English Learners with Disabilities Toolkit

English Learners with Disabilities Toolkit

The regulations for the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), include a requirement that states develop an alternate English language proficiency (ELP) assessment for English learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Additionally, ESSA requires, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) affirms, that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, including English learners with significant cognitive disabilities, who cannot take the general content assessment must participate in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) in certain grades. This requirement means that Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams will need to annually make a decision for each English learner with a disability about whether the student should participate in an alternate assessment or a general assessment. This decision will need to be made for both the ELP assessment and in certain grades for the content assessments of reading/language arts, mathematics, and science as well as for any other content assessments the state has.

Purpose of the English Learners with Disabilities Toolkit

The English Learners with Disabilities Toolkit is designed to provide states and IEP teams with tools they can use to better understand their students who are English learners with disabilities and to determine in which state assessment (general or alternate) they should participate and whether accessibility features or accommodations are needed for their participation in any assessment. This toolkit does not address the development of complete IEPs for English learners with disabilities.

The sample formats and approaches in this toolkit can be adapted by states and IEP teams to fit their own contexts—for example, to reflect characteristics of their English learners with disabilities or to align with state participation guidelines for ELP and content assessments.

Overview of the English Learners with Disabilities Toolkit

Decisions about the participation of English learners with disabilities in state assessments (both ELP and content assessments) are among the more difficult decisions that the team makes. This toolkit presents examples and approaches to help states understand their population of English learners with disabilities. It also provides sample formats and ideas that states can share with their districts, including several tools for IEP teams to use when making decisions about participation in assessments and about needed accessibility features and accommodations.

Tool 7: Planning for the Accessibility Needs of an English Learner with a Disability Who Participates in State Alternate Assessments

English learners with significant cognitive disabilities should have access to state alternate content assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) so they can show what they know and can do, just as they must have the same opportunity as other students with significant cognitive disabilities to learn in class. Additionally, English learners with significant cognitive disabilities should have access to the state’s alternate English language proficiency (ELP) assessment to demonstrate English skills in reading, speaking, listening, and writing domains.

For English learners with significant cognitive disabilities to show their content and English language development, the accessibility needs of these English learners must be addressed and documented by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team.[1] To do this, the IEP team of each student must consider both the barriers that may be created by their disability and by their proficiency in the English language. It is best for the team to have input from a collaboration of educators and the family on possible accessibility features, including accommodations. An expert in English language development is an essential member of the team to ensure a student’s language background and language development needs are appropriately considered during IEP development.

Accessibility in the context of assessment is a broad term that includes a variety of accessibility features that support participation in assessments. Many states have implemented a tiered system of accessibility features for state alternate assessments that include universal features available to all students, designated features available to students for whom an adult or team of adults have identified a need, and accommodations available for students with disabilities and English learners with disabilities. The term accessibility feature is used here to describe universal features, designated features, and accommodations. Some states include another level of administration considerations that identify general procedures for optimal participation in an assessment; they are included here as well when we use the term accessibility features.

An English learner with a significant cognitive disability may need accessibility features that support both their disability and their language learning. Available accessibility features often are different for AA-AAAS and for alternate assessments of English language proficiency (Alt-ELP). This is because the purposes of the assessments are different. AA-AAAS are designed to measure the content knowledge of reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and other areas regardless of the student’s English language skills. Alt-ELP assessments are designed to measure the student’s proficiency in English.

For English learners with significant cognitive disabilities, it is important that the student have experience with all accessibility features selected for the state assessment. Ideally, this experience will occur during classroom academic instruction. If some accessibility features are not available for use during instruction, their use during practice assessments must be provided. Often, the supports that are provided during instruction are not called accessibility features, nor even accommodations.

Examples of possible assessment accessibility features and instructional supports that might meet the needs of English learners with significant cognitive disabilities are presented in Table 1. The first column describes the student need. Is an accessibility feature provided to meet a disability-related need, an English language development need, or both? It is important to note that any accessibility features only for English language development would not be allowed on English language proficiency (ELP) assessments. If some accessibility features are not included in the student’s IEP and are only used to support English development needs, these accessibility features would not be allowed on ELP assessments.

The second column lists a specific assessment accessibility feature. States may vary in whether these accessibility features are considered to be universal features, designated features, accommodations, or part of optimal testing conditions for a specific alternate assessment. The third column describes what that accessibility feature might look like in instruction.

Table 1. Examples of Accessibility for Assessment and Classroom Instruction

Overview of Tool 7

This tool describes a planning process for determining the access needs of an individual English learner with a significant cognitive disability who will take alternate assessments. It is based on a resource developed by the Improving Instruction for English Learners Through Accessibility Decision Making Project (Improving Instruction for English Learners Through Accessibility Decision Making, n.d., EL accessibility plan [Unpublished internal resource], National Center on Educational Outcomes). It has been adapted to focus on English learners with significant cognitive disabilities who participate in state alternate content and ELP assessments.

Tool 6 (Planning for the Accessibility Needs of an English Learner with a Disability Who Participates in State General Assessments) addresses planning for the accessibility needs of an English learner with a disability who participates in state general assessments.

The planning process is best when it involves collaboration with the student, their family, and educators. Ideally, the planning process would take place over the course of a school year, with refinements as new information is gathered and the effects of accessibility features documented. Each portion of the planning process represented in the Accessibility Plan is addressed here in a separate component of this tool, with the final component providing an example of a completed Accessibility Plan. The Accessibility Plan is designed to supplement the IEP.

Four components are included in Tool 7 to address the sections of the Accessibility Plan for an English learner with a disability:

• Tool 7-A: Student Characteristics and Experiences
• Tool 7-B: Instructional and Assessment Planning for Accessibility
• Tool 7-C: Evaluation
• Tool 7-D: Sample Completed Accessibility Plan

States may adapt these example formats as needed. Similar formats could be developed for other subject area tests, as appropriate.

Tool 7-A: Student Characteristics and Experiences

Understanding a student’s scores on previous assessments as well as the characteristics and experiences of each English learner with a significant cognitive disability contributes to appropriate decisions about the student’s need for accessibility features during both instruction and state assessments. For example, if a student has stronger listening and speaking skills in their home language, a bilingual assistant could be helpful for instruction and for the AA-AAAS (depending on the state’s accessibility policies). Another example would be if the student had poor vision and hearing, specialized materials (e.g., large pictures and text) might be provided during instruction.

Although more information than previous test scores is needed for placement and instructional decision making, looking at those scores is a starting point. An example format for recording student assessment data is suggested in Example Format A-1.1. It has columns for the type of assessment. Assessments include AA-AAAS (e.g., reading/language arts, mathematics, science, etc.), Alternate English language proficiency (Alt-ELP) test domains, and other tests (such as interim assessments and screeners). There are also columns for assessment subtests (Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics Science, Other) or English Language Proficiency Domains, and for the current and previous years’ performance level or scores. The form can be adjusted by adding sections, columns, rows, or options to meet a specific situation.

Example Format A-1.1. Student Assessment Data

Student’s Name:

Grade:

School Year:

Possible Options for Type of Assessment:

• Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS), Alternate English Language Proficiency Assessment (Alt-ELP), Interim Assessment, Screener, Others

Possible Options for Subtest:

• For AA-AAAS: Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Other
• For Alt-ELP Assessment: Reading, Listening, Writing, Speaking

Example Format A-1.2: Student Characteristics and Experiences

Example Format A-1.2 can be used to summarize information on student characteristics and experiences. It includes information on the student’s languages, previous educational experiences, migration status and mobility, and cultural factors that may affect how the student interacts with others at school. Information about the student’s disability should be included. Also, the example format provides space for recording any characteristics, interests, and strengths that might be relevant to teaching approaches and the student’s participation in assessments. Finally, include the sources used to gather information about the student. These might be the student, the student’s family, previous teachers, or specialists who have worked with the student.

Use the sections below to record a summary of the student’s background to inform accessibility decisions.

Student’s Name:

Grade:

School Year:

Home Language Background:

[Enter Data Here]: Describe languages spoken at home, and difference in social communication vs. academic English proficiency.

Educational Experiences:

[Enter Data Here]: Describe the student’s school experiences learning in English and other languages. Include schools in the U.S. and other countries.

Cultural Factors:

[Enter Data Here]: Describe any aspects of the student’s home culture that influence their educational experiences.

Migration Status and Mobility:

[Enter Data here]: Describe any disruptions in schooling or living arrangements the student has experienced. Explain how they have affected the student’s education.

Disability:

[Enter Data Here]: List the student’s diagnosed disabilities.

[Enter Data Here]: Provide the date on which the student was determined to have a significant cognitive disability.

[Enter Data Here]: Indicate whether there is a possible reason to exclude a domain test for this student.

Academic Interests and Academic Strengths

[Enter Data Here]: Describe the student’s interests and how the student learns best.

Sources of Information

[Enter Data Here]: Explain where you obtained the information included in the form (e.g., student, parents or family, previous teachers, specialists, etc.)

Tool 7-B: Instructional and Assessment Planning for Accessibility

Accessibility decisions should be made for instruction and for each assessment that the English learner with a significant cognitive disability will take—required AA-AAAS (e.g., Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science) and the Alternate English Language Proficiency (Alt-ELP) assessment. Specific accessibility features and how they are classified (e.g., universal feature, designated feature, accommodation, optimal testing condition) may vary by test. It is important that the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team consider each accessibility feature separately.

Example Formats B-1.1 and B-1.2 address instructional and assessment planning for an English learner with a significant cognitive disability. It is designed to help in thinking about how and when the student will use each accessibility feature. When the form is completed, the information in it can be used to answer questions like:

• What are the student’s accessibility needs for instruction?
• What are the student’s accessibility needs for assessment?
• What accessibility features would help meet the student’s needs?
• Do accessibility features used in class have a counterpart on state assessments?
• For which assessments will the student need each accessibility feature?
• For which instructional content areas or topics will the student need each accessibility feature?
• Is there a need for any accessibility features documented in other planning documents, such as an Individualized Education Program (IEP), 504 plan, or English Learner Plan?
• Will the student need help using any accessibility features?

The state accessibility manual and the school assessment coordinator can be helpful resources in filling out Format B-1.2. Remember that the IEP team should include the student, the student’s parents, the English language development specialist, and the student’s other teachers in the process of deciding which accessibility features will work best for assessments.

Example Format B-1.1: Instructional Planning for Accessibility

Use Example Format B-1.1 to describe the student’s identified needs (such as a disability or language development need), the accessibility feature to address that need (such as text-to-speech, extended time, or bilingual picture dictionary), and the types of classroom activities where the student would require these accessibility features.

Student’s Name:

Grade:

School Year:

Possible Options During Instruction:

• Classroom Activities, Classroom Assignments, Quizzes, Unit Tests, Group Work, Homework, Other

Notes: [Fill in text]

Example Format B-1.2: Accessibility Planning for Assessment

Use Example Format B-1.2 to list, for the same student, the types of content assessments (AA-AAAS, Interim Assessment, Screener, Other) and the subtests (Reading/Language Arts, Math, and Science). There also columns to describe English proficiency assessments where they would require the use of the identified accessibility features. Provide any notes that would be important for other educators, service providers, or the family and student to know. These notes might address particular instructional topics where an accessibility feature is needed, state assessment policies on the use of accessibility features, adult assistance needed to use an accessibility feature, etc.

For English learners with significant visual or hearing impairments, careful consideration should be given to whether available accessibility features provide access to each domain. If not, the student might be considered for exemption from the domain.

Student’s Name:

Grade:

School Year:

Possible Types of Content Assessments:

• AA-AAAS, Interim assessment, Screener, Other, Alt-ELP assessment

Possible Subtests:

• AA-AAAS: Reading/English Language Arts, Math, Science
• Alt-ELP Assessment: Reading, Listening, Speaking, Writing

Possible Choices for the Selected Column

• Yes, No [give reason], Not applicable

Accessibility Feature: [name]

Notes:

[Repeat this table for as many accessibility features as needed]

Tool 7-C: Evaluation

After the student has used accessibility features in class and on assessments, decision-making teams should work together to determine how well the features worked. Information should be gathered from teachers, the student, and the student’s family to evaluate how the accessibility features worked for instruction and for assessments. Ideas for how to better support the student moving forward should be included.

Questions to consider include:

• How did the student perform during instruction or on assessments when accessibility features were used versus not used?
• Were combinations of accessibility features effective versus not effective?
• If the student performed differently from what was anticipated (either better or worse), what are possible reasons (e.g., accessibility features allowed the student to show what they knew and could do, the student did not know how to use the accessibility feature, etc.)?
• Were certain accessibility features refused by the student? If so, why?

Example Formats C-1.1 and C-1.2 provide space to document the information that is gathered. There is also space after Example Format C-1.2 for an overall evaluation of how the accessibility features worked for the student.

Example Format C-1.1: Evaluation of Accessibility Features Use During Instruction

Example Format C-1.1 is designed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of specific accessibility features used by a student during instruction. There are columns for feedback from three perspectives: teachers, the student, and the family. This allows a comprehensive review of how well each feature supports the student’s learning experiences. Teachers can document their observations about how the feature impacts classroom participation and academic progress. The student can share their personal experience regarding the usefulness and comfort with the feature. Family members can provide their perspective on how the feature affects the student’s learning at home or overall academic performance. This collaborative approach helps inform decisions about continuing, modifying, or discontinuing specific accessibility supports.

Student’s Name:

Grade:

School Year:

Example Format C-1.2: Evaluation of Accessibility Features Use During Assessment

Example Format C-1.2 is similar to Example Format C-1.1 but addresses assessment. The same accessibility features included in Example Format C-1.1 should be addressed in C-1.2.

Student’s Name:

Grade:

School Year:

Overall Evaluation of Accessibility Features

Looking at Example Formats C-1.1 and C-1.2, summarize the findings about currently used accessibility features in instruction and assessment for this student. [Write text here]

Next Steps

Describe any changes needed to accessibility features for the future. Include any additional information that may need to be gathered. [Write text here]

Tool 7-D: Sample Completed Accessibility Plan

Note on Sample Data: The example student profile described in this sample completed accessibility plan is adapted from the profile developed by the IVARED (Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities) project, housed at the National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Example Format A-1.1. Student Assessment Data (Include or attach all available data)

Student’s Name: Fatima

Grade: 4

School Year: 2023-24

Possible Options for Type of Assessment:

• Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS), Alternate English Language Proficiency assessment (Alt-ELP), Interim Assessment, Screener, Others

Possible Options for Subtest:

• For AA-AAAS: Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Other
• For Alt-ELP assessment: Reading, Listening, Writing, Speaking

Example Format A-1.2: Student Characteristics and Experiences

Directions: Use the sections below to record a summary of the student’s background information to inform accessibility decisions.

Student’s Name: Fatima

Grade: 4

School Year: 2023-24

Home Language Background:

Fatima lives with her uncle, her mother, and several extended family members who all speak Arabic at home. She uses limited spoken Arabic with gestures to communicate at home. She has no reading or writing skills in Arabic.

Educational Experiences:

Fatima had limited educational experiences in her home country. She moved to the U.S. when she would have been in kindergarten and started to attend school in grade 1. Before that, she stayed at home with her mother. Her only experiences with English have been since she started attending school in the U.S. She receives English language development services in addition to special education services. She was quiet in class at first. With increasing English proficiency and more familiarity with a formal school environment, she has become more comfortable with being in school. She has also started to engage with teachers and peers more.

Cultural Factors:

Fatima’s uncle tends to be the one to communicate with the school because he is the head of the household and speaks the most English. Fatima’s uncle requests that her head scarf be worn over her hair. Headphones to assist with hearing loss need to be worn over her head scarf. Some of the gestures Fatima uses with her family at home do not mean the same thing in an English-speaking environment.

Migration Status and Mobility:

Fatima’s living arrangements were disrupted when the family moved to the U.S. She had not attended school previously. Starting school in the U.S. was a challenge because she was unfamiliar with a formal school environment, typical school routines, etc. There are gaps in her content knowledge.

Disability:

Fatima has moderate to severe intellectual disabilities, as well as a hearing impairment and a vision impairment. Prior to starting school in the U.S., Fatima had not received any medical interventions. She has difficulty wearing glasses (3 pairs broken or lost in 3 yrs) and hearing aids (headscarf interferes with them and with headphones).

Academic Interests and Academic Strengths

She likes working with numbers and manipulatives and has improved greatly in her alternate achievement math skills. Because of her hearing and vision issues, she learns best when provided manipulatives and when working one-on-one with teachers or peers.

Sources of Information

Fatima, and Fatima’s uncle (he attends her IEP meetings). Also, general education teacher, special education teacher, English language development teacher, cultural liaison.

Example Format B-1.1: Instructional Planning for Accessibility

Student’s Name: Fatima

Grade: 4

School Year: 2023-24

Possible Options During Instruction:

• Classroom Activities, Classroom Assignments, Quizzes, Unit Tests, Group Work, Homework, Other

Notes:

Example Format B-1.2: Accessibility Planning for Assessment

Student’s Name: Fatima

Grade: 4

School Year: 2023-24

Possible Types of Content Assessments:

• AA-AAAS, Interim assessment, Screener, Other, Alt-ELP Assessment

Possible Subtests:

• AA-AAAS: Reading/English language Arts, Math, Science
• Alt-ELP Assessment: Reading, Listening, Speaking, Writing

Possible Choices for the Selected Column

• Yes, No [give reason], Not applicable

Accessibility Feature: School Provided Glasses, Large Print, Zoom, CCTV or White Board

Notes: Use all optimal testing conditions and other accessibility features available for AA-AAAS and Alt ELP assessment.

Accessibility Feature: Teacher Microphone, Student Specific Signing, Headphones That Work Over Scarf

Notes: Use all optimal testing conditions and other accessibility features available for AA-AAAS and Alt ELP assessment. Consider exemption for Alt-ELP Listening domain if maximum use of accessibility features does not provide access.

Accessibility Feature: Manipulatives and Other Concrete Objects (Including Pictures)

Notes: State policies for use of manipulatives and other concrete objects will be followed for assessments.

Accessibility Feature: Frequent Breaks, Time Best for Student

Notes:

Accessibility Feature: Oral Presentation of Test or Task Directions in Native Language

Notes: Check interim assessments and screeners to determine whether this accessibility feature is allowed.

Example Format C-1.1: Evaluation of Accessibility Features Use During Instruction

Student’s Name: Fatima

Grade: 4

School Year: 2023-24

Example Format C-1.2: Evaluation of Accessibility Features Use During Assessment

Student’s Name: Fatima

Grade: 4

School Year: 2023-24

Overall Evaluation of Accessibility Features

Looking at Example Formats C-1.1 and C-1.2, summarize the findings about currently used accessibility features in instruction and assessment for this student.

• According to her teacher and uncle, Fatima appears to need all the accessibility features that have been provided during her time in school. Fatima did not express an opinion about frequent breaks and adjusted timing. It’s unclear whether we misunderstood her communication about the microphone use and whether she had a way to express her feelings about frequent breaks or adjusted timing.
• Fatima has developed a range of gestures that work in the home context, and which can be helpful for classroom directions in many cases, but which can be misunderstood by classmates or teachers (e.g., Does a raised eyebrow always communicate no?). However, the limited range of gestures she has may not allow her to convey enough information to others.
• Fatimas’ math skills and also science knowledge have continued to improve. English reading and writing are slow to develop. Continued use of the accessibility supports is recommended, but it may eventually be necessary to request an exemption for the listening domain.
• In class, Fatima sometimes benefits from an oral presentation of task directions in her native language. However, her need for the native language version is stronger in some content areas than others. Use of translation technology with audio output has been successful.

Next Steps

Describe any changes needed to accessibility features for the future. Include any additional information that may need to be gathered.

• Have school nurse check to see if Fatima’s eyeglasses fit her and to help create an in school routine for wearing them (e.g., wear them for increasing amounts of time, always put them in same place when taken off).
• Continue to monitor all accessibility features and consider the addition of text to speech and closed captioning if Fatima’s hearing stabilizes and her reading skills improve.
• While the gestures Fatima uses can communicate basic information, she needs a more advanced communication system at school so peers and teachers clearly understand, and she can participate in instruction and assessment. Gradual work on traditional ASL signs is recommended with the goal of eventually providing ASL for assessments. Fatima’s peers and teachers will need to know some signs to communicate with her about class activities.
• Continue to ask Fatima about the use of the microphone and adjusted timing. Provide her with the signs or other methods to express her opinions. It appears she may not feel the microphone benefits her. Her uncle might be able to help clarify her response. Also unclear why she did not respond about adjusted timing. Was she distracted? Did she have a way to communicate more complex concepts like “sometimes”?
• In class, provide oral/audio task directions in both English and Arabic when possible. Let Fatima choose which version to use. On tests, request an Arabic-speaking interpreter early to ensure one is available.
• Request or create an Arabic version of state assessment directions early in the school year to ensure she has opportunities to take practice tests based on a full understanding of the assessment process.
• Find out whether interim assessments and screeners used by the district allow for oral presentation of native language test directions.

This 2026 tool is part of the digital adaptation of the NCEO English Learners with Disabilities Toolkit (2024). Updates have been made to improve web accessibility and interactive features.

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Hinkle, A. R. (2026). Planning for the accessibility needs of an English learner with a disability who participates in state alternate assessments (English Learners with Disabilities Tool #7). National Center on Educational Outcomes.

The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G210002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Consistent with EDGAR §75.62, the contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officer: Kristen Rhoads

In collaboration with:

NCEO Core Staff

Andrew R. Hinkle, Co-Director

Kristi K. Liu, Co-Director

Jessica Bowman

Gail Ghere

Linda Goldstone

Michael L. Moore

Darrell Peterson

Mari Quanbeck

Virginia A. Ressa

Kathy Strunk

Yi-Chen Wu

National Center on Educational Outcomes

University of Minnesota

2025 East River Parkway, Room 1-330

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone 612/626-1530

http://www.nceo.info

The University of Minnesota shall provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

This document is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to nceo@umn.edu.

NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration