Putting students in boxes hinders potential. But, this is more detrimental to a student with disabilities. A recent qualitative study titled “Academic Tracking of English Learners With Disabilities in Middle School” by Sara E. N. Kangas and Megan Cook investigates the academic progress of middle school English Learners with disabilities. This study highlights an underlying issue in middle school education: equating disabilities with inability.
“Despite increased attention to the academic progress of English learners (ELs) with disabilities as a result of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, research has yet to investigate the educational opportunities of these students in secondary grades.”
English Learners (EL) with disabilities within the Pennsylvania Ashby School District are typically placed into the lower tack or ‘below grade-level” classes. It is important to note that typically the school district is divided into three levels: above grade level; at grade level; and below grade level. When a student places into a below or lower grade level, they are institutionally classified as “struggling learners”.
To investigate the problematic nature of EL student’s being place in lower-level classes, Sara E. N. Kangas and Megan Cook began the qualitative case study by first selecting the Ashby School District due to the district undergoing policy reform. Then, ten EL students with disabilities were chosen who met the following requirements:
(1) Have an Individualized Education Program (IEP)
(2) Been enrolled in an ELD program for at least 4 years
(3) Have a plateauing or decreasing English language proficiency score over a 3-year period
After, 32 educators were chosen for the study. Fieldwork was then conducted from August 2017 through June 2018, and data analysis was conducted. They conducted observations by shadowing students twice throughout their academic courses.
Each observation consisted of a typical class period, which varied in length between 45 and 52 minutes. Observations occurred from October 2017 through February 2018. In total, they conducted 59 observations.
“The findings illuminate how and why ELs with disabilities experienced limited curricular access through their systematic placement in lower-level academic courses.”
The design of the study was not only meant to highlight problems with restricted curricular access, but also problems with putting students in boxes based on preconceived notions about the abilities of EL students. While I do concede that keeping accurate student records are necessary for determining adequate curricular placement, it is problematic when educators use those institutional records to inform their perceptions about EL students. Regardless if it is unintentional, it leads to problems with reinforcing perceptions of student inabilities.
“Despite reporting improvements in relegating ELs and students with disabilities automatically to the lower tracks, the ELD director believed that the ELs with disabilities were still tracked disadvantageously.”
While the school district is undergoing policy changes regarding such problems, there is still an issue with letting the preconceived notions of a students’ disability lead to the thinking that equates it with (in)ability. They found that contributing to these lower track placements were also a number of interlacing factors: reliance on high-stakes academic assessments, inclusionary classrooms, and perceptions of students’ (in)abilities.
“An overreliance on high-stakes assessment scores drove the initial placement of ELs with disabilities in the lower tracks as evidence of their supposed academic deficiencies.”
What I would like to highlight here is the over-reliance on high stakes assessment, as that reinforces a deficit model of education. The deficit model of education is centered on what the perceived gaps in knowledge are. This is problematic because such deficit gaps in knowledge are based on perceptions of a certain set of students. If an educator bases their perceptions of a student's knowledge gaps on their institutional records, not only could they fall into the trap of placing a student in a box, but also not challenging them. This deficit educational framework aids in reinforcing our preconceived notions of capabilities and disabilities.
What's more, when educators use less productive means for measuring stunted abilities, such as high stakes assessments, they might reinforce their perceptions about a student’s abilities.
“ Their needs were based on their performance on high-stakes academic assessments, creating what the special education director called a ‘‘de facto special ed ESOL class. ‘students’ initial and repeated placements in the lower tracks ignored confounding external factors for their academic performance on the high-stakes academic assessments — abbreviated history of special education support, sparse opportunity for interaction in English, and limited exposure to rigorous content-area instruction.”
While high stakes assessment has its role in education at any level, an over-reliance on it is detrimental to the student. This leads to a process that is cyclical in nature: the student is placed in a lower-level class based on institutional records; educator has preconceived notions about a student’s abilities based on their disabilities; educators rely on high stakes assessments that might lack nuance; perceptions of the student are then reinforced; the student is then continually placed in a lower level curriculum, and the cycle continues.
To really unpack the cyclical issues, Sara E. N. Kangas and Megan Cook posed three research questions:
“1)How are ELs with disabilities tracked in one middle school?
2) What institutional conditions contribute to their tracking?
3)In what ways does deficit thinking play a role in the tracking of ELs with disabilities in one middle school?
Through their study, they discovered that ore lower track placements were made for EL students. Also, and perhaps most importantly, they found that relying heavily on high-stakes assessments as well as faulty perceptions contributed to lower tack placements.
“In Ashby District, the official policy was that academic tracking was defunct in middle school. The district purportedly moved away from its historical practice of academic tracking based on an individual student’s profile (e.g., EL, student with disability, etc.) to a more responsive system of ability grouping, wherein students could move up and down in tracks based on their needs. In fact, the district released a public policy, reporting its detracking efforts as a critical step toward equity”
With this study, revisions of the curricular policies are well-founded and justified. The goal was to address issues with inequitable academic tracks. Quite problematically, some students placed in lower tracks are placed at a disadvantage because these high-stakes assessment scores are being used to evaluate EL students in lower tracks actually reinforced their lower track placements. It is important to note that multiple data points were not weighted equally because of this overreliance on high-stakes assessment.
With the preception of EL students being identified institutionally, their (in)abilities became the focal points. This adds to the cyclical nature of perceptions hindering students' potential. Sara E. N. Kangas and Megan Cook’s study highlights that the difficulties with making changes are with preceptions not with logistics. Of course, there is merit in keeping academic records, however, that should not influence perceptions about a student’s abilities.
Kangas, S. E., & Cook, M. (2020). Academic Tracking of English Learners With Disabilities in Middle School. American Educational Research Journal, Doi: 0002831220915702.
