The MPRRC has launched a new website

What concerns or issues are you facing in your state concerning students who are both limited English proficient (LEP) and also have an IEP? How have you addressed these issues to date?

BIA — Schools within the BIA system follow the standards set by the state in which they reside. Thus far, reporting has been only for general assessment and for students identified as disabled. LEP has not been included as part of the reporting to date, but this is a current priority issue for the BIA. However, the BIA is working with NCEO to develop a criterion-referenced test. Local schools are encouraged to use multiple measures, including some type of authentic assessment. One of the critical concerns for the BIA is that many of the students may not be proficient in either their native language or in English. The Bureau is working to identify methods to determine a student’s dominant language.

Colorado — Approximately four percent of students in Colorado are identified as bilingual or use English as a second language. There is, however, no one assessment being used consistently across districts to make this determination. One percent of the four percent are identified as also having an IEP. Students participate in statewide assessment by either taking the general assessment, with or without accommodations, or taking the alternate assessment. Currently, some of the assessments are available in Spanish. However, a variety of accommodations are available whether or not the student is on an IEP, many of which are just as appropriate to use with students who are LEP. In Colorado, an accommodation can be used for any student so long as the accommodation is also used for instruction for at least three months prior to the assessment. A Spanish version of the alternate is available, and teachers are allowed to translate it into other languages. The first push in Colorado seeme ed to be to ensure that all students on an IEP must participate in the assessment. This past year, there seemed to be more of a focus on ensuring that LEP (or ESL) students also were participating.

Kansas — Kansas does report all students, general education and gifted, students with disabilities, English language learners (ELL), and migrant. It is not clear if a student can be reported under both student with a disability and ELL. However, Kansas does have 2000 students who are both ELL and on an IEP, representing 10 percent of the total ELL population. ELL is documented as a student speaking a different language at home. The major challenge seems to be with the initial assessment for disability and determining if there is a learning disability. The most predominant other language in Kansas is Spanish followed by German. The state assessment is given only in English, although there is a reduced language assessment that is easier to read and the writing assessment uses pictures, asking the student to write about what is happening in the picture. ELL students cannot take the alternate assessment or the assessment with modifications.

Montana — The issue Montana is struggling with is one of reporting. The number of LEP students is low in Montana. When you add IEP to LEP as an identifier, the number is even lower. This creates a problem of identifiable information, leading to a question of whether or not Montana will be able to disaggregate this information. Montana is working with the Education Department to negotiate a compliance agreement that will give them two to three years to work on ensuring the technical adequacy of their alternate assessment. Since the alternate assessment was designed to be used on a wide range of student levels (from severe to gifted), the alternate is the proposed assessment for LEP students as well.

Nebraska — This is the first year Nebraska has assembled statewide data. Disaggregated information is available for the reading assessment, but it does not give information relative to students who are both LEP and IEP. Information is available at the local level, and it is still unclear how and if that data will be collected on a statewide basis. Guidelines have been sent to school districts calling for a three-year phase for students who are LEP. The three-year suggestion is as follows:

       1. Year 1 (student first enters school)—the student is encouraged to participate and the district is encouraged to provide an alternative assessment (not to be equated with the alternate).
       2. Year 2—the district is encouraged to provide accommodations.
       3. Year 3—the student is expected to participate in regular classroom assessment.

The biggest question in Nebraska is how to ensure some standardization of identification of who is a LEP student and then how to separate if the issue for a student is a language issue versus some disability.

New Mexico — As a state, there currently is nothing specific to LEP/IEP, although there is a specific stipulation in regulation that tests cannot be discriminatory on the basis of language. There are participation criteria and there are general suggestions relative to the general assessment for students who are LEP; there is nothing specific beyond those guidelines for LEP students who are also on an IEP.

South Dakota — LEP has not been a major issue in South Dakota, although South Dakota is not focusing more specifically on the issue. There are specific guidelines for participation, but not specific to LEP/IEP. As South Dakota prepares to meet the new specifications of the recently reauthorized ESEA, state staff is working to determine how best to address the LEP issues.


What did you learn from the NCEO conference call?

It was helpful to hear that at the federal level, there is a cross-departmental team working to put together a Q & A document. (We hope to see this document soon.) Kansas reported that the call caused them to stop and ask questions about what is happening relative to appropriate instructional services for students who are both IEP and LEP students. The discussion helped to raise the question of how a decision about participation gets made. Since, in accordance with IDEA, the IEP team makes decisions about participation, how are language needs being considered? It heightens the need to ensure that ESL staff are consulting or working with IEP teams on these decisions.

Question From NM: Lisa Chacon-Kedge is looking for samples of good individual student reports for the alternate assessment. New Mexico did produce an individual report this past year but is interested in improving. Colorado has developed a nice report; it can be found on the Colorado Web site. After review, if anyone has questions, please call Janet Filbin or Terri Connelly.

Feedback on the NCEO call: The second call seemed to go better than the first one. The calls have been informational and having material available before and during the call (i.e., on the Web site) is particularly helpful. It has been very beneficial to bring Title I, assessment, and special education together to gain a better understanding about the various requirements. Keep them as they are.

Heads-Up: In light of the recommendations to have alternate assessment become part of the large-scale conference, there will be no alternate assessment forum as such this year. However, there will be a one-day pre-session scheduled for Saturday, June 22, 2002.  There will be a half-day devoted specifically to Title I and alternate assessment with a focus on reporting requirements. This will allow for a more in-depth look at the various reporting formats and issues. More information should be forthcoming over the next couple of months. The CCSSO large-scale conference is scheduled for June 23 – 26, 2002, in Palm Desert, California.

NEXT CALL

       1. The NCEO call is scheduled for April 29, 2002. Registration information should be coming out about a month prior to the call.
       2. The MPRRC call is scheduled for May 7, at 12:00 noon Mountain Time, 1:00 p.m. Central Time, and 11:00 a.m. Arizona Time. (Note: we will be back into daylight savings time by May.)