Barriers to Success: Examining Students
with Disabilities who are LTEL
Shannon Wells Ph.D.
1
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
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
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
Possible Alternate Assessments
Test Name
Skills
Assessed
Organization or
Publisher
Contact Information
Alternative Language
Proficiency Instrument
(ALPI)
Listening
Speaking
Orange County
Dept.of Education
714-966-4120
Student Oral Language
Observation Matrix
(SOLOM)
Listening
Speaking
San Jose Unified
School District
http://www.cal.org/twi/EvalToo
lkit/appendix/solom.pdf
Basics 2
(Checklist for functional
reading and writing)
Listening, Speaking
Reading, Writing
Lakeshore
http://www.lakeshorelearning.c
om/home/home.jsp
Sandi
Listening, Speaking,
Reading, Writing
SEACO
http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/mat
erials/SANDI_Riverside.pdf
5
• 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
Research Questions
1. 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
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
Research Question #1
WHAT ARE RFEP RATES OVERALL AND BY DISABILITY?
9
Frequency of Disability Codes in Sample
Disability
Mental Retardation
Hard of Hearing
Deafness
Speech or Language Impairment
Visual Impairment
Emotional Disturbance
Orthopedic Impairment
Other Health Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Deaf-Blindness
Multiple Disabilities
Autism
Traumatic Brain Injury
•
Code
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
Total
Count
90
37
3
489
7
21
26
71
1595
1
4
52
4
2400
Percent
3.8
1.5
0.1
20.4
0.3
0.9
1.1
3
66.5
0
0.2
2.2
0.2
100
Cumulative Percent
3.8
5.3
5.4
25.8
26.1
27
28
31
97.5
97.5
97.7
99.8
100
The most common disability designation in the sample was specific learning disability, followed by
speech or language impairment.
10
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
RFEP Rates by Disability Code
Disability
Mental Retardation
Hard of Hearing
Deafness
Speech or Language Impairment
Visual Impairment
Emotional Disturbance
Orthopedic Impairment
Other Health Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Deaf-blindness
Multiple Disabilities
Autism
Traumatic Brain Injury
•
Code
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
Total
Count
90
37
3
489
7
21
26
71
1595
1
4
52
4
2400
RFEP
6
6
0
226
1
4
11
16
202
0
1
14
0
487
RFEP Rate (%)
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
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%).
12
Research Question #2
ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES IN RFEP RATES BY DISABILITY?
13
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO RECLASSIFY WITHIN 7 YEARS BY
DISABILITY
RFEPd
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY 0
100.0
AUTISM
73.1
Disability
n= 52
75.0
25.0
DEAF-BLINDNESS 0
n = 4*
100.0
n = 1*
87.3
12.7
OTHER HEALTH IMPAIRMENT
n = 1595
77.5
22.5
ORTHOPEDIC IMPAIRMENT
81.0
19.0
VISUAL IMPAIRMENT
DEAF 0
100
HARD OF HEARING
93.3
n = 489
n= 3 *
83.8
16.2
6.7
n = 7*
53.8
46.2
n = 26*
n= 21*
85.7
14.3
SPEECH OR LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
n = 71
57.7
42.3
EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE
MENTAL RETARDATION
n = 4*
26.9
MULTIPLE DISABILITIES
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY
No RFEP
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.
14
Research Question #3
HOW DO RFEP RATES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES COMPARE TO
STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY?
15
Table 4: RFEP Summary by Student Status
Student Status
Has Disability
No Disability
Just Speech/Language
and Ortho
Count
2400
17055
515
RFEP
487
9386
237
RFEP Rate
20.3
55.0
46.0
Mean
6.7
5.98
5.63
Std Dev
0.746
1.243
1.092
Min
3
1
3
Max
7
7
7
Median
7
6
6
Typical Years to RFEP
•
•
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.
16
Percent of SWD vs. Non SWD That Were Reclassified Within Seven Years
N = 2068
40
37.7
35
N = 2630
29.9
30
28
25
N = 1832
19.9
20
N = 2072
22.5
21.3
15.4
15
13.3
N = 697
7.6
10
3.8
5
N=1
0
0
N = 59
0.7
0
0
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
No Disability
•
5 Years
6 Years
7 Years
Disability
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.
17
Research Question #4-6
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?
* Caution should be taken when interpreting results of groups with less than 30 students.
18
Percentage of SWD Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by Disability (Aggregate
of CELDT Overall D-J)
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
B
•
•
EI
I
EA
A
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.
19
Percentage of SWD Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by Disability for Each
Domain
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Reading
Writing
Listening
Speech or Language Impairment
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Listening
Specific Learning Disability
B
EI
I
EA
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Listening
Speaking
Combined MR, MD, TBI
A
20
Research Question #7
HOW DO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES COMPARE TO STUDENTS WHO
DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY, IN EACH CELDT DOMAIN?
21
Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD
(Aggregate of CELDT Overall E-J)
100%
1.4
90%
9.7
80%
33.4
70%
30.8
60%
24.7
50%
9.5
40%
33.6
30%
41.2
20%
12.0
10%
3.7
0%
B
EI
I
No Special Education
•
•
EA
A
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.
N
No Sped = 79642
Sped = 13567
22
Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD
(Aggregate of CELDT Listening E-J)
100%
90%
6.4
17.8
80%
34.3
70%
26.6
60%
15.0
50%
40%
17.7
32.5
30%
34.8
20%
11.7
10%
3.2
0%
B
EI
I
No Special Education
•
EA
A
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.
N
No Sped = 79642
Sped = 13567
23
Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD
(Aggregate of CELDT Speaking E-J)
100%
90%
11.1
80%
23.9
36.5
70%
19.4
60%
9.1
50%
40%
26.0
30%
34.1
30.2
20%
7.7
10%
2.0
0%
B
EI
I
No Special Education
•
EA
A
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.
N
No Sped = 79642
Sped = 13567
24
Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD
(Aggregate of CELDT Reading E-J)
100%
3.7
90%
0.9
16.9
80%
19.6
70%
60%
58.8
50%
17.5
40%
6.8
40.0
30%
18.3
20%
10%
17.4
0%
B
EI
I
No Special Education
•
EA
A
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.
N
No Sped = 67896
Sped = 11918
25
Percentage of Students Scoring Within Each CELDT Performance Level by SWD vs. Non SWD
(Aggregate of CELDT Writing E-J)
100%
1.1
5.5
90%
24.1
80%
70%
60%
29.4
39.9
50%
9.3
25.3
40%
42.4
30%
20%
10%
16.4
6.6
0%
B
EI
I
No Special Education
•
EA
A
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.
N
No Sped = 66046
Sped = 11673
26
Research Question #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?
27
PL Overall F-G
2007
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Total
Total %
PL Overall H-I
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
300
674
117
777
1555
346
3134
2570
376
900
426
99
161
0
938
5272
5225
8.2
46.1
45.7
0
463
315
111
300
237
88
267
116
21
22
7
5
6
0
225
1058
675
11.5
54.0
34.5
Total
11435
100.0
2009
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1958
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
11.8
PL Overall G-H
2008
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
Total
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
96
353
31
345
1162
109
2184
2640
297
1035
482
134
215
0
571
3875
4637
6.3
42.7
51.1
0
272
304
69
261
291
64
353
143
32
34
12
5
5
0
170
925
750
9.2
50.1
40.7
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
26
97
20
185
407
123
1696
1599
328
1169
469
164
232
0
635
3308
2572
9.7
50.8
39.5
0
186
154
56
253
230
95
407
165
41
60
12
6
7
0
198
913
561
54.6
33.6
Total
6515
100.0
1672
100.0
PL Overall I-J
Total
9083
100.0
1845
100.0
2010
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
Total
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
19
35
20
125
216
118
1178
1013
366
1152
344
177
246
0
681
2720
1608
13.6
54.3
32.1
0
125
113
47
194
183
118
371
165
48
103
21
6
5
0
219
798
482
14.6
53.2
32.2
• 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.
Total
5009
100.0
1499
100.0
28
PL Listening F-G
2007
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Total
Total %
PL Listening H-I
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
150
629
146
624
1367
837
1733
2322
805
736
981
672
433
0
2460
3676
5299
21.5
32.1
46.3
0
184
263
119
229
255
218
215
185
97
59
57
57
20
0
491
707
760
25.1
36.1
38.8
Total
11435
100.0
2009
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1958
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
PL Listening G-H
2008
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
Total
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
36.7
No
Movement
18
149
1004
965
418
2554
39.2
87
131
287
100
24
629
Positive
Movement
95
613
1213
570
0
2491
38.2
120
254
188
57
0
619
25.4
37.6
37.0
Negative
Movement
0
20
194
572
585
1371
27.4
0
38
147
142
64
391
No
Movement
15
110
720
866
271
1982
39.6
69
121
248
138
27
603
Positive
Movement
48
260
994
354
0
1656
33.1
92
149
224
40
0
505
26.1
40.2
33.7
Total
6515
100.0
1672
100.0
PL Listening I-J
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
45
432
46
336
1402
270
1087
1881
573
879
631
908
593
0
1797
2940
4346
19.8
32.4
47.8
0
125
217
61
223
328
117
212
200
103
89
50
91
29
0
372
678
795
20.2
Negative
Movement
0
29
184
655
602
1470
22.6
0
61
125
152
86
424
43.1
Total
9083
100.0
2010
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1845
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
• 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.
Total
5009
100.0
1499
0.0
29
PL Speaking F-G
2007
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Total
Total %
PL Speaking H-I
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
96
347
31
334
1045
371
1738
2282
904
1208
979
1165
935
0
2471
4311
4653
21.6
37.7
40.7
0
95
150
33
151
264
133
365
248
148
128
63
117
63
0
431
802
725
22.0
41.0
37.0
Total
11435
100.0
2009
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1958
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
PL Speaking G-H
2008
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
Total
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
40.7
No
Movement
13
74
677
1218
719
2701
41.5
44
102
267
207
71
691
Positive
Movement
45
384
1142
735
0
2306
35.4
55
177
250
85
0
567
24.8
41.3
33.9
Negative
Movement
0
9
101
462
466
1038
20.7
0
21
80
160
86
347
No
Movement
5
42
471
859
685
2062
41.2
39
83
242
200
78
642
Positive
Movement
24
183
838
864
0
1909
38.1
43
135
208
124
0
510
23.1
42.8
34.0
Total
6515
100.0
1672
100.0
PL Speaking I-J
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
22
136
28
200
736
176
1095
2130
581
1206
1050
834
889
0
1619
3412
4052
17.8
37.6
44.6
0
56
82
30
135
223
121
347
285
145
152
99
110
60
0
406
750
689
22.0
Negative
Movement
0
5
102
535
866
1508
23.1
0
26
97
168
123
414
37.3
Total
9083
100.0
2010
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1845
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
• 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.
Total
5009
100.0
1499
0.0
30
PL Reading F-G
2007
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Total
Total %
PL Reading H-I
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
1598
1866
335
611
1709
311
2834
1339
139
236
139
59
72
0
844
5351
5053
7.5
47.6
44.9
0
1102
319
90
70
80
55
113
40
7
7
3
2
1
0
154
1293
442
8.2
68.4
23.4
Total
11248
100.0
2009
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1889
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
PL Reading G-H
2008
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
Total
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
59.7
No
Movement
351
226
1605
418
175
2775
42.6
613
105
135
23
4
880
Positive
Movement
677
744
1305
270
0
2996
46.0
403
134
60
9
0
606
11.1
52.6
36.2
Negative
Movement
0
134
444
358
148
1084
15.8
0
120
140
41
7
308
No
Movement
269
286
1675
1230
626
4086
59.6
501
148
217
50
22
938
Positive
Movement
342
376
739
233
0
1690
24.6
267
156
63
13
0
499
17.7
53.8
28.6
Total
6515
100.0
1672
100.0
PL Reading I-J
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
778
1292
226
321
1245
367
2334
1639
168
306
227
71
109
0
832
3848
4403
9.2
42.4
48.5
0
896
356
122
67
113
73
125
67
8
11
4
1
1
0
204
1100
540
11.1
Negative
Movement
0
144
326
203
71
744
11.4
0
84
80
20
2
186
29.3
Total
9083
100.0
2010
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1844
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
• 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.
Total
6860
100.0
1745
0.0
31
2007
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
Total
Total %
2008
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
Total
Total %
PL Writing F-G
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
645
1126
141
848
1952
358
2875
2017
280
459
267
149
131
0
928
4958
5362
8.3
44.1
47.7
0
813
321
72
209
194
45
155
61
6
6
4
1
2
0
124
1185
580
6.6
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
62.7
30.7
PL Writing G-H
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
255
617
86
496
1353
254
2281
1919
419
584
446
177
196
0
936
3812
4335
10.3
42.0
47.7
0
554
371
67
203
230
64
219
78
22
15
14
3
4
0
156
995
693
8.5
54.0
37.6
Total
11248
100.0
2009
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1889
Total
100.0
Total %
Total
9083
100.0
2010
No Disability
Total
Total %
Disability
1844
Total
100.0
Total %
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
PL Writing H-I
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
97
226
50
371
623
291
1701
1316
382
631
333
245
249
0
968
3049
2498
14.9
46.8
38.3
0
381
238
63
270
175
104
261
97
35
25
3
13
7
0
215
944
513
12.9
B
EI
I
EA
A
B
EI
I
EA
A
56.5
30.7
PL Writing I-J
Negative
No
Positive
Movement Movement Movement
0
45
120
36
207
555
161
1053
1079
279
714
283
240
237
0
716
2256
2037
14.3
45.0
40.7
0
237
191
57
209
272
65
252
111
34
48
10
11
2
0
167
748
584
11.1
49.9
39.0
• 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.
Total
6515
100.0
1672
100.0
Total
5009
100.0
1499
0.0
32
Research Question #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?
33
Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST
Performance Level 2007
A 0.0
% CELDT PL
EA
100.0
10.0
30.0
I
0.0
20.0
32.5
20.0
40.0
EI
20.0
49.8
32.8
B
10.0
20.0
30.0
5.8
16.7
69.2
0.0
20.0
26.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
1.7
0.7
0.0
4.5 0.3
0.0
90.0
100.0
% CST PL
FBB
BB
B
P
A
CSTPLELA2007
PLOVerallF
FBB
BB
B
P
A
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
B
Total
• 60% of students with disabilities who scored Early Advanced on the CELDT in 2007 scored
Basic or Below on the CST ELA that year.
34
Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST
Performance Level 2008
A 0.0
% CELDT PL
EA
50.0
50.0
25.0
I
25.0
50.0
31.3
37.5
EI
28.6
57.1
70.5
10.0
20.0
2.70.0
35.1
B
0.0
0.0
30.0
7.1
17.1
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
4.8
80.0
3.4
90.0
0.0
0.6
4.1
100.0
% CST PL
FBB
BB
B
P
A
CSTPLELA2008
PLOVerallG
FBB
BB
B
P
A
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
B
Total
• 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.
35
Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST
Performance Level 2009
A 0.0
% CELDT PL
EA
14.3
28.6
6.3
I
21.9
20.4
29.1
23.5
B
31.6
10.0
20.0
21.9
15.6
22.5
14.9
25.4
40.2
0.0
14.3
34.4
13.1
EI
42.9
14.3
39.2
30.0
40.0
50.0
12.7
60.0
70.0
80.0
5.1
4.8
90.0
3.2
100.0
% CST PL
FBB
BB
B
P
A
CSTPLELA2009
PLOVerallH
FBB
BB
B
P
A
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
B
Total
• 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.
36
Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST
Performance Level 2010
% CELDT PL
A 0.0
12.5
EA
5.2
I
4.5
EI
4.5
B
50.0
3.4
34.5
19.6
20.7
37.0
23.5
48.6
20.0
30.0
15.4
33.6
52.5
10.0
12.5
36.2
8.1
0.0
25.0
11.4
24.2
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
6.1
80.0
90.0
1.8
9.1
100.0
% CST PL
FBB
BB
B
P
A
CSTPLELA2010
PLOVerallI
FBB
BB
B
P
A
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
B
Total
• 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.
37
Percentage of SWDs Who Have Not Reclassified by CELDT Performance Level & CST
Performance Level 2011
A 0.0
55.6
% CELDT PL
EA 2.1
I
12.8
22.2
36.2
11.1
20.2
26.3
EI
10.0
14.9
38.4
29.7
20.0
30.0
40.0
13.6
24.1
42.2
0.0
28.7
34.2
28.1
B
22.2
50.0
6.9
14.1
60.0
70.0
10.9
80.0
90.0
2.5
3.1
100.0
% CST PL
FBB
BB
B
P
A
CSTPLELA2011
PLOVerallJ
FBB
BB
B
P
A
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
B
Total
• 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.
38
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
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-toyear 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
41
Questions?
Shannon@keydatasys.com
Lorie@keydatasys.com
42