1. Demographics and Achievement of Tennessee’s English Learners
August 26, 2016
Mary Batiwalla | Executive Director, Office of Accountability
Evan Kramer | Project Manager, Office of Accountability

2. Agenda
Size and Distribution of Tennessee’s English Learner (EL) population
Characteristics of Tennessee’s EL Population
2016 EL Performance on ACCESS
Every Student Succeeds Act and Changes to EL Accountability
Discussion

3. Size and Distribution of Tennessee’s English Learner (EL) Population
Lacey presents

4. The EL population has increased over the past six years.
Most districts serving EL students have experienced growth over the past six years. The five districts displayed serve the greatest number of EL students. Collectively they serve around two thirds of the EL population. Slightly more than one third of EL students are served in districts other than these five districts. Memphis and Davidson serve roughly half of all EL students.

5. Districts clustered around the state’s major metropolitan areas tend to serve larger percentages of EL students.
The percentages above include only EL students. They do not include T1 and T2 students.

6. 123 districts served at least some EL students in 2014-15.
The percentages above include only EL students. They do not include T1 and T2 students.

7. 1343 schools served at least some EL students in 2014-15.
The percentages above include only EL students. They do not include T1 and T2 students.

8. Characteristics of Tennessee’s EL Population

9. Most EL students are in grades K through 3.
As of Oct Count

10. Consequently, more students transition out of ESL services during middle school.
As of Oct Count

11. Most, but not all, EL students are Spanish speakers.
Language
Student Count
Percent
Spanish
40671
74.3
Arabic
3734
6.8
Chinese
859
1.6
English
792
1.4
Vietnamese
653
1.2
Somali
640
Kurdish
610
1.1
Gujarati
417
0.8
Nepali
391
0.7
Japanese
Burmese
374
Karen
368
Oct Count
Feds can have us take English speakers out of funding formula! ESL students should NOT have English as their Native Language. Use the language that’s interfering w/ them acquiring English if they’re born in U.S. and don’t speak another language.
Note: There were 199 distinct native languages identified for EL students in Tennessee in 2015.

12. Most EL students identify as Hispanic.
Oct. 1, 2014 Count
Issue with federal standards for “Hispanic” – If they’re from a Spanish-speaking country, fed guidelines classify them as Hispanic. Many Guatemalans and others out of Mexico are Native Central Americans – don’t speak Spanish themselves and truly not Hispanic. May be more appropriately classified as American Indian. Problematic in serving families and parents b/c school districts are sending information home in Spanish.
Even Mexican Spanish-speakers can be illiterate – interpretation may be a better service than translation.
Districts have responsibility to know if parents are LEP – OCR requirement.

13. Specific Learning Disability is the most commonly identified disability among ELs.
As of Oct Count
Note: 43,987 EL students had no identified disability.

14. 2016 EL Performance on ACCESS

15. 47 percent of students scored proficient on WIDA Access in 2015, compared with 51.3 percent in 2016.
.7 growth after crosswalked ELDA

16. The percent of EL students meeting the growth standard from 2015 to 2016 varies by district.
.7 growth after crosswalked ELDA

17. 10 percent of students scored proficient on WIDA Access in 2015, compared with 14.9 percent in 2016.
.7 growth after crosswalked ELDA

18. The percent of students scoring proficient on ACCESS in 2016 varied by district.
5 composite, 5 literacy

19. Every Student Succeeds Act and Changes to EL Accountability

20. Integrating EL Proficiency
Accountability must include the following indicators, all of which must be able to be disaggregated by defined subgroups:
academic proficiency as measured through state assessments,
high school graduation rates,
growth or another academic progress indicator for elementary and middle schools,
ELs’ progress in attaining proficiency in English, and
at least one school quality or student success indicator.

21. Setting Goals for EL Students
The proposed rules allow for the consideration of demographic factors in setting goals around EL students’ time to achieving proficiency:
Time in language instruction programs
Native language proficiency
Age/grade level upon first US enrollment
Limited or noncontiguous education

22. Setting Goals for EL Students
We must set a long-term goal based on our English Language Proficiency Assessment.
“Percent of English learners making progress in achieving English language proficiency”
What goals do we want to set for EL students?
Goals around progress in attaining English Proficiency
and/or
Goals around achieving English Proficiency

23. Recently Arrived English Learners
ESSA provides two options for including recently arrived EL students in accountability:
Exempt students from one year of testing in ELA only, excluding results for all subjects from accountability for the first year.
Assess and report students’ scores every year, excluding results in year one, including a measure of growth in year two, and including proficiency in year three.

24. Including Exited EL Students
ESSA allows students to be included in the EL subgroup for up to 4 years after exiting the ESL program.
If the department chooses to include former EL students, these students must also be considered as part of eligibility criteria for minimum n-count.
Some stakeholders are concerned that including students who have transitioned out of EL programming will mask the true achievement gaps.
Research suggests that until EL students reach a production level of English language knowledge, assessments of content knowledge do not produce valid results.

25. Questions for Discussion
Should the department use demographic variables to vary ELP goals? If so, how?
How should the department weight growth and proficiency when including progress toward English language proficiency in accountability?
With respect to including recently arrived EL students, is option 1 or option 2 a more accurate depiction of performance?
Does including transitional students showcase the strength of ESL programs or hide the performance of current EL students?
Should the department include T1 through T4 students?

26. Questions? Feedback?

27. Contact Information
Mary Batiwalla Executive Director Office of Accountability
Evan Kramer Project Manager Office of Accountability