National Council on Disability

February 7, 2018

IDEA Series 

English Learners and Students 

from Low-Income Families
National Council on Disability (NCD)

1331 F Street NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

(IDEA Series) English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families

National Council on Disability, February 7, 2018 

Celebrating 30 years as an independent federal agency

This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following 

information:

ncd@ncd.gov Email

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and 

all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
Letter of Transmittal

February 7, 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit this report titled 

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families. This report is part of a five-report 

series on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that identifies the challenges 

facing English learners with disabilities and their families as well as the unique needs facing 

students with disabilities from low-income families and examines how they fare in the public 

education system.

As you know, the right of students with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate public 

education in the least restrictive environment is solidly rooted in the guarantee of equal 

protection under the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution. In 2014, 9.3 percent of 

all public school students were English learners and approximately 20 percent of children were 

from families living in poverty. English learners with disabilities and students with disabilities 

from low-income families may confront extraordinary challenges in their efforts to receive 

a high-quality, inclusive education. Families may not be familiar with navigating the school 

system. Parents may be unaware of their rights or feel unequipped to effectively advocate on 

their child’s behalf, and may not be proficient in English themselves. To be eligible for services 

under IDEA, a student must be identified as having a disability and needing special education 

services. Identification as a child with a disability can provide students with access to needed 

accommodations and services and rights under the law—poverty and language barriers may 

impact that identification.

This report includes an examination of the identification, placement, and performance (where 

available) of students with disabilities who are also English language learners and students 

with disabilities who come from low-income families. It also looks at how supports, including 

Parent Training and Information Centers, are serving these students and their families in getting 

needed services and accessing their rights under the law, and provides recommendations for 

improvement.

National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 1
NCD stands ready to assist the Administration in ensuring the right to a free and appropriate public 

education for students with disabilities as set forth in IDEA.

Respectfully,

Clyde E. Terry

Chairperson

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the 

U.S. House of Representatives.)

2 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Clyde E. Terry, Chairperson

Benro T. Ogunyipe, Vice Chairperson

Billy W. Altom

Rabia Belt

James T. Brett

Bob Brown

Daniel M. Gade

Wendy S. Harbour

Neil Romano

Staff

Vacant, Executive Director

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor

Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor

Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Lisa Grubb, Director of Operations and Administration

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 3
4 National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments

NCD thanks Selene Almazan, Denise Marshall, and Melina Latona of the Council of Parent Attorneys 

and Advocates; and Laura A. Schifter of the Harvard Graduate School of Education for the research 

conducted in developing this report.

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 5
6 National Council on Disability
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Acronym Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Policy Analysis and Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Quantitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Chapter 1: Rates of Identification and Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Students from Low-Income Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Chapter 2: Current Supports from the Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Parent Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Guidance and Support for English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Model Demonstration Projects for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Title III Supports and Inclusion in Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Office for Civil Rights and Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Chapter 3: Supports from Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Protection and Advocacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Independent Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Chapter 4: Challenges in Addressing Needs of English Learners 

and Students from Low-Income Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Disproportionality in Identification and Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 7
Family Engagement and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Service Coordination...

Specific Challenges for English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 5: Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 6: Recommendations to Congress, the Department of Education, 

and State Policymakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

8 National Council on Disability
Students with disabilities who are also 

English learners (ELs) and students with 

disabilities who are from low-income 

families face unique challenges in accessing a 

high-quality education. Given the challenges, 

these students experience worse outcomes and 

perform significantly below their peers on reading 

and mathematics assessments. To better meet 

the needs of these students and their families, 

teachers, school administrators, and policymakers 

acknowledge needing additional support and 

research.

To better understand the experiences of these 

students, NCD undertook research to study 

English learners with disabilities and students 

with disabilities from low-income families, in part, 

asking the following:

■ What are the challenges faced by English 

learners with disabilities, students with 

disabilities from low-income families, and 

their families in receiving services under 

IDEA? How can schools, districts, and 

states better meet their needs?

To address these questions, the NCD 

research team conducted a mixed-methods 

study gathering relevant policy and qualitative 

and quantitative information. In particular, the 

NCD research team convened forums to gather 

parent and student perspectives and interviewed 

local administrators, state administrators, and 

researchers.

In this report, we identify key findings about 

students with disabilities who are also English 

learners and students with disabilities from lowincome families. We found the following:

■ Expectations: Too often, educators have 

lower expectations for students with 

disabilities who are also English learners and 

students with disabilities from low-income 

families.

■ Disproportionality: English learners 

with disabilities are both over- and 

underrepresented in special education, 

and students with disabilities from lowincome families are disproportionately 

identified for special education. Additionally, 

both populations of students are 

disproportionately placed in substantially 

separate classrooms.

■ Family engagement and family 

education: Stakeholders identified 

challenges effectively engaging families. In 

particular, they acknowledged challenges 

effectively educating and supporting parents 

in understanding the language of special 

education and their rights under the law.

■ Service coordination: Schools, districts, 

and states face challenges in effectively 

Executive Summary

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 9
coordinating services and supports for 

English learners and students from lowincome families who are also eligible for 

special education services.

■ Identification and exit for language-based 

services: Educators, districts, and states 

face challenges in developing effective 

policies for determining entry and exit for 

language-based services for English learners 

with disabilities.

To address these findings, we recommend 

Congress, the Department of Education, and 

state policymakers:

■ Collect, report, and analyze data on the 

identification, placement, and performance 

of English learners with disabilities and 

students with disabilities from low-income 

families. States and districts should use 

the data to support professional learning 

to improve opportunities for these 

students.

■ Support parent training and access to 

ensure parents understand their child’s 

needs, the special education process, and 

their rights under the law.

■ Incentivize collaboration across programs 

to ensure that the services more effectively 

support the student rather than remain 

segmented by program.

■ Support research and disseminate 

information on entrance and exit from 

language-based services to ensure district 

and state policy effectively consider the 

needs of English learners with disabilities.

10 National Council on Disability
Acronym Glossary

COPAA Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection

CPRCs Community Parent Resource Centers

DOJ Department of Justice

ED Department of Education

EL English learner

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

LRE least restrictive environment

MTSS multitiered system of supports

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCD National Council on Disability

NCEO National Center on Education Outcomes

NLTS-2012 National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

P&As Protection and Advocacy agencies

PTI Parent Training and Information Centers

TAC technical assistances centers

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 11
English learners (ELs) and students with 

disabilities from low-income families enter 

school with additional challenges to learning 

that are not directly associated with their 

disability. As a result, ELs and students 

from low-income families may confront 

extraordinary challenges in their efforts to 

receive a high-quality, inclusive education.

12 National Council on Disabilit National Council on Disability
F

or the past 50 years, the federal role in 

education has focused on increasing 

equity by providing additional funds 

targeted toward specific populations of students. 

Specifically, it has provided states and districts 

support for students with disabilities through the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),1

support for students from low-income families 

through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA),2 and support for English 

learners (ELs) through Title III of ESEA.3 In 

developing these programs, the Federal 

Government has recognized the additional 

challenges districts may face in meeting the 

needs of these students and therefore provides 

the funding to cover some of the excess 

cost associated with educating students with 

additional needs.

Despite these efforts, gaps in educational 

performance exist between students with 

disabilities and students without disabilities, 

between ELs and students who are not English 

learners, and students from low-income families 

and students from non-low-income families. 

Additionally, gaps are largest for students 

who may be eligible to receive services from 

multiple programs. For instance, in examining 

performance on the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP), students with 

disabilities who are also ELs perform worse 

than students with disabilities who are not ELs, 

and students with disabilities from low-income 

families perform worse than students with 

disabilities from non-low-income families.4

Students with disabilities who are also 

ELs and students with disabilities from lowincome families enter school with additional 

challenges to learning that are not directly 

associated with their disability.5 As a result, ELs 

and students from low-income families may 

confront extraordinary challenges in their efforts 

to receive a high-quality, inclusive education. 

For instance, families may not be familiar with 

navigating the school system, and parents 

may be unaware of their rights or may feel 

unequipped to effectively advocate on their 

child’s behalf.6

Policymakers need additional information 

about the experiences of ELs and students 

from low-income families to ensure that IDEA 

is effectively meeting the needs of these 

underserved student populations. The National 

Council on Disability (NCD) sought to gather 

that information. In this report, we address the 

following questions:

■ What data is available on the identification, 

placement, and performance of ELs with 

disabilities and students with disabilities 

from low-income families?

Introduction

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 13
■ What are the challenges faced by ELs with 

disabilities, students with disabilities from 

low-income families, and their families in 

receiving services under IDEA? How can 

schools, districts, and states better meet 

their needs?

■ How does the Department of Education 

support states in addressing the needs of 

ELs with disabilities and students from lowincome families with disabilities?

■ How do Parent Training and Information 

Centers, Centers for Independent Living, 

and Protection and Advocacy Organizations 

engage with families of ELs or low-income 

students?

Research Methods

To address these questions, the NCD research 

team conducted a mixed-methods study 

gathering stakeholder perspectives, as well as 

policy and quantitative information. With this 

information, we describe experiences for these 

populations of students; identify any potential 

gaps in services, policy, and research; and make 

recommendations to improve opportunities for 

ELs with disabilities and students with disabilities 

from low-income families.

Qualitative Analysis

To gather stakeholder perspectives, the NCD 

research team conducted interviews and held 

four regional forums and one national forum. 

Specifically, we conducted 20 semistructured 

interviews with Department of Education 

officials, state and local administrators, 

researchers, representatives from disability 

rights organizations, and parent organizations 

to determine current challenges and supports 

for ELs with disabilities and students from lowincome families with disabilities.

In the second phase of research, we gathered 

perspectives from parents and students through 

four regional focus groups in California, Illinois, 

Texas, and Virginia. NCD recruited participants 

through the Council of Parent Attorneys and 

Advocates (COPAA)’s member network, 

local parent networks, and state and national 

partners in the forum locations. In total, 

72 people participated in the regional forums. 

Only 30 percent of regional forum participants 

were COPAA members and 70 percent were 

Research Questions Addressed 

in Report

■ What data is available on the identification, 

placement, and performance of ELs with 

disabilities and students with disabilities 

from low-income families?

■ What are the challenges faced by ELs with 

disabilities, students with disabilities from 

low-income families, and their families in 

receiving services under IDEA? How can 

schools, districts, and states better meet 

their needs?

■ How does the Department of Education 

support states in addressing the needs 

of ELs with disabilities and students from 

low-income families with disabilities?

■ How do Parent Training and Information 

Centers, Centers for Independent Living, 

and Protection and Advocacy Organizations 

engage with families of ELs or low-income 

students?

14 National Council on Disability
non-COPAA members. Of the 72 participants in 

the regional forum, 38 percent were parents of 

students of color.

The third phase of data collection occurred 

during an online forum at COPAA’s national 

conference. In total, 58 people participated in 

the forum. Twenty-three percent were people 

of color. An additional 23 people responded 

through an email address.7 In addition to the 

72 participants at the forum, there was a total 

of 81 people who responded in the focus 

groups, the national forum, and the email 

responses.

In all settings, NCD used a semistructured 

question protocol to gain perspectives about 

parent and child experiences with IDEA. Data 

was recorded and transcribed to identify themes 

among the experiences (see appendix for 

protocols).

Policy Analysis and Literature 

Review

To understand the policy context, we reviewed 

Department of Education regulations and 

guidance to determine the extent it currently 

provides supports to states to meet the needs of 

ELs with disabilities and students with disabilities 

from low-income families. We have also reviewed 

research on current challenges and best practices 

that have been identified to better meet the need 

of these students and their families.

Quantitative Data

We gathered available data from the IDEA annual 

performance reports related to the identification, 

placement, and performance for these students. 

As required by IDEA, states annually report to the 

Department of Education on indicators related 

to IDEA implementation. The Department of 

Education compiles this data and releases the 

data in an annual Report to Congress.8 We also 

use data from the National Center of Education 

Statistics, which annually compiles data, 

including demographic and enrollment data, on all 

public schools in the country.9

Additionally, we reviewed available data 

from the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). 

The CRDC,10 a survey conducted every few 

years by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the 

Department of Education, contains additional 

information about state, district, and school-level 

enrollment; college and career-readiness; and 

discipline, including bullying and harassment 

and restraint and seclusion. Frequently, this data 

is disaggregated and can be cross-tabulated 

by disability and EL status, but they do not 

disaggregate by economic disadvantage.

Finally, we reviewed performance data from 

NAEP for students with disabilities, ELs, and lowincome students in English and math.11

Limitations

In this study, NCD recruited participants 

through COPAA’s member network, local parent 

networks, and state and national partners in the 

forum locations. Additionally, we purposefully 

selected interview participants based on location 

and position. Therefore, the qualitative data 

identified in the report should not be viewed 

as generalizable, but rather as perspectives of 

individuals within those positions. The qualitative 

data offers individual first-person perspectives 

to complement the quantitative aspects of 

this report.

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 15
16 National Council on Disability
Chapter 1: Rates of Identification and Placement

T

o be eligible for services under IDEA, 

a student must be identified as having 

one of 13 disabilities and need special 

education services.12 Once identified, an 

Individualized Education Program (IEP) team 

convenes to determine the specific special 

education and related services the child needs 

to make progress in the general education 

curriculum.13 IDEA requires that IEP teams 

ensure students with disabilities are educated 

in the “least restrictive 

environment” (LRE) 

where they are 

educated with students 

without disabilities 

to the “maximum 

extent appropriate.”14

Additionally, IDEA 

requires states report special education 

identification and placement information by race, 

ethnicity, language proficiency status, gender, 

and disability category.15

English Learners

Nationally, in 2013–2014, 9.3 percent of public 

school students (4.5 million students) were 

identified as ELs receiving English language 

services.16 The percent of students receiving 

English language services varies considerably 

across states, with a low of 0.7 percent in West 

Virginia to a high of 22.7 percent in California. A 

majority of these students (76.5%) speak Spanish 

as their home language.17

In 2015–2016, approximately 10 percent 

of the 6 million students eligible for special 

education services across the country were 

also identified as ELs.18 This identification rate 

is generally proportionate to the identification 

rate for ELs in the overall student population. 

California, however, 

showed disproportionate 

identification, with ELs 

representing 31 percent 

of all students with 

disabilities but only about 

23 percent in the overall 

population. Other states 

with the highest numbers of EL populations 

(Texas,19 New York, and Florida) show more 

proportionate identification. According to the 

National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS2012), students with specific learning disability 

(12%) and hearing impairment (13%) have 

higher proportions of students also identified as 

EL, whereas students with autism (4%), deafblindness (4%), emotional disability (5%), and 

multiple disabilities (3%) have lower proportions 

of students also identified as ELs.20

In 2015–2016, approximately 

10 percent of the 6 million students 

eligible for special education 

services across the country were 

also identified as ELs

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 17
Nationally, ELs with disabilities have a higher 

rate of placement in substantially separate 

classrooms (17.0%) than do all students with 

disabilities (13.5%).21 The rates of placement in 

substantially separate classrooms for ELs varied 

in the states with high numbers of ELs from 

9 percent in Texas to 23.8 percent in California.22

In fact, in both Texas and Florida placement in 

substantially separate classrooms for ELs with 

disabilities was lower than the substantially 

separate placement rate for all students with 

disabilities.

ELs with disabilities perform worse 

academically and are more likely to be 

disciplined in school 

than are ELs without 

disabilities. For instance, 

on the NAEP, ELs with 

disabilities perform 

26 points below ELs 

without disabilities 

on the eighth-grade 

reading assessment 

and 28 points below on 

the eighth-grade mathematics assessment.23

Additionally, according to the CRDC, even 

though ELs with disabilities make up 

approximately 11.9 percent of the population 

of ELs, ELs with disabilities represent 21.5 

percent of the ELs receiving one or more outof-school suspension.24

Students from Low-Income Families

Nationally, in 2013–2014, 20 percent of 5 

through 17-year-olds (10.7 million students) 

were identified as living in poverty.25 The 

percentage of students living in poverty also 

varies considerably across states, with a low of 

12 percent in Maryland to a high of 29 percent 

in Mississippi. Student eligibility for free and 

reduced-priced lunch is frequently used as a 

proxy for income status, with about 50 percent 

of public school students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch.26 IDEA does not require 

states to report identification and placement 

data by family income status or eligibility for 

free or reduced-price lunch. Therefore, national 

IDEA data on identification and placement 

in special education for students from lowincome families is not available. Under Title I, 

states do report the number of eligible Title I 

students who are also children with disabilities. 

Nationally, approximately 13.6 percent of 

students served in 

schoolwide programs 

and targeted assistance 

programs under Title I 

are also children with 

disabilities (3.4 million 

children).27

Past studies have 

examined associations 

between poverty and 

disability using community factors, rather than 

student-level information, to represent poverty.28

These studies are limited though because they 

were unable to examine the relationship between 

poverty and income at the student level. A few 

recent studies have examined the relationship 

between income level and poverty at the student 

level and found that students from low-income 

families were considerably more likely to be 

identified for special education.29 According 

to the NLTS-2012, 58 percent of students 

eligible for special education were from lowincome households compared to 46 percent for 

students without IEPs.30 Students identified with 

intellectual disability (71%), emotional disability 

Nationally, approximately 

13.6 percent of students served in

schoolwide programs and targeted 

assistance programs under Title I 

are also children with disabilities 

(3.4 million children

18 National Council on Disability
(62%), and specific learning disability (61%) were 

most likely to live in low-income households, 

whereas students identified with autism (37%) 

were least likely.31 Data on the placement of 

students from low-income families eligible for 

special education is also limited. In a study in 

Massachusetts,32 the researchers found that 

the rate of placement in 

substantially separate 

classrooms for lowincome students was 

more than double 

the placement in 

substantially separate 

classrooms for non-lowincome students.

Many of the past 

studies that have 

examined the relationship 

between poverty and disability have attributed the 

correlation to increased prevalence of disability 

among people living in poverty.33 Children living in 

poverty more often experience factors relating to 

disability such as low birthweight and increased 

exposure to lead.34 However, despite the increased 

risk, there may also be elements of systemic bias 

factoring into determinations about identification 

and placement of low-income students in 

special education as evidenced by differences by 

community factors and differences in performance 

levels.35 Additional information is needed to 

better understand the rates of identification and 

placement for low-income students.

Students with disabilities from low-income 

households perform 

worse academically than 

low-income students 

without disabilities. 

For instance, on the 

NAEP, students with 

disabilities from lowincome households 

perform 39 points below 

on the eighth-grade 

reading assessment and 

37 points below on the 

eighth-grade mathematics assessment than do 

low-income students without disabilities.36 In 

looking at discipline rates, the CDRC and IDEA 

data collections do not disaggregate discipline 

data by income status, and therefore no national 

estimates are available for low-income students 

with disabilities.

[S]tudents with disabilities from 

low-income households perform 

39 points below on the eighthgrade reading assessment and 37 

points below on the eighth-grade 

mathematics assessment than 

do low-income students without 

disabilities

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 19
20 National Council on Disability
Chapter 2: Current Supports from the Department 

of Education

T

he Department of Education (ED) provides 

some supports through guidance and 

grants for students with disabilities who 

are also ELs and students with disabilities from 

low-income families. Specifically, IDEA authorizes 

funding for Community Parent Resource Centers 

and National Activities to, in part, address the 

needs of these students and their families. Under 

Title III of ESEA, ED has offered guidance and has 

developed a tool-kit for meeting the needs of ELs 

with disabilities. As for 

support and coordination 

with Title I of ESEA, ED 

officials from the Office 

of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) 

acknowledge being 

involved with the regulations, guidance, and 

state planning for the reauthorized ESEA, known 

as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), but 

did not identify any additional initiatives targeted 

for students with disabilities from low-income 

families.

Parent Training

Authorized under Part D of the IDEA, Community 

Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs)37 and Parent 

Training and Information Centers (PTI)38 provide 

training and support to families. CPRCs are 

intended to “help ensure that underserved 

parents of children with disabilities, including 

low income parents, parents of limited 

English proficient children, and parents with 

disabilities, have the training and information 

the parents need to enable the parents to 

participate effectively in helping their children 

with disabilities.”39 In 2016, ED, through OSEP, 

awarded $2.3 million in grants to 23 CPRCs 

across 17 states.

Though not specifically targeted to serve 

these populations, PTIs 

are located in every 

state and also provide 

training and supports 

to parents and families 

and serve ELs and 

low-income families. 

In total, parent centers received $27.4 million 

in FY16 to fund 65 PTIs, 30 CPRCs, and 9 

technical assistances centers (TAC).40 Taken 

together, the centers provide information and 

training to over 1 million parents, guardians, 

educators, and other professionals annually. Six 

of the TACs are regional, and three are national 

centers, two of which provide support toward 

specific populations (military families and Native 

American children).

CRPC and PTI grants are awarded to 

nonprofit organizations with missions to serve 

children from birth through age 26 and across 

Under Title III of ESEA, ED has 

offered guidance and has developed 

a tool-kit for meeting the needs of 

ELs with disabilities

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 21
all disability categories. They provide training to 

parents in supporting the educational needs of 

children with disabilities as well as training on 

parents’ rights under the law. One PTI/CPRC 

director acknowledged that they have needed 

to expand beyond traditional outreach with 

parents because they are seeing more diversity 

across support structures, with grandparents 

as legal guardians, more youth in foster care, 

youth in the juvenile justice system, and 

children who are homeless or at risk of being 

homeless. They have expanded their work to 

foster liaisons and train social workers and 

other professionals within the system regarding 

disability, stigmatization, and rights under 

the law. The director said that these are the 

“families who are the 

most marginalized and 

ignored” and that PTIs 

need to ensure they are 

reaching those families.41

Dr. Thomas Hehir, a 

researcher and former director of OSEP, added 

that centers for parent training “do great work, 

but are underfunded,” and to be most effective 

in serving the intended populations, the centers 

have had to raise considerable amounts of money 

outside the federal support.42 In fact, funding 

for PTIs was cut in 2013 by about $1.5 million 

and has not been restored. A PTI director also 

commented on the underfunding, noting, “our 

grant funds 2.5 full-time employees, but we 

serve 70,000 children with IEPs.”43

Guidance and Support for English 

Learners

ED officials identified cross-office initiatives 

between the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) and the Office 

of English Language Acquisition to address areas 

of support for ELs with disabilities on several 

issues, including identification and assessment.

In January 2015, ED, along with the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), issued a Dear 

Colleague letter outlining the requirements of 

civil rights laws to ensure that ELs, including 

ELs with disabilities, do not face discrimination 

in school.44 Specifically, the guidance clarifies 

that to guarantee ELs are provided with a free 

appropriate public education:

1. Evaluations must be conducted in the 

appropriate language based on the student’s 

needs and language skills,

A PTI director also commented on 

the underfunding, noting, “our grant 

funds 2.5 full-time employees, but

we serve 70,000 children with IEPs.

2. Any determination 

of special education 

eligibility is based on 

factors related to the 

student’s abilities rather 

than language skills,

3. Language services and special education 

services are provided simultaneously for the 

student, and

4. Any IEP also considers the student’s 

language-related needs.

To support ELs, ED has developed a 

corresponding tool-kit for practitioners that 

includes a chapter outlining supports for ELs 

with disabilities.45 The tool-kit offers policy 

recommendations for states and districts, 

including the suggestion that local districts submit 

in their special education plans to the states, 

their policies related to the referral, identification, 

assessment, and service delivery for ELs with 

disabilities. The tool-kit also includes a matrix for 

helping differentiate language differences and 

22 National Council on Disability
disabilities in identification, a checklist support 

for developing an IEP for an EL with a disability, 

instructions on using the CRDC to find data 

on ELs with disabilities, and considerations for 

accommodations for ELs with disabilities.

Model Demonstration Projects 

for Literacy

OSEP is also currently funding model 

demonstration projects to address the needs of 

ELs with disabilities. The model demonstration 

projects have focused on addressing literacy 

needs for ELs with disabilities. Specifically, 

the 2016 grant competition funded a project to 

“(a) improve literacy outcomes for [ELs with 

disabilities] in grades three through five, within 

a multitiered system 

of supports (MTSS) 

framework; (b) use 

culturally responsive 

principles; and (c) be 

implemented by educators and sustained in 

general and special education settings.”46 Three 

projects at Portland State University, American 

Institutes of Research, and the University of 

Texas Austin received funding.

Title III Supports and Inclusion 

in Assessment

Recognizing the challenges associated with 

appropriate inclusion of ELs with disabilities in 

assessments, ED has provided supports to states 

and districts. In 2014, OSERS issued a questions 

and answers document on the inclusion of ELs 

with disabilities on English language proficiency 

assessments.47 This guidance remains in 

effect through the 2016–2017 school year as 

states transition to new plans under ESSA. 

This guidance includes information about the 

role of the IEP team in assessment decisions, 

accommodations and alternate assessments, and 

decisions about exiting from EL status.

Passed in 2015, Title III under ESSA included 

critical new provisions addressing the needs of 

ELs with disabilities. Specifically, Title III now 

requires reporting on the number and percentage 

of ELs making progress toward English proficiency 

by disability status.48 In September 2016, ED 

issued guidance on Title III under ESSA, which 

included a section devoted to ELs with disabilities. 

The guidance describes the professional 

knowledge teachers of ELs should have:

Instruction for English learners with 

disabilities should take into account their 

specific special 

education and related 

services needs, as 

well as their language 

needs. Teachers 

should have an 

understanding of the second language 

acquisition process, and how this might 

be influenced by the child’s individual 

development, knowledge of EL effective 

instructional practices and, if relevant, the 

child’s disability.49

Additionally, to heighten the attention on 

language proficiency, ESSA included language 

proficiency as a required indicator in the state 

accountability system under Title I.50

The Title I assessment regulations go 

further to support the assessment of ELs 

who are also students with disabilities. 

The regulations clarify that when assessing 

language proficiency, if a student’s disability 

precludes them from accessing an assessment 

in one domain (listening, speaking, reading 

OSEP is also currently funding model 

demonstration projects to address 

the needs of ELs with disabilities

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 23
and writing) educators must assess students’ 

language proficiency using the other domains.51

Additionally, when making determinations for 

participation on the Alternate Assessment aligned 

with Alternate Achievement Standards, decisions 

cannot be made based on the student’s disability 

or EL status.52 Finally, any educators who work 

with students with disabilities, including teachers 

of ELs, must receive training on administering 

assessments and the use of accommodations.53

To better understand assessment policies 

and practices for students with disabilities, 

ELs, and ELs with disabilities, the Office of 

Special Education Programs funds the National 

Center on Education Outcomes (NCEO) at the 

University of Minnesota.54 NCEO collects and 

analyzes data on assessments, accommodations, 

and accountabilities, and they disseminate 

information on evidence-based practices to assist 

states and districts in implementing inclusive 

assessment systems.

Office for Civil Rights and 

Department of Justice

In addition to OSEP monitoring compliance with 

IDEA, OCR at ED and the Civil Rights Division 

of the DOJ have the authority to investigate 

complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunity 

Act to ensure ELs have equal opportunity to 

education.55 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

also provides protections to parents. Schools 

have a legal duty to ensure both parents and 

students are able to access programs, services, 

and information in their primary language. Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 196456 prohibits federally 

assisted programs to deny the benefits for or 

subject individuals to discrimination on the basis 

of national origin, color, or race. Discrimination 

based on language is considered discrimination 

based on national origin.57 Therefore, parents 

cannot be discriminated against because their 

native language is not English.

In 2010, DOJ and OCR entered into a 

settlement with Boston Public Schools after an 

investigation found the district was not providing 

appropriate services for ELs. The original 

settlement included a stipulation ensuring 

that EL students who are also students with 

disabilities are appropriately referred, evaluated, 

and served for both language services and 

special education services.58 In another case, in 

January 2015, OCR completed an investigation 

of Jersey City Public schools, finding 

noncompliance with Title VI. In the resolution 

letter, OCR noted, in particular, “school districts 

may not maintain ‘no dual services’ policies 

or practices for EL students with disabilities. 

If an EL student with disabilities needs both 

alternative language services and special 

education services, the student should be given 

both types of services.”59

24 National Council on Disability
Chapter 3: Supports from Other Agencies

Protection and Advocacy Agencies

Protection and Advocacy agencies (P&As),60

authorized through various federal statutes, 

not including IDEA,61 are intended to provide 

legal representation and advocacy services for 

people with disabilities. The agencies represent 

and advocate for people with disabilities 

across a variety of areas, including health care, 

housing, employment, and education. They are 

intended to provide legal support and advocacy 

for unserved and underserved populations, 

including individuals from low-income families 

and monolingual non-English-speaking families. 

In education, some of the support many involve 

requesting information from the school, filing 

state complaints, filing federal complaints, and 

litigation. In speaking with representatives from 

P&As, many of their concerns for ELs and lowincome families involved ensuring parents have 

information in a language they can understand 

and ensuring students are protected from 

inappropriate disciplinary measures, including 

seclusion and restraint.

Independent Living

Authorized under Title VII of the Rehabilitation 

Act, Centers for Independent Living are 

intended to provide services to promote 

independent living among people with 

disabilities. Importantly, they are consumercontrolled organizations and, among other 

supports, provide self-advocacy training and 

peer mentoring. In 2014, Congress reauthorized 

the program through the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act .62 In the reauthorization, 

Congress added a focus on youth transition to 

the core services of the program for individuals 

with significant disabilities.63

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 25
26 National Council on Disability
Chapter 4: Challenges in Addressing Needs of English 

Learners and Students from Low-Income Families

Stakeholders identified several challenges 

in effectively meeting the needs of 

ELs with disabilities and students with 

disabilities from low-income families. Importantly, 

stakeholders noted that these populations are 

overlapping. One local administrator stated it is 

“hard to separate” the two because many of the 

students are the same. For instance, according 

to an administrator in 

California, 70 percent 

of their students with 

disabilities are also 

identified in one or 

more of the following 

subgroups: students in 

poverty, ELs, or students 

in foster care. With this 

overlap, students and 

families across the different subgroups face 

many common challenges.

In this section, we describe the common 

challenges related to expectations, 

disproportionality, service coordination, and 

family engagement and then highlight some 

specific challenges for ELs.

Expectations

Educators and policymakers alike have 

acknowledged the importance of having high 

expectations for students with disabilities, 

however stakeholders identified low expectations 

as a problem plaguing ELs with disabilities 

and students with disabilities from low-income 

families. One local administrator discussed the 

challenges around the mind-set, stating, “We 

have a problem of lowered expectations if you 

belong to one or more of these subgroups. How 

we can move the mindset piece so that teachers 

in front of students 

believe that they can 

achieve?”64 Another state 

administrator recognized 

the need to support 

cultural competency to 

address the “implicit bias 

of educators towards 

students who are poor 

and students of color.” 

The administrator continued to acknowledge that 

“changing attitudes and practices is a daunting 

task.”65

Disproportionality in Identification 

and Placement

Previous researchers have acknowledged 

a “paradox” related to special education 

identification.66 Identification for special 

education can provide students with access to 

interventions, accommodations, and rights under 

the law. Simultaneously, though, identification 

[A]ccording to an administrator in 

California, 70 percent of their students 

with disabilities are also identified 

in one or more of the following 

subgroups: students in poverty, ELs, 

or students in foster care

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 27
can result in segregation from general education, 

lower expectations, and stigmatization.67 Given 

this paradox, policymakers have tried to ensure 

students are identified for special education 

appropriately. After years 

of research documenting 

disproportionality for 

students of color in 

special education,68 IDEA 

2004 included provisions 

requiring that states 

address significant disproportionality by race and 

ethnicity for identification and placement.69

Policies to address disproportionality in 

identification and placement for students 

with disabilities are limited to focus on 

disproportionality by race and ethnicity. 

However, previous research has acknowledged 

concerns with both underidentification and 

overidentification of ELs,70 and research from 

Massachusetts identified concerns with 

overidentification of students from low-income 

families in special education.71 One special 

education director mentioned that, in her district, 

ELs “who need interventions get sent to special 

education.”72

The IDEA statute and regulations include 

important provisions on evaluation to help ensure 

students are appropriately identified for special 

education services. The local school district 

must use a “variety of assessment tools and 

strategies,” evaluation materials should not be 

“discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis,” 

and assessments are “administered in the 

language and form most likely to yield accurate 

information.”73 Of importance, the statute 

includes an exclusionary clause prohibiting 

determination of eligibility if the determining 

factor is “lack of appropriate instruction in 

reading,” “lack of appropriate instruction in 

math,” or “limited English proficiency.”74 The 

statutory definition of specific learning disability 

also excludes learning issues primarily related 

to “environment, 

cultural, or economic 

disadvantage.”75

Despite these 

statutory provisions, 

stakeholders 

identified challenges 

in differentiating language needs, impacts 

of poverty, and disability needs. One local 

administrator noted, “There is a challenge 

understanding language need versus disability 

need. With the overall pervasiveness of testing, 

schools don’t have the time to wait for language 

to occur.”76 In examining the exclusionary clause 

as it relates to economic disadvantage, Dr. James 

Ryan has argued that given the impacts of 

poverty on the brain, trying to force differentiating 

between disability and economic disadvantage is 

problematic when students need the additional 

services and supports.77

Researchers have also noted that referral 

procedures for ELs vary from district to district.78

One special education director 

mentioned that, in her district, ELs 

“who need interventions get sent to 

special education.

Special Education Paradox

Identification for special education 

can provide students with access to 

interventions, accommodations, and rights 

under the law. Simultaneously, though, 

identification can result in segregation from 

general education, lower expectations, and 

stigmatization

28 National Council on Disability
Some districts apply the same referral policies 

regardless of EL status, while others include 

additional policies to guide the evaluation 

process. Even with the statute suggesting that 

children should be evaluated in an appropriate 

language, one parent noted her school only 

evaluates students in 

the English language 

regardless of the child’s 

language proficiency. In 

her school, if the child is 

not proficient in English, 

he or she could not be 

evaluated effectively 

for special education.79

A representative from a P&A also raised this 

challenge, describing a deaf student who had 

grown up reading his mother’s lips. Despite 

this, the district refused to evaluate him in his 

family’s native language claiming that he had 

“no dominant language.” She added that some 

districts in her state are 

requiring students to 

have lived in the state 

for a specified amount of 

time before permitting 

referrals to special 

education.80

To address these 

challenges, researchers 

and practitioners have 

focused on developing culturally responsive 

evaluation practices81 and ensuring that MTSS 

appropriately include all students.82 One 

representative for the state chiefs highlighted 

this work, noting he is “encouraged by more 

conversation occurring around [supports for ELs 

with disabilities]. I hear about it everywhere—

organizations, funded centers, more good 

conversations and supports that are now 

happening or are in the works.”83 Yet, a state 

administrator still has concerns, noting that 

disproportionality for these populations is an 

issue “we need to address,” and “teachers need 

professional development on what to do.”84

Disproportionality is 

not exclusively related to 

issues of identification, 

but also placement in 

substantially separate 

settings and discipline. 

One stakeholder noted 

that some of the youth 

they work with who had 

been in substantially separate placements say 

they “survived special education” or they were 

a “victim of special education.” She added that 

part of the problem is that the law “perpetuates 

segregation” and “the next reauthorization of 

IDEA [should address the] embedded separation 

between general 

education and special 

education.”85

Dr. Thomas Hehir 

raised concerns about 

the overrepresentation 

of low-income students 

in substantially separate 

placements: “Some 

of the things we 

know about low-income students is that they 

are more apt to be segregated than non-lowincome students, and those placements are 

associated with poorer outcomes.” He also 

noted that parents with fewer financial resources 

are considerably less likely to exercise their 

due process rights under the law should they 

disagree with a placement decision, and when 

[G]iven the impacts of poverty 

on the brain, trying to force 

differentiating between disability 

and economic disadvantage is 

problematic when students need the 

additional services and supports

“Some of the things we know about 

low-income students is that they 

are more apt to be segregated than 

non-low-income students, and those 

placements are associated with 

poorer outcomes.

—Dr. Thomas Hehi

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 29
they do, exercising their rights are not as effective 

without representation. He added, “Even if a few 

students can get access it has impact on school 

districts. We need representation for low-income 

students on issues of placement. P&As could be 

funded to represent low-income parents seeking 

more inclusive placements.”86 One parent also 

acknowledged barriers to families with fewer 

means in accessing their rights under IDEA, 

noting, “The game is set up to benefit people 

who have more.”87 Another parent stated, “I’m 

real big on seeing there being two special eds—

one special ed system for students who have 

money, and one for those who do not. A family 

who earns below the poverty income cannot 

possibly challenge a district program, considering 

the cost of the assessment and preparing for 

the hearing, and therefore they do not have due 

process rights.”88

In fact, representation is not limited to 

families with incomes above the poverty line. 

There are a number of special education attorney 

practitioners who represent families using 

the fee-shifting provisions of the IDEA.89 Any 

civil rights fee-shifting provision is designed to 

encourage litigants to protect their civil rights. 

The courts have long recognized “. . . its more 

specific purpose was to enable potential plaintiffs 

to obtain assistance of competent counsel in 

vindicating their rights.”90 There is training for 

attorneys who desire to represent families using 

the fee-shifting provisions.91

A few states and districts have tried to 

address issues related to disproportionality 

among ELs or students from low-income families. 

For instance in 2016, California passed legislation 

requiring the state’s Department of Education 

develop a manual “on identifying, assessing, 

supporting, and reclassifying ELs who may 

qualify for special education services and pupils 

with disabilities who may be classified as ELs.”92

The manual was due to the California legislature 

on June 30, 2017.

To address disproportionality among students 

from low-income families, the Massachusetts 

Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education started the Low-Income Education 

Access Project.93 Through the program, the 

state is working collaboratively with local school 

districts to assess and address disproportionality 

among low-income students. The state supports 

more tailored professional development for 

districts that, based on their data, demonstrate 

higher rates of disproportionality for low-income 

students in identification and placement and may 

require districts to use some of their allowable 

30 National Council on Disability
15 percent of IDEA funds for coordinated early 

intervening services for this purpose.94 They also 

offer universal professional development through 

online support and a train-the-trainers model to 

consider the impacts of poverty on learning. A 

key goal of the program, according to one state 

administrator, is to “make the general education 

settings more accommodating and supportive 

of the student . . . to make sure we don’t 

misidentify students as 

having disabilities” and to 

“think about the student 

as a whole, including 

their families” to address 

any barriers to learning.95

The state is currently in 

its first years of implementation and is collecting 

data to examine the program’s results in 

improving opportunities for low-income students.

Family Engagement and Education

Several stakeholders noted concerns about 

schools being able to effectively engage 

families of ELs and low-income families. 

A local administrator 

commented, “We need 

additional supports for 

schools and more training 

at the school level on 

how to appropriately 

engage families. This is a 

huge thing.”96

Language, and in particular the language of 

special education, can represent a significant 

barrier to family engagement. One parent 

described her experience with her son and his 

school, “We just believe everything that they 

[the educators] say,” adding “for somebody that 

comes from a different country . . . 15 years 

ago, 16 years ago, it was quite difficult to even 

understand what is intellectual disability.”97

Another parent described understanding and 

engaging with IDEA is “twice as difficult” for 

non-English-speaking parents because of the 

barrier to getting information in a language 

parents understand.98

A PTI director noted challenges that nonEnglish-speaking families face: “Monolingual 

families have the challenge of not knowing the 

law, and school districts 

don’t take the time. 

Nobody is explaining 

what IDEA means—

mostly not getting 

relevant documents 

translated.” She added 

that many parents “are learning English and 

getting by in their jobs but the special education 

language is different with the terms, acronyms. 

Their English is not at that level yet.”99 Several 

advocates representing non-English-speaking 

families also noted that even if an interpreter is 

present, the “parent receives the interpretation 

from the school secretary.” The interpreter may 

not understand the IDEA 

jargon and therefore 

cannot effectively relay 

the information to 

parents.100

Representatives 

from P&As added that 

even though there are some requirements 

that information be translated for parents, the 

implementation of these provisions is ineffective 

and variable. For instance, they noted instances 

where entire IEPs were not translated but merely 

the headers, translations of documentations 

were only in audio format, and documents 

related to evaluations were not translated at all. 

One attorney noted, even in a school district 

Language, and in particular the 

language of special education, can 

represent a significant barrier to 

family engagement

The interpreter may not understand 

the IDEA jargon and therefore 

cannot effectively relay the 

information to parents

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 31
where 80 percent of the population speaks 

Spanish and all the IEP meetings are held in 

Spanish, the documents are all still in English. 

In most instances, they noted that if the P&A 

attorneys request a translation, the schools 

generally provide the translation on an individual 

basis, but it does not change the school or district 

policies and procedures.101 As noted above, Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides critical 

protections to monolingual non-English-speaking 

families, including a legal duty to ensure both 

parents are provided information in their primary 

language.

Understood.org, launched in 2014, has relied 

on technology as a mechanism for engaging, 

educating, and supporting parents of students 

with learning and attention issues, and in 

particular, EL parents and parents from lowincome families.102 The site uses a personalization 

algorithm to help direct parents to content on 

understanding learning disabilities and attention 

issues, their rights under the law, and best 

practices for supporting children. To make the 

content accessible, all pieces are available in 

read-aloud mode, are translated into Spanish, 

written at or below an eighth-grade reading level, 

and utilize responsive design to enable access on 

a phone, tablet, or computer. Spanish-speaking 

editors and reviewers with knowledge about 

special education work to ensure the translations 

are effective and culturally relevant. The site 

also offers interactive access to experts through 

webinars and live chats, including sessions 

offered in Spanish.

Managing Director, Kevin Hager, noted that 

the site draws over 2 million unique visitors a 

month, and since inception, has had more than 

35 million unique visitors.103 Hager acknowledged 

the additional commitment to reaching the 

portion of parents who are “not plugged in . . . 

[they] don’t have email addresses . . . or tend to 

be really busy with everything they have going 

on.” To better reach those families, they are 

building partnerships with teachers, pediatricians, 

libraries, and afterschool programs. He also 

added that even though they are trying to target 

these specific populations, “the pain points” 

for parents across different backgrounds have 

been similar. Specifically, parents want “access 

to helpful content . . . simplicity of information 

and trustworthiness.” As for particular content, 

they find parents frequently want support 

around transition, “going from learning to read to 

reading to learn, transition to middle school, and 

transition to high school.”104

32 National Council on Disability
Service Coordination

Several stakeholders identified challenges both 

in the need for and coordination of services 

to support ELs and students from low-income 

families. They spoke of the need to address 

supports for the “whole child,” whether that 

student needs special education services, 

language services, Title I services, mental health 

services, or other supports. A representative for 

state chiefs recognized 

the “huge issue” 

to consider all “that 

kids bring with them 

to school every day,” 

adding that we need 

to continue to support 

both the academic and 

nonacademic needs 

of students.105 One 

state administrator said that, at the state level, 

they need to continue to identify “how we are 

wrapping [supports] around the whole child.”106

A parent noted, “Wrap-around107 in public school 

works. But you have to go to those school 

districts that already have a good reputation that 

are open to [wrap-around] systems.”108

When providing language-based services and 

special education services, in practice, there may 

be an assumption that students cannot receive 

special education services at the same time 

as language-based services. One stakeholder 

described this problem as “you are either one 

or the other.”109 Another parent described her 

experiences in trying to get access to both EL 

and special education services, noting that the 

school views the language-based services as 

general education. She stated students receiving 

language-based services in general education 

“receive constant support . . . in their electives and 

main content.” Yet, her son is getting “close to no 

[EL] services” because of his eligibility for special 

education.110 A P&A representative acknowledges 

she sees districts saying students in special 

education do not need the language services 

because “they have a small student-teacher ratio” 

in special education.111

Despite this occurrence in practice, ED has 

declared that districts should not have a policy that 

prohibits students from 

receiving language-based 

supports and special 

education supports 

concurrently.112 According 

to Dr. Martha Thurlow, 

Director of the National 

Center for Education 

Outcomes, “In a wellfunctioning system 

with high expectations, 

students are receiving EL supports and disability 

supports simultaneously, and content teachers 

need to be familiar with both [supports].” In 

reflecting on the disconnect between language 

services and special education services, Dr. 

Thurlow raised the different educational 

approaches of the fields—special educators tend 

to think about “accommodations and accessibility,” 

whereas English language educators tend to think 

of “instructional approaches,” including vocabulary 

challenges and grammar corrections.113

Silos are also present at the administrative 

level. One state administrator pointed out, “We 

have the responsibility for the child with disability. 

We are left as payor of last resort, but there is no 

forced cling together with the other agencies. We 

only have a sliver of the conversation, and not all 

the money. How do we better coordinate with 

Title I, EL, foster care, mental health services?” 

[S]pecial educators tend to think 

about “accommodations and 

accessibility,” whereas English 

language educators tend to think 

of “instructional approaches,” 

including vocabulary challenges and 

grammar corrections

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 33
The administrator acknowledged that to get 

buy-in from the other agencies to collaborate, 

it is helpful to talk about the overlapping needs 

of these students: “[When] using the message 

that these are the same kids, we have gotten a lot 

more traction.” This administrator also spoke for the 

need for additional “clarity 

on Medicaid and IDEA 

and how to use those 

resources in concert” 

to effectively support 

children.114

Kansas has worked 

to address issues of 

service coordination at the state level. They 

have developed an integrated accountability 

system where they take the requirements 

from the different programs and plans under 

the ESEA and IDEA and merge them for 

administration. They then focus on using 

their data to drive decisions about where to 

provide on-site services. According to a state 

administrator, the focus is to have “professional 

learning to meet student’s needs” rather than 

the needs of segmented programs. They try 

to support more “integrated opportunities” 

to ensure “evidence-based practices can 

get to more students.” In a different state, 

an administrator spoke about the promise 

of ESSA to help support coordination work 

with consolidated planning, reporting, and 

funding opportunities, he hoped that IDEA 

might eventually be included in consolidated 

planning to help the state “plan in a deep 

comprehensive way.”115

Specific Challenges for English 

Learners

Beyond the challenges shared by both 

populations of students, ELs also face some 

unique challenges related to identification and 

exit from language-based services. Officials from 

ED acknowledged “[i]dentification and exiting. 

[There is] not much in either law that talks about 

identifying [and exiting] students.” They added 

that more research and more direction could be 

helpful to educators.116

As noted earlier, 

district policies vary 

as related to special 

education identification 

for ELs.117 It is also 

important to note 

that state and district 

policies vary as it relates to identification and 

exit for language services.118 Typically, the 

entry process begins with a home language 

survey where parents indicate the primary 

languages spoken at home to help determine 

which students may potentially need services. 

Following this survey, students are assessed 

on their English language proficiency across 

four domains—speaking, listening, reading, and 

writing.119 While most stakeholders identified the 

challenge of determining if ELs should qualify 

for special education services, Dr. Thurlow 

raised the challenge of, and lack of research for, 

appropriately identifying those students with 

disabilities, in particular, with the most significant 

disabilities, for language-based services.120

In addition to the challenges related to entry 

for language services, the appropriate exit of 

students with disabilities from language services 

has proven difficult. To exit students from 

language-based services, districts are required 

to assess students on their English language 

proficiency across the four domains—speaking, 

listening, reading, and writing—to determine 

if the child has achieved proficiency and can 

exit.121 Given the varying needs of students 

In addition to the challenges related 

to entry for language services, the 

appropriate exit of students with 

disabilities from language services 

has proven difficult

34 National Council on Disability
with disabilities, states and districts must 

ensure that the English language proficiency 

assessment effectively considers accessibility 

and accommodations in their design.

In an NCEO survey on exiting students 

from language-based services, over half of 

the states noted that they did not provide any 

additional criteria for districts in exiting students 

with disabilities from EL services.122 Five 

states indicated they applied different criteria 

for exit for students with disabilities. Three 

of those states included the IEP team in the 

exit determination, and two applied different 

cut scores for students with disabilities.123

The report recommends that states adopt 

policies on exiting students with disabilities 

from language-based services that “[c]onsider 

using multiple measures of exit readiness” and 

“[c]onsider using a team approach to decision 

making that includes both IEP and EL team 

members.” Importantly, states should not 

lessen the rigor of the exit criteria, but rather 

use multiple measures to develop comparable 

expectations for exit.

For students with the most significant 

disabilities, states should develop high-quality 

alternate academic achievement standards 

for English language proficiency and aligned 

alternate assessments to more accurately assess 

language proficiency for these students. An 

NCEO brief from 2014 found the percentage of 

ELs with significant cognitive disabilities ranged 

across surveyed states from 3 percent of all 

students with significant cognitive disabilities to 

36 percent.124 Yet, only one third of those states 

reported assessing these students on alternate 

assessments. Dr. Thurlow raised the question, 

“Should there be different criteria for exiting 

students from language services if they are an EL 

with a [most significant] disability?”125 Additional 

research about ELs with the significant cognitive 

disabilities and their exit can help guide states 

as they consider appropriate policies for these 

students.

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 35
36 National Council on Disability
Among the findings about students 

with disabilities who are also ELs and 

students with disabilities from lowincome families, we found the following:

■ Expectations: Too often, educators have 

lower expectations for students with 

disabilities who are also ELs and students 

with disabilities from low-income families.

■ Disproportionality: ELs with disabilities 

are both over- and underrepresented in 

special education, and students with 

disabilities from low-income families are 

disproportionately identified for special 

education. Additionally, both populations of 

students are disproportionately placed in 

substantially separate classrooms.

■ Family engagement and family 

education: Stakeholders identified 

challenges effectively engaging families. In 

particular, they acknowledged challenges 

effectively educating and supporting 

parents in understanding the language of 

special education and their rights under 

the law.

■ Service coordination: Schools, districts, 

and states face challenges in effectively 

coordinating services and supports for 

ELs and students from low-income families 

who are also eligible for special education 

services.

■ Identification and exit for language-based 

services: Educators, districts, and states 

face challenges in developing effective 

policies for determining entry and exit 

for language-based services for ELs with 

disabilities.

Chapter 5: Findings

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 37
38 National Council on Disability
Chapter 6: Recommendations to Congress, the 

Department of Education, and State Policymakers

I

n order to better support ELs and students 

from low-income families who are eligible for 

special education services, Congress, ED, and 

state policymakers should consider the following 

recommendations.

To address findings about disproportionality, Congress, ED, and states should:

1. Require reporting of IDEA data on eligibility, placement, and discipline by economic 

disadvantage. As one state administrator noted, “The federal government has to 

shine the light and provide the information to the public.”126 To provide transparency 

on how students from low-income families are being served under the law, Congress 

should require the disaggregation of data by income status, in addition to the current 

requirements by race/ethnicity, gender, and EL status.127

2. Encourage states to examine their eligibility, placement, and discipline data to support 

and intervene with districts where potential inappropriate identification, placement, 

and discipline occur. Any efforts to address disproportionality should ensure states and 

districts continue to abide by the Child Find provisions of the law to not delay evaluation 

based on their efforts.128

3. Support professional development to improve access and interventions in general 

education classrooms. In particular, professional development for all teachers, in particular 

general education teachers, on Universal Design for Learning, MTSS, and building cultural 

competency can help make classrooms more accommodating for diverse learners.

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 39
To address findings about family engagement, Congress, ED, and states should:

4. Support parental training and advocacy. When parents are better informed about their 

rights and options under the law, they can better partner with schools to ensure their 

children’s needs are being met. In particular, Congress should increase support and 

funding to support innovative parent outreach through technology. Additionally, ED 

should consider funding a national center focused on supporting low-income families and 

monolingual, non-English families.

5. To the maximum extent possible, ensure all documents and meetings are provided in a 

language that parents can understand. Parents need to be informed about their child’s 

education. When districts have a reasonable population of families speaking a language 

other than English, all special education information should be provided in that language 

as a universal district policy.

To address findings about service integration, Congress, ED, and states should:

6. Ensure that, for eligible students, districts offer language-based services simultaneously 

with special education services.

7. Incentivize service integration and collaborative planning at the state level. Planning and 

administration at the state level should consider how to best wrap services around the 

child and promote collaboration to model that approach rather than maintain segmented 

program structures.

8. Provide TA and training on the use of Medicaid, other health supports, including mental 

health supports, along with special education services to most effectively support the 

child’s comprehensive needs.

To better support English learners with disabilities, Congress, ED, and states 

specifically should:

9. Consider establishing additional research-based policies to address referral, evaluation, 

and eligibility determinations for English learners for special education services.

10. Support additional research to examine best practices and policies related to entrance and exit 

from language-based services for students with disabilities, as well as research to examine 

the best practices and policies for accommodations for English learners with disabilities.

40 National Council on Disability
Endnotes

1 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400.

2 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 20 U.S.C. § 6301.

3 ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6801.

4 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

accessed October 16, 2017, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

5 Phyllis Levine, Camille Marder, and Mary Wagner, Services and Supports for Secondary School Students 

with Disabilities. A Special Topic Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)

(Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2004), https://nlts2.sri.com/reports/2004_05/nlts2_report_2004_05_

complete.pdf

6 Ibid; M. Beatriz Arias and Milagros Morillo-Campbell, Promoting ELL Parental Involvement: Challenges in 

Contested Times (Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, 2008), accessed October 16, 2017, 

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/nepc-pb-ell-parents.pdf.

7 There is no demographic information from the 23 email responses.

8 U.S. Department of Education, 38th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, 2016, accessed October 16, 2017, https://ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.

html.

9 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “Common Core of Data,” accessed October 16, 2017, 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.

10 Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, “Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC),” accessed October 

16, 2017, http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Home.

11 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). National Assessment of Educational Progress, accessed 

October 16, 2017, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

12 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3).

13 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A).

14 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5).

15 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1418(a)(1).

16 Grace Kena, William Hussar, Joel McFarland, Cristobal de Brey, Lauren Musu-Gillette, Xiaolei Wang, 

Jijun Zhang, et al., The Condition of Education 2016. NCES 2016-144 (National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education, 2016), accessed October 16, 2017, https://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2016/2016144.pdf.

17 Ibid.

18 U.S. Department of Education, “IDEA Section 618 Data Products: Static Tables,” accessed October 16, 2017, 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html.

19 Recent stories have highlighted concerns about Texas’s process for determining eligibility for special education 

and have highlighted particular state challenges facing English learner students. For more information, see 

Brian M. Rosenthal, “Denied: Texas Schools Shut Non-English Speakers out of Special Ed,” The Houston 

Chronicle, accessed October 16, 2017, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/denied/4/.

20 Stephen Lipscomb, Joshua Haimson, Albert Y. Liu, John Burghardt, David R. Johnson, and Martha L. Thurlow, 

Preparing for Life After High School: The Characteristics and Experiences of Youth in Special Education. 

Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 2: Comparisons across Disability 

Groups: Full Report (NCEE 2017-4018) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2017).

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 41
21 U.S. Department of Education, 38th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, 2016, accessed October 16, 2017, https://ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html.

22 Ibid.

23 NCES, NAEP.

24 Office of Civil Rights, CRDC 2011-2012.

25 NCES, The Condition of Education.

26 U.S. Department of Education, “Low Income Students: 2013–2014.” Ed Data Express, accessed October 16, 

2017, https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm/tab/data/deid/3/.

27 Ibid.

28 Daniel J. Losen and Gary Orfield, eds., Racial Inequity in Special Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

Education Publishing Group, 2002); John L. Hosp and Daniel J. Reschly, “Disproportionate Representation 

of Minority Students in Special Education: Academic, Demographic, and Economic Predictors,” Exceptional 

Children 70, no. 2 (2004): 185–199; Russell J. Skiba, Lori Poloni-Staudinger, Ada B. Simmons, L. Renae 

Feggins-Azziz, and Choong-Geun Chung, “Unproven Links Can Poverty Explain Ethnic Disproportionality in 

Special Education?” The Journal of Special Education 39, no. 3 (2005): 130–144.

29 Thomas Hehir, Laura Schifter, Todd Grindal, Monica Ng, and Hadas Eidelman, Review of Special Education in 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report, 2014, accessed October 16, 2017, http://www.

doe.mass.edu/sped/hehir/2014-09synthesis.pdf; Aydin Bal, Amanda L. Sullivan, and John Harper, “A Situated 

Analysis of Special Education Disproportionality for Systemic Transformation in an Urban School District,” 

Remedial and Special Education: RASE 35, no. 1 (2014): 3–14.

30 Lipscomb et al., Preparing for Life after High School.

31 Ibid.

32 Hehir et al., Review of Special Education.

33 Hosp and Reschly, “Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students”; Paul L. Morgan, George 

Farkas, Marianne M. Hillemeier, Richard Mattison, Steve Maczuga, Hui Li, and Michael Cook, “Minorities 

Are Disproportionately Underrepresented in Special Education,” Educational Researcher (June 1, 2015), 

doi:10.3102/0013189X15591157; M. Suzanne Donovan and Christopher T. Cross, Minority Students in Gifted 

and Special Education (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002).

34 Ibid.

35 Laura A. Schifter, “Using Survival Analysis to Understand Graduation of Students with Disabilities,” 

Exceptional Children 82, no. 4 (2015): 479–496, doi:10.1177/0014402915619418.

36 NCES, “NAEP.”

37 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1472.

38 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1471.

39 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1472(a)(1).

40 U.S. Department of Education, Special Education: Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request, 2016, accessed October 

16, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/justifications/h-specialed.pdf.

41 Interview with PTI Director, April 2017.

42 Dr. Thomas Hehir (Professor of Practice, Harvard University) in discussion with the author, March 2017.

43 Interview with PTI Director, April 2017.

44 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, “Dear Colleague Letter: English Learner 

Students and Limited English Proficient Parents,” 2015, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf.

45 U.S. Department of Education, “English Learner Toolkit for State and Local Educational Agencies (SEAs and 

LEAs),” 2016, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/

chap6.pdf.

46 U.S. Department of Education, “Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Literacy Outcomes for English Learners 

42 National Council on Disability
with Disabilities in Grades Three through Five or Three through Six,” Federal Register 81, no. 44 (2015): 

11770–11778, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/07/2016-05026/

applications-for-new-awards-technical-assistance-and-dissemination-to-improve-services-and-results.

47 U.S. Department of Education, “Questions and Answers Regarding Inclusion of English Learners with 

Disabilities in English Language Proficiency Assessments and Title III Annual Measurable Objectives,” 2014, 

accessed October 16, 2017, https://ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/q-and-a-on-elp-swd.pdf.

48 ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6841(a)(2).

49 U.S. Department of Education, “Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),” 2016, 

accessed October 16, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.

pdf.

50 ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(c).

51 ESEA, 34 CFR § 200.6(h)(4)(ii).

52 ESEA, 34 CFR § 200.6(d)(1)(i)).

53 ESEA, 34 CFR § 200.6(b)(2)(ii).

54 National Center for Education Outcomes, accessed October 16, 2017, https://nceo.info/.

55 The DOJ can also issue briefs in lawsuits. For instance, they issued a brief in lawsuit filed by the Education 

Law Center-PA against the Philadelphia School District relating to the district’s failure to provide interpreters 

and translations for parents of children with disabilities with limited English proficiency. Education Law 

Center, “Important Victory for Parents with Limited English Proficiency and their Children with Disabilities, as 

Lawsuits against the School District of Philadelphia Moves Forward,” 2016, accessed October 16, 2017, http://

www.elc-pa.org/2016/12/02/important-victory-for-parents-with-limited-english-proficiency-and-their-childrenwith-disabilities-as-lawsuit-against-the-school-district-of-philadelphia-moves-forward/.

56 42 U.S.C. §2000(d).

57 Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563, 568, 94 S. Ct. 786, 789, 39 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1974.

58 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, “Settlement Agreement between the United 

States of American and the Boston Public Schools,” 2010, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www.justice.

gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/03/28/bostonsettle.pdf.

59 U.S. Department of Education, Resolution between the Office for Civil Rights and Jersey City Public 

Schools, Case No. 02-13-5002, 2015, accessed October 16, 2017, https://ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/

investigations/02135002-a.pdf.

60 National Disability Rights Network, “P&A/CAP Network,” accessed October 16, 2017, http://www.ndrn.org/en/

about/paacap-network.html.

61 Including the Developmental Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

62 The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701.

63 The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(17).

64 Interview with local administrator, January 2017.

65 Interview with state administrator, March 2017.

66 Donovan and Cross, Minority Students in Gifted and Special Education; Beth Harry and Janette Klingner, Why 

Are So Many Minority Students in Special Education?, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2014).

67 Alfredo J. Artiles, Elizabeth B. Kozleski, Stanley C. Trent, David Osher, and Alba Ortiz, “Justifying and 

Explaining Disproportionality, 1968–2008: A Critique of Underlying Views of Culture,” Exceptional Children

76, no. 3 (2010): 279–299; Donovan and Cross, Minority Students in Gifted and Special Education; Harry and 

Klingner, Why Are So Many Minority Students in Special Education?; Losen and Orfield, Racial Inequity in 

Special Education; Russell J. Skiba, Ada B. Simmons, Shana Ritter, Ashley C. Gibb, M. Karega Rausch, Jason 

Cuadrado, and Choong-Geun Chung, “Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current 

Challenges,” Exceptional Children 74, no. 3 (2008): 264–288.

68 Ibid.

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 43
69 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1418(d).

70 Amanda L. Sullivan, “Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of English Language 

Learners,” Exceptional Children 77, no. 3 (2011): 317–334.

71 Hehir et al., Review of Special Education.

72 Interview with local administrator. December 2016.

73 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b).

74 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(5).

75 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(30). NOTE: The regulations reworded to separate out “cultural factors,” separate from 

“environmental or economic disadvantage.”

76 Interview with local administrator, January 2017.

77 James E. Ryan, “Poverty as Disability and the Future of Special Education Law,” Georgetown Law Journal 101 

(2012), accessed October 16, 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152557

78 Courtney Tanenbaum, Andrea Boyle, Kay Soga, et al., National Evaluation of Title III Implementation—Report 

on State and Local Implementation, Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, 2012; Elizabeth Burr, Eric 

Haas, and Karen Ferriere, Identifying and Supporting English Learner Students with Learning Disabilities: Key 

Issues in the Literature and State Practice, Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, 2015.

79 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

80 Interview with P&A representative, December 2016.

81 Alba A. Ortiz and Alfredo J. Artiles, “Meeting the Needs of ELLs with Disabilities: A Linguistically and 

Culturally Responsive Model,” in Best Practices in ELL Instruction, ed. Guofang Li and Patricia A. Edwards 

(New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2010), 247–272; Samuel O. Ortiz, Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally 

and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Systematic, Practical Approach for Nondiscriminatory Assessment

(Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists, 2004).

82 Alba A. Ortiz, Phyllis M. Robertson, Cheryl Y. Wilkinson, Yi-Juin Liu, Belinda D. McGhee, and Millicent I. 

Kushner, “The Role of Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special 

Education: Implications for Response to Intervention,” Bilingual Research Journal 34, no. 3 (2011): 316–333; 

Yaoying Xu and Elizabeth Drame, “Culturally Appropriate Context: Unlocking the Potential of Response to 

Intervention for English Language Learners,” Early Childhood Education Journal 35, no. 4 (2007): 305–311; 

Julie Esparza Brown and Jennifer Doolittle, “A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response 

to Intervention With English Language Learners,” Teaching Exceptional Children 40, no. 5 (2008): 66–72, 

accessed October 16, 2017, http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/edu_fac/79/.

83 Interview, December 2016.

84 Interview with state administrator, December 2016.

85 Interview, April 2017.

86 Hehir, discussion, March 2017.

87 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

88 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

89 20 U.S.C. §1415(i).

90 Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991).

91 See COPAA Conference 2016 and 2017 training materials: Andrew Cuddy and Michael O’Connor, “Making 

Your Practice Thrive by Serving Low and Moderate Income Families.”

92 California, An act to add Section 56305 to the Education Code, relating to special education, 2016, accessed 

October 16, 2017, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2785.

93 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, “Low-income Education Access Project 

(LEAP),” accessed October 16, 2017, http://www.doe.mass.edu/leap/.

94 IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1418(d).

95 Interview with state administrator, March 2017.

96 Interview with local administrator, January 2017.

44 National Council on Disability
97 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

98 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

99 Interview with PTI Director, April 2017.

100 Interview with P&A representative, December 2016. Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

101 Interview with P&A representative, December 2016.

102 “Understood for Learning and Attention Issues,” accessed October 16, 2017, https://www.understood.org/en; 

“Understood Espanol,” accessed October 16, 2017, https://www.understood.org/es-mx.

103 Users’ demographics mirror census data for race and income status.

104 Kevin Hager (Managing Director, Understood.org), in discussion with the author, April 2017.

105 Interview, December 2016.

106 Interview with state administrator, December 2016.

107 Wrap-around services are services that are planned for and provided in a manner that best considers the 

needs of the student rather than the program.

108 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

109 Interview with P&A representative, December 2016.

110 Parent participant, regional forum/national forum, 2016.

111 Interview with P&A representative, December 2016.

112 U.S. Department of Education, January 30, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, November 2016.

113 Dr. Martha Thurlow (Director, NCEO), interview with author, March 2017.

114 Interview with state administrator, December 2016.

115 Interview with state administrator, December 2016.

116 Interview with officials from U.S. Department of Education, December 2016.

117 Tanenbaum et al., National Evaluation of Title III Implementation; Burr et al., Identifying and Supporting English 

Learner Students.

118 Tanenbaum et al., National Evaluation of Title III Implementation.

119 U.S. Department of Education, “English Learner Toolkit for State and Local Educational Agencies (SEAs and 

LEAs),” 2016, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/

chap1.pdf.

120 Thurlow, discussion with author, March 2017.

121 U.S. Department of Education, “English Learner Toolkit.”

122 Martha L. Thurlow, Vitaliy V. Shyyan, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Laurene L. Christensen, Providing English 

Language Development Services to English Learners with Disabilities: Approaches To Making Exit Decisions 

(NCEO Report 404), (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, 

2016), accessed October 16, 2017, https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOreport404.pdf.

123 Ibid.

124 NCEO, Exploring Alternate ELP Assessments for ELLs with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (NCEO Brief #10)

(Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2014), accessed October 16, 2017, https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/

OnlinePubs/briefs/brief10/NCEOBrief10.pdf.

125 Thurlow, interview, March 2017.

126 Interview with state administrator, March 2017.

127 ESSA requires states have the ability to cross-tabulate data reported under the Title I State Report card by 

student subgroups including race/ethnicity, gender, English proficiency status, and disability status (ESEA, 20 

U.S.C. § 6311(g)(2)(N).)

128 U.S. Department of Education, “Memo on the Use of RTI in the Identification of Specific Learning 

Disabilities,” 2011, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/

osep11-07rtimemo.pdf

English Learners and Students from Low-Income Families 45
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004