Bilingual ESL Report 2012 v5 - Houston Independent School ... · 2 More than 60% of students from both bilingual and ESL programs showed improvement in their English language proficiency

MEMORANDUM September 20, 2012 TO: Board Members FROM: Terry B. Grier, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: 2012 BILINGUAL & ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM

EVALUATION REPORT CONTACT: Carla Stevens, 713-556-6700 The Texas Education Code (§ 29.051) requires school districts to provide every language minority student with the opportunity to participate in either a bilingual or English as a second language (ESL) program. Attached is the evaluation report summarizing the performance of students who participated in the district’s bilingual and ESL programs during the 2011–2012 school year. Included in the report are findings from assessments of academic achievement and English language proficiency for all students classified as English Language Learners (ELL), as well as demographic characteristics of students served by these programs. In addition, the report summarizes the professional development activities of staff involved with the bilingual and ESL programs. A total of 41,505 ELL students participated in bilingual programs in 2011–2012, and an additional 12,751 in ESL programs. Results from the STAAR, STAAR EOC, TAKS and Stanford 10 assessments showed that students currently enrolled in a bilingual or ESL programs generally did less well than students districtwide, although performance on mathematics tests was relatively better. However, students who had been formerly enrolled in either program performed at or above the district average on most assessments and subjects. The percentage of students scoring at the Advanced High level of English language proficiency (as measured by the TELPAS) decreased in 2011–2012, and this was true for both bilingual and ESL students. Both programs also showed decreases in the percentage of students showing gains in proficiency. Finally, the number of students exiting from ELL status decreased in 2011–2012 by 21% from the previous year’s total, which was a nine-year high.

__TBG

cc: Superintendent’s Direct Reports Gracie Guerrero Chief School Officers School Improvement Officers Principals

RESEARCHE d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m R e p o r t

D e pa r t m e n t o f r e s e a r c h a n D a c c o u n ta b i l i t yh o u s t o n i n D e p e n D e n t s c h o o l D i s t r i c t

Bilingual & English as a Second Language Program Evaluation

2011-2012

2012 Board of Education

Michael L. LuncefordPresident

Anna EastmanFirst Vice President

Juliet Stipechesecond Vice President

Rhonda Skillern-Jonessecretary

Greg Meyersassistant secretary

Paula HarrisLawrence MarshallHarvin C. MooreManuel Rodriguez, Jr.

Terry B. Grier, Ed.D.sUPerintendent oF scHooLs

Carla Stevensassistant sUPerintendentdePartMent oF researcH and accoUntaBiLity

Kevin Briand, Ph.D.researcH sPeciaList

Venita Holmes, Dr.P.H.researcH ManaGer

Houston Independent School DistrictHattie Mae White educational support center4400 West 18th streetHouston, texas 77092-8501

www.houstonisd.org

it is the policy of the Houston independent school district not to discriminate on the basis of age, color, handicap or disability, ancestry, national origin, marital status, race, religion, sex, veteran status, or political affiliation in its educational or employment programs and activities.

Executive Summary

Program Description The Houston Independent School District (HISD) currently offers four bilingual programs and two Eng-lish as a Second Language (ESL) programs for English language learners (ELLs). These programs are intended to facilitate ELL students’ integration into the regular school curriculum and to ensure access to equal educational opportunities. Bilingual programs are offered in elementary schools and selected mid-dle schools for language-minority students who need to enhance their English-language skills. Begin-ning in pre-kindergarten, the bilingual programs provides ELL students with a carefully structured se-quence of basic skills in their native language, as well as gradual skill development in English through ESL methodology. In bilingual programs, the native language functions to provide access to the curricu-lum while the student is acquiring English. Instruction in the native language assures that students attain grade-level cognitive skills without falling behind academically. ESL programs are also offered to language-minority students at all grade levels who need to develop and enhance their English-language skills. ESL programs provides intensive English instruction in all subjects, with a focus on listening, speaking, reading, and writing through the use of ESL methodology.

The state of Texas requires an annual evaluation of bilingual and ESL programs in all school districts where these services are offered [TAC § 89.1265]. This report must include the following information:

• academic progress of ELL students; levels of English proficiency among ELL students; the number of students exited from bilingual and ESL programs; and • frequency and scope of professional development provided to teachers and staff serving ELLs. Highlights Current bilingual ELL students did not perform as well as district students overall on English reading

and language measures (STAAR, STAAR-L, Stanford). This is unsurprising given that ELLs are still in the process of acquiring English, but they did perform better than the district in mathematics.

Current ESL students also performed less well than the district average on all subjects tested

(STAAR, STAAR-L, STAAR EOC, TAKS, Stanford). Both current bilingual and current ESL students improved their performance on the Stanford reading

between 2011 and 2012. Exited students from both bilingual and ESL programs performed better than the district average on

most assessments and subjects. Former bilingual and ESL students also improved their reading performance on the Stanford between 2011 and 2012.

English language proficiency for ESL students was better than that for bilingual students through

grade 3, but for grades 4 through 6, bilingual ELL students showed higher English proficiency.

BILINGUAL AND ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM EVALUATION 2011–2012

2

More than 60% of students from both bilingual and ESL programs showed improvement in their English language proficiency in 2011–2012, compared to the previous year.

A total of 5,761 ELL students met the necessary proficiency criteria, and exited ELL status during

the 2011–2012 school year. This was a 21% decrease from the count in the previous year. Long-term-LEPs (i.e., ELL for eight years or more) accounted for 58% of all ELL students in middle

school, and Newcomers (three years or less as ELL) represented 40% of high school ELLs. There were 478 staff development training sessions held in 2011–2012 for teachers, administrators,

and other HISD staff. Recommendations 1. In spring of 2011, the Multilingual Department arranged to have an external review of the district’s

bilingual and ESL programs. The district should ensure that the Multilingual Department continues to consult with district personnel to review, update, and consolidate the different bilingual program models, as per the recommendation of the Bilingual Program Review in August of 2011.

2. The district should ensure that school administrators are implementing the ESL component of bilin-

gual programs. This includes making sure that campuses have adequate curricular materials to sup-port bilingual teachers in implementation of the ESL component.

4. The Multilingual Department should continue to focus on assisting campuses with programming for

long-term ELLs and for Newcomers. At the secondary level, both of these groups represent a size-able portion of the ELL population and may require specialized attention.

Administrative Response The Multilingual Department, in collaboration with the Curriculum Department and Professional Develop-ment Services, developed a four-day training for teachers of ELL students in grades 3–12. This training occurred in August, and emphasized eight literacy routines that teachers can easily implement to assist ELL students academically. Teacher Development Specialists will follow up during 2012–2013 to ensure that these strategies are implemented appropriately. In 2011–2012, for the first time, the Multilingual Department had staff specifically dedicated to supporting secondary campuses. These staff shared data and consulted with school administrators and teachers on a regular basis, and this effort will continue in the coming year. Two initiatives aimed at Newcomers will begin in fall 2012. A day school program serving Newcomers will be established at the site of Liberty High School, which currently offers programs only at night. In addition, Las Americas Middle School will now offer services to 4th and 5th grade Newcomers. In spring of 2012, the Multilingual Department created an ad hoc committee to review data and provide guidance and input regarding the findings of the 2011 Program Review. Possible revisions or changes to the district’s bilingual program models continue to be the subject of discussion, although there have been no final decisions. In the interim, one additional new bilingual program (based on the Gomez & Gomez model) will begin in five district campuses during the 2012–2013 school year.

3

Introduction

Texas state law requires that specialized linguistic programs be provided for students who are English language learners (ELL). These programs are intended to facilitate ELL students’ integration into the regular school curriculum and ensure access to equal educational opportunities. According to the Texas Education Code, every student in Texas who is identified as a language minority with a home language other than English must be provided an opportunity to participate in a bilingual or other special language program (Chapter 29, Subchapter B 29.051). The Texas Administrative Code (TAC) in Chapter 89, Sub-chapter BB provides a framework of indicators for the implementation of such programs.

The Houston Independent School District (HISD) currently offers four bilingual programs and two Eng-lish as a Second Language (ESL) programs for ELLs. Bilingual programs are offered in elementary schools and selected secondary schools for language-minority students who need to enhance their Eng-lish-language skills. Beginning in prekindergarten, the bilingual programs provides ELL students with a carefully structured sequence of basic skills in their native language, as well as gradual skill develop-ment in English through ESL methodology. In bilingual programs, the native language functions to pro-vide access to the curriculum while the student is acquiring English. Instruction in the native language assures that students attain grade-level cognitive skills without falling behind academically.

ESL programs are also offered to language-minority students at all grade levels who need to develop and enhance their English-language skills. ESL programs provides intensive English instruction in all subjects, with a focus on listening, speaking, reading, and writing through the use of ESL methodology. For the purpose of this report, “bilingual programs” refer to all four program models as a single unit. Similarly, “ESL programs” refer to both ESL program models as a single unit. Separate reports are avail-able for a detailed examination of the various bilingual and ESL program models (Houston Independent School District, 2012a; 2012b, 2012c, 2012d). Further details on state requirements, and specific pro-grams offered in HISD can be found in Appendix A (p 17).

Methods Participants The total student population of HISD in October 2012 was 201,594 as reported in the PEIMS fall snap-shot data file. Thirty percent of the district were ELL students. Sixty-nine percent of ELL students were served in bilingual programs, 21% were served in an ESL program, and 10% did not receive any special linguistic services (see Table 1, also Appendix B, p. 18). Data for 2012 are shaded in blue.

Table 1. Number and Percent of ELL Students in HISD, 2009–2010 to 2011–2012

Program Number of Students % of All Students % of ELL Students

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 Non-ELL 138,766 141,348 141,048 69 70 70

ELL 62,178 61,946 60,546 31 30 30 Bilingual 41,141 41,703 41,505 20 21 21 66 67 69 ESL 16,566 14,297 12,751 8 7 6 27 23 21 Not Served 4,471 5,946 6,290 2 3 3 7 10 10

Total 200,944 203,294 201,594

Source: PEIMS

4

HISD had 60,546 ELL students in 2011–2012. As Figure 1 shows, there was an increase in the ELL population from 2000–2001 through 2003–2004, and annual declines through 2006–2007. ELL enroll-ment rebounded over the past five years, mirroring trends in overall HISD student population (district enrollment is represented by the solid red line). ELL enrollment decreased by 1,400 in 2011–2012, but they accounted for the same proportion of the district population (30%) as in the previous year.

Figure 2 provides a demographic account of ELL students’ ethnicity and home language. Ninety-three percent of ELL students in HISD were Hispanic. Students of Asian ethnicity made up the next largest group (3%). ELL students come to HISD from all over the world, and there are 86 different native lan-guages among this group. Most ELL students (93%) were native Spanish speakers. Arabic was the next most commonly spoken native language, followed by Vietnamese. Details shown in Appendix C (p 19)reveal that the number of Nepali, Swahili, and Mandarin speakers increased substantially in 2011–2012. All bilingual or ESL students with valid assessment results from 2011–2012 were included in analyses for this report, as were all students who had participated in one of these programs but who had since exited ELL status. These latter students were defined as either monitored (students was in their first or second year after having exited ELL status), or former (students is three years or more post-ELL status).

Figure 1. The number of ELL students enrolled in HISD schools over the last twelve years.

Source: PEIMS

Figure 2. ELL student ethnicity and home language, 2011–2012.

Source: PEIMS

56,748

59,904 60,466 61,14459,481 58,713

55,407

59,055

61,755 62,178 61,94660,546

190,000

200,000

210,000

220,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

2000-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

# H

ISD

Stu

den

ts

# E

LL

Stu

den

ts

Year

Hispanic56,482

Asian1,965

Black1,057

White839

American Indian107

Pacific Islander

45

Multiple51

Spanish56,595

Arabic627

Vietnam.544

Nepali271

Mandarin205

English197

Swahili187

Urdu160

Other1,760

5

Data Collection & Analysis Results for students currently enrolled in bilingual or ESL programs were analyzed, as were data from students who had exited these programs and were no longer ELL. Data from the State of Texas Assess-ments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), STAAR-L (a linguistically accommodated version of STAAR given to ELLs meeting certain eligibility requirements), STAAR End-of-course (EOC), Texas Assess-ment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), Aprenda 3, Stanford 10, and Texas English Language Profi-ciency Assessment System (TELPAS) were analyzed at the district level. Note that for certain student groups, data from some of these assessment data may not be available. Comparisons were made be-tween bilingual students, ESL students, and all students districtwide. STAAR results are reported and analyzed for the reading and mathematics tests. For each test, the av-erage percentage of items answered correctly is shown. Note that standards for this new assessments will not be available until later in 2012 and are not yet available at the time of publication of this report. STAAR-L results are reported for mathematics. For STAAR EOC, the percent of students who met stan-dard are reported for English I Reading, English I Writing, Algebra I, Biology, and World Geography (STAAR-EOC L results are included for the latter three subjects). For TAKS, the percent of students meeting standard are reported for the reading and mathematics tests. Aprenda 3 and Stanford 10 re-sults are reported (Normal Curve Equivalents or NCEs) for reading, mathematics, and language. TELPAS results are reported for two indicators. One of these reflects attainment, i.e., the overall level of English language proficiency exhibited by ELL students. For this indicator, the percent of students at each proficiency level is presented. The second indicator reflects progress, i.e., whether students gained one or more levels of English language proficiency between testing in 2011 and 2012. For this second TELPAS indicator, the percent gaining one or more proficiency levels in the previous year is reported. Appendix D (p. 20) provides further details on each of the assessments analyzed for this report. Finally, professional development and training data were collected from the Multilingual Department, and ELL student exits were obtained from Chancery records.

Results What was the academic progress of ELL students in bilingual and ESL programs? STAAR Figure 3 (see p. 6) shows the percent of items answered correctly by current bilingual ELL students on the STAAR in 2012. Results for both the Spanish and English language versions of the tests are in-cluded. Data are only available for 2012 since this was the first year in which the STAAR was adminis-tered. Results are shown for bilingual students, as well as all students districtwide 1 (Spanish-language districtwide results are not included, since these are identical to the bilingual Spanish-language results). Further details including performance by grade level can be found in Appendices E and F (pp. 21-22)

A total of 14,408 current bilingual students took the reading portion of the STAAR, representing 96

percent of those enrolled. Of these, 46 percent completed the Spanish version, while 54 percent completed the English version.

Performance of bilingual students on the Spanish STAAR mathematics test was slightly better than

that for the reading test (64 vs. 61% of items answered correctly).

6

Performance on the English STAAR reading test for bilingual students was lower than that for the district, by 6 percentage points.

On the mathematics tests, bilingual students STAAR results were better than those of the district (by

7 percentage points), while STAAR-L performance was still lower than the district (by 5 percentage points).

Bilingual students performance on the STAAR mathematics test was better than on the STAAR-L.

Results for exited bilingual students 2 (see Figure 4) show that both monitored and former bilingual students performed better than the district on STAAR reading.

On STAAR mathematics, monitored bilingual students did better than the district, but former bilin-

gual students were slightly lower (by 2 percentage points).

Figure 3. Percentage of items answered correctly on STAAR and STAAR-L reading and mathe-matics tests, 2012: bilingual students, and all students districtwide (English STAAR only).

Source: TAKS, Chancery

Figure 4. English STAAR performance for monitored and former bilingual ELL students, and all students districtwide, 2012: reading and mathematics.

61 64 5866

54

64

59

0102030405060708090

100

Spanish Reading Spanish Math English Reading English Math

% I

tem

s co

rrec

t

Subject by Language

Bilingual

Bilingual STAAR-L

HISD

68 6771

57

6459

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading Mathematics

% I

tem

s C

orr

ect

Subject

Monitored Bilingual Former Bilingual HISD N=74,114


7

Data for ESL students showed that both STAAR and STAAR-L performance was well below district levels (see Figure 5, details also in Appendix G, p. 23).

Performance of ESL students on the STAAR was better than that of ESL students who took the

STAAR-L mathematics test (+7 points).

Former ESL students (see Figure 6) performed better than the district on both reading (+10 percent-age points) and mathematics STAAR tests (+6 points).

Monitored ESL students were better than the district on reading (+1 percentage point), but not

mathematics (-2 points).

Figure 5. Percentage of items answered correctly on English STAAR and STAAR-L reading and mathematics tests, 2012: ESL students, and all students districtwide.


Figure 6. English STAAR performance for monitored and former bilingual ELL students, and all students districtwide, 2012: reading and mathematics.


47 45

38

6459

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading Mathematics

% I

tem

s C

orr

ect

Subject

ESL

ESL STAAR-L

HISD

6557

74

65

6459

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading Mathematics

% I

tem

s C

orr

ect

Subject

Monitored ESL

Former ESL

HISD

8

STAAR EOC Figure 7 depicts results for the STAAR-EOC assessment (see also Appendix H, p. 24). Shown are re-sults for English I reading and English I writing, World Geography, Biology, and Algebra I. For each test, the figure shows the percentage of students who met the Advanced standard (dark green), or who met the Satisfactory but not Advanced standard (light green). Yellow sections indicate the percentage of stu-dents who scored Unsatisfactory met the minimum standard, i.e., the score required for a test to count toward graduation. Finally, red indicates the percentage of students who scored Unsatisfactory and were below the minimum standard. Note that only data from exited (monitored and former) bilingual students is analyzed, since the bilingual programs do not exist at ninth grade. For ESL, data from both current and exited ESL students are shown. Figures in parentheses show the number of students tested.

Figure 7. STAAR-EOC percent met standard for bilingual and ESL students, by subject, 2012: Results are included for all current and exited ESL students, and exited bilingual students, as

well as for the district overall.

Source: STAAR, Chancery

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Current ESL (789)

Current ESL EOC-L (340)

Exited ESL (2,119)

Exited Bilingual (1,235)

HISD (11,041)

Current ESL (696)


Exited ESL (1,975)


HISD (10,259)

Current ESL (781)


Exited ESL (2,110)


HISD (10,880)

Current ESL (1,156)

Exited ESL (2,163)


HISD (11,505)

Current ESL (1,159)

Exited ESL (2,160)


HISD (11,515)

% of Students

Unsatisfactory Below Minimum Unsatisfactory Met Minimum

Satisfactory Not Advanced Advanced

Alg

ebra

IB

iolo

gy

Wo

rld

G

eog

rap

hy

En

gli

sh I

Rea

din

gE

ng

lish

IW

riti

ng

Stu

den

t G

rou

p b

y S

ub

ject

9

Current ESL students taking the STAAR EOC performed better than those taking the STAAR EOC-L, and this was true for Algebra I, Biology, and World Geography.

Current ESL students performed less well than the district on all five tests, including those where a

linguistically accommodated version was available. Exited bilingual students performed better than exited ESL students, as well as all students in the

district, and this was true for all subjects. Exited ESL students did slightly better than the district on some subjects (World geography, Biology,

and Algebra I), but slightly worse on English I reading and writing. TAKS Figure 8 summarizes performance on the TAKS test for students in grades 10 and 11. Shown are the percentages of students who met standard on the reading and mathematics tests. Results are shown for current and exited ESL students, exited bilingual students, and for the district overall (see Appendix I for details, p. 25).

Current ESL students performed well below the level of district students overall in both reading (gap of 47 percentage points) and mathematics (gap of 31 points). This is consistent with results from previous years, where performance gaps for ESL students increases as grade level increases.

In contrast, exited ESL students performed better than the district on both reading and mathematics,

with exited bilingual students doing better than all comparison groups. Aprenda 3 & Stanford 10

Figure 9 (see p. 10) summarizes Aprenda 3 and Stanford 10 data for the 2011–2012 school year. Shown are mean NCE scores for the reading, mathematics, and language tests. Results are shown for ELLs in the bilingual program, as well as for all students districtwide (Stanford only). The dashed red line indicates an average NCE of 50.

Figure 8. Percentage of exited DBP and TWBIP ELL students passing the reading and mathematics tests of the TAKS, 2012: HISD results included for comparison.


4250

9182

9790

8981

0102030405060708090

100

Reading Mathematics

% M

et S

tan

dar

d

Subject

Current ESL

Exited ESL

Exited Bilingual

HISD

10

On the Aprenda, students in bilingual programs were well above the expected average NCE of 50 in all subjects, with average NCEs ranging from 71 to 74 (see Appendix J for details including grade level results, p. 26).

Bilingual student performance on the Stanford was much lower than for the Aprenda. Bilingual stu-dents had average NCE scores below the expected of 50 on reading and language, but were above average on mathematics (see also Appendix K, p. 27).

Bilingual students did slightly better than district students on mathematics (+1 NCE point), but were

lower than the district in reading (-7 NCE points) and language (-4 points).

Figure 10 (see above) shows Stanford reading performance for bilingual students over a five-year period (2008 to 2012). The performance gap has declined from 10 NCE points to only 7 points over this time period, including a one-point gain in 2012.

Figure 9. Aprenda 3 and Stanford 10 Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for bilingual students and students districtwide (Stanford only), 2012: Reading, mathematics, and language tests.

Source: Aprenda, Stanford, Chancery

Figure 10. Stanford 10 Reading Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for bilingual students, as well as students districtwide, 2008 to 2012.

Source: Stanford, Chancery

71 71 74

39

5344

4652

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aprenda Reading

Aprenda Math

Aprenda Language

Stanford Reading

Stanford Math

Stanford Language

NC

E

Subject by Language

Bilingual

HISD

34 37 37 38 39

44 46 46 46 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NC

E

Year

Current Bilingual

HISD

11

Stanford performance for ESL students (see Figure 11) shows that ESL students performed below the level of the district in reading (gap of 15 NCE points), mathematics (8 points), and language (14 points; see also Appendix L, p. 28).

Figure 12 (above) shows Stanford reading results for ESL students over the period 2008 through 2012. ESL students did not close the performance gap (15 NCE points) over this time period, but did show a one-point gain in 2012.


Figure 12. Stanford 10 reading Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for ESL students, as well as students districtwide, 2008 to 2012.

Figure 11.Stanford 10 reading Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for current ESL students and HISD students districtwide, 2012: reading, mathematics, and language.


2933 32 30 31

44 46 45 46 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NC

E

Year

Current ESL

HISD

31

44

34

4652

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stanford Reading Stanford Math Stanford Language

NC

E

Subject by Language

ESL

HISD

12

Stanford results for exited ELLs show that monitored and former bilingual and ESL students had higher average NCEs than did district students overall, and this was true for all subjects (see Figure 13).

Comparable data are shown in Figure 14 for the period 2008 to 2012 (Stanford reading only). Exited bilingual and ESL students outperformed the district average in each year, and former bilingual and ESL students each showed gains in reading performance between 2011 and 2012.

Figure 13. Stanford 10 Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for exited bilingual and ESL students, and students districtwide, 2012: Reading, mathematics, and language.


Figure 14. Stanford Reading Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for exited bilingual and ESL students, and all students districtwide, 2008 to 2012.


48

6053

47

57

4953

6154

57

66

58

4653

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reading Mathematics Language

NC

E

Subject

Monitored Bilingual Monitored ESL

Former Bilingual Former ESL

HISD

47 49 50 50 4846 48 47 47 4749 51 52 52 5351 52 53 55 57

44 45 45 46 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NC

E

Year

Monitored Bilingual Monitored ESL

Former Bilingual Former ESL

HISD

13

What were the levels of English language proficiency among ELL students in bilingual and ESL programs?

Figures 15 and 16 summarize TELPAS results for bilingual and ESL students. Figure 15 shows attain-ment, i.e., the percentage of students scoring at each proficiency level on the TELPAS. Figure 16 shows yearly progress, i.e. the percentage of students who made gains in English language proficiency be-tween 2011 and 2012. Further details can be found in Appendices M and N (see pp. 29-30). Through grade 3, bilingual students had a higher percentage of students at the Beginning or Inter-

mediate levels of proficiency (sections shaded red or yellow), and a lower percentage at Advanced or Advanced High levels (light or dark green), than did ESL (Figure 15).

At grades 4 and higher, where bilingual students transition to predominantly English instruction, they

showed more English proficiency than did ESL students (more of them Advanced or better).

Students in both programs showed approximately the same amount of progress/improvement in English proficiency between 2011 and 2012 (see Figure 16 above).

Figure 15. TELPAS composite proficiency ratings for bilingual and ESL students, 2012.

Source: TELPAS, Chancery

Figure 16. TELPAS yearly progress for bilingual and ESL students, 2012.


38 37

62 63

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Bilingual ESL

% L

EP

Stu

den

ts

Student Group

No Gain Gain

84

3950

13 10 14 11 144

13 10 4 4

12

24

34

24 33 20 21 15

16

15

9

17

7 13

24

12

2832

26 3024

27

31

20

27

27

36

134

3525

41 3847 53

41

68

4663

48

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bil ESL Bil ESL Bil ESL Bil ESL Bil ESL Bil ESL Bil ESL

% L

EP

Stu

den

ts

Grade Level

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Advanced High

K 1 432 65

14

How many ELL students were valedictorians or salutatorians in high school?

As evidence for the long-term success of ELL students from the bilingual and ESL programs, Figure 17 shows the percentages of students from the graduating class of 2012 who were either exited ELLs, or who were never ELL at any time. Comparison data comes from the entire class of 2012. Of the 10,075 students in grade 12 during the 2011–2012 school year, 38% of them had been ELL

at some point between kindergarten and 12th grade. Thirty-four percent of valedictorians had been ELLs, and 48% of salutatorians had been ELL. Thus,

ELLs were slightly under-represented among valedictorians, but over-represented among salutatori-ans, compared to their actual proportion of the HISD population.

How many students successfully exited bilingual and ESL programs?

The district’s Chancery system was used to identify all ELLs who met English proficiency criteria and were able to exit ELL status during 2011–2012. These data are shown in Figure 18. A total of 5,761 students exited ELL status in 2011–2012. This was a decrease of 1,565 (21 percent)

in comparison with the previous year’s total.

Figure 17. Percentages of valedictorians and salutatorians in 2012 who were ever ELL.

Source: Chancery

Figure 18. ELL student exits, 2002–2003 through 2011–2012.

Source: Chancery

34%n=14

48%n=20 38%

n=3,817

66%n=27

52%n=22 62%

n=6,2578

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Valedictorians Salutatorians Grade 12 Students

% S

tud

ents

Student Group

ELL Never ELL

5,540

6,520

5,566 5,560

2,518

3,923

5,185 5,418

7,326

5,761

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

# E

xits

Year

15

How many secondary-level ELL students were recent arrivals versus long-term LEPs? A critical question which relates to the efficacy of the district’s programs for ELL students concerns the identity of current ELLs at the secondary level. Specifically, how many of these non-exited ELLs are re-cent arrivals, and how many have been in the district for a number of years without reaching exit crite-ria? The relevant data can be seen in Figure 19 and Figure 20. The shaded bars show the number of

ELL students, as a function of how many years they have been coded as LEP (this serves as a proxy for the total number of years in school).

A significant number of ELL students in middle and high school have been LEP for eight years or

more. In fact, this amounts to 58 percent of all ELLs in middle school and 30 percent for high school. Thus, many ELL students at the secondary level are “long-term LEPs” (LTLs), who have not been able to meet exit criteria.

“Newcomers” (ELLs who have been enrolled in U.S. schools three years or less) make up a rela-

tively larger share of the ELL population in high school (40%) than they do in middle school (20%). The data in Figures 19 and 20 represented by the circles show the number of the ELLs who were

coded as special education students in 2011–2012. This is done via odds ratios. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that LEP students are more likely to be in special education.

Note that for both middle school and high school student, these odds ratios increase as the length of

time a student has been LEP increases. For example, high school students who have been LEP for eight years or more are almost five times as likely to be in special education as non-LEPs (odds ra-tio = 4.8).

This pattern suggests that a key reason so many ELLs in middle and high school are LTLs, and that

they do poorly academically, is that they are also special education students.

Figure 20. Number of ELL students in HS and odds ratios for coding as special education,

as a function of years LEP.

Figure 19. Number of ELL students in MS and odds ratios for coding as special education,

as a function of years LEP.

1,517

998 1,081

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1-3 4-7 8+

Od

ds

Rat

io

# L

EP

s

Number of Years LEP

# LEPs

Odds Ratio (SPED)

1,170 1,323

3,442

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1-3 4-7 8+

Od

ds

Rat

io

# L

EP

s

Number of Years LEP

# LEPs

Odds Ratio (SPED)

16

What was the frequency and scope of professional development activities provided to teachers and staff serving ELL students? During the 2011–2012 school year, 478 staff development training sessions were coordinated by the Multilingual Department, an increase of 152 from 2010–2011. These sessions are summarized in Ap-pendix O (p. 31) and covered compliance, program planning, and instruction/information. Attendance figures indicate the total number of people in attendance. In total, 3,948 teachers, 2,514 other district staff, and 84 parents participated in one of more of these sessions, along with 824 individuals classified as “other”. Note that some individuals may have been counted more than once if they attended multiple events. The category of “Other Staff” includes Multilingual Program coordinators, counselors, teaching aides, clerks, principals and assistant principals. “Others” includes miscellaneous staff, students or those not fitting into the other categories. A full record of professional development activities can be obtained from the Multilingual Department.

Discussion Various assessments (i.e., STAAR, STAAR EOC, TAKS, and Stanford 10) show performance gaps for current ELL students relative to the district overall, which is unsurprising given that ELLs are still in the process of acquiring English. However, both the bilingual and ESL programs appear to lead to long-term benefits, as indicated by superior performance compared to the district average on all of the aforemen-tioned assessments for exited ELL students. This suggests that bilingual and ESL programs in HISD provide ELL students with the support they need to achieve long-term academic success. While student performance data do indicate that the district’s bilingual and ESL programs are having a positive impact on English language learners, further gains are needed. In particular, one area of concern should be the poor performance of current ESL students on the STAAR EOC assessments.

References Houston Independent School District (2012a). Dual Language Program Evaluation: Developmental Bilingual and

Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs 2011–2012. HISD, Department of Research & Accountability. Houston Independent School District (2012b). Pre-Exit ELL Students Performance TAKS/Stanford 2011–2012.

HISD, Department of Research & Accountability. Houston Independent School District (2012c). Cultural Heritage Bilingual Program (CHBP) Student Performance

Report, 2011–2012. HISD, Department of Research & Accountability. Houston Independent School District (2012d). English as a Second Language (ESL) Student Performance Report

2011–2012. HISD, Department of Research & Accountability. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Available at http://www.no childleftbe-

hind.gov.

Endnotes 1 Note that all districtwide performance data includes results from ELLs as well as all other comparison groups

(e.g., monitored and former ELLs). 2 Categorizing an exited ELL student as having come from a bilingual or an ESL program can be a difficult or

arbitrary process. Traditionally, the district’s evaluation reports have categorized exited ELL students according to the identity of the program they were in during their last year under ELL status. Thus designating a student as “Former Bilingual” simply means that they were in a bilingual program during the school year before they exited LEP status.

17

Appendix A

Background on Bilingual and ESL Programs in Texas and HISD

Federal policy regarding bilingual education was first established in 1968 through Title VII of the Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Act. The most recent update in federal policy came in 2001 through Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act. At the state level, the Texas Education Code (§29.053) specifies that districts must offer a bilingual program at the elementary grade level to English Language Learners (ELL) whose home language is spoken by 20 or more students in any single grade level across the en-tire district. If an ELL student’s home language is spoken by fewer than 20 students in any single grade level across the district, elementary schools must provide an ESL program, regardless of the students’ grade levels, home language, or the number of such students.

In compliance with state and federal statutes, HISD implemented the Traditional Bilingual Program, or TBP (TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter A of the State Plan for Educating Language Minority Children). While some form of bilingual program is mandated by the state board of education, HISD exceeds this man-date by implementing three additional bilingual education program models: the Developmental Bilingual Program (DBP) and Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Program (TWBIP) for native Spanish speakers, as well as the Cultural Heritage Bilingual Program (CHBP) for students whose primary language is Viet-namese, Mandarin, Arabic, or Urdu. Bilingual programs primarily provide native language instruction in the early grades (PK–3) with gradual increments in daily English instruction in grades four through six. Students who have attained literacy and cognitive skills in their native language are gradually transitioned into English reading and other core subjects once they demonstrate proficiency in English. Throughout this transition, students main-tain support in their native language. By grade six, most students who began in bilingual programs have either exited ELL status or have transferred to an ESL program. There is an exception to this protocol for recent immigrants or arrivals who enter the school system in grade 3 or later. These students may con-tinue to receive program instruction in their native language for an additional period of time.

ESL programs are offered for students at all grade levels whose native language is not English and who need to develop and enhance their English language skills. The Content-Based ESL model consists of an intensive program of English instruction in all subject areas with instruction delivered through the use of ESL methodology. Commensurate with the student’s level of English proficiency, the ESL program provides English-only instruction at both the elementary and secondary grade levels. The district also offers a Pullout ESL model, where students attend special intensive language classes for part of each day. In Pullout ESL, lessons from the English-language classes are typically not incorporated. CDontent-based ELS is mainly offered at the elementary level, while pullout ESL is offered at the secondary level.

18

This figure shows the enrollment totals for bilingual and ESL programs by grade level for the 2011–2012 school year. Note that for grades 5 and lower, the majority of ELL students are in a bilingual program. Beginning in grade 6 this pattern reverses, with ESL becoming the dominant program model.

APPENDIX B

Bilingual and ESL Program Enrollment by Grade Level, 2011–2012

Source:PEIMS

3

7,187

6,460 6,5035,919 5,836

5,279

3,863

237 165 530 397 461 444 368 306 279312

2,229 2,182

1,560 1,6551,184

716 658

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

EC PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

# S

tud

ents

Grade Level

Bilingual N = 41,505

ESL N = 12,751

19

APPENDIX C

Ell Student Ethnicity and Home Language, 2011–2012

Ethnicity Number Percent Home Language Number Percent % Change

Hispanic 56,482 93% Spanish 56,595 93% -2%

Asian 1,965 3% Arabic 627 1% +5%

Black 1,057 2% Vietnamese 544 <1% -4%

White 839 1% Nepali 271 <1% +25%

American Indian 107 <1% Mandarin 205 <1% +14%

Pacific Islander 45 <1% English 197 <1% -65%

Multiple 51 <1% Swahili 187 <1% +25%

Total 60,546 Urdu 160 <1% +14%

Number Percent Other 1,760 3% +4%

Econ Disadvantaged 56,918 94% Total 60,546

Source: PEIMS

* There were 197 ELL students who listed their home language as English on the Home Language Survey, but

whom the LPAC classified as ELL. Ninety-three percent of these individuals were Hispanic according to the

PEIMS database.

*

20

Appendix D

Explanation of Assessments Included in Report

The STAAR is a state-mandated, criterion-referenced assessment used to measure student achieve-ment. STAAR measures academic achievement in reading and mathematics in grades 3–8; writing at grades 4 and 7; social studies in grades 8; and science at grades 5 and 8. The STAAR-L is a linguisti-cally accommodated version of the STAAR given to ELLs who meet certain eligibility requirements.

For high school students, STAAR includes end-of-course (EOC) exams in English language arts (English I, II, and III), mathematics (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II), science (Biology, Chemistry, Phys-ics), and social studies (World Geography, World History, U.S. History). In 2011–2012, only grade 9 stu-dents took the EOC exams, while those in grades 10 and 11 continued to take the TAKS.

The TAKS is a state-mandated, criterion-referenced test first administered in the spring of 2003, and which is being phased out beginning in 2012. It measures academic achievement in reading, mathemat-ics, science, and social studies in grades 10 and 11. Students currently in grades 10 and higher as of 2011–2012 will continue to take exit-level TAKS tests in order to graduate, while those in grades 9 and lower will instead take STAAR EOC exams (see above).

The Stanford 10 is a norm-referenced, standardized achievement test in English used to assess stu-dents’ level of content mastery. Stanford 10 tests exist for reading, mathematics, and language (grades 1–8), science (3–8), and social science (grades 3–8). This test provides a means of determining the relative standing of students’ academic performance when compared to the performance of students from a nationally-representative sample.

The Aprenda 3 is a norm-referenced, standardized achievement test in Spanish. It is used to assess the level of content mastery for students who receive instruction in Spanish. The reading, mathematics, and language subtests are included in this report for grades 1 through 6. Students take the Aprenda (Spanish) or Stanford (English) according to the language of their reading/language arts instruction. The Aprenda and Stanford tests were developed by Harcourt Educational Measurement (now Pearson, Inc.). However, the Aprenda is not simply a translation of the Stanford. The structure and content of the Aprenda are aligned with those of the Stanford, but development and referencing differ in order to pro-vide culturally relevant material for Spanish-speaking student populations across the United States.

The TELPAS is an English language proficiency assessment which is administered to all ELL students in kindergarten through twelfth grade, and which was developed by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in response to federal testing requirements. Proficiency scores in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing are used to calculate a composite score. Composite scores are in turn used to indi-cate where ELL students are on a continuum of English language development. This continuum, based on the stages of language development for second language learners, is divided into four proficiency levels: Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced, and Advanced High.

21

Spanish Reading Spanish Mathematics Enrolled 2012 2012

Program Grade 2012

N #

Tested Raw

Score %

Correct #

Tested Raw

Score %

Correct Current 3 5,189 4,553 24.1 60 4,555 29.3 64Bilingual 4 2,438 1,985 27.4 62 1,983 31.7 66

5 1,667 25 24.2 53 25 22.4 45 Total 9,294 6,563 25.1 61 6,563 30.0 64


Appendix E

Spanish STAAR Performance of Bilingual Students: Number Tested, Mean Raw Score, and Percentage of Items

Answered Correctly, by Grade Level and Subject (2012 Data Only)

* Enrollment figures shown in Table 3 include all LEP students enrolled in bilingual programs, but do not include

students enrolled in the pre-exit phase of the Traditional Bilingual program. District guidelines specify that LEP

students in this pre-exit phase are tested using the English TAKS only, not the Spanish version.

*

22

Source: STAAR, Chancery * Indicates fewer than 5 students tested

English Reading English Mathematics Enrolled 2012 2012

Program Grade 2012

N #

Tested Raw

Score %

Correct #

Tested Raw

Score %

Correct Current 3 5,794 1,141 24.6 61 1,110 32.4 70 Bilingual 4 5,232 2,990 26.0 59 2,971 32.2 67

5 3,701 3,487 26.0 56 3,416 32.0 64 6 238 227 26.3 55 214 26.1 50 Total 14,965 7,845 25.8 58 7,711 32.0 66

Current 3 36

No STAAR-L for Reading

36 29.0 63 Bilingual 4 40 40 26.4 55 STAAR-L 5 94 94 26.5 53

6 12 12 21.4 41 Total 182 182 26.6 54

Monitored 3 84 79 29.3 73 80 35.7 78 Bilingual 4 239 234 32.6 74 234 38.2 80

5 1,350 1,324 32.1 70 1,331 37.0 74 6 1,885 1,855 32.0 67 1,855 32.9 63 7 684 673 34.5 69 309 28.6 53 8 155 151 32.8 63 125 28.7 51 Total 4,397 4,316 32.4 68 3,934 34.2 67

Former 3 1 1 * * 1 * * Bilingual 4 22 22 31.5 72 22 38.0 79

5 63 60 34.3 75 59 39.3 79 6 125 121 35.7 74 121 37.2 72 7 712 702 34.9 70 366 28.2 52 8 1,244 1,220 37.1 71 847 30.5 54 Total 2,167 2,126 36.2 71 1,416 31.0 57

HISD 3 16,718 11,243 24.9 62 11,146 29.2 63 4 15,760 12,675 28.0 64 12,631 31.5 66 5 15,551 14,516 29.8 65 14,404 33.1 66 6 13,111 12,240 30.9 64 11,915 29.9 57 7 12,651 11,746 31.6 63 7,370 24.5 45 8 12,657 11,724 33.6 65 12,733 28.5 51 Total 86,448 74,144 29.8 64 70,199 28.3 59

Appendix F

English STAAR Performance of Bilingual Students: Number Tested, Mean Raw Score, and Percentage of Items


23


English Reading English Mathematics Enrolled 2012 2012

Program Grade 2012

N #

Tested Raw

Score %

Correct #

Tested Raw

Score %

Correct Current 3 305 254 20.8 52 158 28.5 62

ESL 4 288 248 22.5 51 165 31.1 65 5 340 294 23.9 52 219 30.3 61 6 2,193 1,986 23.7 49 1,763 24.7 48 7 2,152 1,933 23.5 47 1,403 22.7 42 8 1,579 1,410 22.4 43 1,109 22.0 39 Total 6,857 6,125 23.2 47 4,817 24.1 45

Current 3 102

No STAAR-L for Reading

102 23.6 51ESL 4 86 86 23.4 49

STAAR-L 5 78 78 25.1 50 6 221 221 19.6 38 7 267 267 18.6 34 8 265 265 17.7 32 Total 1,019 1,019 20.0 38

Monitored 3 142 139 31.5 79 139 38.0 83ESL 4 99 94 34.8 79 94 39.8 83

5 171 156 32.6 71 159 37.1 74 6 303 280 33.1 69 280 33.6 65 7 782 722 32.5 65 424 27.0 50 8 1,236 1,137 32.1 62 939 27.5 49 Total 2,733 2,528 32.4 65 2,035 30.3 57

Former 3 5 5 28.8 72 5 36.2 79ESL 4 111 107 35.5 81 107 40.9 85

5 167 163 37.1 81 163 42.0 84 6 185 181 37.5 78 181 39.9 77 7 407 390 35.6 71 181 28.5 53 8 635 613 36.9 71 415 29.7 53 Total 1,510 1,459 36.5 74 1,052 34.3 65

HISD 3 16,718 11,243 24.9 62 11,146 29.2 63 4 15,760 12,675 28.0 64 12,631 31.5 66 5 15,551 14,516 29.8 65 14,404 33.1 66 6 13,111 12,240 30.9 64 11,915 29.9 57 7 12,651 11,746 31.6 63 7,370 24.5 45 8 12,657 11,724 33.6 65 12,733 28.5 51 Total 86,448 74,144 29.8 64 70,199 28.3 59

Appendix G

English STAAR Performance of ESL Students: Number Tested, Mean Raw Score, and Percentage of Items


24

Student Group #

Tested

Unsatisfactory< Minimum

UnsatisfactoryMet Minimum

Satisfactory Not Advanced

SatisfactoryAdvanced

N % Stu N % Stu N % Stu N % Stu

Algebra I

Current ESL 789 208 26 112 14 436 55 33 4

Current ESL EOC-L 340 161 47 63 19 105 31 11 3

Exited ESL 2,119 221 10 161 8 1,477 70 260 12

Exited Bilingual 1,235 65 5 64 5 913 74 193 16

HISD 11,041 1,344 12 989 9 7,136 65 1,572 14

Biology

Current ESL 696 191 27 120 17 381 55 4 1

Current ESL EOC-L 258 108 42 45 17 104 40 1 0

Exited ESL 1,975 117 6 164 8 1,588 80 106 5


HISD 10,259 824 8 802 8 7,786 76 847 8

World Geography

Current ESL 781 395 51 119 15 263 34 4 1

Current ESL EOC-L 344 253 74 30 9 61 18 0 0

Exited ESL 2,110 26 15 242 11 1,427 68 115 5


HISD 10,880 1,906 18 1,031 9 6,895 63 1,048 10

English I Reading

Current ESL 1,156 929 80 87 8 139 12 1 0

Exited ESL 2,163 690 32 275 13 1,132 2 66 3


HISD 11,505 3,608 31 1,106 10 6,091 53 700 6

English I Writing

Current ESL 1,159 1,023 88 66 6 70 6 0 0

Exited ESL 2,160 949 44 354 16 826 38 31 1


HISD 11,515 4,650 40 1,441 13 5,129 45 295 3


Appendix H

STAAR End-of-Course Performance of Bilingual and ESL Students: Number Tested, And Number and Percentage at Unsatisfactory Below Minimum,

Unsatisfactory Met Minimum, Satisfactory Not Advanced, and Advanced Standards

25

Source: TAKS, Chancery * Indicates fewer than 5 students tested

English Reading English Mathematics Enrollment 2011 2012 2011 2012

Program Grade 2011

N 2012

N #

tested %

passed#

tested %

passed#

tested %

passed #

tested %

passedCurrent 10 967 1,040 601 41 716 46 613 37 673 41

ESL 11 732 734 509 37 487 35 509 55 527 62 Total 1,699 1,774 1,110 39 1,203 42 1,122 45 1,200 50

Monitored 10 495 562 457 79 512 81 446 64 503 66 ESL 11 394 425 308 82 344 82 307 81 343 89

Total 889 987 765 80 856 82 753 71 846 75 Former 10 1,047 1,393 1,015 93 1,355 93 1,007 76 1,343 80

ESL 11 1,271 1,219 1,161 96 1,115 94 1,150 92 1,099 92 Total 2,318 2,612 2,176 94 2,470 94 2,157 84 2,442 85

Monitored 10 18 34 17 76 32 97 16 63 32 75 Bilingual 11 4 6 4 * 5 100 4 * 6 100

Total 22 40 21 76 37 97 20 65 38 79 Former 10 1,699 1,189 1,674 96 1,159 96 1,673 83 1,140 84

Bilingual 11 1,505 1,656 1,431 98 1,561 98 1,420 94 1,549 95 Total 3,204 2,845 3,105 97 2,720 97 3,093 88 2,689 90

HISD 10 11,342 11,225 10,468 87 10,211 88 10,329 71 10,010 73 11 10,863 10,795 9,564 92 9,525 90 9,485 87 9,478 89 Total 22,205 22,020 20,032 89 19,736 89 19,814 79 19,488 81

Appendix I

English TAKS Performance of Current ESL Students, and Monitored and Former Bilingual & ESL Students:

Number Enrolled, Number Tested, and Percentage of Students Who Met Standard, by Grade Level.

26

# Tested Reading Mathematics Language 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Program Grade N N NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE Current 1 5,935 5,979 78 72 -6 75 69 -6 74 70 -4 Bilingual 2 5,750 5,447 76 71 -5 75 71 -4 77 77 0 3 5,038 4,643 76 71 -5 80 72 -8 84 79 -5 4 2,518 2,020 73 66 -7 83 76 -7 83 70 -13 5 20 22 63 63 0 62 62 0 62 58 -4 6 6 11 48 53 5 61 70 9 49 52 3 Total 19,267 18,122 76 71 -5 77 71 -6 77 74 -3

Source: Aprenda, Chancery

Appendix J

Aprenda Performance of Bilingual Students: Number Tested and Mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE),

by Grade Level, Subject, and Year (2011 or 2012)

27

# Tested Reading Mathematics Language 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Program Grade N N NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE Current 1 373 409 44 45 1 51 48 -3 46 44 -2 Bilingual 2 353 376 38 38 0 42 46 4 38 41 3 3 702 1,078 43 43 0 59 59 0 46 47 1 4 2,673 3,051 39 41 2 57 55 -2 51 51 0 5 3,638 3,621 36 35 -1 50 50 0 40 38 -2 6 293 223 37 34 -3 53 47 -6 39 38 -1 Total 8,032 8,758 38 39 1 53 53 0 44 44 0 Monitored 2 54 50 55 54 -1 60 62 2 56 56 0 Bilingual 3 52 80 53 57 4 67 69 2 55 59 4 4 130 234 58 59 1 69 68 -1 70 69 -1 5 1,167 1,344 49 49 0 62 62 0 54 53 -1 6 1,168 1,876 50 45 -5 62 57 -5 52 51 -1 7 715 674 48 51 3 63 63 0 52 54 2 8 179 153 47 43 -4 60 57 -3 49 45 -4 Total 3,465 4,411 50 48 -2 62 60 -2 53 53 0 Former 4 24 22 52 60 8 60 67 7 61 69 8 Bilingual 5 37 61 59 55 -4 69 67 -2 63 59 -4 6 189 125 57 50 -7 62 63 1 57 59 2 7 655 706 52 54 2 64 62 -2 56 55 -1 8 1,114 1,226 52 52 0 62 60 -2 52 52 0 Total 2,019 2,140 52 53 1 63 61 -2 54 54 0 All HISD 1 10,776 10,635 48 47 -1 52 49 -3 51 48 -3 2 10,748 10,618 45 45 0 50 49 -1 47 44 -3 3 10,735 11,394 47 47 0 57 54 -3 48 47 -1 4 12,958 13,045 47 48 1 57 55 -2 55 55 0 5 14,729 14,973 45 45 0 54 53 -1 48 47 -1 6 12,218 12,527 44 43 -1 54 52 -2 46 47 1 7 12,066 11,976 44 47 3 55 53 -2 47 48 1 8 12,112 11,932 46 45 -1 55 53 -2 45 45 0 Total 96,342 97,100 46 46 0 54 52 -2 48 48 0 Source: Stanford, Chancery * Indicates fewer than 5 students tested

Appendix K

Stanford Performance of Bilingual Students: Number Tested and Mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE),


28

# Tested Reading Mathematics Language 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Program Grade N N NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE Current 1 419 407 51 52 1 57 57 0 54 52 -2 ESL 2 273 317 38 38 0 45 47 2 39 40 1 3 248 244 38 39 1 52 53 1 40 41 1 4 307 239 34 39 5 50 50 0 44 45 1 5 260 288 30 32 2 45 47 2 33 36 3 6 2,697 2,113 29 29 0 47 43 -4 33 33 0 7 2,200 2,053 28 30 2 45 43 -2 33 33 0 8 1,622 1,474 27 26 -1 43 40 -3 30 29 -1 Total 8,026 7,135 30 31 1 46 44 -2 34 34 0 Monitored 2 133 103 62 68 6 66 74 8 62 67 5 ESL 3 178 139 66 68 2 78 76 -2 68 68 0 4 158 95 63 68 5 73 75 2 71 74 3 5 380 158 51 52 1 63 64 1 54 55 1 6 279 291 48 47 -1 58 57 -1 50 52 2 7 660 750 44 46 2 57 57 0 48 49 1 8 1,253 1,190 41 41 0 55 51 -4 43 42 -1 Total 3,041 2,726 47 47 0 60 57 -3 50 49 -1 Former 4 103 107 64 71 7 72 77 5 71 76 5 ESL 5 142 162 62 65 3 71 76 5 65 68 3 6 289 181 58 59 1 67 70 3 58 64 6 7 453 401 52 56 4 65 65 0 56 58 2 8 710 608 53 52 -1 63 61 -2 52 52 0 Total 1,697 1,459 55 57 2 65 66 1 56 58 2 All HISD 1 10,776 10,635 48 47 -1 52 49 -3 51 48 -3 2 10,748 10,618 45 45 0 50 49 -1 47 44 -3 3 10,735 11,394 47 47 0 57 54 -3 48 47 -1 4 12,958 13,045 47 48 1 57 55 -2 55 55 0 5 14,729 14,973 45 45 0 54 53 -1 48 47 -1 6 12,218 12,527 44 43 -1 54 52 -2 46 47 1 7 12,066 11,976 44 47 3 55 53 -2 47 48 1 8 12,112 11,932 46 45 -1 55 53 -2 45 45 0 Total 96,342 97,100 46 46 0 54 52 -2 48 48 0 Source: Stanford, Chancery

Appendix L

Stanford Performance of ESL Students: Number Tested and Mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE),


29

Grade # Tested Beginning Intermediate Advanced Advanced

High % Composite

Score AH N % N % N % N % 2011

K 6,365 5,352 84 767 12 195 3 51 1 1 1.2 1 6,424 3,197 50 2,215 34 787 12 225 4 2 1.7 2 5,857 605 10 1,908 33 1,865 32 1,479 25 25 2.7 3 5,783 654 11 1,201 21 1,723 30 2,205 38 38 2.9 4 5,162 206 4 839 16 1,395 27 2,722 53 55 3.3 5 3,708 90 2 352 9 731 20 2,535 68 71 3.5 6 220 8 4 15 7 59 27 138 63 72 3.4 7 149 4 3 10 7 30 20 105 70 73 3.6 8 54 8 15 1 2 13 24 32 59 78 3.3

Total 33,722 10,124 30 7,308 22 6,798 20 9,492 28 29 2.5

Grade # Tested Beginning Intermediate Advanced Advanced

High % Composite

Score AH N % N % N % N % 2011

K 438 171 39 107 24 103 24 57 13 21 2.1 1 424 56 13 103 24 117 28 148 35 33 2.8 2 355 49 14 70 20 91 26 145 41 35 2.9 3 287 41 14 43 15 68 24 135 47 39 3.0 4 259 34 13 40 15 79 31 106 41 45 3.0 5 282 28 10 47 17 77 27 130 46 47 3.1 6 2,106 75 4 279 13 748 36 1,004 48 52 3.3 7 2,031 75 4 246 12 561 28 1,149 57 59 3.4 8 1,441 104 7 176 12 388 27 773 54 51 3.3 9 1,428 161 11 241 17 380 27 646 45 39 3.1 10 1,010 81 8 221 22 324 32 384 38 33 3.1 11 642 50 8 143 22 188 29 261 41 33 3.1 12 427 43 10 120 28 144 34 120 28 28 2.9

Total 11,130 968 9 1,836 16 3,268 29 5,058 45 45 3.1


Appendix M

Composite TELPAS Results: Number and Percent of Students at Each Proficiency Level in 2012, by Grade.

Results Shown Separately for Bilingual and ESL Students.

Bilingual Students

ESL Students

30

Bilingual Students

Grade Level

Cohort Size

Gained 1 Proficiency Level

Gained 2 Proficiency Levels


Gained at Least 1 Proficiency Level

%

Gained

2012 N N % N % N % N % 2011 1 6,204 2,096 34 489 8 67 1 2,652 43 46

2 5,702 2,488 44 1,404 25 275 5 4,167 73 77

3 5,648 2,849 50 166 3 4 <1 3,019 53 63

4 5,036 3,300 66 214 4 11 <1 3,525 70 76

5 3,592 2,647 74 231 6 13 <1 2,891 80 88

6 211 139 66 1 <1 0 0 140 66 80

7 139 109 78 0 0 0 0 109 78 87

8 49 35 71 0 0 0 0 35 71 85 Total 26,581 13,663 51 2,505 9 370 1 16,538 62 69


ESL Students

Grade Level

Cohort Size

Gained 1 Proficiency Level



Gained at Least 1 Proficiency Level

% Gained

2012 N N % N % N % N % 2011 1 340 178 52 68 20 13 4 259 76 75

2 289 146 51 39 13 5 2 190 66 67

3 221 124 56 15 7 0 0 139 63 60

4 202 123 61 19 9 2 1 144 71 71

5 228 135 59 24 11 2 1 161 71 78

6 1,923 1,089 57 52 3 2 <1 1,143 59 63

7 1,815 1,196 66 64 4 2 <1 1,262 70 74

8 1,255 778 62 44 4 3 <1 825 66 69

9 1,084 638 59 54 5 3 <1 695 64 62

10 866 435 50 33 4 3 <1 471 54 53

11 577 316 55 33 6 0 0 349 60 49

12 321 145 45 7 2 0 0 152 47 43 Total 9,121 5,303 58 452 5 35 <1 5,790 63 65

Appendix N

TELPAS Yearly Progress: Number and Percent of Students Gaining One or More Levels of English Language Proficiency in 2012,

by Grade. Results Shown Separately for Bilingual &ESL Students.

31

Source: Multilingual Department

Total Attendance

Description Teachers Other Staff Parents Others Frequency Beginning of year LPAC 2 1 0 1 2 Bilingual literacy development 10 0 0 0 1 CAT testing 58 38 0 4 9 Cognates & foldables 0 0 0 27 1 Cultural awareness 52 7 0 6 14 Differential instruction/ESL strategies 24 0 0 36 3 Dual language 324 8 15 3 25 Dual language "Por Los Ninos" 41 4 0 2 1 Dual language parent presentation 20 0 0 0 1 Dual language symposium 20 0 0 0 1 ELL documentation 36 171 0 10 66 ELL progress 6 12 0 6 15 ELPS training 30 0 0 0 2 End of year LPAC 123 239 0 20 22 ESL Imp frameworks 26 1 0 2 7 ESL model lessons 12 0 0 0 1 ESL PLC 13 0 0 0 3 ESL program overview 9 27 0 3 2 ESL strategies 233 10 0 212 24 ESL textbook adoption 16 0 0 0 1 Esperanza Gr. 1-3 416 2 0 8 4 Esperanza Kinder 135 3 0 73 2 Instructional support 17 3 0 0 3 IPT testing 45 109 0 9 10 Long-term ELLs 31 1 0 0 4 LPAC ID placement 179 197 10 29 16 LPAC misc support 0 2 0 4 4 Mid-Year LPAC 129 438 3 34 27 Milestones (writing strategies, instr. materials, etc.) 66 13 0 7 9 Misc. Assistance (scheduling ELLs, documentation, etc.) 1 54 0 0 18 Model lessons 95 0 0 0 4 Onsite Doc. Assistance 13 34 0 0 21 Parent meeting 4 1 21 0 1 PK-K summer school training 214 2 0 0 4 Principal training - SIO request 0 21 0 1 1 Principal's meeting/meeting review 0 526 0 0 6 Project GLAD 96 0 0 17 10 PTO in dual language 9 1 20 0 1 Putting the Pieces Together 32 1 0 0 3 Reading at a Glance 27 0 0 1 2 Refugee/Newcomer 169 6 0 3 12 Secondary ELL programs/literacy 169 98 0 0 10 SILD/Sheltered instruction 353 13 0 42 24 SIO training 32 0 0 0 1 SIOP Overview 49 0 0 0 1 STAAR accomodations 0 1 0 0 1 STAAR TREK 0 307 0 64 9 Strategies for vocabulary development 12 3 0 1 5 TELPAS & instruction 52 4 0 2 5 TELPAS trainings 178 117 0 16 19 TExES 114 3 15 0 6 The language of math 36 0 0 100 3 World walls & cognates - PLCs 118 0 0 0 2 Writing strategies for ELL students 89 3 0 17 8 Miscelaneous 13 33 0 64 21 TOTAL 3,948 2,514 84 824 478

Appendix O

Scope and Frequency of Professional Development Training, 2011–2012

Documents

Bilingual ESL Report 2012 v5 - Houston Independent School ... · 2 More than 60% of students from both bilingual and ESL programs showed improvement in their English language proficiency