Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluating Programs for ELLs inHouston ISD
Kevin Briand, Ph.D.
Senior Research Specialist
Houston Independent School District
1
2
• Demographics and background on HISD
• Review of our programs
• English proficiency for ELLs (TELPAS)
• Academic achievement (STAAR)
• ELL student exits
• ELL dropouts and graduation
• https://fileshare.edwires.org/public/1b4ccd
Outline
Tracking ELLs
• NCLB required tracking of ELLs for 2 years after exit
• ESSA extends this to 4 years post exit
• What about after 4 years?
• In addition, ESSA requires tracking the percentage of
ELLs who have not become proficient by five years after
placement/identification
Coding of ELL Students
• Current ELLs as well as monitored (M1, M2)
• We also track students who are beyond monitored, former ELLs (F)
• Student rosters going back over 20 years allow us to build databases
with history of student enrollment (e.g, for “former” ELLs, what their 1st
or last program?)
• Count years of ELL participation
• Also track retentions
Currently Used ELL Codes
Program Placement Code Definition
Y-L ELL in transitional bilingual program
Y-P ELL in pre-exit of transitional
Y-T ELL in two-way bilingual program
Y-O ELL in one-way bilingual program
Y-C Cultural heritage bil program (Vietnamese)
Y-E/Y-X ESL program
I-H/I-M Not served
W-H ELL with parental waiver
M-1 Exited ELL, 1st-year monitored
M-2 Exited ELL, 2nd-year monitored
F Exited ELL, >2 years after exit
M-H, M-D, M-T, S-H, S-D-, S-T Older codes used for monitored ELLs (discontinued)
F-H, F-D, F-T Older codes used for former ELLs (discontinued)
Example of ELL History File
ID_num LEP16 LEP15 LEP14 LEP13 LEP12 LEP11 LEP10 LEP09 LEP08 LEP07 LEP06 LEP05 LEP04 LEP03 LEP02 LEP01
xxx WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH YE
xxx TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH IM IM IM IM
xxx YX YX YX YX YX YX YX YX YE YE YP YB YB YB
xxx TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH
xxx YX YX YX YX YX YX YE YE YE YE YD YD YP YB YB YB
xxx YX YX YX YX YX YX YE YE YE YE YE YE IM IM
xxx YX YX YX YX YX YX YX YE YE YD YD YD YD YB YB YB
xxx TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH IM IM IM MH YB YB
xxx TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH
xxx YX YX YX YX YX YE YE WH WH WH WH YE YE YB YB YB
xxx YX YX YX YX YX YX WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH IH
ID_num LastProg 1stProg LEP16 LEP15 LEP14 LEP13 LEP12 LEP11 LEP10 LEP09 LEP08 LEP07 LEP06 LEP05 LEP04 LEP03 LEP02 LEP01
xxx YE YB FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH MH MH YE YE YE YB YB
xxx YP YD F SH SH MH YP YP YD YB YT YD
xxx YX YE M2 M1 YX YX YX YX YX IM YE
xxx YX YB F M2 MH YX YX YX YE YE YE YE YE YB YB YB YB YB
xxx YE YE M2 M1 YE YE
xxx YB YB FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH MH MH MH YB YB
xxx YE YE FH FH FH SH MH YE YE YE YE YE YE YE YE
xxx YE YB FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH MH MH YE YB YB YB
ELL status 2016
ELL status 2016
Last
Program
1st
Prog
Current ELLs
Exited ELLs
Achievement Data for
Current & Former ELL Students
English STAAR
Are they showing academic progress?
22
STAAR 2016: % Passed by program
by grade (English reading)
• Dual language has higher passing rates
• ESL is lower than both types of bilingual
• Note decline with grade level (also HISD performance...)
88
58
71
57
33
45
67
59
41
52 51
37
26 26
33
6964 62 64
73
0
20
40
60
80
100
3 4 5 6 7 8
Pe
rcen
t M
et
Sta
nd
ard
Grade Level
DL OB ESL HISD
STAAR: % Passed by program by year
• Dual language has higher passing rates
• ESL is lower than both types of bilingual
• Both bilingual now lower than district overall
71
64
5557
54 5553 54
38 37
3134
70 6966 66
0
20
40
60
80
100
2013 2014 2015 2016
Pe
rcen
t M
et
Sta
nd
ard
Year
DL OB ESL HISD
STAAR: % Passed by program by year
for exited ELLs
• Dual language has higher passing rates
• ESL is comparable to other bilingual
• All exited ELLs higher than district overall
91 92 92 93
8487 86 8785
89 87 88
70 6966 66
0
20
40
60
80
100
2013 2014 2015 2016
Perc
en
t M
et
Sta
nd
ard
Year
Exited DL Exited OB Exited ESL HISD
ELL Student Exits
How many students are exiting ELL status?
How long does it take them?
26
State Exit Criteria
Oral: Test at Fluent level
Reading: Proficient on STAAR (in English)
Writing:
• Proficient on STAAR (in English)
• Rating of Advanced High on TELPAS
27
ELL student exits 2003 to 2016
• Usually 5,000 – 7,000 exit ELL status each year
• The number of exits decreased in 2015-2016 by 49%
compared to the previous year
5,540
6,520
5,566 5,560
2,518
3,923
5,1855,442
7,326
5,761
6,698
7,160
6,184
3,176
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
# E
xit
s
Year
Identifying Potential Exits: Part I
HOUSTON ISD ELL Student Exit Criteria
TELPAS Listening and Speaking
or
Oral IPT* Score
(Listening & Speaking)
Reading Writing
Grade English
STAAR
Stanford 10
1 TELPAS Listening and Speaking Advanced
High or
IPT--FES
NA Total Reading and Total Language
40th percentile or above (both sections)
IPT** Writing
Early Writing Stage
(EWS)
2 TELPAS Listening and Speaking Advanced
High or
IPT--FES
NA Total Reading and Total Language
40th percentile or above (both sections)
TELPAS Writing
Advanced High
3 TELPAS Listening and Speaking Advanced
High or
IPT--FES
English
STAAR
N/A TELPAS Writing
Advanced High
4 TELPAS Listening and Speaking Advanced
High or
IPT--FES
English
STAAR
N/A English
STAAR
5 TELPAS Listening and Speaking Advanced
High or
IPT--FES
English
STAAR
N/A TELPAS Writing
Advanced High
Identifying Potential Exits: Part II
CAMPUS
LABEL
Home Room Staff
NameStudent Name
Current
Grade
Local Student
Id
LEP current
program
STAAR R
language
STAAR R
met
STAAR W
language
STAAR W
met
TELPAS W
rating
IPT
Writing
TELPAS L
rating
TELPAS S
ratingIPT Oral
TELPAS R
rating
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 05 ### YL E 1 3 3 3 4
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 05 ### YL E 1 4 4 4 3
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 05 ### YL E 0 4 4 4 2
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 06 ### YL E 0 3 3 3 3
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 07 ### YL E 0 3 3 3 3
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 08 ### YL E 1 3 4 3 3
162 Gregg ES xxxx yyyyy 05 ### YL E 1 4 4 4 3
ELL student exits by grade
• Most exits occur in grades 3 to 5
• Grades 3-7 saw declines, and these are the ones
where STAAR accomodations coding affected results
297265
819
1,790
1,618
621
493 475
248
166 177 191
288175
877
1,597
1,391
446
291
451
246
174
120 128
288 299
456530
612
182127
294
15090 95
53
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Nu
mb
er
of
Ex
its
Grade Level
2014 2015 2016
K6 and K9 Cohorts: Definition
• Start with students coded as ELL in kindergarten
• Check their status 6 or 9 years later
• Are they still ELL?
Students are ELL in KG in 2010-2011
Students who are still enrolled in 2016-2017
K6 Cohort
Students are ELL in KG in 2007-2008
Students who are still enrolled in 2016-2017K9 Cohort
K6 and K9 Cohorts: Results
• Roughly 45-50% of ELLs have not exited by grade 6,
and 20-25% have not exited by grade 9
40
3635
50
54 5355
4647
45 45 44
53
1214 15
18 1719
21
18
2123 23 23
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pe
rce
nt
Still
LEP
School Year
Percent of K Cohorts Not Exited by Grades 6 and 9 - PEIMS
K-6 K-9
K6 Cohort: Why do ELLs not exit?
• ELLs who do not exit by grade 6 have weaker scores in
TELPAS writing and especially reading
5%10%
3%9%
13%
24%
31%
21%
28%
35%
40%
42%
47%
62%51%
30%
17%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Advanced High
Advanced
Intermediate
Beginning
Listening CompositeScore
ReadingWritingSpeaking
K9 Cohort: Why do ELLs not exit?
• ELLs who do not exit by grade 9 also seem to have
particular problems with reading proficiency
9%8% 9%16%
41%
18%
31%34%
44%
43%
57%
60% 56%
39%
7%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Advanced High
Advanced
Intermediate
Beginning
Listening CompositeScore
ReadingWritingSpeaking
K6 and K9 Cohorts: Program Effects
• Fewer dual language students remain as ELL as
compared to other bilingual students
53.9
20.2
56.2
27.9
37.2
14.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
K6 K9
% S
till E
LL
Cohort
Dual Language
Other Bil
ESL
Student Assessment Data Demographic Data
At-Risk Factors
Student
Action
Plans
ELL Student Graduation and Dropouts
38
Percentage of Valedictorians and Salutatorians
Who Were Ever-ELL (2007 to 2016),
With Comparable Percentages for All Seniors
Historical data shows that about 40% of vals/sals were ELL at some
point while in HISD, similar to proportion for all district seniors
0
20
40
60
80
100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average
Per
cen
tage
Eve
r-LE
P
Year
Percentage of Vals/Sals and Seniors who were Ever-ELL(2007 to 2016)
Vals/Sals Only
All Seniors
• Gap for HISD LEP vs. state LEP and district has increased since 2006
Four-Year Longitudinal Dropout Rate:
2006 to 2015
45.5
53.0
48.4
44.1
39.0
31.2
34.035.1
36.0
27.0
27.9
34.6
30.829.1
25.623.7
25.023.7
25.7
18.017.9
22.1
18.7
15.8
12.6 11.8 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Dro
po
ut
%
Year
Dropout Rate (4-year): HISD LEP, State LEP, & HISD
HISD LEP
State LEP
HISD
• Grad rate for HISD LEP has increased
Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation
Rate: 2006 to 2015
67.164.3
68.270.0
74.3
78.5 78.8 78.6 78.6 79.3
48.5
39.3
44.2
49.2
54.857.6
59.161.7 60.3
71.5
24.3
15.4
22.6
27.130.4
40.4
36.734.4
31.4
46.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Gra
du
ati
on
%
Year
Graduation Rate (4-Year): HISD LEP, State LEP, & HISD
HISD
State LEP
HISD LEP
• Current ELLs have lower graduation and higher dropout rates than average
• Students who have exited ELL status have higher graduation and lower
dropout rates than students who have never been ELL
Grad/Dropout Rates by ELL Status
46.5
27.0
87.5
6.3
79.4
13.6
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Grad Dropout
% S
tud
en
ts
Status
ELL Exited ELL Never ELL
• Students who started as ELLs in 1st grade do better than district overall
• Those who began in dual language have slight advantage
Exited ELLs: Grad/Dropout Rates by
Initial Program
92.4
3.8
88.8
5.8
87.5
4.5
79.3
12.3
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Grad Dropout
% S
tud
en
ts
Status
Dual Language
Other Bilingual
ESL
HISD
Kevin Briand, Ph.D.Senior Research Specialist
Houston Independent School District
44
