Early Warnings: Assessing the Risks of Becoming an LTEL Shannon
Wells Ph.D. 1
Slide 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 CSTs act as an early warning system to
determine which EL students are at risk of becoming LTELs? 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 15
15
Slide 16
WHEN ARE STUDENTS MOST LIKELY TO BE RECLASSIFIED? Research
Question #1 16
Slide 17
17 Most students were reclassified within the first three years
(61.1%). 38.9% take four years or more to reclassify.
Slide 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
Slide 19
19 The lower an EL students 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 29
CAN CSTS ACT AS AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM TO DETERMINE WHICH EL
STUDENTS ARE AT RISK OF BECOMING LTELS? Research Question #3
29
Slide 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 LTELs, consistently perform below grade level
across multiple years in 2008. n = 9,116 n = 8,325n = 7,938 n =
7,146 n = 6,760
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 34
WHAT IS THE TYPICAL PROFILE OF A LTEL STUDENT? Research
Question #4 34
Slide 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
Slide 36
36 n = 26,720 Nearly 20% of LTEL students in the primary sample
were designated as SWDs, 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.
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 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