Slide 1

Selected Issues & Recommendations for ESEA ReauthorizationWorking Group on ELL Policy

Improving Educational Outcomes for ELLs

Diane AugustCenter for Applied LinguisticsRobert LinquantiWestEd

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#1Working Group on ELL PolicyDiane August (Center for Applied Linguistics)Steve Barnett (National Institute for Early Education Research)Donna Christian (Center for Applied Linguistics)Michael Fix (Migration Policy Institute)Ellen Frede (National Institute for Early Education Research)David Francis (University of Houston)Patricia Gndara (University of California, Los Angeles)Eugene Garcia (Arizona State University)Claude Goldenberg (Stanford University)Kris Gutirrez (University of California, Los Angeles)Kenji Hakuta (Stanford University)Janette Klingner (University of Colorado)Robert Linquanti (WestEd)Jennifer ODay (American Institutes for Research)Charlene Rivera (George Washington University)

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#The Working Group on ELL policy is made up of researchers who are working with and have expertise in ELL issues. The members continue to refine and elaborate on their original recommendations released March 2010. We very much look forward to the perspectives and recommendations of this distinguished panel and congressional staffers is gathered here today. 2Presentation PurposesProvide brief background and contextReview and highlight recommendations related to identification and reclassificationReview several other key recommendationsPoint out challenges and dilemmasGet your reactions and suggestionsWorking Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Identification and Reclassification ProceduresProduce Unstable ELL Subgroup The Revolving Door Problem

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#

Removing successfully reclassified FEP-ELLs yields very distorted picture of how ELL cohort performs.Complete ELL subgroup represents gap more accurately.

Blue = Model DistrictRed = CaliforniaEnglish-Only

English Learners (complete cohort)Hakuta & Thompson, 2009Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Now, here is what you get if you exclude the former ELLs. The gap increases, and in fact, by 7th grade, the Sanger data shows that is is doing worse than the state as a whole. This is because Sanger is successful in reclassifying its ELLs, and therefore a larger proportion of their students are no longer in the ELL category. Rather than being rewarded for this, their data make them look worse than the state overall.

So, fixing this revolving door problem, while continuing to pay attention to the needs of the low-performing ELLs, is one focus of our recommendations.

Fixing the revolving door addresses concerns not just about the low-performing ELLs but also former ELLs:For example, current law (regs) calls for subgroup accountability for graduation rates based on tracking cohorts of high school students and accounting for the outcome of each using individual student identifiers. A four year or extended year cohort measure will see too much turnover to reliably calculate graduation rates, but that problem is solved if schools are held accountable after proficiency is attained.

Also, concerns about inappropriate reclassification of ELLs before they become English proficient, are addressed by keeping all ELLs in the group.

Finally ...less important, but maybe worth mentioning is that problematic "n" size issues will be greatly diminished...so many schools and districts that serve fewer than 100 ELLS at a time would be held accountable for the more stable ELL group.

5Meeting Grade-Level Performance Standards(CA 2010 CST-ELA Results)XLinquanti, 2010Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#

Total N = 687,158 (In Grs. 6-11: 546,594, or 80% of all RFEPs)Basic or Below: N = 263,889 38.4% of all RFEPs are are below academic proficiency in ELA content test Many students drop in academic performance years after reaching English proficiency(CA 2010 CST-ELA Results: Reclassified-FEP Students)Linquanti, 2010Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#ELL Subgroup Identification & Classification RecommendationsRequire states to establish stable ELL subgroup membership for accountability purposes. States should:Designate students as members of the ELL subgroup based on their English language proficiency status at entry into school in the state in which they reside Distinguish among ELLs by language proficiency level to monitor achievement & deliver appropriate servicesCount students who began as ELLs for purposes of accountability in ELL cohort for duration of their schooling in the state

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#ELL Subgroup Identification & Classification RecommendationsBenefits:Yields more accurate progress and performance info, enhancing evaluation and improvement effortsContinued progress-monitoring recognizes developmental nature of SLA and fosters better service delivery at all ELP levelsIncreases fairness and legitimacy of accountability system

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Establish a Stable ELL SubgroupFor accountability, Total English Learner (TEL) group includes: Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#AccountabilityReportingELPAcad. Core% LT-ELLELPAcad. Core% LT- ELLELLs(1) English Proficient Learners (EPL) (2) Total English Learner (TEL) (1+2) Strengthening ELL Accountability & ReportingWorking Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#

Other Key Recommendations

Assessment, Accountability, Human Capital, and Capacity Building

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#

Assessment and Accountability

Establish an ELL Expert Committee to advise the Secretary on assessment and accountability:Develop guidance and regulations pertaining to the inclusion of ELLs in state accountability and assessment systemsDevelop and approve standards used by the Secretary in review of state accountability systemsServe on Title I peer review panels to ensure that panels include ELL expertsProvide guidance in research agenda relevant to implementing ELL accountability

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Assessment and AccountabilityAllow states with an interest in bilingual language and literacy development to make appropriate modifications or adaptations to their assessment and accountability systems to include linguistic and academic progress and competencies in two or more languages.Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Human CapitalRequire states to demonstrateas a precondition for receiving funds under Title II and Title IIIthat their credential requirements and alternative routes to certification of teachers of core content include components that are effective in preparing these teachers to address both the content and academic language needs of English language learners. Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Define English as a Second Language (ESL) as an additional core academic subject for ELLs within ESEA, and apply the same Highly Qualified Teacher requirements to teachers of ESL/ELD as to teachers of other core academic content areasHuman Capital Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Capacity Building Focus Title III on building national, state, and local capacity to ensure that ELLs acquire the language competence needed for academic success. ESEA, under Title III, should support the development of many more teachers from students language communities who are proficient in both their L1 and English

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Key Issues Looking AheadHow will states help ELLs meet the new common core standards ?(How) will Race to the Top Assessment Consortia design and implement appropriate assessment systems for ELLs?How will the next generation ELP assessment systems (EAG-ELP) align/integrate with RTTAC?How will ESEA reauthorization foster or constrain these efforts?How will we improve quality and effectiveness of teachers of ELLs? How will value-added work?

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Thoughts, reactions, questions?

Working Group on ELL Policy http://ellpolicy.org#Sheet1Santa Clara USD CELDT Results, 2001: Initial AssessmentGradesK%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%Totals%Overall ProficiencyAdvanced204%810%24%34%916%716%49%13%626%26%13%210%00%656%Early Advanced9517%2532%814%1015%1730%921%921%1031%417%721%27%420%350%20319%Intermediate17732%2025%2036%2232%1323%1330%716%825%730%824%620%840%233%31130%Early Intermediate16129%911%916%1421%814%49%819%516%14%926%1033%315%117%24223%Beginning10619%1722%1730%1928%1018%1023%1535%825%522%824%1137%315%00%22922%Number Tested55953%798%565%686%575%434%434%323%232%343%303%202%61%1050100%Skill Area Mean Scale ScoresListening / Speaking445475.3483.3471511.9496.1436.5465.4480.3444.9423.4490.9476Reading437.7471.9498.4497.4471.3501.8527.4490.4479.5515.3586Writing445.2474.4510.2507.5454.5491.7508.9461.5447.1494.1570Santa Clara USD CELDT Results, 2001: Annual AssessmentGradesK%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%Totals%Overall ProficiencyAdvanced00%195%123%257%94%1810%43%75%96%56%1110%44%33%1265%Early Advanced00%11329%9225%6920%5627%5228%4228%4229%4431%2933%3833%2830%3236%63728%Intermediate00%18547%16344%12838%7637%8144%6947%6848%7150%5057%5043%4548%4450%103045%Early Intermediate00%6717%7320%8124%4522%2614%2819%1611%107%33%109%1112%78%37716%Beginning00%82%277%3611%2110%63%53%107%86%00%65%55%22%1346%Number Tested00%39217%36716%33915%2079%1838%1486%1436%1426%874%1155%934%884%2304100%Skill Area Mean Scale ScoresListening / Speaking0501529.5510.3505.4521.3502.5503.3508521.2515.4502.2511Reading466.4488.9494.7511.8516.6521.6527.5533.5527.6535.2545Writing483.6499.1504.7522.2518.6521.1521.2519.6515.2508.8521

&L&"Arial,Bold"WestEd / R. Linquanti&C&"Arial,Bold"&P&R&"Arial,Bold"Revised: 8/27/02 &F

Chart20.010.030.160.390.4100.030.270.410.2900.010.110.340.5400.020.220.460.30.010.040.30.410.230.010.050.310.430.20.020.060.310.330.270.020.070.290.410.20.040.090.370.30.20.060.130.370.270.17

FBBBBBasicProf.Adv.Grade% Students in CST Levels

Sheet2CELDT Levels:1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th10th11th12th%ADV.5%3%7%4%10%3%5%6%6%10%4%3%EA29%25%20%27%28%28%29%31%33%33%30%36%INT.47%44%38%37%44%47%48%50%57%43%48%50%EI17%20%24%22%14%19%11%7%3%9%12%8%BEG.2%7%11%10%3%3%7%6%0%5%5%2%INT.1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th10th11th12thEA/ADV13%27%18%21%42%65%55%67%29%30%37%49%INT.27%47%40%35%38%25%29%23%44%47%40%38%BEG/EI60%26%42%45%21%10%16%11%27%23%23%12%CELDT Ns:GradesK%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%Totals%Initial Tested:55953%798%565%686%575%434%434%323%232%343%303%202%61%1050100%Annual Tested:0039217%36716%33915%2079%1838%1486%1436%1426%874%1155%934%884%2304100%% Initial to All559100%47117%42313%40717%26422%22619%19123%17518%16514%12128%14521%11318%946%335431%2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th10th11thFBB1%0%0%0%1%1%2%2%4%6%BB3%3%1%2%4%5%6%7%9%13%Basic16%27%11%22%30%31%31%29%37%37%Prof.39%41%34%46%41%43%33%41%30%27%Adv.41%29%54%30%23%20%27%20%20%17%

Chart10.130.270.60.270.470.260.180.40.420.210.350.450.420.380.210.650.250.10.550.290.160.670.230.110.29081632650.4438775510.26530612240.29629629630.47089947090.23280423280.37028301890.40330188680.22641509430.49421965320.38150289020.1242774566

EA/ADVINT.BEG/EIGrade% Students in ELD Levels

Sheet3CELDT Ns:GradesK%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%Totals%Initial Tested:55953%798%565%686%575%434%434%323%232%343%303%202%61%1050100%Annual Tested:0039217%36716%33915%2079%1838%1486%1436%1426%874%1155%934%884%2304100%% Initial to All559100%47117%42313%40717%26422%22619%19123%17518%16514%12128%14521%11318%946%335431%Initial CELDTGr. 2-11:56685743433223343020406SAT-9 EL < 12 mosReading2626199304744102Math282624114141145118CST-ELA2626199304643100SABE/2 R