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 6: Planning for the Accessibility Needs of an English Learner with a Disability Who Participates in State General Assessments

English learners with disabilities should have access to state general content assessments so they can show what they know and can do, just as they must have the same opportunity as other students to learn in class. This means that the accessibility needs of English learners with disabilities 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 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 (for assessments of content). 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 disability may need accessibility features that support both their disability and their language learning. Available accessibility features often are different for content assessments and for assessments of English language proficiency (ELP). This is because the purposes of the assessments are different. Content assessments are designed to measure the content knowledge of reading/language arts, math, science, and other areas regardless of the student’s English language skills. ELP assessments are designed to measure the student’s proficiency in English.

For English learners with 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 English language development supports that are provided during instruction may not be called accessibility features, nor even accommodations.

Table 1 presents a few example of possible assessment accessibility features and instructional supports that might meet students’ disability-related needs, their English language development needs, or both. The first column describes the student need. Is an accessibility features provided to meet a disability-related need, an English language development need, or both? It is important to note that any accessibility features 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, or accommodations. The third column describes what that accessibility feature might look like in instruction.

Table 1. Examples of Accessibility for Disability-Related Needs, Language Development Needs, or Both on State Assessments and Classroom Instruction

Overview of Tool 6

This tool describes a planning process for determining the access needs of an individual English learner with a disability who will take general 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 disabilities who participate in state general assessments as well as other large-scale assessments.

Tool 7 (Planning for the Accessibility Needs of an English Learner with a Disability Who Participates in State Alternate Assessments) addresses planning for the accessibility needs of an English learner with a disability who participates in state alternate 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 6 to address the sections of the Accessibility Plan for an English learner with a disability:

• Tool 6-A: Student Characteristics and Experiences
• Tool 6-B: Instructional and Assessment Planning for Accessibility
• Tool 6-C: Evaluation
• Tool 6-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, as well as for other assessments such as interim assessments.

Tool 6-A: Test Scores and 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 disability contributes to appropriate decisions about the student’s need for accessibility features during both instruction and state assessments. For example, suppose a student taking a math assessment has low proficiency in English reading but is literate n their home language and has received math instruction in that language. For such a student, a bilingual glossary of math terms could be helpful for instruction or a native language translation of a test might be beneficial. However, for a student who does not have that reading proficiency in their home language and has not received instruction in it, accessibility features that provide home language support may not be beneficial.

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 spaces for the type of assessment (e.g., annual state content assessment, English language proficiency [ELP] assessment), any relevant subtest names (e.g., Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, or ELP test domains), and other tests such as interim assessments and screeners. 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:

• Annual state content assessment, English language proficiency (ELP) assessment, Interim assessment, Screener, Others

Possible Options for Subtest: (Some test types may not have subtests)

• For Annual state content assessment: Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, Other
• For 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 form 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.

Directions: 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 differences 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.

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 6-B: Instructional and Assessment Planning for Accessibility

Accessibility decisions should be made for instruction and for each assessment that the English learner with a disability will take: required general content assessments (e.g., Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science) and the general English language proficiency (ELP) assessment. Specific accessibility features and how they are classified (e.g., universal feature, designated feature, accommodation) 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 disability. They are designed to help in thinking about how and when the student will use each accessibility feature. When such a 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?
• 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?
• 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 these types of Example Formats. Remember that the IEP team should include the student, the student’s parents, and the student’s other teachers – including the English language development or bilingual education teacher – 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 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:

• During Instruction, 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 (Reading/Language Arts, Math, and Science) and 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 features, 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:

• State test, Interim assessment, Screener, Other, ELP Assessment

Possible Subtests:

• State content assessment: Reading/English Language Arts, Math, Science
• English Proficiency 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 6-C: Evaluation

After the student has used accessibility features in class and on assessments, decision-making teams should work together to determine how well they 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. Be aware of any potential consequences of using a particular accessibility feature on a test (e.g., if used on a college entrance exam without approval from the administering agency, scores may not count for college applications).

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? For example, 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.
• How do the student and family feel about the use of a particular accessibility feature? What are their preferences?
• 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 a place 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 Feature 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 Feature Use During Assessment

Example Format C-1.2 is structured 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 6-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: Manuel

Grade: 10

School Year: 2023-24

Possible Options for Type of Assessment:

• Annual state content assessment, English language proficiency (ELP) assessment, Interim assessment, Screener, Others

Possible Options for Subtest: (Some test types may not have an associated subtest)

• For Annual state content assessment: Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, Other
• For 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 to inform accessibility decisions.

Student’s Name: Manuel

Grade: 10

School Year: 2023-24

Home Language Background:

Speaks English and Spanish with his immediate family. Speaks Spanish with grandparents. Conversational skills in Spanish are intermediate level and mostly on social topics. Does not write and write in Spanish.

Educational Experiences:

Has only attended school in the U.S. in English. Has not been to school in Mexico and has no exposure to academic content in Spanish. Has had English language development instruction in U.S. schools for several years. Inconsistent schooling due to mobility has created gaps in instruction.

Cultural Factors:

Has been taught to respect teachers. If a teacher expresses an opinion about his schoolwork he will defer to the teacher. He may need support to express opinions about what he feels will benefit his own learning.

Migration Status and Mobility:

Continues to have lengthy absences from school. Family moves frequently between the U.S. and Mexico. When they return to the U.S., Manuel often attends a different school than he attended before the move.

Disability:

After Manuel did not respond to English reading interventions appropriate for English learners, he was identified as having a learning disability. He has difficulty reading English fluently and comprehending the text. He makes spelling and grammar errors when writing and his handwriting can be difficult to read. Both reading and writing activities take extra time compared to peers.

Academic Interests and Academic Strengths:

Communicates easily in social English using everyday words. Speaks in detail on topics of interest to him (e.g., video gaming). Understands academic concepts above grade level when content is read aloud in English.

Sources of Information:

Manuel, his parents and other family members, general education teacher, special education teacher, English language development teacher, social worker.

Example Format B-1.1: Instructional Planning for Accessibility

Student’s Name: Manuel

Grade: 10

School Year: 2023-24

Possible Options During Instruction:

• During Instruction, Classroom Assignments, Quizzes, Unit Tests, Group Work, Homework, Other

Notes: Aide provides read aloud support.

Example Format B-1.2: Accessibility Planning for Assessment

Student’s Name: Manuel

Grade: 10

School Year: 2023-24

Possible Types of Content Assessments:

• State test, Interim assessment, Screener, Other, ELP Assessment

Possible Subtests:

• State content assessment: Reading/English Language Arts, Math, Science
• English Proficiency Assessment: Reading, Listening, Speaking, Writing

Possible Choices for the Selected Column:

• Yes, No [give reason], Not applicable

Accessibility Feature: Text-to-speech; Human reader

Notes: A screen reader and a human reader are both allowed for digital PSAT tests. On the state ELP assessment anyone can use embedded text-to-speech on non-reading items.

Accessibility Feature: Spelling Support

Notes: If preferred on state assessment, student may use external spell check without embedded grammar check, if not connected to the internet, and if student does not save information.

Accessibility Feature: Extra Time

Notes: The PSAT allows time and one-half (+50%).

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

Student’s Name: Manuel

Grade: 10

School Year: 2023-24

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

Student’s Name: Manuel

Grade: 10

School Year: 2023-24

Overall Evaluation of Accessibility Features

The IEP team agrees that careful use of oral presentation of text helps Manuel show what he comprehends in class and on tests. Having a human reader makes Manuel feel noticeably different from his peers and the pace of the human reader is often too slow. On state reading and math tests, text-to-speech is typically allowed and should continue to be available to him. On the PSAT he would have the ability to use either a human reader or text-to-speech. Text-to-speech is preferred. Spell check also seems beneficial where allowed. Manuel needs to know how to use it and needs specific guidelines in class around when spelling is important and when it is not so he can plan his time appropriately. When he uses accessibility features he needs extra time to complete class work and tests, but he sometimes chooses not to use it if his peers are all finishing their work.

Next Steps

• Provide continuing opportunities for Manuel to engage in reflection on his own learning and what helps him achieve his personal learning goals. Allow him to make decisions for himself when appropriate.
• Provide opportunities for Manuel to use text-to-speech independently during instruction and when taking quizzes and classroom tests. Explore using a text-to-speech option on a tablet and allowing him to wear his earbuds so the sound is not disruptive to others.
• Make sure Manuel receives directions on when and how to use spell check for class work. Clearly communicate when spelling is important to a task and when it is not, as well as how much time is appropriate to complete the task using this accessibility feature.
• Manuel’s English language development teacher will provide some additional instruction on spelling patterns in English. Some of Manuel’s spelling errors may be typical of second language learners.
• Make sure Manuel knows how to use the spell check feature on the state assessment. Use it on a practice assessment.
• Consistently offer extra time to Manuel during instructional assessments and on the PSAT. The PSAT provides extra breaks with extended time. At the next IEP meeting, the team should discuss whether to provide Manuel with extra breaks as well.
• Make sure Manuel and his parents understand how he can use technology and accessibility features to take part in his own transition planning. Also, ensure this information is shared with others who will support him in life after high school.
• Go over required high school assessments and their purposes with Manuel’s parents at the next parent-teacher conference. Make sure a translator is available and is familiar with assessment concepts and terms.

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 general assessments (English Learners with Disabilities Tool #6). 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