²ÝÝ®ÊÓƵ

When a student is or might be dually identified as emergent bilingual (EB) and eligible to receive special education services, the admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee must include a language proficiency assessment committee (LPAC) representative, and members must collaborate in order to ensure that both language acquisition and disability-related needs are considered in placement, services, progress monitoring, and assessment. Ìý[ (h), (k), and (l)].

Identifying and Serving Dually Identified Students

The ARD committee in conjunction with the LPAC will identify a student as an EB studentÌýif the student's ability in English is so limited or the student's disabilities are so severe that the required English language proficiency assessment cannot be administered.ÌýÌýLocal educational agencies (LEAs) shall implement assessment procedures that differentiate between language proficiency and disabling conditions in accordance with 19 TAC Chapter 89 Subchapter AAÌý(relating to Commissioner's Rules Concerning Special Education Services) and shall establish placement procedures that ensure that placement in a bilingual education or English as a Second Language (ESL) program is not refused solely because the student has a disability. Access to special education and bilingual or ESLÌýservices may not be restricted or denied due to limited staffing, scheduling, or other reasons of administrative convenience.

For EB studentsÌýwho are also eligible for special education services, the standardized process for reclassificationÌýis followed in accordance with applicable provisions 19 TAC §89.1226 (i).ÌýThe annual review of student progress and decision to reclassify must be conducted through coordination of the LPAC and ARD committee.ÌýÌýÌý

In rare cases, an EB student with the most significant cognitive disabilityÌýwho is receiving special education services may qualify to be reclassified using permitted criteria under 19 TAC §89.1226 (l), which gives special consideration to an EB studentÌýfor whom assessments and/or standardsÌýused in the standard reclassification process are not appropriate because of the nature of a student’s disabling condition. Students eligible to be considered using the individualized reclassification criteria under TAC §89.1226 (l) should only be those meeting theÌýdefinition of a student with the most significant cognitive disabilityÌýas determined by the ARD committee in conjunction with the LPAC.

°Õ³ó¾±²õÌýÌýresource provides detailed guidance on identification and reclassification of dually identified students and outlines the steps of the Individualized Reclassification Process for EB students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.Ìý

Ìý