1. ELL SURVEY PART I Selected Excerpts Bilingual, Immigrant and Refugee Director’s Meeting Seattle, Washington Gabriela Uro and Alejandra Barrio May 2011

2. Data for 65 districts - includes district responses and NCES data ELLs comprised 16% – 17% of student enrollment in our districts from SY2007- 08 to SY2009-10. (See Table 1, page 3) ELL enrollment has remained relatively stable over this 3 year period Most districts experienced a 2 percentage point fluctuation in their ELL enrollment. Districts experiencing the largest change in ELL percentage: Providence (5.5 percent point increase) and Chicago (5.7 percent point decrease) (See Table 2, page 4) ELL Enrollment ELL Percentages and Changes in Enrollment

3. Table 3. ELL as Percentage In almost one third of Council member districts (19/65) districts ELL s represent enrollment between 20% - 60% of total student enrollment In almost half (29/65) of the Council member districts ELLs represent 10% or less of total student enrollment Table 4. ELL numbers Only two districts enroll more than 100,000 ELLs--NYC and LAUSD The two largest groups comprise Council districts that enroll— Between 1,000 and 5,000 ELLs (22/65) Between 10,000 and 50,000 ELLs (19/65) Enrollment by grade level ELL Enrollment Range in Enrollment

4. Total Students Total Non- ELLs Total ELLs Students in Special Ed. Non-ELLs in Special ED ELLs in Special Ed. 2007-084,381,2993,545,381845,376543,536439,525104,011 2008-094,376,2673,549,446835,918553,674446,316107,358 2009-104,343,5433,516,722826,821563,725449,661114,064 Change from 07-08 to 09-10 -37,756-28,659-18,555+20,189+10,136+10,053 Overall enrollment decreased in these districts  29,000 fewer Non-ELLs and 19,000 fewer ELLs. However, the number of ELLs and Non-ELLs classified as requiring special education services increase in these districts  10,000 more Non-ELLs and 10,000 ELLs in Special Education Number of ELLs identified as requiring Special Education Services (33 districts)

5. ELLs in Special Education as a percentage of total ELL enrollment outpaced two related trends (Exhibit 2): 1.ELL as a percentage total enrollment and 2.Non-ELLs in Special education as a percent of Non-ELL enrollment ELL Enrollment in Special Ed. Continued

6. Risk ratio – likelihood that an ELL would be classified with a disability compared to Non-ELL students. 1:1 risk ratio = ELLs and Non-ELLs have the same likelihood of being eligible for Special Education services Risk ratio of 2 = ELLs are twice as likely as Non-ELLs to be classified as requiring special education services Risk ratio of 0.5 = ELLs are half as likely as Non-ELLs to be classified as requiring special education services A risk ratio above 2 or below 0.5 is cause for concern-- Three out of 4 reporting districts had a risk ratio above 0.5 and below 2 6 districts had a risk ratio below 0.5 1 district had a risk ratio above 2 ELL’s representation in Special Education

7. English Proficiency Levels for the 2009-2010 School Year Exhibit 6 provides a graphic representation of a Sample District’s total K-5 ELLs at each Level of English proficiency disaggregated by Those who have been in program for 3 to 5 years Those who have been in program for more than five years Does not include ELLs who have been in program for less than 3 years 36 districts provided data on English proficiency levels for ELLs disaggregated by the number of years that these ELLs have been participating in programs by the 2009-2010 school year.

8. What percentage of ELLs at level 1 ELP have been in program for more than 5 years?

9. ELLs by Years in Program as a Percentage of Total ELLs at Each Proficiency Level Denominator - the percentage of ELLs at each level who have been in ELL programs for either 3-5 years or more than five years In K-5, of all ELLs with Level 1 English proficiency, 12% have been in ELL programs for 3 to 5 years 2% have been in ELL program for more than 5 years In Grade 9-12, of all ELLs with Level 3 English proficiency, 78 percent have been in ELL programs for more than 5 years 15 percent have been in ELL programs for 3-5 years

10. Number of Grade 9-12 ELLs by Years in Program as a % of Total ELLs at Each Proficiency Level, SY2009-10

11. What is the percentage distribution across ELP levels for ELLs in program for more than 5 years? A total of 4,638 ELLs in Grades K-5 were in the district’s ELL program for 3- 5 years, of which-- 5 percent were at Level 1 46 percent were at Level 3 English proficiency A total of 682 ELLs in Grades K-5 were in ELL programs for more than 5 years, of which- 54 percent were at Level 3 22 percent were at Level 2 of English proficiency

12. A total of 570 ELLs in Grades 9-12 were in the program for 3-5 years, of which-- 8 percent were at Level 1 34 percent were at Level 3 of English proficiency A total of 2,989 ELLs in Grade 9-12 were in program for more than 5 years, of which: 51 percent were at level 4 33 percent were at Level 3 of English proficiency

13. NAEP Achievement NAEP Reading and Mathematics results for National Public (NP) and Large City (LC) Common assessment allows for comparisons across Council member districts LC sample captures 82 percent of Council membership Period analyzed—2005 to 2011 Focus: percent of students performing at or above Proficient (NAEP reports on Basic, Proficient and Advanced)

14. Sample Findings on NAEP Achievement gap widens due to rising scores for Non-ELLs and little progress for ELLs (both NP and LC) In both Reading and Mathematics, non-ELLs see a steady rise in performance ELL achievement lags that of Non-ELLs—about 20 percentage points Gaps widen for both subjects in both Grade 4 and 8 NAEP Achievement for Formerly ELLs in Grade 4 show positive signs In both Reading and Mathematics Formerly ELLs almost reach parity with Non-ELLs on Grade 4 NAEP In Grade 8, Formerly ELLs do not keep up with Non-ELL progress on NAEP in both Reading and Math

15. Instructional Staff Total aggregate figures (Tables 10 page 26, and 12 page 27) District by district figures (Tables 11 page 27, and 14 page 28) Analysis focused on quantitative patterns Interest in qualitative (state laws, requirements, negotiated agreements, etc.)?

16. Troubleshooting & Options 1) Reconciling discrepancies of data among different sources— Council’s ELL Survey—self-reported, NCES and district websites Council’s Beating the Odds—NCES, district and state websites 2) ELL enrollment data—other displays, analyses 3) Grade level disaggregation a)By grade level b)By grade span c)By school level (elementary, secondary) d)As defined by state

17. Troubleshooting & Options 4) Grade Level Disaggregation as determined in (2) for— a)Achievement b)Teacher assignments/qualifications c)Other 5) Achievement Data Analysis a)English Proficiency (State, WIDA, etc.) b)State Assessments c)Other nationally normed common assessments (SAT-10, Aprenda, etc.) a)6) OCR data—school experience a)In-house analyses and comparisons