower (20%) than for student with no disabilities (55%). On average, students with disabilities took 6.7 years to reclassify relative to 5.98 years for students with no disabilities.

• For overall CELDT scores it was found that students with visual impairments and orthopedic impairments tended to earn the highest performance.

• Across all domains, students with visual impairment tended to earn the highest performance. The Reading and Writing domains tended to be the most difficult domains for all students with disabilities.

39

Page 40: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

Summary of Findings cont.• When comparing students with disabilities to those without it was found that

students with disabilities scored in the bottom three performance levels with greater frequency than students who do not have a disability, on the CEDLT overall as well as within each domain. It was found that the Reading domain was the most difficult for students with disabilities.

• When comparing students with disabilities CELDT movement to those students without disabilities, it was found that students with disabilities tended to demonstrate more negative movement and less positive movement from year-to-year relative to students without disabilities. This trend was seen throughout the domains, but the gap between the groups seemed to widen within the Reading domain.

• When looking at students with disabilities CST ELA and CELDT scores it was found that in 2011 students who scored Early Advanced (51%) or Advanced (56%) on CELDT scored Basic or below on the CST ELA.

40

Page 41: Barriers to Success: Examining Students with Disabilities who are LTEL

41