1 / 17

ELL SURVEY PART I Selected Excerpts

This excerpt analysis from the Bilingual, Immigrant, and Refugee Director’s meeting in Seattle, Washington discusses ELL enrollment trends, changes, percentages, and special education representation across districts. It highlights stable enrollment rates, ELL numbers, grade-level distribution, special education services for ELLs, risk ratios, and English proficiency levels. Key findings reveal fluctuating enrollment percentages, significant ELL populations in NYC and LAUSD, and disparities in special education services. The analysis also examines ELLs' years in programs and the distribution across English proficiency levels.

mlove
Download Presentation

ELL SURVEY PART I Selected Excerpts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ELL SURVEY PART I Selected Excerpts Bilingual, Immigrant and Refugee Director’s Meeting Seattle, Washington Gabriela Uro and Alejandra Barrio May 2011

  2. ELL Enrollment ELL Percentages and Changes in Enrollment • Most districts experienced a 2 percentage point fluctuation in their ELL enrollment. • Districts experiencing the largest change in ELL percentage: Providence (5.5 percent point increase) and Chicago (5.7 percent point decrease) (See Table 2, page 4) • Data for 65 districts - includes district responses and NCES data • ELLs comprised16% – 17% of student enrollment in our districts from SY2007-08 to SY2009-10. (See Table 1, page 3) • ELL enrollment has remained relatively stable over this 3 year period

  3. ELL Enrollment Range in Enrollment Table 4. ELL numbers • Only two districts enroll more than 100,000 ELLs--NYC and LAUSD • The two largest groups comprise Council districts that enroll— • Between 1,000 and 5,000 ELLs (22/65) • Between 10,000 and 50,000 ELLs (19/65) • Enrollment by grade level Table 3. ELL as Percentage • In almost one third of Council member districts (19/65) districts ELL s represent enrollment between 20% - 60% of total student enrollment • In almost half (29/65) of the Council member districts ELLs represent 10% or less of total student enrollment

  4. Number of ELLs identified as requiring Special Education Services (33 districts) • Overall enrollment decreased in these districts • 29,000 fewer Non-ELLs and 19,000 fewer ELLs. • However, the number of ELLs and Non-ELLs classified as requiring special education services increase in these districts • 10,000 more Non-ELLs and 10,000 ELLs in Special Education

  5. ELL Enrollment in Special Ed. Continued ELLs in Special Education as a percentage of total ELL enrollment outpaced two related trends (Exhibit 2): • ELL as a percentage total enrollment and • Non-ELLs in Special education as a percent of Non-ELL enrollment

  6. ELL’s representation in Special Education A risk ratio above 2 or below 0.5 is cause for concern-- • Three out of 4 reporting districts had a risk ratio above 0.5 and below 2 • 6 districts had a risk ratio below 0.5 • 1 district had a risk ratio above 2 Risk ratio – likelihood that an ELL would be classified with a disability compared to Non-ELL students. • 1:1 risk ratio = ELLs and Non-ELLs have the same likelihood of being eligible for Special Education services • Risk ratio of 2 = ELLs are twice as likely as Non-ELLs to be classified as requiring special education services • Risk ratio of 0.5 = ELLs are half as likely as Non-ELLs to be classified as requiring special education services

  7. English Proficiency Levels for the 2009-2010School Year 36 districts provided data on English proficiency levels for ELLs disaggregated by the number of years that these ELLs have been participating in programs by the 2009-2010 school year. • Exhibit 6 provides a graphic representation of a Sample District’s total K-5 ELLs at each Level of English proficiency disaggregated by • Those who have been in program for 3 to 5 years • Those who have been in program for more than five years • Does not include ELLs who have been in program for less than 3 years

  8. What percentage of ELLs at level 1 ELP have been in program for more than 5 years?

  9. ELLs by Years in Program as a Percentage of Total ELLs at Each Proficiency Level • Denominator - the percentage of ELLs at each level who have been in ELL programs for either • 3-5 years or • more than five years • In K-5, of all ELLs with Level 1 English proficiency, • 12% have been in ELL programs for 3 to 5 years • 2% have been in ELL program for more than 5 years • In Grade 9-12, of all ELLs with Level 3 English proficiency, • 78 percent have been in ELL programs for more than 5 years • 15 percent have been in ELL programs for 3-5 years

  10. Number of Grade 9-12 ELLs by Years in Program as a % of Total ELLs at Each Proficiency Level, SY2009-10

  11. What is the percentage distribution across ELP levels for ELLs in program for more than 5 years? • A total of 4,638 ELLs in Grades K-5 were in the district’s ELL program for 3-5 years, of which-- • 5 percent were at Level 1 • 46 percent were at Level 3English proficiency • A total of 682 ELLs in Grades K-5 were in ELL programs for more than 5 years, of which- • 54 percent were at Level 3 • 22 percent were at Level 2 of English proficiency

  12. A total of 570 ELLs in Grades 9-12 were in the program for 3-5 years, of which-- • 8 percent were at Level 1 34 percent were at Level 3 of English proficiency A total of 2,989 ELLs in Grade 9-12 were in program for more than 5 years, of which: • 51 percent were at level 4 • 33 percent were at Level 3 of English proficiency

  13. NAEP Achievement NAEP Reading and Mathematics results for National Public (NP) and Large City (LC) • Common assessment allows for comparisons across Council member districts • LC sample captures 82 percent of Council membership • Period analyzed—2005 to 2011 • Focus: percent of students performing at or above Proficient (NAEP reports on Basic, Proficient and Advanced)

  14. Sample Findings on NAEP Achievement gap widens due to rising scores for Non-ELLs and little progress for ELLs (both NP and LC) • In both Reading and Mathematics, non-ELLs see a steady rise in performance • ELL achievement lags that of Non-ELLs—about 20 percentage points • Gaps widen for both subjects in both Grade 4 and 8 NAEP Achievement for Formerly ELLs in Grade 4 show positive signs • In both Reading and Mathematics Formerly ELLs almost reach parity with Non-ELLs on Grade 4 NAEP • In Grade 8, Formerly ELLs do not keep up with Non-ELL progress on NAEP in both Reading and Math

  15. Instructional Staff • Total aggregate figures (Tables 10 page 26, and 12 page 27) • District by district figures (Tables 11 page 27, and 14 page 28) • Analysis focused on quantitative patterns • Interest in qualitative (state laws, requirements, negotiated agreements, etc.)?

  16. Troubleshooting & Options 1) Reconciling discrepancies of data among different sources— • Council’s ELL Survey—self-reported, NCES and district websites • Council’s Beating the Odds—NCES, district and state websites 2) ELL enrollment data—other displays, analyses 3) Grade level disaggregation • By grade level • By grade span • By school level (elementary, secondary) • As defined by state

  17. Troubleshooting & Options 4) Grade Level Disaggregation as determined in (2) for— • Achievement • Teacher assignments/qualifications • Other 5) Achievement Data Analysis • English Proficiency (State, WIDA, etc.) • State Assessments • Other nationally normed common assessments (SAT-10, Aprenda, etc.) • 6) OCR data—school experience • In-house analyses and comparisons

More Related