Holding Them Back or Pushing Them Out? Reclassification Policy for English Learners With Disabilities

• In Event: English Learners With Disabilities and Opportunity to Learn

Abstract

Purpose
Scholarship has demonstrated ELs often become overrepresented in special education in secondary grades, as they are unable to meet reclassification criteria (i.e., the threshold by which ELs are deemed English proficient) established by state policies (Authors, 2018; Umansky et al., 2017). Delayed reclassification has been linked to limited opportunity to learn (OTL) through restricted access to rigorous general education instruction (Dabach, 2014; Thompson, 2015) and English language development support (Menken et al., 2012). The purpose of the study is to examine one district’s negotiation of a state’s policy that aimed to curb delayed reclassification for ELs with disabilities by implementing distinct reclassification criteria for these students.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework
To gain a deeper understanding of reclassification, a language education policy lens developed from the “onion metaphor” (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996) presents a framework that traces the connections between the text of policies, with educators practices to bring into relief the unintended consequences lived by students. Viewing reclassification of EL status for students identified with disabilities as a language education policy activity serves to see language in conjunction with, rather than separate from, one’s disability. Language education policy has worked to draw connections across interpretation and implementation of policies from the various stakeholders.

Methods/Data Sources
Using an embedded case study design (Yin, 2018), ethnographic fieldwork was conducted for one academic year in one district in Pennsylvania, which implemented distinct reclassification criteria for ELs with disabilities. The following were collected: district, assessment, and policy artifacts; 46 interviews with staff and ELs with disabilities; and 74 observations of classes and services. The analysis was segmented in three distinct phases to determine (a) local implementation and perceptions of the policy, (b) reclassification decisions for the focal students, and (c) guidance from state and test-developers. In these phases, we used open coding (Saldaña, 2016; Strauss & Corbin, 2015) and axial coding (Saldaña, 2016).

Results and Significance
Pennsylvania’s reclassification policy attempted to mitigate delayed reclassification and overrepresentation in secondary grades, resulting in a wave of reclassification. Educators in the district held competing views about the policy’s promotion of OTL. For some, the policy embodied equitable principles by removing barriers that had long existed for ELs with disabilities during reclassification. For others, however, the policy was a mechanism of discrimination and disadvantage that ultimately resulted in diminished OTL, as educators made reclassification decisions based on anecdotal evidence, questioning whether language or disability was preventing ELs from meeting reclassification criteria.

This study cautions leaders and teachers against exclusively asking, Is it language or disability? in their reclassification decision-making. Focusing on this question alone during reclassification ignores (a) the reality that no assessment instrument exists that can disentangle language from disability, and (b) the ways in which limited OTL influence reclassification eligibility. Thus, knowing this, we recommend Individualized Education Program teams to actively work against using anecdotal evidence, and instead rely upon multiple and varied data sources as well as to collaborate with both students and their families to make reclassification decisions.

Authors

• Jamie L. Schissel, University of North Carolina - Greensboro

• Sara E.N. Kangas, Lehigh University