STUDENT AIMS PERFORMANCE IN A PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC DISTRICT Lance Chebultz Arizona State University 2012

Introduction The last decade of K-12 education has evolved to accommodate federal and state policies on accountability through measuring student achievement with standardized tests. Performance standards have been established for all students, with stratification on certain variables, e.g. language proficiency.

Literature Review Last decade has seen an increase in the importance of accountability, both nationally and at the state level No Child Left Behind (2002) AZ LEARNS (2001) Proposition 203 (2000) State level assessments instituted AIMS AZELLA

Literature Review Arizona is among outlying states for numbers of ELL students served in education system In 2004 Arizona; 155,789 California; 1,591,525 Florida; 299,346 Illinois; 192,764 New York; 203,283 Texas; 684,007 Puerto Rico; 578,534

Literature Review Arizona is among outlying states for numbers of ELL students served in education system In Arizona; 155,789 ELL population steadily growing, particularly in states with previously low numbers. Reports of persistent gaps in ELL and non- ELL performance Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005)

Literature Review Two primary factors likely to influence ELL assessment Curriculum/Instruction Could investigate these two individually Not investigated in the current study Wright (2005) – Discusses approaches of institutions with ELL programs and/or ESL accommodations. Assessments

Literature Review Research has focused on three major factors likely to influence ELL assessment Curriculum/Instruction Assessments Huempfner (2004) – based on assumption that same assessment is valid for bilingual and English speaking students Valenzuela (2005) - High stakes testing not appropriate for ELL students

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate student performance on the AIMS assessment for ELL and non-ELL students. The study was designed to determine student performance differences on the AIMS Math and Reading assessments between ELL and non- ELL students across grade and time.

Research Questions 1. Are there significant differences in AIMS performance (Reading and Math) for students across the levels of ELL status?

Research Questions 1.Are there significant differences in AIMS performance (Reading and Math) for students across the levels of ELL status? 2.Does longitudinal performance on the AIMS exam differ significantly for students classified as proficient compared to students classified as ELL?

Sample From a large Arizona K-8 school district –District population – approximately 5000 students/year Predominantly Hispanic (over 99% in current sample) 96% Second language learners at admission 9 Schools; one pre, six K-6th, and two 7-8 th All Title 1 – approximately 100% students on free/reduced lunch

Sample From a large Arizona K-8 school district Sample consisted of: –3 rd, 4 th, 5 th, and 6 th graders –Data from years 2008, 2009, and 2010 –Must have completed Math or Reading AIMS –All Hispanic (Less than 1 % of available sample was non-Hispanic, therefore dropped from analyses) –90% on free-reduced lunch at the time of the study –Gender approximately 50/50 male/female, no gender comparisons done in this study

Research Design Ex Post Facto –Uses existing data –Pre-formed groups (e.g. ELL vs. non-ELL, grades, etc…) –Compare performance on assessments for students across time and grade –Used Analyses of Variance to answer each research question. Multi-factor Between-Subject design (Q. 1) Mixed ANOVA, between by within-factor design (Q.2)

Demographic Information Number of students by year, grade, and ELL Status from District X

Demographic Information ELLNon-ELLELLNon-ELLELLNon-ELL 3 rd Grade74.4%25.6%68.0%32.0%64.4%35.6% 4 th Grade69.3%30.7%66.7%33.3%61.4%38.6% 5 th Grade56.3%43.7%54.9%45.1%46.2%53.8% 6 th Grade54.1%45.9%49.9%50.1%33.3%66.7% Percentage of students by year, grade, and ELL Status from District X

Demographic Information Sub-Sample for Research Question 2 –Assessment data needed to be complete for all three years –Group of 765 students provided assessment data for all three years rd grades, th graders 71.8% classified as ELL in % Female, 48.0% Male

Research Question 1 Are there significant differences in AIMS performance (Reading and Math) for students across the levels of ELL status? Used a series of Between-subject ANOVAs –Between-subject factors: Grade and ELL status –Separate analyses for Math and Reading –Separate analyses for each year of data, 2008, 2009, and 2010 –Outcome is category of performance on assessment FFB A M E

Research Question 1 Math Assessment YearPerfGrade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6 N%N%N%N% 2008FFB A M E

Research Question 1 Reading Assessment YearPerfGrade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6 N%N%N%N% 2008FFB A M E

Comparison Across Subject YearSubjectP/FGrade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6 %% 2008MathF P ReadingF P

Research Question 1 Findings were consistent across year of data, therefore will present 2008 information as an example Math analyses: –No interactions between grade and ELL status –Significant main effect of ELL status and grade –Large effect of ELL status Reading Analyses: –Significant interactions between grade and ELL status –Some very minor difference between year, overall result that grade 5 performance different for ELL and non-ELL students relative to other grades. –Large effect sizes and differences between ELL and non-ELL students

Research Question – Math Assessment Data ELL StatusMeanSD Grade 3Non-ELL ELL Grade 4Non-ELL ELL Grade 5Non-ELL ELL Grade 6Non-ELL ELL

Research Question – Reading Assessment Data ELL StatusMeanSD Grade 3Non-ELL ELL Grade 4Non-ELL ELL Grade 5Non-ELL ELL Grade 6Non-ELL ELL

Research Question 1 Effect Size Data – Math and Reading Effect Size - MathEffect Size- Reading GradeELL StatusGradeELL StatusELL Status X Grade

Conclusion for Research Question 1 Overall better performance for non-ELL students than ELL students –Largest Effect Size for ELL status – 20-24% of variance –Consistent across Math and Reading –Consistent across year of data Performance on Math better than performance on Reading Transitioning students may attenuate the non-ELL student performance at higher grades, i.e. all students are improving at a higher rate, but time since transitioning to proficient may be better index than grade

Research Question 2 Does longitudinal performance on the AIMS exam differ significantly for students classified as proficient compared to students classified as ELL?

Research Question 2 Does longitudinal performance on the AIMS exam differ significantly for students classified as proficient compared to students classified as ELL? Used a series of Between by Within-Factor ANOVAs –Between-subject factors: ELL status –Within-Subject Factor: Year –Separate analyses for Math and Reading –Outcome is category of performance on assessment FFB A M E

Research Question 2 Math analyses: –No interactions between ELL status and Year –Significant main effect of ELL status and grade –Large effect of ELL status (.185) –Small effect of Year (.023) Reading Analyses: –Significant interactions between ELL status and Year (ES =.020) –Large Effect for ELL status (.227) –Small Effect of Year (.044) –No real change across time for non-ELL students, but changes across time for ELL students

Research Question 2 Math Analyses MeanSDN 2008Non-ELL ELL Non-ELL ELL Non-ELL ELL

Research Question 2 Reading Analyses MeanSDN 2008Non-ELL ELL Non-ELL ELL Non-ELL ELL

Conclusion for Research Question 2 Similar results for Math and Reading results for differences in ELL and non-ELL student performance gap –Large effect of ELL status –Smaller effect of year Not a large amount of growth across time in Math and Reading –Possible attenuation from transitioning students Clear growth in reading across year for ELL students, not for non-ELL students

Future Research 1.Investigate individual level changes in AIMS performance for ELL and non- ELL students. Allows for control of variables at an individual level Acculturation Transition points for AZELLA Socio-economic Academic achievement (grades) Mobility (moving between schools) Ethnicity Gender

Future Research 2. Compare ELL and non-ELL students across multiple states and multiple ELL populations. Extend findings to other languages/ethnicities Investigate curriculum and ELL program differences across multiple districts and multiple states to improve understanding of the role of curriculum, ELL programs, and the assessments themselves.

Future Research 3. Investigate and include appropriate measures of acculturation, as well as language Acculturation vs. Language Determine the relationship between changes in acculturation across time If acculturation accounts for differences between ELL and non-ELL students on assessment, can help identify ethnic bias.

QUESTIONS ?