Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an LTEL
41
Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an LTEL Shannon Wells Ph.D. 1
description
Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an LTEL . Shannon Wells Ph.D. Overview. When are students most likely to be reclassified ? How long does it take to move from one CELDT Level to the next? H ow long does it take to get to Intermediate? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an LTEL
Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an
LTEL Shannon Wells Ph.D.
1
Overview1. When are students most likely to be reclassified?2. How long does it take to move from one CELDT Level to the
next?• How long does it take to get to Intermediate?• How long are students stuck at intermediate?
3. Can CST’s act as an early warning system to determine which EL students are at risk of becoming LTEL’s?
4. What is the Typical profile of an LTEL student?5. Are there differences between EL, LTEL, and those who
reclassify before becoming an LTEL in regard to which strands they struggle with on the CST?
2
EL Population in CA
• Nearly 1.4 million of the state's 6.2 million students were identified as ELs (2010-11) – 23% of the state's total kindergarten through
grade 12 (K-12) public school enrollment.• A large number of ELs, despite their many
years in U.S. schools, are still not English proficient and are not making progress towards meeting criteria for reclassification
3
The Problem• 59% of secondary school ELs are long-term
English learners– U.S. schools for more than six years and have not
reached English proficiency to RFEP• Majority of LTELs have remained at the
intermediate level or below– Some have reached higher levels, but not enough
academic language to be reclassified– Significant gaps in reading and writing
4Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California's Long Term English Learners
Why do some become LTEL?• Academic deficits, including the lack of
adequate and comprehensive ELD, a “one-size-fits-all” curriculum
• Limited access to the full curriculum thus impeding development of academic language
• Courts pronounced that ELs have unique needs– In 1974 the US Supreme Court ruled that students who
were not proficient in English had a constitutional right to equal access to a meaningful education in the public schools.
• no equality of treatment by providing students with the same facilities textbooks, teachers and curriculum
5
Legal Definition of Long Term EL (LTEL)AB 2193
• EL who is enrolled in any of grades 6 to 12• Has been continuously enrolled in schools in
the U.S. for more than six years• Has remained at the same English language
proficiency level for two or more consecutive years
• Below or Far Below Basic on CST
6
Legal Definition of At-Risk Long Term EL (LTEL)AB 2193
• EL who is enrolled in grade 5, has been continuously enrolled in schools in the U.S. since grade 1, scores at the intermediate level or below on the English language development test, and scores in grade 4 at the below basic or far below basic levels on the English and mathematics standards-based achievement tests.
7
AB 2193 Requirements
• LEAs report the number of pupils identified as LTEL or At-Risk LTEL
• Information be provided to parents of pupils who are, or are at risk of becoming LTELs– manner in which the program for ELD instruction
will meet the educational strengths and needs– manner in which the program for ELD instruction
will help meet age-appropriate academic standards.
– 8
AB 2193
Grade 5
Int. BB CST At-Risk
Grade 6 EI FBB Not LTEL
Grade 6 INT BB LTEL
EA BB CST Not At-Risk
Grade 6 Int. FBB Not LTEL
Grade 6 EI FBB Not LTEL
Grade 6 Adv. B CST Not LTEL
Grade 6 EA BB LTEL
9
CELDTBeg=BeginningEI=Early IntermediateInt.=IntermediateEA=Early AdvancedAdv.=Advanced
CSTFBB=Far Below BasicBB=Below BasicB=BasicProf.=ProficientAdv.=Advanced
Data
• Data were collected over a number of years for 23 districts in Riverside County– 800,000+ students with CST data– 265,000+ students with CELDT data
• Students were matched on student ID• LTEL if EL more than four years (5+ years in US
schools)
10
Sample Overview
11
• CELDT Cohort Grade 2 2005 Sample:– 49.5% Female– 92.4% Hispanic– 0.0% SWD– 45% did not RFEP
• CST Cohort Grade 2 2007 Sample:– 49.2% Female– 62.2% NSLP– 94.7% Hispanic– 0.0% SWD– 59% did not RFEP
Guidelines for Reclassification
• Assessment of language proficiency on CELDT• Teacher evaluation• Parent opinion and consultation• Performance on a statewide assessment of
basic skills in English
12
Reclassification Criteria
Language Proficiency• Early advanced or higher
overall• No lower than intermediate
on each domain– Listening – Speaking– Reading – Writing
Performance on Basic Skills• Objective test of basic skills• Such as CST/CMA basic or
higher– Page 18 specifies “Statewide
Assessment”
13
Reclassification Research Brief (2009)
• Reclassification status has an impact on many crucial areas for districts– EL program placement and allocation of resources,
Title III funding, AMAO, and EL subgroup API and AYP calculations
• Compared rigor of RFEP policies– Districts with higher levels of reclassification rigor
perform better than districts with lower levels of rigor
14
15
WHEN ARE STUDENTS MOST LIKELY TO BE RECLASSIFIED?Research Question #1
16
17
1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
17.7
22.9
20.5
17.9
12.9
5.9
2.2
Percentage of Students by Number of Years it Took to Reclassify%
n = 44,937
• Most students were reclassified within the first three years (61.1%).• 38.9% take four years or more to reclassify.
18
1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.0 1.0 2.4 5.0 6.0 9.7 6.70.0 1.8 5.413.2 17.9
24.016.9
10.821.6
42.6
50.449.3
44.349.4
57.5
56.0
41.2
26.7 22.5 19.920.231.7
8.4 4.7 4.3
Percentages of EL Students by CELDT Level in Grade 2 and How Many Years it Took to Reclassify
Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced
%
• The greatest percentage of students who were reclassified within two years earned an Early Advanced or Advanced score on the CELDT in grade 2.
• There is a substantial percentage of Intermediate students who are taking four or more years to reclassify.
n = 4,000
19
Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
4.68 4.73
4.09
3.10
2.54
Average Number of Years to Reclassify by Grade 2 CELDT LevelAv
erag
e #
of Y
ears
• The lower an EL student’s initial CELDT score, the longer it took them to reclassify.• It took those with an initial Beginning level on the CELDT an average of 4.68 years to reclassify.• In contrast, it only took Advanced students 2.54 years on average to become reclassified.
n = 4,000
20
These results are very similar to findings from an earlier Reclassification Study conducted in 2009 on a smaller sample of just six districts across the County, demonstrating the rigor of the effect.
To access this research:
http://www.keydatasys.com/common/downloads/Research-EnglishLearnerRedesignationStudy.pdf
21
Spanish Languages other than Spanish0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00 3.73
2.92
Average Number of Years to Reclassify by Spanish vs. Other Languages
Aver
age
# of
yea
rsThe upper graph demonstrates that students with a primary language of Spanish take longer, on average, to reclassify than students who enter school speaking other languages.
The lower graph demonstrates that students who enter school speaking languages other than that represented by the four major categories here, tend to reclassify sooner than students who enter school speaking Spanish. These “other” languages are mostly European languages such as Portuguese and German, as well as Russian and Romanian. Students entering speaking Asian languages such as Japanese and Vietnamese as well as those speaking Indian languages such as Hindi and Punjabi tend to take less than three years to reclassify. Some categories should be interpreted with caution due to small sample size.All Other Languages Spanish Asian Languages Indian Arabic Languages
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
2.55
3.73
2.96 2.943.15
Average Number of Years to Reclassify by Language Categories
Aver
age
# of
yea
rs
n = 3,729 n = 266
n = 49 n = 3,729 n = 171 n = 17 n = 34
22
low number of years high number of yearslow CELDT level 30% 70%high CELDT level 70% 30%
Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD)To illustrate the practical importance of the correlation between 2nd grade CELDT level and number of years to reclassification, a Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) was calculated. The BESD is used to provide a more useful and interpretable means to evaluate relationships between variables (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991).
Using the BESD we can estimate that only 30% of the EL students who score a CELDT level of Beginning through Intermediate, would be likely to be reclassified within 4 years. Of those students scoring an Early Advanced or Advanced level on the CELDT in the 2nd grade, 70% would be expected to be reclassified within 4 years, thus avoiding becoming a LTEL.
BESD
Summary
• Most students reclassify in the first three years• The lower the level a student starts at on
CELDT, the longer it takes for that student to reclassify
23
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MOVE FROM ONE CELDT LEVEL TO THE NEXT?
A. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO INTERMEDIATE?B. HOW LONG ARE STUDENTS STUCK AT INTERMEDIATE?
Research Question #2
24
K to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 60.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
69.3
16.5
35.4
58.8
45.8
32.9
Percentage of Students Who Increased One CELDT Performance Level or More from Year to Year (Grade K 2005 Cohort)
25
• 69.3% of grade K students who took CELDT in 2005 and 2006, increased one or more CELDT performance levels from grade K to grade 1.
• From grades 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, the percentages of students increasing one CELDT performance level or more were significantly smaller (16.5% and 35.4% respectively). This seems to indicate that many students in grades 2 and 3 are failing to progress or are perhaps in a holding pattern developmentally.
• As students in this cohort progressed from grades 3 to 4, a larger percentage increased one or more CELDT levels (58.8%).
n = 4,015 n = 3,744 n = 3,108 n = 2,760 n = 2,021 n = 1,533
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
63.4
46.7
55.7
79.7
87.8
87.7
Percentage of Beginning/Early Intermediate Kinder Students in 2005 Who Scored Intermediate or Better in Grades 1-6
26
• This graph represents the percentage of the 2005 Kinder cohort who advanced from a Beginning or Early Intermediate CELDT level to Intermediate or better each year.
• 63.4% of the students who scored Beginning/Early Intermediate in Kinder (2005) scored Intermediate or better in grade 1 (2006).
• The percentage of Kinder Beginning/Early Intermediate students (2005) who scored Intermediate or better in grade 2 (2007), was substantially smaller. This was also evident for grade 3 (year 3).
• There was a slight decline in sample that may have impacted these results, however, it more than likely reflects a delay in progression similar to what was observed in the previous graph.
n= 2,504
n= 2,366
n= 2,021
n= 1,884
n= 1,462
n= 1,137
27
Never 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.031.3
23.4
19.2
15.0
7.9
2.80.5 0.1
Percentage of Students by the Number of Years They Scored Intermediate on CELDT Over the Course of Seven Years
(Kinder 2005 Cohort)
%
• 31.3% of students in this cohort never scored Intermediate on CELDT. This could mean that they always scored higher than Intermediate or bypassed this level in their progression.
• 23.4% of the students in this cohort scored Intermediate at least one year over the course of the seven years studied.• A similar percentage (23.5%) scored Intermediate for 3 years or more.
Never n = 1,7951 Year n = 1,3452 Years n = 1,1003 Years n = 8594 Years n = 4545 Years n = 1596 Years n = 297 Years n = 3
Summary
• Most students move up a level in grades k-1 and 3-4, but struggle more in other grades.
• Grades 4-6 appears to be when most students reach intermediate
• A significant percentage (31.3%) of students never score intermediate
28
CAN CST’S ACT AS AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM TO DETERMINE WHICH EL STUDENTS ARE AT RISK OF BECOMING LTEL’S?
Research Question #3
29
30
CSTELA07 CSTELA08 CSTELA09 CSTELA10 CSTELA11
17.9
10.1
30.4 29.526.8
46.2
36.1
70.1 68.666.1
Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced by LTEL vs. Non LTEL (Grade 2 2007 Cohort)
LTEL Non LTEL
• The line chart represents the percentage of students earning a proficient or better score on the CST ELA, starting in grade 2, disaggregated by eventual LTEL status.
• Both groups experience a dip in the 3rd grade, however, a much larger percentage of students who eventually become LTEL’s, consistently perform below grade level across multiple years in 2008.
n = 9,116 n = 8,325 n = 7,938 n = 7,146 n = 6,760
31
LTEL Non-LTEL0 to 2 Years FBB to B on CST ELA 36% 64%3 to 4 Years FBB to B on CST ELA 64% 36%
For this analysis, we created dichotomous variables for LTEL status and number of years scoring in the bottom three performance categories (Far Below Basic, Below Basic, and Basic). One category represents EL students who scored Basic or below for 0, 1, or 2 years. The other category represents EL students who scored Basic or below for 3 or 4 years. Then we calculated a correlation coefficient to input into the Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD).
Using the BESD we can estimate that 64% of the EL students who score Basic or below for three to four years will likely become LTEL. Of those EL students scoring Basic or below for two years or less, only 36% would be expected to become LTEL.
BESD
32
0 Years
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
.0
.6
6.0
17.9
75.5
0.9
35.0
31.6
20.6
11.8
Percentage of Students by the Number of Years They Scored FBB to B Over a Four Year Period: LTEL vs. Non-LTEL
NON LTEL LTEL
• This graph demonstrates how many of the students who would eventually become LTEL scored in the bottom three performance levels for multiple years.
• Three quarters of the LTEL students had been at the bottom three levels of CST ELA for four years.
LTEL n = 5,605Non LTEL n = 4,054
Summary
• Non-LTELs and LTELs followed similar trends in ELA, but LTELs achievement was lower
• LTELs are much more likely to score FBB or BB for an extended period of time as their non-LTEL peers
33
WHAT IS THE TYPICAL PROFILE OF A LTEL STUDENT?Research Question #4
34
35
Grade Level02468
101214161820 18.3
14.713.1 12.5
11.1 10.7 10.2 9.4
LTEL by Grade Level
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
%
Ethnicity0
20406080
100
.0 1.4 .1 .4
97.2
.1 .8
LTEL by EthnicityAmerican Indian/Alaska Native AsianPacific Islander FilipinoHispanic African AmericanWhite
%
• LTEL percentages are highest in late elementary school and decline each year. By grade 12, the percentage has been cut in half.
• In Riverside County, the LTEL students are most commonly Hispanic.
n = 26,720
36
80.2
19.8
LTEL by SWD
No Special Education Special Education
97.2
2.8
LTEL by Primary Language
Spanish All Other Languages
56.5
43.5
LTEL by Gender
Male Female
18.9
56.0
16.3
1.27.0
0.5
LTEL by English Learner Program
EL in ELD only EL in ELD and SDAIEEL in ELD and SDAIE with PLS EL in ELD and Academic w/PLSOther EL Program None n = 26,720
• Nearly 20% of LTEL students in the primary sample were designated as SWD’s, 97.2% of them spoke Spanish as their primary language, they were more likely to be Male (56.5%), and mostly likely to be in ELD and SDAIE.
37
LTEL
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
55.4
82.3
Percentage of Students Who Become LTELs by SWD vs. Non (Sample: Grade 2 2007)
Special Education No Special Education
%
• 82% of SWDs in the grade 2 cohort will become LTELs.• 55% of non SWDs in the grade 2 cohort will become LTELs.
n = 4,765
n = 835
Summary
• Most LTELs are in the late elementary grades• 97% Hispanic• 97% Spanish• Most (56%) are in Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English programs
38
ARE THERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EL, LTEL, AND THOSE WHO RECLASSIFY BEFORE BECOMING A LTEL IN REGARD TO WHICH STRANDS THEY STRUGGLE WITH ON THE CST?
Research Question #5
39
40
Word Analysis
Reading Comprehension
Literary
Response and Analysis
Written Conve
ntions
Writing St
rategies0
102030405060708090
65.14
44.60
17.11
40.69
24.02
77.65
55.54
20.65
51.06
29.16
Percent Correct on CST ELA Strands by LTEL, Non LTEL, & All EL (Grade 2 2007 Cohort)
LTEL Non LTEL All EL
%
• Students in the sample tended to struggle most with the LRA and WS strands, followed by WC and RC strands.• This pattern was the same for all three groups, though LTEL tended to earn lower scores overall.
LTEL n = 4,751Non LTEL n = 3,828
