STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
English Language Learner Classmates and the Classroom Social Skills of Students with
Disabilities
Michael A. Gottfried
University of California Santa Barbara
Morgan S. Polikoff
University of Southern California
Notes:
(1) Research in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under award
number 1R03HD071334. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
(2) Since the time of submitting this proposal to AEFP, this work has been accepted for
publication in Teachers College Record.
1
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Abstract
This research evaluates if English Language Learner (ELL) classmates are associated
with the social skills outcomes of students with disabilities in kindergarten. This agenda is
critical for two key reasons. First, though both groups are increasingly found in the general
education classrooms due to policy and demographic changes, little is known about the effects
that one high-needs group might have on other high-needs students. Second, examining social
skills is important, as developing strong social skills development at the start of schooling can
have lifelong ramifications. Using a national large-scale sample of kindergarten students, the
results show a positive effect of having a greater number of ELL classmates on the social skills
outcomes for students with disabilities. The results are domain-specific only to social skills
outcomes. On the other hand, the number of students with disabilities does not relate to the social
skills outcomes for ELL students.
2
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
English Language Learner Classmates and the Classroom Social Skills of Students with
Disabilities
Research has repeatedly documented that, on average, students with disabilities have
lower academic and behavioral outcomes compared to their non-disabled counterparts. For
instance, in a nationally-representative dataset, approximately 66 percent of students with
disabilities in eighth grade scored below basic on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational
Progress in reading and math, as compared to approximately 25 percent of non-disabled students
(US Department of Education, 2007). It has been long established that students with disabilities
are also more likely to drop out of school (Balackorby & Wagner, 1996). In research, students
with disabilities are, on average, shown as lagging behind their non-disabled counterparts on
multiple measures of socioemotional attainment (Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997), including
life satisfaction (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996).
In an attempt to support the positive academic growth and development for students with
disabilities, special education has been a focus for state and federal education policy. As one
major strategy since the passage of IDEA, federal policy has increasingly encouraged the
placement of students with disabilities into the general education classroom with their nondisabled peers. Thus, as the proportion of students identified as disabled continues to grow (with
an approximate 17.1% average growth in developmental disabilities for instance; Boyle et al.,
2011), there will be an increasingly larger presence students with disabilities across the nation
who receive some or all of their instruction from within the general education classroom (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). That is to say, classrooms that previously did not contain
students with disabilities may now be experiencing compositional changes: therefore even an
increase by one or two students may represent a large change for many classrooms.
3
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Given these trends, we might expect to see a continued presence of students with
disabilities in general education classrooms across the U.S. in the future. And, while there is
some evidence that general education classrooms are, on average, raising achievement for
students with disabilities (Baker et al., 1994; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Lindsay, 2007; Thurlow,
Quenemoen, & Lazarus, 2012), there is little exploration of how these classrooms might be
influencing other outcomes (Lindsay, 2007) as discussed below.
Simultaneously, a second trend is occurring in our nation’s schools: an increasing
presence of students in the U.S. whose primary language is not English. Indeed, the growth in the
number of English Language Learner (ELL) students has surpassed the growth in the number of
non-ELL students (Fry, 2008): according to the National Center for English Language
Acquisition (“NCELA”; 2010), the national population of ELL students has increased more than
53 percent between 1997 and 2007. In contrast, the overall school population has only grown by
8.5 percent over that same period. With this rate of growth, ELL students are projected to
account for at least 25 percent of the schooling population by 2015 (National Education
Association, 2008). Importantly, while ELL students traditionally were geographically located in
a few states (e.g., California), the trend in U.S. immigration is no longer regionalized. That is, as
is the case for students with disabilities, ELL students are also now present in classrooms across
the U.S. where they previously were not found: schools and classrooms that did not historically
have ELL students are now experiencing demographic changes (e.g., Allentown, PA; Fresno,
CA; and Lowell, MA).
Given this spread in immigration patterns across the U.S., state and federal educational
agencies over recent decades have also been considering how to best meet the needs of ELL
students. While many states continue to have separate bilingual education (e.g., Texas and
4
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Wyoming), many other states have moved away from bilingual education toward an Englishonly approach that can be segregated (e.g., Arizona) or not (e.g., Massachusetts). There has also
been a push from the federal level for mainstreaming of ELL students. Federal policies,
including No Child Left Behind (NCLB), have mandated or induced districts and schools to
educate ELL students with their non-ELL peers to the maximum extent possible in general
education classrooms. Hence, in conjunction with special education inclusion, there has been
tremendous growth in ELL presence in K-12 classrooms across the nation as a whole.
In recent years, many educational stakeholders question whether the context of an
increasingly-diverse and mainstreamed general education classroom can adequately provide
services to so many high-needs students at once (Moon et al., 2012, Rule et al., 2009, Supalo et
al., 2008). For instance, concerns are often raised that teachers are underprepared to educate
students with disabilities (Moon et al., 2012) and are also underprepared to educate ELL students
(Reeves, 2006). Thus, mainstreaming practices and changes in classroom diversity may
exacerbate the strain on classroom resources as teachers must deliver content to an increasingly
wider range of students (Tichenor et al., 2000). Indeed, many are concerned that it is becoming
increasingly difficult to balance the needs of so many students in general education classrooms,
particularly those students with disabilities (De Cohen, Deterding & Clewell, 2005; Hayworth,
2009; Supalo et al., 2008; Wiley & Wright, 2004).
As research upholds that the skills that children acquire during kindergarten is highly
predictive of future outcomes (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993; Juel, 1988; Pianta &
Walsh, 1996; Smith, 1997), stakeholders are concerned about these issues pertaining to the
effects of the general education classroom context as early as school entry (i.e., kindergarten).
Research has predominantly focused on how features of the kindergarten classroom context may
5
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
influence academic achievement (see e.g., Gullo, 2000; Karweit, 1992; Lee et al., 2006; National
Education Association, 2008; Walston & West, 2004; Weast, 2004); less overall is known about
the effects of the kindergarten classroom setting on social skill development. That said, social
skills are especially critical to foster in kindergarten. Kindergarten has been documented as a
critical developmental time in education when it comes to social development (Olson et al.,
2005; Posner & Rothbart, 2000). Indeed, research supports that gaining proper social functioning
in kindergarten may set the trajectory for longer-term outcomes (Juel, 1988; Pianta & Walsh,
1996; Smith, 1997). Thus, determining which contextual factors in kindergarten might be related
to fostering these social skills may have significant implications for students across the lifespan.
Though the development of social skills in kindergarten is critical, prior to this study, a
research gap exists in how the context of the general education classroom may influence the
social skills outcomes of students with disabilities: none have considered the role of peer effects
in this domain. This gap is critical to address, as multiple high-needs groups are increasingly
present in the same general education classroom settings, as described above. Thus, knowing
how peer context plays a role in influencing outcomes will continue to become increasingly
influential to ensure proper social functioning of all students. This may be particularly useful to
address for students with disabilities, as some subgroups of disabilities may have challenges in
the general education classroom environment (e.g., students with emotional or behavioral
disorders) (Fletcher, 2010; Hazel & Schumaker, 1988; Kavale & Forness, 1995; Kavale &
Mostert, 2004). As such, our inquiry begins with:
Research Question 1: In kindergarten, to what extent do the classroom social skills outcomes of
children with disabilities differ based on the number of ELL classmates?
6
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
To date, there has been very little research examining the effect of having high-needs
classmates – of this research, all work has focused on the outcomes of the ‘typical’ general
education student (see e.g., Cho, 2012; Fletcher, 2010; Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 2002).
Critically, no empirical study has examined the relationship between the presence of high-needs
student subgroup in the general education classroom and the outcomes of another high-needs
student subgroup in that same classroom. Of the research that has been conducted on the peer
effects of having high-needs classmates, the results have been mixed. Author (2013) finds that
for the typical student, having classmates with disabilities reduces socio-emotional outcomes in
early elementary school classrooms. Fletcher (2010) also finds an analogous negative peer effect
– on achievement from having classmates with emotional and behavioral disorders. On the other
hand, Hanushek et al. (2003) finds positive achievement effects of classmates with special needs
on non-disabled students. As for the peer effects of having an ELL classmate, only two studies
exists: Cho (2012) found a negative effect on achievement for typical non-ELL students. On the
other hand, Author (in press) found a positive effect of having ELL classmates on the social
skills of typical non-ELL students.
As mentioned, no research has considered how the presence of one high-needs group
might associate with another high-needs group’s outcomes. That said, there is some limited
evidence that high-needs students do affect the outcomes of typical students, as mentioned
above. Relying on this scant body of research that does find statistically significant effects of
having high needs classmates, we hypothesize that ELL students would influence the outcomes
of students with disabilities. Whether this effect is positive or negative is the focus of this study.
From the positive perspective, there are two potential mechanisms as to why ELL
classmates may improve the classroom social skills of students with disabilities: peer interactions
7
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
and classroom resources. As for peer interactions, having ELL classmates can help students with
disabilities to interact with other groups of high-needs students like ELL students. Here, a similar
mechanism exists when considering how the presence of ELL students affects general education
students (see e.g., Author, in press). In this present study, the presence of ELL classmates would
play out as allowing for students with disabilities to increase their levels of tolerance and
patience and to broaden their understanding and patience of individual differences (Cho, 2012;
Williams & Downing, 1998) – much like it might for students without disabilities (Author, in
press). Thus, each student may nonetheless experience a boost in social skills (from whatever
initial developmental level they find themselves) from the experience of working alongside
diverse students, like ELL students. As for classroom resources, with the inclusion of two highneeds groups in the same classroom, there may be additional supports and services (Hanushek et
al., 2002; Lipsky & Gartner, 1995) such as multiple teacher aides to address multiple demands
from multiple types of high needs (Winters & Greene, 2007). These additional supports and
resources thus encourage a reshuffling of teacher’s time allocation, thereby allowing the teacher
to sufficiently address the needs of all students in the classroom. This is critical for development,
as greater teacher-to-individual-student interactions have been supported in the research as
nurturing greater levels of classroom social skills (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997).
However, the influence of ELL classmates on students with disabilities might play out in
the negative direction, again both through peer interactions and classroom resources. As for peer
interactions, prior research has found that an increase in diversity might fracture a classroom
environment (Banks & Banks, 1995). Thus, one potential negative mechanism might arise from
being in classrooms with multiple groups of high needs students - e.g., ELL classmates as well
as students with disabilities in the same classroom; more diversity may exacerbate a classroom
8
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
fracture, thereby potentially deteriorating social skills for all students in the classroom. As for
classroom resources, as mentioned above, another potential negative mechanism might arise
from teaching resources being spread thin with the inclusion of multiple high needs groups in the
same classroom (Hayworth, 2009; Tichenor et al., 2000): having to address the needs of ELL
classmates as well as on the needs of students with disabilities, teachers may not be able to
adequately address all unique needs. Consequently, it might be the case that classrooms may not
be appropriately structured to provide all students with an equitable amount of teaching time and
attention, thereby increasing classroom disengagement from others or straining the teacher’s
ability to properly interact with others (Hayworth, 2009; Karabenick & Noda, 2004).
To address this primary research question, this study relies on data from the ECLS-K, a
large-scale national dataset that links individual students to the characteristics of their families,
classrooms, and teachers. Because of this wide range of data availability, this study will be able
to utilize a methodology (described in the next section) that is supported in general educational
research (Schneider et al., 2007), in classroom peer effects research (Hanushek et al., 2003;
Zimmer & Toma, 2000) and in peer effects research that utilizes ECLS-K (Cho, 2012; Fletcher,
2010). Moreover, utilizing such detailed national data also enables for multiple tests of the main
findings, including the examination of additional outcomes beyond social skills as well as a test
of the robustness of the social skills ratings.
This study is put forth as an examination of the effect of classroom context (i.e., the
number of ELL classmates) on the outcomes of students with disabilities. That said, policy
implications cannot be properly made without knowing reciprocal effects. Hence, a second
research question is put forth as follows:
9
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Research Question 2. In kindergarten, to what extent do the classroom social skills outcomes of
ELL students differ based on the number of classmates with disabilities?
As mentioned, in aggregate in most states, classrooms are trending towards having a
presence of both students with disabilities and ELL students in general education classrooms.
Thus, a complete assessment would examine the relationships of classmates with disabilities to
the outcomes of ELL students. Knowing if a relationship exists in both directions would allow
the field to begin considering how to make more confident decisions about the total distribution
of students in classrooms.
In sum, this study contributes to knowledge in this area by providing a deeper
understanding of how the context of peer effects in kindergarten may relate to a range of
outcomes for students with high needs. This peer effects analysis is innovative because it
employs individual- and multi-level national data that allows for student data to be linked to
precise classroom attributes (in addition to other family, classroom, and teacher metrics). By
isolating how the classroom context relates to these outcomes and quantifying these associations
with more methodological rigor and precision than previously used in the field, the findings yield
insight into the underlying predictors of the outcomes of students with disabilities in early
schooling experiences. This will enable policymakers and practitioners to more efficiently
identify and mitigate individual and classroom contextual risk factors in order to consider how to
design and foster supportive educational environments from the very start of schooling.
Method
Dataset
Data in this study were sourced from the Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten Class (ECLS-K). This survey was developed by the National Center for
10
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Educational Statistics (NCES) and is a national sample of students, families, teachers,
classrooms, and schools. The ECLS-K used a three-stage stratified sampling design, in which
geographic region represented the first sampling unit, public and private school represented the
second sampling unit, and students stratified by race/ethnicity represented the third sampling
unit. Hence, the children in ECLS-K come from a diversity of school types, socioeconomic
levels, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. Germane to this current study, NCES initially collected
data for kindergartners by surveying parents, teachers, and school administrators from
approximately 1,000 kindergarten programs in the fall of kindergarten.
To detect if there are differences in social skills based on varying numbers of ELL
classmates, the analyses focus on social skills outcomes measured in the spring of kindergarten.
Data that described both concurrent and past factors were sourced from fall and spring
kindergarten teacher and parent surveys and were used as independent variables, as described
below.
There were approximately N=9,630 student observations available for the analyses in this
study. The analyses in this study were limited to first-time kindergartners and children who had
non-missing information on social skills scales. Comparing children in the analytic sample
versus those excluded did not generate any meaningfully significant differences. Note that all
sample sizes presented in this study were rounded to the nearest 10 due to NCES regulations.
---------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------------Outcome measures: classroom social skills
11
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
The means and standard deviations of both dependent and independent variables utilized
in this study are presented in Table 1. This study relies on utilizing social skills scales created by
NCES for the purposes of evaluating students in the ECLS-K dataset. NCES did so by modifying
a version of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990) to measure a
child’s behavior or social skill set. These original SSRS scales have been considered to be the
most comprehensive social skill assessment that can be widely administered in large surveys
(Demaray et al., 1995). For the purposes of ECLS-K data analysis, NCES modified the original
scales and created its own Teacher Social Rating Scale (SRS). Meisels, Atkins-Burnett and
Nicholson (1996) provide detail on these modifications from SSRS to the ECLS-K SRS. That
said, it is not possible to obtain individual items in each of the scales described here – even at the
restricted-users access to the data, only aggregate, final scales are provided to the researcher.
Three teacher-rated SRS classroom social skills scales were utilized in this study. Note
that teacher-rated scales were selected purposefully. In survey research, having teachers report
on students’ socio-emotional outcomes is supported as the most relevant source for students’
school functioning compared to relying on other sources for this information such as parents
(Konold & Pianta, 2007; Lee et al., 2013; Waterman, McDermott, Fantuzzo, & Gadsden, 2012).
NCES provided three classroom social skills scales in the ECLS-K dataset: (1)
approaches to learning, (2) interpersonal skills, and (3) self control. The scale on approaches to
learning rates a child’s frequency of organization, eagerness to learn new things, independent
work ability, adaptability to change, persistence in completing tasks, and ability to pay attention.
The interpersonal skills scale measures the frequency with which a child has been getting along
with people, forming and maintaining friendships, helping other children, showing sensitivity to
the feelings of others, and expressing feelings, ideas, and opinions in positive ways. The scale on
12
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
self control measures the frequency of the student’s ability to control his or her temper, respect
for others’ property, acceptance of peer ideas, and handling peer pressure.
NCES developed each construct as a continuous measure: each likert scale is based on an
average of a series of individual questions, where each question ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (very
often), thereby making a score of 4 the most favorable outcome. NCES reports that these scales
have high construct validity as assessed by test-retest reliability, internal consistency, inter-rater
reliability, and correlations with more advanced behavioral constructs. While NCES does not
report all of these metrics in its manual (even at the restricted-user level), it does report that the
split half reliability for approaches to learning is 0.89 in both fall and spring assessments, for
interpersonal skills is 0.89 in both fall and spring assessments, and for self control is 0.79 in fall
and 0.80 in spring.
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on the outcome measures for each group of interest
in this study: students with disabilities, students without disabilities, ELL students, and native
English speakers. The table demonstrates that there are statistical differences between each
respective group. Hence, this motivates the proceeding analysis. Additionally, note that students
with disabilities have the lowest social scales means of all groups. This is consistent with
previously-mentioned findings that would support that social skills are significant issues for
some students with disabilities (Hazel & Schumaker, 1988; Kavale & Forness, 1995; Kavale &
Moster, 2004).
---------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
-----------------------------------
13
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Key covariates
Disability status. Students with disabilities were identified by their school records on file.
In the ECLS-K study, a student was identified as having a disability if the student had an
Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Note that this includes both learning and non-learning
(physical) disabilities. This equates to approximately 10 percent of the students in the sample, as
indicated in Table 1. Moreover, this approximates the number of students with disabilities in the
U.S. population, in general (NCES, 2011). Hence, this provides confidence in this dataset in that
it is reflecting the demographic makeup of U.S. students.
Number of ELL classmates. The key independent variable in this analysis is the total
number of ELL classmates. This was sourced from the spring teacher survey, in which teachers
reported the total number of students with limited English proficiency in their classrooms. To be
specific, in the survey, teachers were asked to report on the following: “How many children with
limited English proficiency (LEP) do you have in each of your classes?” The response space
allowed for teachers to write in the exact number of students: the responses ranged from from 0
to 32. Note that all classroom peer information was sourced from the teacher. To be clear, the
teacher reported the total number of students with limited English proficiency in the entire
classroom, not simply those in the ECLS-K study.
Additional covariates
The strength of utilizing a dataset like ECLS-K is the ability to employ an extremely
wide range of control variables that may explain the variance in social skills outcomes.
Student demographics and home data. At the level of the student, the set of control
variables included a commonly-accepted set of demographic variables, including: gender, race,
age, and individual-level ELL status. Additionally, at the student level was a measure of a
14
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
student’s health, given that health is supported as correlated with socio-emotional and
psychological outcomes (Drotar, 1997). As such, this study included a parental rating of the
child’s physical health upon kindergarten entry, which ranged from excellent, very good, good,
fair, and poor.
Additionally, because ELCS-K includes parent surveys, this study can incorporate data
on students’ school-related home lives. Consistent with prior research examining social skills
outcomes in kindergarten (e.g., Loeb et al., 2007; Ruhm et al., 2004), additional measures
included the frequency of reading books, the total number of books, and whether or not the child
attended out-of-home prekindergarten care.
Family data. The ECLS-K parent survey provides a great opportunity to fold key
household measures into this study. Key to this study is socioeconomic status (SES), including
multiple measures of SES, which is critical because SES has been supported as highly correlated
with socio-behavioral outcomes (Aber, Bennett et al., 1997; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). In
this study, commonly-accepted empirical measures of SES were employed as control variables
(e.g., Cho, 2012; Loeb et al., 2007; Ruhm et al., 2004), including: a five-scale SES composite
created by NCES, the mother’s education, and an indicator for whether or not the family was at
or below the poverty threshold. Additional measures, as presented in Table 1, include the number
of adults and the number of siblings in the household. Finally, parental involvement in both the
home and schooling lives of the child was captured with six measures. Of these, four were fourpoint scales determining the frequency by which the responding parent sang to the child, told
stories to the child, engaged the child to do chores in the house, and played games with the child.
The final two parental measures were binary, indicating whether the parent used spanking as
punishment and whether the parent lived in the current home due to the child’s school location.
15
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Classroom and teacher data. Given that students are assigned one classroom and one
teacher in kindergarten, it is possible to identify precise classroom characteristics for each
student. Prior research has indicated several classroom characteristics serve as critical factors in
student outcomes (particularly socio-emtional outcomes) and are thereby employed as control
variables in this study. They include class size (see esp., Dee & West, 2012), gender distribution
of the classroom (Hoxby, 2000), average classroom reading test scores (measured at kindergarten
entry), and the number of classmates with disabilities (Author, 2013). As consistent with prior
empirical work using ECLS-K (Fletcher, 2010), a measure of classroom racial demographics is
also included as a demographic classroom control variable.
As for teacher control variables, prior research finds that teacher characteristics correlate
to young students’ social skills development (Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Kontos & WilcoxHerzog, 1997). Based on prior empirical research using ELCS-K, commonly-accepted teacher
characteristics employed as control variables include: teacher race, gender, and years of
experience (Cho 2012; Fletcher 2010; Neidell & Waldfogel 2010). However, given that this
study investigates the relationship of students with disabilities and ELL classmates, additional
teacher characteristics are included such as the total number of course units the teacher has taken
in special education as well as the total number of course units in ESL.
Correlations
The first column of Table 3 presents two series of partial correlation coefficients. The
first column presents the partial correlation coefficients and their significance values between
having a disability and the other independent covariates in Table 1. The inclusion of this table is
to determine if students with disabilities are more or less likely to embody certain basic
demographic characteristics or have come from families that might bias the data in any particular
16
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
direction. The second column presents the partial correlation coefficients and their significance
values between the number of ELL classmates and the other independent variables in Table 1.
---------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
----------------------------------Of great importance is the small correlation value between being a student with a
disability and the number of ELL classmates. Had this correlation value been high, it may have
been hypothesized that school administrators might sort all students with high needs into the
same classroom. However, the correlation coefficient in the first row of the table is -0.01,
indicating that there is nothing systematic in the data between having a disability and having
greater or fewer ELL classmates.
The second column of Table 3 presents the correlation coefficients between the number
of ELL classmates and the other independent covariates. As consistent with the first column,
there are only weak-to-zero correlation values throughout the second column. Hence, classrooms
with higher numbers of ELL classmates do not appear to be systematically related in any
meaningful way to other observable characteristics. In other words, there does not appear to be a
sorting of ELL students in a way that might influence the estimates to follow.
Though almost zero in numerical value, the partial correlation coefficient presented in
Table 3 between having a disability and the number of ELL classmates merits further
exploration. Table 4 examines the possibility of the distribution of students in classrooms across
two dimensions: students with disabilities and the number of ELL classmates. In Table 4, each
column is a separate regression model with the dependent variable labeled at the top. Nine
dependent variables are presented: all were measured and sourced from the kindergarten entry
17
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
survey wave. They represent characteristics and traits that school administrators might use to
non-randomly assign students at the start of the kindergarten school year. The independent
variables are all other covariates listed from Table 1. Included are binary indicators for each
school, which as explained in more detail below, enables the model to strictly look at withinschool variation in classroom composition.
---------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here
----------------------------------The table is divided into two panels – the top panel assesses whether there is sorting by
ELL classmates for the sample of students with disabilities, and the bottom panel does so for all
other students in the sample. With these nine dependent variables, if there was evidence of
sorting of students by the number of ELL classmates, then the number of ELL classmates would
be statistically significant in relation to the dependent variables measured at kindergarten entry
(Neidell & Waldfogel, 2010). However, both panels show that this is not the case. Across all
columns in this table, there is no evidence that nine characteristics of any student at school entry
– with or without a disability – is related to number of ELL classmates in kindergarten. This null
finding of no systematic assignment in kindergarten is consistent with prior peer research using
ECLS-K data (e.g., Aizer, 2008; Neidell & Waldfogel, 2010). This finding thus supports the
empirical strategy described in the proceeding section.
Note that in an ancillary test, the variable “number of ELL classmates” is replaced with a
binary indicator for having any ELL classmates at all. However, the results remain consistent to
those presented in Table 4. Thus, neither students with disabilities nor students without
disabilities are systematically placed in classrooms with ELL students. The findings in Table 4
18
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
also present evidence that there is no sorting of students by disabilities. This finding supports the
analytic approach described in the proceeding section.
Analytic Approach
Baseline model. Estimating if there is a relationship between having ELL classmates and
the classroom social skills for students with disabilities begins with a baseline linear regression
model, presented as follows:
SSijk = β0 + β1Dijk*ELLijk+ β2Sijk + β3Fjk + β4Cjk + εijk
(1)
where SS is one of three classroom social skills SRS scales for student i in kindergarten
classroom j in school k.
The key coefficient in this study is β1 which represents the association of the number of
ELL classmates for students with disabilities. Technically, β1 is the interaction between an
indicator for having a disability and the number of ELL classmates. Deriving β1 as an interaction
between Dijk (having a disability) and ELLijk (having ELL classmates) is grounded in the
empirical literature as an appropriate estimation technique for assessing heterogeneity in
classroom or schooling predictors as differentiated by a specific individual student-level
characteristic, which in this case is having a disability (e.g., Yamauchi & Leigh, 2011).
The term Sijk includes the main predictors, Dijk as well as ELLijk. It also includes all
student information presented in Table 1 as well as a one-survey wave lagged measure of the
outcome (i.e., the outcome measured at kindergarten entry). All family data, including SES, is
incorporated in the term Fjk. Classroom and teacher measures are included in Cjk. The error term
ε includes all unobserved determinants of the outcome. Empirically, this latter component is
19
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
estimated with robust standard errors, adjusted for classroom clustering. Because students are
nested in schools by classroom and hence share common but unobservable characteristics and
experiences, clustering student data at the classroom level provides for a corrected error term
given this non-independence of individual-level observations and given that the ‘treatment’ of
having ELL classmates occurs at the level of the classroom.
Fixed Effects
The baseline model, as presented in equation (1), included a wide array of independent
covariates, including student, family, and classroom and teacher factors. Having access to these
observable measures in the ECLS-K dataset will certainly aid in the reduction of any biases in
estimating β1. That said, however, there may be unobserved school level factors, processes, and
policies that may be influencing the estimate of β1.
In one hypothetical example, students might have highly-involved parents who choose to
send their children to schools with a greater probability of interacting with diverse students, such
as ELL students. The reason for this choice is that these parents are aware that prior research has
found that students have higher schooling outcomes resulting from being in schools with greater
diversity (Fryer & Levitt, 2004). Simultaneously, however, these same highly involved parents
might also be making additional investments at home that would boost their children’s social
skills. If it were common for all students in a school to have parents such as these, then the peer
effect of having ELL classmates would be confounded by a high level of parental involvement.
As a second example, principals at some schools may have invested in a greater number of
policies and practices to boost classroom social skills. These same principals might also be more
likely to have greater inclusion policies for all students (e.g., ELL and disability), hypothetically-
20
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
speaking. In such a case, one might overestimate any positive relationship between having ELL
classmates and students’ social skills outcomes.
These are two of many potential scenarios in which school-level factors could be
influencing both the key independent variable as well as the classroom social skills dependent
variables. Hence, a second empirical model was employed to test the robustness of baseline
estimates of β1. Notably, a second model includes school-level fixed effects:
SSijk = β0 + β1Dijk*ELLijk+ β2Sijk + β3Fjk + β4Cjk + δk+ εijkt
(2)
where δk indicate the use of school fixed effects for each school k. Technically-speaking, the
term δk is a set of binary variables that indicates if a student attended a particular school (for each
school variable in the dataset, 1 indicates yes, and 0 indicates no). This set of school indicator
variables leaves out one school as the reference group (e.g., this process is analogous to creating
indicator variables for race, where one racial category is left out as the reference group).
The use of school fixed effects is compelling in this study and is supported as an
appropriate technique in prior empirical educational research pertaining to examining classmate
effects both with the ECLS-K data as well as with other large-scale datasets (e.g., Burke & Sass,
2008; Cho, 2012, Fletcher, 2010; Hanushek et al., 2003). The importance of school fixed effects
δk is that they control for all unobserved school-level influences because they hold constant
omitted school-specific factors, such as aggregate parental involvement and administrators’
inclusion policies. In doing so, the key source of variation used to identify the relationship
between ELL classmates and students’ social skills occurs across classrooms within each school.
The use of school fixed effects, as presented in this section, has been supported in the literature.
21
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Consistent with prior research (Aizer, 2008; Neidell & Waldfogel 2010) and as consistent with
Table 3, this study also upholds that there is little evidence of within-school sorting in the ELCSK dataset. Thus, this method is most appropriate when evaluating the effects of classmates on
social skills outcomes (see e.g., Neidell & Waldfogel, 2010).
In an ancillary test, equation (2) is supplemented with U.S. region fixed effects as well as
school-by-U.S. region fixed effects. For instance, it may be the case that there are specific
unobserved contextual factors in a given region of the country or in a given school and in a given
region (e.g., the South) that would be influencing both the number of ELL classmates and
classroom social skills outcomes. This may be particularly so in this study given historical U.S.
immigration patterns and given the focus of the effects of ELL classmates. The estimates of β1,
however, are extremely similar to those found using equation (2). Hence, these results are not
presented though they are available upon request.
Results
Table 5 presents unstandardized coefficient estimates and standard errors for the
specifications examining the relationship between having ELL classmates and the outcomes for
students with disabilities (e.g., the three ECLS-K SRS social skills outcomes as described
previously). For each outcome, both baseline and school fixed effects models are presented.
Respectively, these models are based on equation (1) and equation (2). Recall that the key
coefficients of interest are found in β1 (i.e., the interaction between the number of ELL
classmates and being a student with a disability). These interactions are located in the first row of
results in Table 5. The two rows that immediately follow the interaction present the main terms
of being a student with a disability and of the number of ELL classmates. Following this main
22
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
set of results are the coefficient estimates and standard errors for all other independent covariates
in the model.
---------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here
----------------------------------To begin, there are several key points. First, Table 5 suggests the baseline models, which
contain only observable characteristics and a pre-test measure, can explain between
approximately 40 and 50 percent of the outcomes. Second, the inclusion of school fixed effects
improves the explained portion of the variance under all outcomes, as denoted by the upward
change in the R2 values at the bottom of the table. Additionally, the Likelihood Ratio test
supports the implementation of fixed effects over strictly using the baseline model. Regardless,
the key interaction is statistically significant in all columns of the table, and hence, the inclusion
of more complex modeling techniques does not veer from supporting this study’s key
hypothesis: that there is a statistically significant relationship between the number of ELL
classmates and classroom social skills outcomes for students with disabilities.
Examining this relationship in more depth reveals the following interpretation for
students with disabilities. The first row of results portrays a unique story for students with
disabilities in terms of their relationship to ELL classmates. Hence, delineating the results by
disability status in an interaction proves to be critical. The coefficient on the interaction term
suggests that students with disabilities in a classroom with a greater number of ELL students
tend to have higher classroom social skills compared to those students with disabilities who have
fewer ELL classmates. This is depicted by consistent and statistically significant and positive
coefficients on the interaction between students with disabilities and the number of ELL
23
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
classmates: this indicates that higher frequencies of approaches to learning, interpersonal skills,
and self control arise for students with disabilities who have higher numbers of ELL classmates.
So, while there is a negative direct relationship between having a disability and classroom social
skills outcomes (as indicated in the second row of results) for those students with disabilities in
classes with ELL students, it is possible to potentially reduce this relationship based on the peer
classroom context.
The effect sizes of the interaction terms in the first row are 0.02σ to 0.03σ. However,
given that the range of the number of ELL students within a classroom goes up to 32 (with an
average of about 1.55), presenting the interaction as an effect size at the mean only provides
information about the improvement of on scores given a classroom average of 1.55 ELL
students. Thus, with this range in mind, a more interesting portrayal of the importance of the
effect size occurs when moving beyond averages. For instance, if one looks at the interaction in
the case of the largest possible number of ELL students, then the effect size changes dramatically
up to 0.22σ for the approaches to learning scale. This would be practically double the magnitude
of the effect size of the coefficient pertaining to having a disability. The effect size of a
classroom with 16 ELL students would be essentially the same value as the effect size of having
a disability in the approaches to learning model. These interpretations are fairly consistent across
all models in Table 5.
Briefly examining the control variables in Table 5 provides the following interpretations.
In the direction as expected, compared to girls, boys tend to exhibit lower frequencies of self
control, approaches to learning, and interpersonal skills. The results across all outcomes are also
delineated by additional student and family characteristics, particularly so by SES and less so by
parental involvement. There is less consistency across the results for the covariates pertaining to
24
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
the classroom control variables. Finally, like classroom characteristics, some teacher variables
are significant, but not consistently across all teacher measures.
Note that an ancillary test examined for non-linear associations in the interaction term.
When a squared term of having ELL classmates was included in the model, it was not
significant, though it did not change the main, linear interaction term. Thus, only linear direct
effects were presented. Also note that the models in Table 5 were tested for differences based on
many of the individual-level control variables listed in the model. These results, however, did not
suggest heterogeneity in the effects. This implies there is not a differential association based on
gender, race or SES that would have moderated the relationship between the number of ELL
classmates and the social skills outcomes for students with disabilities. That is, the predictive
relationship is comparable between categories of individual-level characteristics, like gender.
Additional Tests
To assess the robustness of these new findings, three tests of validity are presented here.
The first assesses the robustness of the scale ratings, the second examines other outcomes
beyond social skills, and the third examines the role of students with disabilities on ELL
students. First, as noted, the outcomes in this study are teacher-rated classroom social skills
scales. Hence, there is the possibility of some degree of subjectivity in the ratings of students
(DiPerna, Lei & Reid, 2007; Galindo & Fuller, 2010). To test the robustness of the results, the
sample is restricted by teacher experience. Prior research has established that a significant
number of teachers leave the profession within the first few years of teaching (Ingersoll, 2002;
Luekens et al., 2004). Teachers who remain teaching after these initial few years have gained
more in-classroom experience. These extra years may provide them with a better foundation to
accurately rate students on the social scales.
25
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
---------------------------------Insert Table 6 about here
----------------------------------To test for the subjectivity in teacher ratings, Table 6 presents a modified version of
Table 5, in which the sample is restricted to include only those students who were rated on social
skills outcomes by teachers who have taught for five years or more. Five years was determined
as a criterion in that Ingersoll (2002) has presented evidence that five years is a benchmark year
by which time a significant portion of teachers have left the teaching profession.
The results in Table 6 are closely linked to those in Table 5. Analytically, the fixed
effects models are statistically preferred to the baseline models, though regardless, all models
have the power to explain between 40 and 60 percent of the variance in outcomes. Indeed, the
coefficients of the interaction β1 are similar both in size and statistical significance. Hence, the
results continue to indicate that students with disabilities tend to have higher frequencies of
approaches to learning, interpersonal skills, and self control when a greater number of ELL
classmates are present.
A second test examines other potential outcomes that may be related to having a greater
number of ELL classmates. First, two teacher-rated problem behavioral scales are tested as
outcomes. The externalizing problem behaviors scale measures the frequency with which a child
argues, fights, gets angry, acts impulsively, and disturbs ongoing activities. The internalizing
problem behaviors scale rated the presence of anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, and sadness.
Here, higher scores indicated greater behavioral problems. Second, academic outcomes were
tested, including spring reading and math IRT achievement scores and an indicator for whether
or not a child would be retained in kindergarten.
26
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
---------------------------------Insert Table 7 about here
----------------------------------For the sake of clarity, Table 7 presents fixed effects models for these five additional
outcomes. There is a statistically significant main prediction of having a disability on four of the
five outcomes, indicating that students with disabilities tend to have higher behavioral issues and
lower achievement outcomes. That said, in no case is there a unique statistical relationship
between being a student with a disability and the number of ELL classmates. This supports the
mechanism presented in the introduction of this article, which provided a justification for why
having a greater number of ELL classmates would be related to higher classroom social skills for
students with disabilities. On the other hand, the results in Table 8 do suggest this mechanism is
domain specific; that is, the number of ELL classmates does not influence problem behaviors
and is not related to academic outcomes.
---------------------------------Insert Table 8 about here
----------------------------------A final test examined the total effect of the distribution of students with disabilities and
ELL classmates. Thus far, this study has examined the influence of ELL classmates on the
classroom social skills outcomes of students with disabilities. Because students with disabilities
and ELL classmates are in the same environment, a more complete assessment would also
examine the relationship between the presence of classmates with disabilities and the same set of
outcomes for ELL students in the classroom. Knowing the associations in both directions would
27
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
allow administrators to make more informed decisions about the distribution of students in
mainstreamed classrooms.
Table 8 presents school fixed effects models examining the relationship between the
number of classmates with disabilities and on the three social skills outcomes for ELL students.
A student was determined as being an ELL if survey responses indicated either of the following
conditions: 1) has primary household language other than English (derived from the parent
survey) or 2) receives ESL instruction in a language other than English at school (derived from
the teacher survey).
The model is analogous to the school fixed effects model in equation (2) and is presented
as follows:
SSijk = β0 + β1Eijk*CDijk+ β2Sijk + β3Fjk + β4Cjk + δk+ εijkt
(3)
where the key coefficient is still β1, as in previous models. Now, β1 represents the relationship
between the number of classmates with disabilities (CDijk) for ELL students (Eijk) (the former
being a continuous measure, and the latter being a binary measure). β1 is the interaction between
an indicator for having a disability and the number of ELL classmates. The analytic rationale for
utilizing an interaction term remains consistent with all previous models.
In Table 8 the first line of results presents the unique interplay between ELL students
and students with disabilities in the same classroom. The coefficients are not statistically
significant here. Note that the approaches of the preceding two tests of validity were tested as
well, and again, no statistical significance arose. This suggests there is no relationship, neither
positive nor negative, between the presence of students with disabilities on the social skills of
ELL students in the same classroom.
28
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
This finding is important. While it might have been expected to see a mutually positive
relationship between students with disabilities and ELL students, what is critical here is that
there is no finding of negative relationships. Therefore, this suggests that while a greater number
of ELL students may be related to higher classroom social skills outcomes for students with
disabilities, there are no negative associations of having students with disabilities on the social
skills of ELL students in the same classroom. This provides great insight for school
administrators, in that there was an influence of the number of ELL classmates on the outcomes
of students with disabilities though there was no relationship between the number of students
with disabilities and the outcomes of ELL students. This lack of a reciprocal relationship in these
findings may allow one group of students to benefit by being placed with another group of
students, without it detracting from the outcomes of the second group.
Discussion
In examining relationship between the number of ELL classmates and on the classroom
social skills outcomes for students with disabilities, this present research filled multiple gaps in
the literature. First, this study examined a relatively understudied aspect of peer context – i.e.,
having ELL students in general education classrooms. Prior to this study, little research had
quantified the extent to which ELL classmates may have a spillover effect onto the outcomes of
other students at all. Second, this research focused on the effects of one group of high-needs
students (ELL) on the outcomes of another group of high-need students (students with
disabilities) sharing a common educational space. This proved to be critical because prior
research has only focused on how high-needs classmates might relate to differences in the
outcomes of typical students. Thus, this study is novel in that it has examined how classroom
context via peer composition relates to promote supportive learning environments for students
29
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
with disabilities. Indeed, finding ways to create positive environments for this group is certainly
at the forefront of research and policy in special education.
To make these contributions to the literature, this study utilized a comprehensive dataset
of kindergarten students located throughout the U.S., based upon the survey responses of parents,
teachers, and school administers. Given the national-level changes in the presence of ELL
students and students with disabilities in classrooms across the U.S., a national-level dataset was
deemed appropriate. Using these data, it was possible to link student outcomes and attributes
directly to the characteristics of their parents and families as well as teachers and classrooms.
Thus, relying on such large-scale data allowed for the construction of empirical models to
capture a greater notion of the context in which children live and learn.
Moreover, using the population of kindergarten students had two advantages, as
previously mentioned. First, methodologically, children in kindergarten are placed in a single
room throughout the school day, thereby ensuring that the empirical measures of the classroom
do indeed capture the characteristics of the educational context in which children learn
throughout the day and year. This enabled the clear identification of classroom peer groupings.
Moreover, there was evidence of non-intentional sorting of students to classrooms in
kindergarten in this dataset, thereby eschewing estimation issues of non-random assignment that
often arise in older grades. Second, kindergarten is an exemplar for an extremely formative
period, both academically and socially (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Hence, identifying early
contextual factors that promote positive social development in school has implications for both
policy and practice.
Relying on these data, the methodology selected in this study was delineated by two main
approaches. The first was a baseline assessment, in which each classroom social skill outcome
30
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
was modeled on a wide array of observable student, family, teacher, and classroom
characteristics. The second approach built directly on the first by including school fixed effects
as a way to account for unobserved school-level issues that may be biasing both the key
independent variable as well as dependent variables.
While, from a statistical standpoint, the school fixed effects models were preferred, the
results were similar between both main approaches. Students with disabilities who had a greater
number of ELL classmates tended to have higher frequencies of approaches to learning,
interpersonal skills, and self control, relative to students with disabilities with fewer ELL
classmates. These findings were supported with three tests. The first test demonstrated that even
after limiting the sample to students with more experienced teachers who might have a better
gauge of how to rate student social development, the coefficients were consistent with all
findings. Second, in examining alternative outcomes, the results did prove to be domain-specific
to classroom social skills: for students with disabilities, the number of ELL classmates did not
influence problem behaviors or academic outcomes. Finally, a “reverse” peer effect was
nonexistent. That is, the number of classmates with disabilities did not relate to the outcomes for
ELL students. This final test provided insight as to how one high-needs group may have the
potential to positively influence the outcomes of other high-needs classmates without detracting
from their own schooling success.
These findings presented several implications. First, the data and methods of this research
indicated that the presence of one high-needs group may relate positive to the outcomes of
students with disabilities – here, we show this to be true as early as in kindergarten. Hence, this
study provides foundational support for a positive peer effects mechanism, as delineated in the
introduction of this article. Prior research in classroom peer effects has typically found positive
31
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
or negative results based on how one subgroup of students (e.g., gender, ability, high needs) can
influence the outcomes for the ‘typical’ student in the class, thereby producing an average
classroom effect. Importantly, this investigation took a new approach by examining how the
presence of one high-needs subgroup of students can relate to the outcomes of another highneeds group of students in the same classroom. Hence, this research offers more in-depth insight
into how the classroom context and the effects of classmates may have a unique relationship for
specific high-needs groups like students with disabilities – a strand of research in this area that is
often overlooked. School practices can thus be guided by determining not simply if one group of
students performs better or worse on average, but rather by asking, better or worse for whom in
particular?
Second, the research findings suggested that ELL classmates only related to classroom
social skills outcomes. There was no relationship with behavioral issues, achievement, or
retention. This suggested that the association of ELL classmates on the outcomes of students
with disabilities is domain-specific, thereby further supporting the mechanisms laid-out early in
this article. Hence, the findings of this study can support educational practitioners in their efforts
to create classroom settings that support specific outcomes, depending on the policy objective.
While some classroom environments may promote educational attainment, the findings of this
study also support that classroom environments may be constructed in a way to support nonachievement outcomes, such as social skills. Thus, knowing which contextual factors relate to
which domain of outcomes will continue to aid practitioners in making the educational
adjustments necessary to maximize the influence of school settings for students with disabilities.
Third, in regards to the direction of this peer contextual relationship, it was found that
while the presence of ELL classmates related positively to the social skills outcomes for students
32
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
with disabilities, it was also found that there was no “reverse effect”. That is, the differences in
the numbers of classmates with disabilities did not predict, neither positively nor negatively,
differences in the social skills outcomes of ELL students. This implied a non-linearity in the
findings, in which it is possible for group A to positively influence the outcomes of group B
without having detracted from the outcomes of group A. This has direct implications for
educational practice in terms of classroom distribution. This unique finding suggests that being
in a classroom with ELL students can carry advantages for students with disabilities that may not
reduce the attainment of ELL students per se. This indicated that resources that are funneled
toward classrooms with both ELL classmates and students with disabilities accrue benefits across
those classrooms, lending additional weight to the importance of considering the ramifications of
classroom context for all students and by special groups.
Finally, examining the underlying association between classrooms factors and student
outcomes proved to be significant even as early as in kindergarten. For students with disabilities,
this study shows that they have a unique relationship with others in the same classroom during
this formative, first year of schooling. Consequently, the findings of this study give charge for
educational practitioners and policymakers to continue identifying areas that support early
classroom distributional practices and channel additional resources in a way to foster the growth
and development of all students in the general education classroom.
Conclusion
This research study has contributed new insight into the interplay between classroom
context and classroom social skills for students with disabilities in kindergarten. Specifically, the
number of ELL classmates on three key classroom social skills outcomes was tested with a largescale dataset. The premise of this agenda is critical, as the presence of students with disabilities
33
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
and ELL students continues to increase across classrooms in the U.S. alongside policies that are
more often than not placing both demographic groups into general education classrooms. Prior to
this study, empirical research had not considered how the presence of one high-needs
demographic group related to differences in the socioemotional outcomes of another high-needs
group in the same educational space. A uniquely positive relationship emerged for students with
disabilities between having a greater number of ELL classmates and classroom social skills. This
demonstrated the necessity for policymakers and practitioners to further address how the notion
of classroom distribution along multiple capacities can promote educational development.
There are several limitations to this investigation, though each could serve as a
foundation for further research. First, as described, this study is the first to examine the
relationship between the presence of ELL classmates and the social skill outcomes for students
with disabilities; hence contributing a new perspective to a line of research focusing on
classroom context. Also as mentioned, the outcomes scales are survey-based and as such, there
may be some degree of subjectivity in the ratings (see esp., DiPerna, Lei & Reid, 2007; Galindo
& Fuller, 2010). Thus, to continue exploring how the classroom context may improve or detract
from socio-emotional outcomes of students with disabilities, future research may explore
additional child outcomes beyond achievement and development.
Second, there are many advantages to utilizing a large-scale dataset, like the ECLS-K.
However, relying on other datasets might provide additional insight. For instance, in the ECLS-K
dataset, it is not possible to identify traits or characteristics of ELL classmates – the only
information obtained is the aggregate classroom count available from the teacher survey. In
addition, there are not large enough sample sizes to detect results by specific type of disability. In
a dataset from a single school district where there is information on every student by teacher and
34
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
classroom, it might be possible to delve in more detail on the characteristics of high needs
students, such as gender, race, economic status, ability, and disability. Moreover, given that the
ECLS-K dataset depicts trends and patterns for the nation as a whole, it would be an important
extension to examine specific schools or districts where there might be a majority of ELL
students or students with disabilities. When these high-needs groups go from being minority
demographic groups in national data to the majority in these smaller school- and distrtict-level
samples, the results from this present study could be compared to those where the demographics
are much different from the average U.S. demographics.
Finally, the methods presented in this study are quantitative. Consequently, the findings
can be relied upon to develop conclusions based on trends and patterns. A follow-on study may
also employ a qualitative approach as a way to derive more detail on the mechanism supporting
the findings of this study. Assessing qualitative data from teachers and administrators in
conjunction with the quantitative findings from this current study will lead to an even greater
understanding of the influence of classroom context for a range of high-needs students and a
range of critical outcomes.
35
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
References
Aber, J.L., Bennett, N.G., Conley, D.C., & Li, J. (1997). The effects of poverty on child health
and development. Annual Review of Public Health, 18, 463-83.
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Dauber, S.L. (1993). First-grade classroom behavior: Its
short- and long-term consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64, 801814.
Aizer, A. (2008). Peer effects and human capital accumulation: The externalities of ADD. NBER
Working Paper Series #14354. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Ammermueller, A., & Pischke, J. (2006). Peer effects in European primary schools: Evidence
from PIRLS. NBER working paper 12180.
Baker, E. T.,Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning.
Educational Leadership, 52, 33–35.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longidutinal postschool outcomes of youth with
disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional
Children, 62, 399-414.
Banks, J.A., & Banks, C.A.M. (1995). Handbook of research in multicultural education. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Boyle, C.A., Boulet, S., Schieve, L.A., Cohen, R.A., Blumberg, S.J., Yeagrin-Allsopp, M.,
Visser, S., & Kogan, M.D. (2011). Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities
in U.S. children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics, 127, 1034-42.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7, 55-71.
36
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Burke, M.A., & Sass, T.R. (2008). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Calder,
Working Paper 18.
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for
exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 459-462.
Chiteji, N. (2010). Time-preference, non-cognitive skills and well-being across the life course:
Do non-cognitive skills encourage healthy behavior? American Economic Review,
100(2), 200-204.
Cho, R.M. (2012). Are there peer effects associated with having English Language Learner
(ELL) classmates? Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten
Cohort (ECLS-K). Economics of Education Review, 31, 629-643.
Cohen, M. (2006). Looking ahead to the adult years. In J.S. Handleman & S.L. Harris (Eds.),
School-age education programs for children with autism: The in-between years (pp 305325). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Coplan, R.J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers
who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 18, 143-158.
De Cohen, C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in
high- and low-LEP schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Dee, T.S., & West, M.R. (2012). The non-cognitive returns to class size. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 33, 23-46.
Demaray, M. K., Ruffalo, S. L., Carlson, J., Busse, R. T., & Olson, A. E. (1995). Social skills
assessment: A comparative evaluation of six published rating scales. School Psychology
Review, 24, 648-671.
37
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
DiPerna, J.C., Lei, P.W., & Reid, E.E. (2007). Kindergarten predictors of mathematical growth
in the primary grades: An investigation using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study –
Kindergarten Cohort. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 369-379.
Drotar, D. (1997). Relating parent and family functioning to the psychological adjustment of
children with chronic health conditions: What we have learned? What do we need to
know? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 149-165.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting
academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939–944.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in
self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(1), 198-208.
Feng, H., & Cartledge, G. (1996). Social skill assessment of inner city Asian, African, and
European American students. School Psychology Review, 25, 228-239.
Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test
scores in early elementary school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29 (1),
69-83.
Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English Language Learner achievement gap.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fryer, R., & Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding the black-white test score gap in the first two years
of school. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 447-464.
Furlong, M.J., & Karno, M. (1995). Review of the Social Skills Rating System. In J.C. Conoley
& J.C. Impara (Eds.), Twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 697-969). Lincon, NE:
Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
38
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Galindo, C., & Fuller, B. (2010). The social competence of Latino kindergartners and growth in
mathematical understanding. Developmental Psychology, 46, 579-592.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early
developmental aspects. New York: Plenum Publishing.
Greshan, F. M., & Elliot, S.N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, M.N.: American
Guidance Service.
Gullo, D.F. (2000). The long term educational effects of half-day vs. full-day kindergarten.
Early Child Development and Care, 160, 17-24.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Markman, J., & Rivkin, S. (2003). Does peer ability affect student
achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527-544.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2002). Inferring program effects for special populations:
Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Review of
Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584-599.
Hayworth, P. (2009). The quest for a mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 111,
2179-2208.
Hazel, J.S., & Shumaker, J.B. (1988). Social skills and learning disabilities: Current issues and
recommendations for future research. In J.F. Kavanah, & T.J. Truss (Eds.), Learning
disabilities proceedings of the national conference (pp. 293-344). Parkton, MD: York
Press.
Heckman, J.J. (2008). Schools, skills, and synapses. Economic Inquiry, Western Economic
Association International, 46(3), 289-324.
Heckman, J. J., & Rubinstein, Y. (2001). The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from
the GED testing program. American Economic Review, 91(2), 145-149.
39
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Hoxby, C. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from
population variation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1239-1285.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription.
NASSP Bulletin, 86, 16-30.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Pscyhology, 80, 437-447.
Karabenick, S., & Noda, P. (2004). Professional development implications of teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes toward English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 55-75.
Karweit, N. (1992). The kindergarten experience. Educational Leadership, 49, 82-86.
Kavale, N.A., & Forness, S.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of
diagnosis and classification. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kavale, K.A., & Mostert, M.P. (2004). Social skills interventions for individuals with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 31-43.
Konold, T.R., & Pianta, R.C. (2007). The influence of informants’ ratings of children’s
behavioral functioning: A latent variable approach. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 25, 222-236.
Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teachers’ interactions with children: Why are they so
important? Young Children, 52, 4-12.
Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day versus
half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more? American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 163-208.
40
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Lee, R., Zhai, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W.J., & Waldfogel, J. (2013). Head Start participation
and school readiness: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth
Cohort. Developmental Psychology, advance online.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1-24.
Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1995). National study on inclusion: Overview and summary report.
In National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion Bulletin, 2(2), 1-8.
Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., Rumberger, R.W. (2007). How much is too much?
The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development.
Economics of Education Review, 26, 52-66.
Luekens, M.T., Lyter, D.M., & Fox, E.E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from
the Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2000-01 (NCES 2004-301). US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Meisels, S.J., Atkins-Burnett, S., & Nicholson, J. (1996). Assessment of social competence,
adaptive behaviors, and approaches to learning with young children. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Moon, N., Todd, R., Morton, D., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating Students with Disabilities in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Findings from Research
and Practice for Middle Grades through University Education, Atlanta, GA: Center for
Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, College of Architecture, Georgia
Institute of Technology.
NCELA (2010). The growing numbers of English learner students 1997/98-2007/08. Accessed
at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0708.pdf
41
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education). (2011). Students with
disabilities, Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011-015), Chapter 2.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Education Association. (2008). English language learners face unique challenges.
Washington, DC: Author.
Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education.
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 562-576.
Olson, S.L., Sameroff, A.J., Kerr, D.C.R., Lopez, N.L., & Wellman, H.M. (2005).
Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young children: The role of
effortful control. Developmental and Psychopathology, 17, 25-45.
Phelps, L.A, & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School to work transitions for youth with
disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67,
197-226.
Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining
relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.
Posner, M.I., & Rothbart, M.K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Developmen
and Pscyhopathology, 12, 427-441.
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English Language Learners in
mainstream classrooms? The Journal of Education Research, 99, 131-142.
Rhum, C.J. (2004). Parental employment and child cognitive development. Journal of Human
Resources, 39, 155-192.
42
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Rule, A. C., Stefanich, G., Haselhuhn,C., & Peiffer, B. (2009). A Working Conference on
Students with Disabilities in STEM Coursework and Careers, Abstract, Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa, College of Education.
Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating
causal effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American
Education Research Association.
Smith, S. (1997). A longitudinal study: The literacy development of 57 children. In C. Kinzer, K.
Hinchman, & D. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (pp. 250-264).
Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Supalo, C. A., Mallouk, T. E. , Rankel, L., Amorosi, C. , & Graybill, C.M. (2008). Low-cost
laboratory adaptations for precollege students who are blind or visually impaired. Journal
of Chemical Education, 85, 243-247.
Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., & Lazarus, S.S. (2012). Leadeship for student performance in
an era of accountability. In Crockett, J.B., Billingsley, B.S., & Boscardin, M.L. (Eds.).
Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (pp. 3-16). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Tichenor, M. S., Heins, B., & Piechura-Couture, K. (2000). Parent perceptions of a co-taught
inclusive classroom. Education, 120, 569-574.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Demographic and School Characteristics of Students
Receiving Special Education in the Elementary Grade. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,
NCES 2007-0005.
43
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: Author.
Waddell, G. R. (2006). Labor-market consequences of poor attitude and low self-esteem in
youth. Economic Inquiry, 44(1), 69-97.
Walston, J., & West, J. (2004). Full-Day and Half-Day Kindergarten in the United States:
Findingsfrom the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Waterman, C., McDermott, P.A., Fantuzzo, J.W., & Gadsden, V.L. (2012). The matter of
assessor variance in early childhood education – Or whose score is it anyway? Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 46-54.
Weast, J.D. (2004). Early Success: Closing the Opportunity Gap for our Youngest Learners.
Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
Wiley, T., & Wright, W. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and
politics in the age of accountability. Educational Policy, 18, 142-168.
Williams, L. J. & Downing, J. E. (1998). Membership and belonging in inclusive classrooms:
What do middle school students have to say? Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 23(2), 98-110
Winters, M.A., & Greene, J.P. (2007). Debunking a special education myth. Education Next, 7,
67-71.
Yamauchi, C., & Leigh, A. (2011). Which children benefit from non-parental care? Economics
of Education Review, 30, 1468-1490.
Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across
countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 75-92.
44
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, ECLS-K Kindergarten Sample
Mean
Range (a)
SD
Outcomes
Approaches to learning (1 to 4; 4 is the highest)
Interpersonal skills (1 to 4; 4 is the highest)
Self control (1 to 4; 4 is the highest)
3.18
3.17
3.22
0.66
0.62
0.61
3.00
3.00
3.00
Key measures
Has disability
Number of ELL classmates
0.10
1.55
0.30
4.27
32.00
Student demographics
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Girl
ELL
Age (in months)
Health rating: excellent
very good
good
fair
poor
0.13
0.16
0.04
0.06
0.51
0.11
74.64
0.54
0.32
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.34
0.37
0.20
0.23
0.50
0.32
4.27
0.50
0.47
0.33
0.14
0.03
Student home data
Frequency of reading books
Never
1-2x per week
3-6x per week
Everyday
Total number of books
Attended out-of-home prekindergarten care
0.05
0.26
0.34
0.35
77.04
0.60
0.23
0.44
0.47
0.48
60.34
0.49
n
9,400
33.84
200.00
Mean
Family data
NCES SES scale
Lowest level
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Highest level
Mother's education
8th grade or below
High school not completed
High school diploma
Vocational education
Some college
Bachelor's degree
Some graduate school
Master's degree
Ph.D.
Family is at or below poverty threshold
Number of adults in household
Number of siblings
Parent sings to child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent tells stories to child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent engages child to do chores, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent plays games with child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent spanks child (binary measure)
Parent chose home location for schooling purposes (binary measure)
Classroom and Teacher data
Class size
Percent of classroom, white
Percent of classroom, boys
Percent of classroom, below grade level in reading
Number of classmates with disabilities
Average number of daily absences
Teacher white
Teacher male
Years of teacher experience
Teacher has a master's degree
Number of courses in special education
Number of courses in bilingual education
SD
0.14
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.35
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.43
0.04
0.07
0.30
0.06
0.28
0.17
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.16
2.05
1.46
3.12
2.75
3.27
2.79
0.19
0.29
0.19
0.26
0.46
0.23
0.45
0.38
0.15
0.21
0.13
0.37
0.66
1.13
0.92
0.91
0.87
0.82
0.39
0.45
20.60
0.64
0.51
0.16
1.92
0.97
0.86
0.02
12.35
0.34
1.91
0.62
5.12
0.36
0.13
0.14
3.05
1.04
0.34
0.13
6.15
0.46
1.81
1.31
Range
7.00
10.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
51.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
12.00
18.00
43.00
6.00
6.00
(a) Range values are only provided for continuous measures. Other measures are proportions based on a binary indictor (0; 1).
45
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 2: Outcomes Measures in Detail
Students with Disabilities
Mean
Outcomes
Approaches to learning (1 to 4; 4 is the highest)
Interpersonal skills (1 to 4; 4 is the highest)
Self control (1 to 4; 4 is the highest)
2.89
3.01
3.06
SD
(a)
(a)
(a)
0.72
0.68
0.67
Students without Disabilities
English Language Learners
Mean
Mean
3.21
3.19
3.24
SD
(a)
(a)
(a)
0.65
0.61
0.60
3.11
3.12
3.20
SD
(b)
(b)
(b)
Native English Speakers
Mean
0.68
0.61
0.59
3.19
3.18
3.23
SD
(b)
(b)
(b)
0.66
0.62
0.61
(a) The outcomes are statistically different at p<0.05 between students with and without disabilities.
(b) The outcomes are statistically different at p<0.05 between ELL students and native English speakers.
46
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 3: Correlations Between Key Indicators and Other Independent Variables: Full Sample
Number of
ELL
classmates
Has disability
Key measure
Number of ELL classmates
Student demographics
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Girl
ELL
Age
Health rating: excellent
very good
good
poor
Student home data
Frequency of reading books
Never
1-2x per week
3-6x per week
Total number of books
Attended out-of-home prekindergarten care
Family data
NCES SES scale
Lowest level
Level 2
Level 4
Highest level
-0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.04
-0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
0.00
-0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
Has disability
-
-0.01
***
**
**
**
**
**
Number of
ELL
classmates
-0.02
0.08
-0.08
-0.09
0.01
0.30
-0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
***
***
***
***
***
***
**
*
**
***
**
Mother's education
High school not completed
High school diploma
Vocational education
Some college
Bachelor's degree
Some graduate school
Master's degree
Ph.D.
Family is at or below poverty threshold
Number of adults in household
Number of siblings
Parent sings to child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent tells stories to child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent engages child to do chores, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent plays games with child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent spanks child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent chose home location for schooling purposes
Classroom and Teacher data
Class size
Percent of classroom, white
Percent of classroom, boys
Percent of classroom, below grade level in reading
Number of classmates with disabilities
Average number of daily absences
Teacher white
Teacher male
Years of teacher experience
Teacher has a master's degree
Formal training in special education
Formal training in bilingual education
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
-0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.02
0.00
0.02
**
-0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.01
*
*
*
**
-0.15
-0.16
-0.13
-0.15
-0.14
-0.10
-0.12
-0.10
-0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.01
-0.01
0.00
0.00
***
0.09
-0.21
0.00
0.11
0.00
-0.01
-0.09
-0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.04
0.25
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
47
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 4: Predicting Student Outcomes and Characteristics
Panel A: Students with disabilities
Number of ELL classmates
Student characteristics
Family characteristics
Classroom and teacher characteristics
School indicator variables
n
R2
Panel B: Students without disabilities
Number of ELL classmates
Student characteristics
Family characteristics
Classroom and teacher characteristics
School indicator variables
n
R2
Fall K
Externalzing
Problem
Behaviors
Fall K
Internalizing
Problem
Behaviors
Fall K
Approaches to
Learning
Fall K
Interpersonal
Skills
0.00
(0.02)
0.00
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.05
(0.19)
0.31
(0.62)
0.01
(0.02)
-0.02
(0.13)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
975
0.71
930
0.72
944
0.72
968
0.69
956
0.69
983
0.77
817
0.76
983
0.65
983
0.70
0.01
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.03
(0.03)
-0.07
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.02
(0.02)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
8,825
0.32
8,438
0.30
8,520
0.29
8,714
0.24
8,633
0.22
8,870
0.43
7,460
0.38
8,872
0.18
8,872
0.24
Fall K Self
Control
Fall K Math
Achievement
Fall K Reading
Achievement
Gender
Age
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
Robust Huber-White standard errors adjusted for clustering within classrooms are in partentheses. All regressions include a constant.
48
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 5: Effects of ELL Classmates for Students with Disabilities
Approaches to Learning
Baseline
Key variables
Has disability x number of ELL classmates
Has disability
Number of ELL classmates
Model controls
Student demographics
Lagged outcome
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Girl
ELL
Age
Health rating: very good
good
fair
poor
Student home data
Frequency of reading books
1-2x per week
3-6x per week
Everyday
Total number of books
Attended out of home pre-kindergarten care
0.01
(0.00)
-0.15
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Fixed Effects
**
***
0.02
0.65
(0.01)
-0.06
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.12
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.02)
0.11
(0.01)
0.00
(0.02)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.03
(0.02)
-0.06
(0.04)
-0.25
(0.16)
0.04
(0.02)
0.07
(0.02)
0.06
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
Interpersonal Skills
0.01
(0.00)
-0.13
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Baseline
**
***
*
0.02
***
***
***
***
***
*
*
***
***
0.65
(0.01)
-0.07
(0.02)
0.05
(0.02)
0.11
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.11
(0.01)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.02
(0.02)
-0.07
(0.04)
-0.34
(0.15)
0.03
(0.02)
0.06
(0.02)
0.06
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.09
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Fixed Effects
***
***
0.03
***
***
**
***
***
***
**
**
***
***
0.58
(0.01)
-0.06
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.08
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.02)
0.09
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.03
(0.02)
-0.04
(0.04)
-0.03
(0.17)
0.02
(0.02)
0.03
(0.02)
0.02
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.02
(0.01)
Self Control
0.01
(0.08)
-0.08
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Baseline
***
***
0.03
***
***
***
*
***
***
*
*
0.58
(0.01)
-0.08
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.08
(0.03)
-0.01
(0.03)
0.10
(0.01)
0.02
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.02)
-0.05
(0.04)
-0.03
(0.17)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.02
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.09
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Fixed Effects
***
***
0.03
***
***
**
***
***
**
0.60
(0.01)
-0.08
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.10
(0.03)
-0.06
(0.02)
0.07
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.02)
-0.03
(0.04)
-0.09
(0.16)
0.03
(0.02)
0.05
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.03
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.07
(0.02)
0.01
(0.00)
**
***
**
0.02
***
***
***
***
***
**
**
*
***
0.60
(0.01)
-0.09
(0.02)
0.04
(0.02)
0.09
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.03)
0.08
(0.01)
0.01
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.02)
-0.05
(0.04)
-0.17
(0.15)
0.01
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.00
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.04
(0.01)
***
***
**
***
***
**
***
(continued on next page)
49
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Approaches to Learning
Baseline
Family data
NCES SES scale
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Highest level
Mother's education
High school not completed
High school diploma
Vocational education
Some college
Bachelor's degree
Some graduate school
Master's degree
Ph.D.
Family is at or below poverty threshold
Number of adults in household
Number of siblings
Parent sings to child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent tells stories to child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent child engages child to do chores, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent plays games with child, frequency (4 is highest)
Parent spanks child
Parent chose home location for schooling purposes
Classroom and teacher data
Class size
Percent of classroom, white
Percent of classroom, boys
Percent of classroom, below grade level in reading
Number of classmates with disabilities
Average number of daily absences
Teacher white
Teacher male
Years of teacher experience
Has a MA degree
Number of courses in special education
Number of courses in bilingual education
n
R2
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
All regressions include a constant.
0.01
(0.02)
0.03
(0.02)
0.06
(0.03)
0.08
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.03)
-0.01
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.04)
-0.02
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.04)
0.02
(0.05)
-0.02
(0.04)
0.03
(0.05)
-0.05
(0.02)
0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.01
(0.02)
0.10
(0.04)
-0.04
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.02
(0.02)
0.02
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
9,400
0.51
Interpersonal Skills
Fixed Effects
**
***
***
*
**
**
**
0.00
(0.02)
0.03
(0.03)
0.06
(0.03)
0.08
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.03)
0.00
(0.03)
-0.03
(0.04)
-0.01
(0.04)
0.00
(0.04)
0.01
(0.05)
0.00
(0.04)
0.04
(0.05)
-0.06
(0.02)
0.02
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.04)
0.18
(0.05)
-0.05
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.01)
0.06
(0.02)
0.01
(0.05)
-0.03
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.01)
9,400
0.59
Baseline
**
***
***
**
***
**
-0.05
(0.02)
-0.03
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.03)
0.01
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.04)
0.03
(0.03)
0.01
(0.04)
0.03
(0.04)
0.01
(0.04)
0.04
(0.05)
0.07
(0.05)
0.07
(0.05)
-0.07
(0.02)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
0.00
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.02
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.02)
0.04
(0.04)
-0.03
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.02)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
9,000
0.38
Self Control
Fixed Effects
**
***
*
**
*
***
**
**
*
Baseline
-0.03
(0.02)
-0.01
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.03)
0.02
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.02)
-0.01
(0.03)
-0.01
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.04)
0.01
(0.04)
0.02
(0.04)
0.01
(0.04)
0.01
(0.04)
0.01
(0.05)
0.07
(0.05)
0.04
(0.06)
-0.08
(0.02)
0.02
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.02
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.05
(0.03)
0.08
(0.03)
0.07
(0.04)
0.06
(0.04)
0.05
(0.04)
0.08
(0.05)
0.10
(0.04)
0.10
(0.05)
-0.07
(0.02)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.04)
0.11
(0.06)
0.00
(0.05)
0.00
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.05
(0.03)
0.10
(0.06)
-0.03
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.02
(0.01)
9,000
0.51
***
**
***
*
*
*
*
**
***
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.02)
0.08
(0.04)
-0.07
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.03
(0.02)
0.08
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.00)
9,040
0.41
Fixed Effects
*
***
*
*
*
**
*
***
***
**
*
*
*
**
**
***
-0.03
(0.02)
0.00
(0.03)
-0.01
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.05
(0.03)
0.09
(0.03)
0.07
(0.04)
0.07
(0.04)
0.05
(0.04)
0.06
(0.05)
0.12
(0.04)
0.10
(0.05)
-0.08
(0.02)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.03
(0.04)
0.16
(0.05)
-0.12
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.01
(0.01)
0.05
(0.02)
0.01
(0.05)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.00
(0.03)
-0.01
(0.02)
**
*
*
**
*
***
***
***
**
**
9,040
0.53
50
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 6: Effects of ELL Classmates for Students with Disabilities, Restricted Teacher Sample
Approaches to Learning
Baseline
Key variables
Has disability x number of ELL classmates
Number of ELL classmates
Model controls
Student demographics
Student home data
Family data
Classroom and teacher data
n
R2
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
All regressions include a constant.
Fixed Effects
0.01 **
(0.00)
-0.15 ***
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Has disability
Y
Y
Y
Y
Interpersonal Skills
0.01 **
(0.00)
-0.14 ***
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
8,220
0.51
Baseline
Fixed Effects
0.01 ***
(0.00)
-0.08 ***
(0.02)
0.00 *
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
8,220
0.60
Self Control
0.01 ***
(0.00)
-0.08 ***
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
7,850
0.39
Baseline
0.01 **
(0.00)
-0.08 ***
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
7,850
0.51
Fixed Effects
0.01
(0.00)
-0.07
(0.02)
0.01
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
7,900
0.41
7,900
0.53
51
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 7: Effects of ELL Classmates for Students with Disabilities, Additional Outcomes using Fixed Effects Models
Externalizing
Problem
Behaviors
Key variables
Has disability x number of ELL classmates
-0.01
(0.00)
0.06 ***
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
Has disability
Number of ELL classmates
Model controls
Student demographics
Student home data
Family data
Classroom and teacher data
n
R2
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
All regressions include a constant.
Internalizing
Problem
Behaviors
Y
Y
Y
Y
0.00
(0.00)
0.08 ***
(0.02)
**
0.00
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
9,240
0.60
Reading
Achievement
0.08
(0.11)
-0.88 ***
(0.29)
0.08
(0.11)
Y
Y
Y
Y
9,140
0.44
Math
Achievement
0.10
(0.06)
-1.24 ***
(0.25)
-0.01
(0.03)
Y
Y
Y
Y
7,970
0.77
Retained after
Kindergarten
0.00
(0.00)
0.01
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
8,380
0.76
8,240
0.31
52
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ELL CLASSMATES
Table 8: Effects of Classmates with Disabilities on ELL Students, Fixed Effects Models
Approaches to
Learning
Key variables
ELL student * number of classmates with disabilities
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
ELL student
Number of classmates with disabilities
Model controls
Student demographics
Student home data
Family data
Classroom and teacher data
n
2
R
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
Interpersonal
Skills
Y
Y
Y
Y
10,644
0.59
Self Control
0.00
(0.01)
0.07 ***
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
Y
Y
Y
Y
10,091
0.51
0.01
(0.01)
-0.02
(0.02)
-0.01
(0.00)
Y
Y
Y
Y
10,252
0.52
53