1 / 36

Foundation & Network

Monitoring the Progress of English Learners “The Gap That Can’t Go Away: The Catch-22 of Reclassification in Monitoring the Progress of English Learners” (paper under review) Bill Saunders and Dave Marcelletti TTF & UCLA. Talking ... TEACHING. Foundation & Network.

parley
Download Presentation

Foundation & Network

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. Monitoring the Progress of English Learners“The Gap That Can’t Go Away: The Catch-22 of Reclassification in Monitoring the Progress of English Learners”(paper under review)Bill Saunders and Dave Marcelletti TTF & UCLA Talking... TEACHING Foundation & Network Dedicated to the study and refinement of teaching and learning.

  2. All Initially Classified English Learners • Students that are currently classified as English Learners (ELs) • Students that were classified as English Learners but were reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)

  3. Questions • What is the size of the gap between: (a) EOs vs. ELs (b) EOs vs. RFEPs (c) EOs vs. ELs + RFEPs? • What, if any, changes are evident over time in those two gap estimates between: (a) EOs vs. ELs (b) EOs vs. RFEPs (c) EOs vs. ELs + RFEPs?

  4. Calculating RFEP Rates by Grade Level Cohorts English Learners = ELs Reclassified ELs = RFEP (Reclassified Fluent English Proficient) RFEP ______________________________ EL + RFEP

  5. Grade 5 59,818 RFEP 98,182 EL______ 158,000 EL+RFEP Grade 5 59,818 RFEP 158,000 EL+RFEP 38% RFEP

  6. Defining Our English Learner Population

  7. Figure 1: Percentages of ELs and RFEPs in the 2010 Administration of the CST, ELA 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% EL 50% RFEP 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

  8. Table 1: Percentages of ELs and RFEPs in the 2010 Administration of the CST, ELA nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EL 95% 84% 74% 62% 52% 47% 43% 45% 43% 40% RFEP 5% 16% 26% 38% 48% 53% 57% 55% 57% 60%

  9. Figure 2: Percent of Grade 10 ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 70% 60% 50% 40% EL 30% RFEP 20% 10% 0% Far Below & Below Basic Proficient & Adv

  10. Table 2: Percent of Grade 10 ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 Groups Achievement Bands and Combined Bands Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced ELs 32% 33% 29% 5% 1% RFEPs 4% 9% 37% 30% 20% Far Below & Below Basic Proficient & Adv anced ELs 65% 29% 6% RFEPs 13% 37% 50%

  11. Figure 3: Percent of Grade 10 EOs, ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Basic 40% Proficient 30% & Adv 20% 10% 0% EOs ELs RFEPs 43% 57%

  12. Table 3: Percent of Grade 10 EOs, ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 Groups Combined Achievement Bands Basic or Better Far Below & Below Basic Proficient & Advanced EOs 21% 27% 52% 79% ELs 65% 29% 6% 35% RFEPs 1 3% 37% 50% 87%

  13. Figure 4: Percent of Grade 8 EOs, ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Basic 40% Proficient 30% & Adv 20% 10% 0% EOs ELs RFEPs 43% 57%

  14. Table 4: Percent of Grade 8 EOs, ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 Groups Combined Achievement Bands Basic or Better Far Below & Below Basic Proficient & Advanced EOs 15 % 24 % 61 % 85 % ELs 53 % 36 % 11 % 47 % RFEPs 9 % 3 1 % 6 0% 91 %

  15. Figure 5: Percent of Grade 5 EOs, ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Basic 50% 40% Proficient 30% & Adv 20% 10% 0% EOs ELs RFEPs 62% 38%

  16. Table 5: Percent of Grade 5 EOs, ELs and RFEPs by Achievement Bands, ELA, CST, 2010 Groups Combined Achievement Bands Basic or Better Far Below & Below Basic Proficient & Advanced EOs 11 % 23 % 66 % 89 % ELs 36 % 42 % 22 % 64 % RFEPs 2 % 22 % 76 % 98 %

  17. Figure 6: Percent Proficient or Advanced, EOs, RFEPs, and ELs, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% EO 50% RFEP 40% EL 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th RFEP 5% RFEP 16% RFEP 26% RFEP 38% RFEP 48% RFEP 53% RFEP 57% RFEP 55% RFEP 57% RFEP 60%

  18. Table 6: Percent Proficient or Advanced, EOs, RFEPs, and ELs, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 E O 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% RFEP 80% 70% 88% 76% 64% 63% 60% 61% 50% 44% EL 39% 21% 34% 22% 16% 12% 11% 10% 6% 5%

  19. Figure 7a: Percent Proficient or Adv., EOs, ELs+RFEPS, RFEPs, ELs, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 100% EO 90% EL + RFEP 80% 70% RFEP 60% EL 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th RFEP 5% RFEP 16% RFEP 26% RFEP 38% RFEP 48% RFEP 53% RFEP 57% RFEP 55% RFEP 57% RFEP 60%

  20. Table 7a: Percent Proficient or Adv., EOs, ELs+RFEPS, RFEPs, ELs, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% 59.9% EL + RFEP 41% 29% 41% 42% 3 9% 39% 39% 38% 31% 29% 36.7% RFEP 80% 70% 88% 76% 64% 63% 60% 61% 50% 44% 65.6% EL 39% 21% 34% 22% 16% 12% 11% 10% 6% 5% 17.6% Gap: EO vs EL + RFEP - 19 - 23 - 29 - 24 - 25 - 24 - 22 - 24 - 21 - 20 - 23.2 Gap: EO vs. EL - 21 - 31 - 36 - 44 - 48 - 51 - 50 - 52 - 46 - 44 - 42.3

  21. Figure 8a: Percent Basic or Better, EOs, ELs+RFEPS, RFEPs, ELs, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 100% EO 90% EL + RFEP 80% 70% RFEP EL 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th RFEP 5% RFEP 16% RFEP 26% RFEP 38% RFEP 48% RFEP 53% RFEP 57% RFEP 55% RFEP 57% RFEP 60%

  22. Table 8a: Percent Basic or Better, EOs, ELs+RFEPS, RFEPs, ELs, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 84% 82% 89% 89% 89% 86% 85% 84% 79% 74% 84.1% EL + RFEP 72% 64% 71% 76% 75% 73% 69% 69% 65% 60% 69.4% RFEP 96% 97% 99% 98% 94% 94% 91% 90% 87% 81% 92.7% EL 71% 58% 71% 64% 57% 49% 47% 44% 35% 26% 52.2% Gap: EO vs EL + RFEP - 12 - 18 - 18 - 13 - 14 - 13 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 14 - 14.7 Gap: EO vs. EL - 13 - 24 - 18 - 25 - 32 - 37 - 38 - 40 - 44 - 48 - 31.9

  23. Figure 9: Percent RFEPs in the 2005 and 2010 Administration of the CST, ELA 70% +12 60% +16 +13 +14 +14 +14 50% +13 40% YR: 2005 30% +11 YR: 20% +7 2010 10% +2 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

  24. Table 9: Percentages of RFEPs in the 2005 and 2010 Administration of the CST, ELA nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean % RFEP 2005 3% 9% 15% 25% 34% 39% 41% 41% 44% 48% 29 .9% % RFEP 2010 5% 16% 26% 38% 48% 53% 57% 55% 57% 60% 41.5% Difference +2 +7 +11 +13 +14 +14 +16 +14 +13 +12 +11.6 Note: In the 2005 administration ELs and RFEPs represented 37.8% of the sample of ELs, RFEPs, and EOs. In the 2010 administration, ELs an d RFEPs represented 39.9% of the sample of ELs, RFEPs, and EOs. Hence it does not seem to be the case that the 2010 administration included significantly fewer ELs and thus artificially inflated the proportion of RFEPs. The 2010 administration included 1,675,446 ELs and RFEPs and 2,521,779 EOs; 2005 included 1,660,620 ELs and RFEPs and 2,727,625 EOs.

  25. Figure 10: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and RFEPs 100% EO 90% 2005 80% RFEP 70% 2005 60% EO 2010 50% RFEP 40% 2010 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

  26. Table 10: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and RFEPs nd rd th th th th th th th th Group /Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 2005 51% 41% 57% 42% 48.3% 52% 47% 51% 47% 51% 44% EO 2010 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% 59.9% Change +9 +11 +13 +14 +17 +12 +14 +11 +8 +7 +11.6 RFEP 2005 62% 54% 76% 63% 46% 54% 42% 48% 35% 35% 51.5% RFEP 2010 80% 70% 88% 76% 64% 63% 60% 61% 50% 44% 65.6% Change +18 +16 +12 +13 +18 +9 +18 +13 +15 +9 +14.1 Gap 2005 +11 +13 +19 +11 - 1 +3 - 5 - 3 - 9 - 7 +3.2 Gap 2010 +20 +18 +18 +10 0 0 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 5 +5.7 Note: Gaps compare the RFEP percentage to the EO percentage within each year. Negative gaps indicate the RFEP percent is smaller than the EO percent ; positive gaps indicate the RFEP percent is large r than the EO percent.

  27. Figure 11: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and ELs 100% EO 90% 2005 80% EL 70% 2005 60% EO 2010 50% EL 40% 2010 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

  28. Table 11: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and ELs nd rd th th th th th t h th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 2005 51% 41% 57% 42% 48.3% 52% 47% 51% 47% 51% 44% EO 2010 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% 59.9% Change +9 +11 +13 +14 +17 +12 +14 +11 +8 +7 +11.6 EL 2005 22% 12% 19% 13% 7% 9% 6% 7% 3% 4% 10.2% EL 2010 39% 21% 34% 22% 16% 12% 11% 10% 6% 5% 17.6% Change +17 +9 +15 +9 +9 +3 +5 +3 +3 +1 +7.4 Gap 2005 - 29 - 29 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 42 - 41 - 44 - 41 - 38 - 38.1 Gap 2010 - 21 - 31 - 36 - 44 - 48 - 51 - 50 - 52 - 46 - 44 - 42.1 Note: Gaps compare the EL percentage to the EO percentage within each year. Negative gaps indicate the EL percent is smaller than the EO percent.

  29. Figure 12: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and ELs + RFEPs 100% EO 2005 90% 80% EL + RFEP 2005 70% EO 2010 60% 50% EL + RFEP 2010 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

  30. Table 12: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and ELs + RFEPs nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 2005 51% 41% 57% 42% 48.3% 52% 47% 51% 47% 51% 44% EO 2010 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% 59.9% Change +9 +11 +13 +14 +17 +12 +14 +11 +8 +7 +11.6 EL+RFEP 05 23% 16% 28% 25% 20% 27% 21% 24% 17% 19% 22.0% EL+RFEP 10 41% 29% 41% 42% 39% 39% 39% 38% 31% 29% 36.8% Change +18 +13 +13 +17 +19 +12 +18 +14 +14 +10 +14.8 Gap 2005 - 28 - 25 - 29 - 27 - 27 - 24 - 26 - 27 - 27 - 23 - 26.2 Gap 2010 - 19 - 23 - 29 - 24 - 25 - 24 - 22 - 24 - 21 - 20 - 23.1 Note: Gaps compare the EL+RFEP percentage to the EO percentage within each year. Negative gaps indicate the EL+RFEP percent is smaller than the EO percent.

  31. Table 11: Percent Proficient or Advanced, CST, 2005 and 2010, EOs and ELs nd rd th th th th th t h th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 2005 51% 41% 57% 42% 48.3% 52% 47% 51% 47% 51% 44% EO 2010 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% 59.9% Change +9 +11 +13 +14 +17 +12 +14 +11 +8 +7 +11.6 EL 2005 22% 12% 19% 13% 7% 9% 6% 7% 3% 4% 10.2% EL 2010 39% 21% 34% 22% 16% 12% 11% 10% 6% 5% 17.6% Change +17 +9 +15 +9 +9 +3 +5 +3 +3 +1 +7.4 Gap 2005 - 29 - 29 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 42 - 41 - 44 - 41 - 38 - 38.1 Gap 2010 - 21 - 31 - 36 - 44 - 48 - 51 - 50 - 52 - 46 - 44 - 42.1 Note: Gaps compare the EL percentage to the EO percentage within each year. Negative gaps indicate the EL percent is smaller than the EO percent.

  32. Implications • Federal and state policies and data collection and assessment systems must factor RFEPs into the monitoring of EL progress. • If they are not already doing so, schools and districts need to start factoring RFEPs into their monitoring of EL progress, even if federal accountabilities don’t. • The research and evaluation community needs to be consistent about factoring RFEPs into study designs and the larger conversation about English Learners. • Studying and attending to the progress of RFEPS and ELs might yield important insights about how best to serve all students initially classified as ELs

  33. Figure 7: Percent Proficient or Adv., EOs, ELs, and ELs+RFEPS, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% EO 50% EL + 40% RFEP 30% EL 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th RFEP 5% RFEP 16% RFEP 26% RFEP 38% RFEP 48% RFEP 53% RFEP 57% RFEP 55% RFEP 57% RFEP 60%

  34. Table 7: Percent Proficient or Adv., EOs, ELs, and ELs+RFEPS, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 60% 52% 70% 66% 64% 63% 61% 62% 52% 49% 59.9% EL + RFEP 41% 29% 41% 42% 39% 39% 39% 38% 31% 29% 36.7% EL 39% 21% 34% 22% 16% 12% 11% 10% 6% 5% 17.6% Gap: EO vs EL + RFEP - 19 - 23 - 29 - 24 - 25 - 24 - 22 - 24 - 21 - 20 - 23.2 Gap: EO vs. EL - 21 - 31 - 36 - 44 - 48 - 51 - 50 - 52 - 46 - 44 - 42.3

  35. Figure 8: Percent Basic or Better, EOs, ELs, and ELs+RFEPS, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% EO 50% EL + 40% RFEP 30% EL 20% 10% 0% 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th RFEP 5% RFEP 16% RFEP 26% RFEP 38% RFEP 48% RFEP 53% RFEP 57% RFEP 55% RFEP 57% RFEP 60%

  36. Table 8: Percent Basic or Better, EOs, ELs, and ELs+RFEPS, Grades 2-11, ELA, CST, 2010 nd rd th th th th th th th th Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Row Mean E O 84% 82% 89% 89% 89% 86% 85% 84% 79% 74% 84.1% EL + RFEP 72% 64% 71% 76% 75% 73% 69% 69% 65% 60% 69.4% EL 71% 58% 71% 64% 57% 49% 47% 44% 35% 26% 52.2% Gap: EO vs EL + RFEP - 12 - 18 - 18 - 13 - 14 - 13 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 14 - 14.7 Gap: EO vs. EL - 13 - 24 - 18 - 25 - 32 - 37 - 38 - 40 - 44 - 48 - 31.9

More Related