1. Reclassification of English Learner Students in California
Laura Hill
Public Policy Institute of California

2. Today’s discussion Motivation Data and Methods Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time?
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified?
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

3. Motivation Persistent achievement gap for ELs and other students
ELs are 25% of K-12 student population
Districts get extra $$ for EL students
More per student with LCFF
Because RFEP do better than EL students, interest in reclassifying more ELs
Will lowering reclassification criteria narrow the achievement gap?
Are reclassification policies linked to
Reclassification rates?
Student outcomes?

4. Today’s discussion Motivation Data Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time? (CALPADs data)
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified? (Reclassification survey)
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

5. Reclassification policy data: district survey
Reclassification survey developed with help of EL experts, field tested
ed to district Title III contacts or superintendent
June – July 2013
Classify responses by at or exceeding SBE guidelines
Current policies
policies – target year

6. Student data: linked CALPADs
All districts
Follow students within district for 6 years –
4 cohorts, n=500k students
Students must be ELs at kindergarten
No late arrivers
No Special Ed
Compare outcomes across language groups
Still EL
Reclassified (RFEP)
English only (EO)
IFEP
Cross-sectional approach not satisfying
RFEP and EL group membership changes across grades

7. Four student cohorts EL Kinder. year First year CALPADs 2007-08 Target
reclass year
Final year CALPADs
Grade 2 cohort
K in
‘05
2nd
3rd
6th
Grade 4 cohort
K in ‘03
4th
5th
7th
Grade 7 cohort
K in ‘00
8th
12th
Grade 8 cohort
K in ‘99
9th
12th +

8. Today’s discussion Motivation Data Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time? (CALPADs data)
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified? (Reclassification survey)
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

9. RFEP students have better scores than EO students
% of students scoring Basic or higher on CST ELA, grade 2 cohort

10. RFEP students make on time progress

11. Reclassified students have strong end-of-high school outcomes

12. Results persist when add complexity
When we control for district characteristics and student characteristics, same basic findings
Those reclassified early (by 4th grade) perform
better than or as well as EO, IFEP,
vastly outperform EL
Those reclassified later (5th grade and later)
Still vastly outperform ELs
More on par with EOs
Do not do as well as IFEPs
No evidence that RFEP students’ performance falters

13. Today’s discussion Motivation Data Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time? (CALPADs data)
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified? (Reclassification survey)
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

14. Reclassification Policies
SBE guidelines, but CDE doesn’t know what districts do
An example of local control, but with unknown efficacy
Just one important policy lever, but one on the table now: SB 1108 (Sen. Padilla)
What are districts doing?
What are recommendations for improving reclassification policies?
Survey asks about 4 criteria and a variety of other reclassification issues

15. Survey respondents are broadly representative
Responded
Did Not Respond
Elementary districts
139
397
Share elm. students (%) 36 64
Average enrollment
3,037
1,744
High School districts 33 46
Share of high school students (%) 41 59
7,439
6,245
Unified districts
131
208
Share of students (%) 54
19,492
6,789

16. Survey respondents are broadly representative (con’t)
Responded
Did Not Respond
Share of state’s students (%) 54 46
Share of Spanish-speaking ELs 58 42
Share of all other language ELs 62 38
API (average)
780
772
Low-income (average) 60 56
English Learners (average) 23 21
Reclassification rate (average) 12 10

17. More than half of respondents had “EL” in job title

18. Most districts use more rigorous reclassification policies
Fewer than 10% use SBE guidelines only
Majority have more than one criteria that is more rigorous that SBE guidelines
More than one third use at least 3 or more rigorous criteria

19. What did we learn – English proficiency?
All districts use the CELDT
OPL requirements
10% districts require “Advanced”
Remainder require “Early Advanced” (SBE guideline)
Subtest requirements
40% do not allow “Intermediate” subtests
Remainder allow some “Intermediate” (SBE guideline)

20. What did we learn – basic skills?
Basic Skills CST ELA
More than 70% require “Mid Basic” or higher on CST ELA
About 30% require “Proficient”
About 30% just require Basic (SBE guideline)
Over 45% also require CST Math
More in elementary districts
Over 8% History/Social Science CST
More in HS districts

21. What did we learn – teacher evaluation?
Hard to say what SBE guideline is
We find
65% require specific grades/GPA
45% require assessments
Few “consider” assessments and grades without specific cutoffs.
Subjective teacher evaluation
Attendance, behavior, discipline considered in a substantial minority of districts

22. Respondents believe basic skills are most challenging criteria

23. In your opinion, how important are each criteria in reclassification decisions?

24. Reclassification timing and policy change
Most districts do not assess students for reclassification until 2nd grade (~50%)
Few districts (2%) reclassify year-round
About 30% reclassify in just one season
Most district reclassification policies have remained the same since 2008
5% changed English proficiency
15% changed basic skills
8% changed teacher evaluation standards

25. Today’s discussion Motivation Data and Methods Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time?
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified?
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

26. Most districts use more rigorous reclassification policies …
… are they connected to district reclassification rates?
Classify policies from surveys
Link to district reclassification rates
We find more rigorous policies are associated with lower reclassification rates

27. More rigorous reclassification policies are linked to lower reclassification rates

28. Today’s discussion Motivation Data and Methods Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time?
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified?
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

29. Does it help RFEPs if reclassification policies are more rigorous?
Tested each of the more rigorous criteria in comparison to SBE guidelines
CELDT
OPL of Early Advanced
Subtests can be Intermediate
CST ELA of Basic
Consider grades/GPA and/or assessments

30. Main findings
More rigorous policies are often, but not always, positively associated with student outcomes
Size of improvement is small
What works for early elementary may not work for middle or high school (and vice-versa)

31. Proficient ELA requirement gets a district…
3 percentage point decline in reclassification rate
12% to 9%
Performance
Increase in 6th grade CST ELA Proficient scores
82% from 78%
Increase in 8th grade CST ELA Proficient scores
66% from 61%
Increase in 11th grade CST ELA Proficient scores
17% from 14%
Increase in on time 10th grade progress
95% from 90%
Decrease in share earning diploma (5%)

32. More rigorous teacher evaluation requirement gets a district…
3 percentage point decline in reclassification rate
12% to 9%
Performance
Increase in 6th grade CST ELA Proficient scores
82% from 78%
Increase in 8th grade CST ELA Proficient scores
65% from 61%
Decrease in 11th grade CST ELA Proficient scores
9% from 14%
No change in on time 10th grade progress
Increase share earning diploma (3%), decrease in share meeting a-g (10%)

33. Today’s discussion Motivation Data and Methods Research Questions
How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time?
How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified?
Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?
Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?
Conclusions/recommendations

34. Conclusions and recommendations
RFEP students do not falter
Those reclassified earlier do better
RFEP students do VERY well
Time to reconsider EL classification?
Setting higher standards makes EL and RFEP students look better, but reclassifies fewer
How will this play out with new LCFF and LCAP?

35. Without standard reclassification policy, can’t compare districts
Example: Two districts with equal performance among ELs,
different reclassification policies:
CST Score
100
200
300
400
500
Number ELs 1
Mean EL score
Mean RFEP score
District A: CST reclass requirement is 300
150
District B: CST reclass requirement is 400
450

36. Conclusions and recommendations
Trading slightly improved outcomes against lower reclassification rates is not worth it
What is the right standard?
Is it the SBE guidelines?
This research could only test against those
Opinions of respondents suggest balance might not be right
Smarter Balanced and new English proficiency tests are coming
Time for more examination

37. Thanks for your interest!
Please contact Laura Hill ) for questions about the use of these slides.

38. RFEP students perform as well as EO students on CST ELA

39. On time or better

40. End of high school outcomes, grade 8 cohort