Reclassification of English Learner Students in California Laura Hill Public Policy Institute of...
-
Upload
bernadette-riley -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Reclassification of English Learner Students in California Laura Hill Public Policy Institute of...
Reclassification of English Learner Students in California
Laura HillPublic 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 to̶�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
Emailed to district Title III contacts or superintendent– June – July 2013
Classify responses by at or exceeding SBE guidelines
Current policies 2008-09 policies – target year
6
Student data: linked CALPADs
All districts Follow students within district for 6 years
– 2007-08 – 2012-2013– 4 cohorts, n=500k students
Students must be ELs at kindergarten̶�No late arrivers
No Special Ed Compare outcomes across language
groups– Still EL– Reclassified (RFEP)– English only (EO)– IFEP
7
Four student cohorts
EL Kinder.year
First year CALPADs
2007-08
Targetreclass year
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Final year CALPADs
2012-13
Grade 2 cohort
K in‘05
2nd 3rd 6th
Grade 4 cohort
K in ‘03
4th 5th 7th
Grade 7 cohort
K in ‘00
7th 8th 12th
Grade 8 cohort
K in ‘99
8th 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
2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RFEP pre
RFEP 2008-09
RFEP post
EO
EL
Grade
Per
cent
10
RFEP students make on time progress
9th 10th 11th 12th60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
RFEP pre RFEP 2008-09 RFEP post
EO EL
On-time Grade
Per
cent
On-
time
or b
ette
r
11
Reclassified students have strong end-of-high school outcomes
Leave before graduat-ing
Diploma a-g courses complete0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RFEP pre
RFEP target year (2008-09)
RFEP post
EO
EL
Final high school outcomes, grade 8 cohort
Per
cent
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
Average enrollment 7,439 6,245
Unified districts 131 208
Share of students (%) 54 46
Average enrollment 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
Direct
or o
f EL se
rvices
EL coo
rdin
ator
/spe
cial
ist
Supe
rinte
nden
t
Direct
or o
f cur
ricul
um
Assist
ant s
uper
inte
nden
t
Teac
her o
n sp
ecia
l ass
ignm
ent
Other
05
1015202530 26
2119
10 9
2
13
Perc
en
t
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?
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
Elementary Middle High 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
4027 26
53
6268
Don't knowParent consultationTeacher evaluationBasic skillsEnglish proficiency
23
In your opinion, how important are each criteria in reclassification decisions?
0
10
20
30
40 37.6
25.9 22.8
5.2 5.2 4.8
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
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
15.1%
12.2% 12.2%11.1%
12.0%
16.0%
12.1%
20.1%
9.6%
Reclassification Criteria
Pe
rce
nt
* *** ****
***
*
*
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
CST Score 100 200 300 400 500
Number ELs
1 1 1 1 1
Mean EL score
Mean RFEP score
District A: CST reclass requirement is 300
150 400
District B: CST reclass requirement is 400
200 450
Example: Two districts with equal performance among ELs, different reclassification policies:
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 ([email protected], 415-291-4424) for questions about the use of these slides.
38
RFEP students perform as well as EO students on CST ELA
2nd grade cohort, 6th grade CST ELA
7th grade cohort, 11th grade CST ELA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RFEP 2008-09RFEP postRFEP preELEO
39
On time or better
RFEP tar-get year
(2008-09)
RFEP pre RFEP post EL EO76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
Language group, 7th grade cohort
Perc
en
t on
tim
e o
r b
ett
er,
1
0th
gra
de
40
End of high school outcomes, grade 8 cohort
Leaving HS before
graduating
Diploma A-g courses complete
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ELRFEP target year (2008-09)2RFEP postRFEP preEO