1. Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an LTEL Shannon Wells Ph.D. 1

2. Overview 1.When are students most likely to be reclassified? 2.How long does it take to move from one CELDT Level to the next? How long does it take to get to Intermediate? How long are students stuck at intermediate? 3.Can CST’s act as an early warning system to determine which EL students are at risk of becoming LTEL’s? 4.What is the Typical profile of an LTEL student? 5.Are there differences between EL, LTEL, and those who reclassify before becoming an LTEL in regard to which strands they struggle with on the CST? 2

3. EL Population in CA Nearly 1.4 million of the state's 6.2 million students were identified as ELs (2010-11) – 23% of the state's total kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) public school enrollment. A large number of ELs, despite their many years in U.S. schools, are still not English proficient and are not making progress towards meeting criteria for reclassification 3

4. The Problem 59% of secondary school ELs are long-term English learners – U.S. schools for more than six years and have not reached English proficiency to RFEP Majority of LTELs have remained at the intermediate level or below – Some have reached higher levels, but not enough academic language to be reclassified – Significant gaps in reading and writing 4 Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California's Long Term English Learners

5. Why do some become LTEL? Academic deficits, including the lack of adequate and comprehensive ELD, a “one-size-fits- all” curriculum Limited access to the full curriculum thus impeding development of academic language Courts pronounced that ELs have unique needs – In 1974 the US Supreme Court ruled that students who were not proficient in English had a constitutional right to equal access to a meaningful education in the public schools. no equality of treatment by providing students with the same facilities textbooks, teachers and curriculum 5

6. Legal Definition of Long Term EL (LTEL) AB 2193 EL who is enrolled in any of grades 6 to 12 Has been continuously enrolled in schools in the U.S. for more than six years Has remained at the same English language proficiency level for two or more consecutive years Below or Far Below Basic on CST 6

7. Legal Definition of At-Risk Long Term EL (LTEL) AB 2193 EL who is enrolled in grade 5, has been continuously enrolled in schools in the U.S. since grade 1, scores at the intermediate level or below on the English language development test, and scores in grade 4 at the below basic or far below basic levels on the English and mathematics standards-based achievement tests. 7

8. AB 2193 Requirements LEAs report the number of pupils identified as LTEL or At-Risk LTEL Information be provided to parents of pupils who are, or are at risk of becoming LTELs – manner in which the program for ELD instruction will meet the educational strengths and needs – manner in which the program for ELD instruction will help meet age-appropriate academic standards. – 8

9. AB 2193 Grade 5Int. BB CSTAt-Risk Grade 6 EI FBB Not LTEL Grade 6 INT BB LTELEA BB CSTNot At-Risk Grade 6 Int. FBB Not LTEL Grade 6 EI FBB Not LTEL Grade 6 Adv. B CST Not LTEL Grade 6 EA BB LTEL 9 CELDT Beg=Beginning EI=Early Intermediate Int.=Intermediate EA=Early Advanced Adv.=Advanced CST FBB=Far Below Basic BB=Below Basic B=Basic Prof.=Proficient Adv.=Advanced

10. Data Data were collected over a number of years for 23 districts in Riverside County – 800,000+ students with CST data – 265,000+ students with CELDT data Students were matched on student ID LTEL if EL more than four years (5+ years in US schools) 10

11. Sample Overview 11 CELDT Cohort Grade 2 2005 Sample: – 49.5% Female – 92.4% Hispanic – 0.0% SWD – 45% did not RFEP CST Cohort Grade 2 2007 Sample: – 49.2% Female – 62.2% NSLP – 94.7% Hispanic – 0.0% SWD – 59% did not RFEP

12. Guidelines for Reclassification Assessment of language proficiency on CELDT Teacher evaluation Parent opinion and consultation Performance on a statewide assessment of basic skills in English 12

13. Reclassification Criteria Language Proficiency Early advanced or higher overall No lower than intermediate on each domain – Listening – Speaking – Reading – Writing Performance on Basic Skills Objective test of basic skills Such as CST/CMA basic or higher – Page 18 specifies “Statewide Assessment” 13

14. Reclassification Research Brief (2009) Reclassification status has an impact on many crucial areas for districts – EL program placement and allocation of resources, Title III funding, AMAO, and EL subgroup API and AYP calculations Compared rigor of RFEP policies – Districts with higher levels of reclassification rigor perform better than districts with lower levels of rigor 14

15. 15

16. WHEN ARE STUDENTS MOST LIKELY TO BE RECLASSIFIED? Research Question #1 16

17. 17 Most students were reclassified within the first three years (61.1%). 38.9% take four years or more to reclassify.

18. 18 The greatest percentage of students who were reclassified within two years earned an Early Advanced or Advanced score on the CELDT in grade 2. There is a substantial percentage of Intermediate students who are taking four or more years to reclassify. n = 4,000

19. 19 The lower an EL student’s initial CELDT score, the longer it took them to reclassify. It took those with an initial Beginning level on the CELDT an average of 4.68 years to reclassify. In contrast, it only took Advanced students 2.54 years on average to become reclassified. n = 4,000

20. 20 These results are very similar to findings from an earlier Reclassification Study conducted in 2009 on a smaller sample of just six districts across the County, demonstrating the rigor of the effect. To access this research: http://www.keydatasys.com/common/downloads/Research-EnglishLearnerRedesignationStudy.pdf

21. 21 The upper graph demonstrates that students with a primary language of Spanish take longer, on average, to reclassify than students who enter school speaking other languages. The lower graph demonstrates that students who enter school speaking languages other than that represented by the four major categories here, tend to reclassify sooner than students who enter school speaking Spanish. These “other” languages are mostly European languages such as Portuguese and German, as well as Russian and Romanian. Students entering speaking Asian languages such as Japanese and Vietnamese as well as those speaking Indian languages such as Hindi and Punjabi tend to take less than three years to reclassify. Some categories should be interpreted with caution due to small sample size. n = 3,729n = 266 n = 49 n = 3,729 n = 171n = 17n = 34

22. 22 low number of yearshigh number of years low CELDT level30%70% high CELDT level70%30% Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) To illustrate the practical importance of the correlation between 2 nd grade CELDT level and number of years to reclassification, a Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) was calculated. The BESD is used to provide a more useful and interpretable means to evaluate relationships between variables (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Using the BESD we can estimate that only 30% of the EL students who score a CELDT level of Beginning through Intermediate, would be likely to be reclassified within 4 years. Of those students scoring an Early Advanced or Advanced level on the CELDT in the 2 nd grade, 70% would be expected to be reclassified within 4 years, thus avoiding becoming a LTEL. BESD

23. Summary Most students reclassify in the first three years The lower the level a student starts at on CELDT, the longer it takes for that student to reclassify 23

24. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MOVE FROM ONE CELDT LEVEL TO THE NEXT? A. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO INTERMEDIATE? B. HOW LONG ARE STUDENTS STUCK AT INTERMEDIATE? Research Question #2 24

25. 25 69.3% of grade K students who took CELDT in 2005 and 2006, increased one or more CELDT performance levels from grade K to grade 1. From grades 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, the percentages of students increasing one CELDT performance level or more were significantly smaller (16.5% and 35.4% respectively). This seems to indicate that many students in grades 2 and 3 are failing to progress or are perhaps in a holding pattern developmentally. As students in this cohort progressed from grades 3 to 4, a larger percentage increased one or more CELDT levels (58.8%). n = 4,015n = 3,744n = 3,108n = 2,760n = 2,021n = 1,533

26. 26 This graph represents the percentage of the 2005 Kinder cohort who advanced from a Beginning or Early Intermediate CELDT level to Intermediate or better each year. 63.4% of the students who scored Beginning/Early Intermediate in Kinder (2005) scored Intermediate or better in grade 1 (2006). The percentage of Kinder Beginning/Early Intermediate students (2005) who scored Intermediate or better in grade 2 (2007), was substantially smaller. This was also evident for grade 3 (year 3). There was a slight decline in sample that may have impacted these results, however, it more than likely reflects a delay in progression similar to what was observed in the previous graph. n= 2,504 n= 2,366 n= 2,021 n= 1,884 n= 1,462 n= 1,137

27. 27 31.3% of students in this cohort never scored Intermediate on CELDT. This could mean that they always scored higher than Intermediate or bypassed this level in their progression. 23.4% of the students in this cohort scored Intermediate at least one year over the course of the seven years studied. A similar percentage (23.5%) scored Intermediate for 3 years or more. Never n = 1,795 1 Year n = 1,345 2 Years n = 1,100 3 Years n = 859 4 Years n = 454 5 Years n = 159 6 Years n = 29 7 Years n = 3

28. Summary Most students move up a level in grades k-1 and 3-4, but struggle more in other grades. Grades 4-6 appears to be when most students reach intermediate A significant percentage (31.3%) of students never score intermediate 28

29. CAN CST’S ACT AS AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM TO DETERMINE WHICH EL STUDENTS ARE AT RISK OF BECOMING LTEL’S? Research Question #3 29

30. 30 The line chart represents the percentage of students earning a proficient or better score on the CST ELA, starting in grade 2, disaggregated by eventual LTEL status. Both groups experience a dip in the 3 rd grade, however, a much larger percentage of students who eventually become LTEL’s, consistently perform below grade level across multiple years in 2008. n = 9,116 n = 8,325n = 7,938 n = 7,146 n = 6,760

31. 31 LTELNon-LTEL 0 to 2 Years FBB to B on CST ELA36%64% 3 to 4 Years FBB to B on CST ELA64%36% For this analysis, we created dichotomous variables for LTEL status and number of years scoring in the bottom three performance categories (Far Below Basic, Below Basic, and Basic). One category represents EL students who scored Basic or below for 0, 1, or 2 years. The other category represents EL students who scored Basic or below for 3 or 4 years. Then we calculated a correlation coefficient to input into the Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD). Using the BESD we can estimate that 64% of the EL students who score Basic or below for three to four years will likely become LTEL. Of those EL students scoring Basic or below for two years or less, only 36% would be expected to become LTEL. BESD

32. 32 This graph demonstrates how many of the students who would eventually become LTEL scored in the bottom three performance levels for multiple years. Three quarters of the LTEL students had been at the bottom three levels of CST ELA for four years. LTEL n = 5,605 Non LTEL n = 4,054

33. Summary Non-LTELs and LTELs followed similar trends in ELA, but LTELs achievement was lower LTELs are much more likely to score FBB or BB for an extended period of time as their non- LTEL peers 33

34. WHAT IS THE TYPICAL PROFILE OF A LTEL STUDENT? Research Question #4 34

35. 35 LTEL percentages are highest in late elementary school and decline each year. By grade 12, the percentage has been cut in half. In Riverside County, the LTEL students are most commonly Hispanic. n = 26,720

36. 36 n = 26,720 Nearly 20% of LTEL students in the primary sample were designated as SWD’s, 97.2% of them spoke Spanish as their primary language, they were more likely to be Male (56.5%), and mostly likely to be in ELD and SDAIE.

37. 37 82% of SWDs in the grade 2 cohort will become LTELs. 55% of non SWDs in the grade 2 cohort will become LTELs. n = 4,765 n = 835

38. Summary Most LTELs are in the late elementary grades 97% Hispanic 97% Spanish Most (56%) are in Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English programs 38

39. ARE THERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EL, LTEL, AND THOSE WHO RECLASSIFY BEFORE BECOMING A LTEL IN REGARD TO WHICH STRANDS THEY STRUGGLE WITH ON THE CST? Research Question #5 39

40. 40 Students in the sample tended to struggle most with the LRA and WS strands, followed by WC and RC strands. This pattern was the same for all three groups, though LTEL tended to earn lower scores overall. LTEL n = 4,751 Non LTEL n = 3,828

41. Questions? shannon@keydatasys.com lorie@keydatasys.com 41