Master Plan Evaluation Report for English Learner Programs

Transcription

1 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page i Los Angeles Unified School District Master Plan Evaluation Report for English Learner Programs Prepared by Jesús José Salazar Research Coordinator Program Evaluation & Assessment Branch Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication No. 226 June, 2004 For information about this report, contact: Rita Caldera, Director Language Acquisition Branch Los Angeles Unified School District 333 S. Beaudry Ave. th 25 Floor Los Angeles, CA (213)

2 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page ii Executive Summary Purpose This evaluation report addresses key questions proposed in the Master Plan for the Education of English Learners in 1996, in the Proposition 227 Instructional and Implementation Plan in 1998, and in the Structured English Immersion Program revised in The report accomplishes the following:! Provides outcomes for the first five years of Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program implementation, from through The year serves as the baseline for comparing subsequent outcomes! Meets state compliance requirements to conduct an annual evaluation of programs for English learners! Measures progress toward program goals and benchmarks over time! Provides data and analysis for the development of improvement plans for English learner programs Programs for English Learners Proposition 227 required the District to make comprehensive changes in educational programs for English learners. The Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program was designed to offer intensive English language development and content taught primarily in English. Parents were offered the following District programs for English learners: Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program: Students receive nearly all instruction in English, with curriculum and instruction designed for English learners. Students receive instruction to acquire the academic English they need to meet grade-level content standards, with the goal of developing the ability to understand and use English for social and academic purposes. Students are grouped by proficiency level for daily English language development (ELD) lessons. Approximately 89% of English learners were enrolled in the SEI Program in Enrollment in the SEI Program has ranged between 85% and 89% since implementation of SEI in Alternatives to Structured English Immersion: By State law, parents have the right to request an alternative program for their child by using a parental waiver for an alternative bilingual program. Two Master Plan alternative programs are offered: the Basic Bilingual Program and the Dual-Language Program. Both programs develop content and skills in English and in another language:

3 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page iii! Basic Bilingual Program Bilingual teachers use the primary language to teach grade-level academic subjects while students are learning English. English language development is taught daily. As students gain in English proficiency, English instruction is increased to teach academic subjects. Approximately 8% of English learners were enrolled in the Basic Bilingual Program in ! Dual-Language Programs English language instruction is provided in two languages. It is designed for both native-english speakers and English learners. The goal is the development of bilingualism and biliteracy in two languages. Dual-Language programs in Spanish/English and in Korean/English are available in a limited number of schools. Mainstream English Program: English learners with reasonable fluency in English (ELD level 5) receive instruction in mainstream English classrooms. This program provides grade-level academic instruction in English only and is designed for native- English speakers. Parents of English learners with less than reasonable fluency may request the mainstream English program. About 3% of English learners were enrolled in the mainstream English program in Language Groups This report offers outcome data for the following four language classification groups: English Learners: Students who speak another language at home and were assessed to have limited proficiency in English on a state-approved test of English language proficiency. Initially Fluent-English Proficient (IFEP) Students: Students who hear or speak another language at home, and were assessed to have fluent proficiency in English on a state-approved test of English language proficiency. Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient (RFEP) Students: Students initially classified as English learners who successfully met all language and academic criteria for reclassification to fluent-english proficient English-Only (EO) Students: Students who speak only English at home, as indicated on the Home Language. This group includes standard-english learners. Reporting outcome data by language classification provides a comparison of progress among groups and allows for an exploration of issues in educating English learners and issues in educating all students.

4 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page iv Master Plan Outcomes ( ) The information in this evaluation report is guided by three key questions:! How fast are English learners becoming proficient in English?! How well are English learners learning in English?! How well are English learners able to close the achievement gap initially created by their lack of English proficiency? Question 1: How fast are English learners becoming proficient in English? Gains in English proficiency were measured by progress through the English language development (ELD) levels, as described by the California English Language Development Standards. An ELD level is equivalent to an ESL level. Adequate ELD progress in LAUSD is as follows:! Grades K-5: Students will advance one ELD level each school year! Grades 6-12: Students will pass one ESL or ELA course each semester The following ELD progress was noted in the school year:! Slightly more than half (51.5%) of elementary English learners made adequate ELD progress by advancing at least one ELD level, an increase of 8.9% from ! The percentage of English learners who met the yearly ELD goal of advancing one ELD level has been nearly identical for students in the elementary SEI and alternative bilingual programs the past three years.! Nine-in-ten (90.6%) middle school English learners made adequate ELD progress by passing one ESL or ELA course each semester, an increase of 15.3% from ! More than four-in-five (85.7%) high school English learners made adequate ELD progress by passing one ESL or ELA course each semester, an increase of 22.1% from The District goal is for elementary English learners to advance one ELD level each year of instruction and attain reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after four (4) years of instruction. One-in-six (16%) English learners met the goal of attaining reasonable fluency after four years of elementary instruction, and half (50.5%) attained reasonable fluency after six years of instruction.

5 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page v There was an educationally significant relationship between advancing one ELD level each year of instruction and greater achievement gains. English learners who made ELD gains every year of instruction also made significantly greater gains in English language arts and mathematics than their peers who did not make adequate yearly ELD progress. Question 2: How well are English Learners learning in English? English Language Arts: Performance on the English language arts (ELA) section of the California Standards Test (CST) is an indicator of how well English learners are learning English. The following CST outcomes in ELA were noted for English learners:! In the elementary grades, 12% of English learners scored Proficient or higher in ELA. Former English learners who reclassified showed the highest performance in ELA; a greater proportion of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (52.3%) in ELA than all elementary language groups.! In the secondary grades, less than 2% (1.9%) of English learners scored Proficient or higher in ELA, while reclassified students scored below their English proficient peers (EO and IFEP students). Mathematics: Performance on the mathematics section of the California Standards Test (CST) is an indicator of how well English learners are learning in English. The following CST outcomes in mathematics were noted for English learners:! In the elementary grades, 28.3% of English learners scored Proficient or higher in mathematics. Former English learners who reclassified showed the highest performance in mathematics; a greater percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (64.2%) in mathematics than all elementary language groups.! In the secondary grades, less than 4% (3.8%) of English learners scored Proficient or higher in mathematics, while reclassified students scored below their English proficient peers (EO and IFEP students). Question 3: How well are English learners able to close the achievement gap initially created by their lack of English proficiency? English learners are closing the achievement gap with English proficient students to the extent that they made greater gains in English language arts and mathematics, as measured by the California Standards Tests. Based on CST gains from 2002 to 2003, English learners made greater gains in ELA and mathematics:! In the elementary grades, 36.7% of English learners showed year-to-year gains on ELA, compared with 31.9% of all District students.

6 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page vi! In the secondary grades, 38.8% of English learners showed yearly improvement in ELA, compared with 31.5% of students districtwide.! Between 14% and 16% of English learners and all other students in the elementary and secondary grades showed a year-to-year decline in English language arts. In summary, English learners made modest steps in closing the achievement gap with English proficient students. How well are students learning in the Structured English Immersion and alternative bilingual programs? Four analyses of CST were conducted to measure student performance in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs, and are reported below. 1. Proficiency in CST English Language Arts and Mathematics: The percentage of students who scored Proficient or higher on the CST was reported by program:! ELA A greater percentage of students in the SEI program scored Proficient or higher in English language arts in Grades 3 and 4 than their counterparts in the alternative bilingual programs. However, by Grade 5, about the same percentage of students in both programs scored Proficient or higher.! MathAbout the same percentage of students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs scored Proficient or higher in mathematics. 2. Proficiency in CST by Longitudinal Student Cohorts: The percentage of students who scored Proficient or higher on the CST was reported for student cohorts who received their entire elementary instruction in either the SEI or alternative bilingual programs. These were intact groups since each cohort included students who had reclassified to English fluent proficiency.! ELA A greater percentage of students who received their entire elementary education in the SEI Program scored Proficient or higher in ELA in Grades 3 and 4 than their counterparts who received their schooling in alternative bilingual programs. However, by Grade 5, about the same percentage of students in both programs scored Proficient or higher.! Math A greater percentage of students who received their entire elementary education in the SEI Program scored Proficient or higher in mathematics in Grades 3 and 4 than their counterparts who received their schooling in alternative bilingual programs. By Grade 5, about the same percentage of students in both programs scored Proficient or higher.

7 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page vii 3. Standardized CST Matched Gains: Achievement in ELA and math were measured using standardized CST matched scale score gains.! Matched ELA Gains In Grades 3, 4, and 5, no educationally significant differences were noted in ELA gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs.! Matched Math Gains In Grades 3, 4, and 5, no educationally significant differences were noted in math gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. 4. Standardized CST Gains by Longitudinal Student Cohorts: For students who received their entire elementary education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program, achievement in ELA and math were measured using standardized CST scale score gains.! Longitudinal ELA Gains In Grades 3, 4, and 5, no educationally significant differences were noted in ELA between students who received their entire education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program.! Longitudinal Math Gains In Grades 3, 4, and 5, no educationally significant differences were noted in math between students who received their entire education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program. Overall, the matched and longitudinal CST standardized outcomes showed no differences in achievement between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. These achievement outcomes parallel findings from the last three years. An analysis of achievement gains in Year 2 ( ), Year 3 ( ), and Year 4 ( ) of SEI Program implementation in the District showed no differences in achievement gains for students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. Goals This summary indicates a need to maintain the current intensive focus on English language development with the goal of increasing the number of students able to make adequate progress in ELD. The following District ELD benchmarks are therefore established for the school year:! In Grades K-5, increase the percentage of English learners who advance one ELD level from 51% in to 55% in ! In Grades 6-8, increase the percentage of English learners who pass one ESL or ELA course each semester from 91% in to 95% in

8 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page viii! In Grades 9-12, increase the percentage of English learners who pass one ESL or ELA course each semester from 85% in to 90% in ! In Grades K-5, increase the percentage of English learners who meet reclassification criteria within five years from 30% in to 35% in ! In Grades 6-12, increase the percentage of English learners who meet reclassification criteria within three years from 2% in to 5% in RELATED ISSUES Elementary Classroom Organization: The number of ELD levels in elementary classrooms may affect student achievement. English learners in classrooms with one or two ELD levels generally made greater academic gains than their peers in classrooms with three or more ELD levels, as measured by the California Standards Test. Dual Language Programs: A greater percentage of English learners in both the Korean (KDLP) and Spanish (SDLP) Dual Language Programs scored Proficient or higher in mathematics, as measured by the California Standards Test, than their peers in the District. A greater percentage of English learners in the KDLP scored Proficient or higher in English language arts than their District counterparts. About the same percentage of students in the SDLP scored Proficient or higher in ELA as their counterparts in the SEI Program. A greater percentage of English proficient (EO and IFEP) students who participated in the SDLP or KDLP scored Proficient or higher than their EO and IFEP counterparts in the District. Reclassification. The percentage of students reclassified to fluent-english proficiency significantly dropped in due to changes in State assessment criteria. The goal in is to fully implement the new State criteria and thereby reclassify all students who meet reclassification standards. Lack of timely reclassification. English learners who are unable to begin the reclassification process after six years of elementary instruction exhibit learning needs that call for additional time, differentiated instruction, or other accommodations. In general, English learners in Grades 5-12 are either: 1) new arrivals beginning their schooling in an English-speaking school, or 2) students who consistently do not score high enough in English to begin the reclassification process. The District must identify students at risk and provide specific English language development intervention.

9 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page ix Over-Identification for Special Education Services. English learners in Grades 5-12 were placed in Special Education services at greater rates than the District average. The following trends were noted in the school year:! Between Grades 5-8, about one in five English learners received special education services.! Students who tested limited proficient in both English and in their primary language were twice as likely to receive Special Education services than English learners who tested proficient in their primary language.! English learners in the Structured English Immersion Program received special education services at a greater rate than their peers in alternative bilingual programs. School Readiness and Language Development Program (SRLDP) English learners who participated in SRLDP were more likely to attain English proficiency, more likely to reclassify, less likely to be retained in the elementary grades, less likely to be placed in special education, and more likely to enroll in Algebra, than their counterparts with no SRLDP preschool experience. Access to higher educational opportunities. Given the large number of students who begin their LAUSD school career with limited or no English proficiency, opportunities leading to higher educational opportunities are being continuously monitored. Former English learners who reclassified were enrolled in secondary Advanced Placement classes at about the same rate as EO students. About half of all students enrolled in college prep classes in high school received a passing grade mark in math, science, and history. The passing rate for all students was slightly higher for English language arts classes. English learners had passing rates on college prep classes between 5% and 10% below that of the LAUSD average. Overall, about 70% of English learners in high school were enrolled in college prep English language arts classes, but less than 40% were in college prep math classes. Nearly two-in-three English learners were enrolled in college prep science and history classes. The District conducted a longitudinal study to track high school graduation rates of students who were in Grade 9 in The results showed that one-in-four (25.2%) English learners and nearly half (45.7%) of English proficient students graduated four years later th in Nearly one-in-five (18.7%) English learners repeated 9 grade for lack of high school credits to advance to the next grade level. By comparison, one-in-eight th (12.7%) English proficient students repeated 9 grade. Only 3% of the English learners th who repeated 9 grade went on to receive their high school diploma. These findings identified a new group of low-achieving English learners at risk who have been in LAUSD

10 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page x for several years and who do not earn enough credits in Grade 9 to move to Grade 10. This presents a new challenge to the District in its efforts to improve instruction for English learners. Recommendations LAUSD has a responsibility to help all English learners to acquire English proficiency and to attain grade-level achievement standards. Attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) in English is insufficient for students to close the achievement gap between English learners and native-english speakers and increase student promotion and graduation rates. Students do not attain high levels of English academic language automatically. With this in mind, the following steps are recommended:! Continue to collect and report data on the progress of English learners by language and academic proficiency levels! Continue to use data to identify students at-risk and plan effective instructional interventions. As a result of this evaluation report the following specific recommendations became clear: - Support the organization of elementary classrooms by ELD level - Support the expansion of Dual-Language Programs - Support the expansion of SRLDP program classes to increase access to learning opportunities for preschool students at risk - Support the use of criteria to identify students at risk and provide opportunities for additional ESL instruction - Support the continued use of the Emergency Immigrant Education Program to provide intervention for newcomers! Support an accountability system that assures the implementation of services for English learners at each school-site! Support teachers as they implement new programs, new strategies and materials! Continue to provide ongoing, intensive staff development for ELD and SDAIE strategies with time to reflect, discuss, and apply new strategies.! Train instructional coaches to be experts in English language development and second-language literacy

11 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xi! Provide ongoing, intensive staff development for standards-based ELD instruction! Collect and report data on the progress of English learners in the academic subjects! Use data to plan effective instruction

12 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xii Table of Contents Tables Page Executive Summary... ii Table 1 Programs for English Learners... 2 Table 2 English Learners in LAUSD Master Plan Programs ( ) Table 3 English Learners in LAUSD Master Plan Programs, Six-Year Trend Table 4 Master Plan for English Learners Evaluation Goals Table 5 Progress for Demonstrating Adequate English Language Development (ELD) Progress Table 6 English Learners Who Met Yearly ELD Goal Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 English Language Development (ELD) Progress as Measured by LAUSD ELD Assessment Portfolio, Elementary Grades Students Who Advanced at Least One (1) ELD Level by Master Plan Program Students Who Met ELD Goal of Passing Both Semesters of ESL and/or English Language Arts: Middle School Students Who Met ELD Goal of Passing Both Semesters of ESL and/or English Language Arts: High School Table 11 Effect Size Differences Between Students in Each ELD Progress Group Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by ELD Progress: English Language Arts ( ).. 27 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by ELD Progress: Mathematics ( ) Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST), English Language Arts ( ) Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST), Mathematics ( ) English Learners Who Met CST Benchmark for English Language Arts (ELA) Established for Each ELD Level

13 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xiii Page Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Students Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Per Year of Instruction: Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program: Longitudinal Cohorts Students Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Per Year of Instruction: Bilingual Program: Longitudinal Cohorts English Learners Who Met ELD Goal of Attaining Reasonable Fluency In English (ELD Level 5) English Learners Who Have Attained Reasonable Fluency in English (ELD Level 5) English Learners Who Met Benchmarks for Reclassifying to Fluent-English Proficiency (RFEP) English Learners Who Have Reclassified to Fluent-English Proficiency (RFEP) English Learners in Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP) Who Reclassified to Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP) After Two-Years Percentage of English Learners Who Attained English Proficient by Length of Time in LAUSD ( ) English Learners Who Become English Proficient by Length of Time in Instruction, Five-Year Trend English Language Development (ELD) Gains as Measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Elementary Grades English Language Development (ELD) Gains as Measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Secondary Grades California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Elementary Grades, All Students California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Elementary Grades, English Learners California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Secondary Grades, All Students... 60

14 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xiv Page Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Secondary Grades English Learners Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts (Elementary Grades) Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts (Middle and High School Grades) Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST), English Language Arts: Bilingual and Structured English Immersion Programs California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Bilingual Program Matched Student Standardized Gains, 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST), English Language Arts: SEI and Bilingual Programs Table 38 English Learner Longitudinal Cohorts in Master Plan Programs Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts by Master Plan Program Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts, Spanish and Korean Dual Language Programs English Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes: Elementary Grades English Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes: Secondary Grades Spanish Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes: Elementary Grades... 77

15 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xv Page Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 Table 56 California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades All Students California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades English Learners California Standards Test: Mathematics: Secondary Grades All Students California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades English Learners Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics (Elementary School) Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics (Middle and High School) Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts, Bilingual Program and Structured English Immersion California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades Bilingual Program Matched Student Standardized Gains, 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST), Mathematics: SEI and Bilingual Programs Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics Master Plan Program Cohorts Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics, Spanish and Korean Dual Language Programs Students Who Were Enrolled In and Passed College Prep Classes (A-G Courses): English Language Arts and Math

16 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xvi Page Table 57 Students Who Were Enrolled In and Passed College Prep Classes (A-G Courses): Science and History Table 58 Students in Advanced Placement (AP) Classes (Grades 9-12) th Table 59 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for 9 Grade Cohorts (1999): English Learners th Table 60 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for 9 Grade Cohorts (1999) English Proficient Students Table 61 th Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for English Learners: 9 Grade Cohorts By ELD Level (1999) Table 62 Selected Outcomes for English Learners Who Participated in SRLDP Table 63 Percentage of U.S. Born English Learners and Immigrant English Learners. 124 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Percentage of At-Risk English Learners Who Tested Non-Proficient In the Home Language and in English ( ) Percentage of English Learners in Special Education Services by Immigrant Status Percentage of English Learners Who Met ELD Goal by Immigrant Status Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by Immigrant Status: English Language Arts Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by Immigrant Status: Mathematics Students in Gifted Program by Language Group: Elementary and Secondary Schools Table 70 Students and English Learners in Special Education ( ) Table 71 Table 72 English Learners in Special Education by Primary Language (L1) and English (L2) Proficiency ( ) Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs by Subgroups

17 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xvii Page Table 73 Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs ( ) Table 74 Percentage of English Learners in Classrooms with Teachers With Authorization to Instruct Them Table 75 Average Attendance: Middle and High Schools (Grades 6-12) Table 76 Table 77 Total Students Retained in Elementary School: Cumulative Retention Rate Students Retained in Elementary School: Retention Rate in Given School Year Table 78 Students Retained in Grade Table 79 Table 80 English Learners Who Have Been Retained by Proficiency in Home Language (L1) and English (L2) Students in Free Lunch and Reduced Lunch Program Elementary and Secondary Schools Figures Page Figure 1 Master Plan Programs for English Learners Figure 2 English Learners in LAUSD: Figure 3 Percentage of English Learners in LAUSD Figure 4 English Learners Advancing to Next ELD Level: Elementary Grades. 15 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 English Learners Advancing One ELD Level by Master Plan Program: Elementary Grades English Learners Who Advanced at Least One ELD Level Each Semester: Middle and High School English Learners Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Level Per Year ( ): Grades

18 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xviii Page Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Student Cohort Which Began in Kindergarten and ELD 1: Grade California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Student Cohort Which Began in Kindergarten and ELD 1: Grade California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Student Cohort Which Began in Kindergarten and ELD 1: Grade Figure 11 ELD Levels in Classroom: Grades K-5 ( ) Figure 12 Percentage of Classrooms Comprised of One or Two ELD Levels Figure 13 ELD Levels in Classroom: Grades K-5, Five-Year Trend Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Controlling for ELD Levels in Classrooms, Grade California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Controlling for ELD Levels in Classrooms, Grade California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Controlling for ELD Levels in Classrooms, Grade Figure 17 Number of English Learners Reclassified to FEP (LAUSD) Figure 18 Number of English Learners Reclassified to FEP (LAUSD and State) Figure 19 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Students Who Received Entire Elementary Education in Either SEI or Bilingual Program, English Language Arts Figure 20 Aprenda Spanish Reading, Elementary Grades (1-5) Figure 21 Aprenda Spanish Reading, Secondary Grades (6-11) Figure 22 Aprenda Spanish Language, Elementary Grades (1-5) Figure 23 Aprenda Spanish Language, Secondary Grades (6-11)

19 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xix Page Figure 24 Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test: Reading, Language, and Math Two-Year Matched Scores Figure 25 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Students Who Received Entire Elementary Education in Either SEI or Bilingual Program, Mathematics Figure 26 Aprenda Spanish Math, Elementary Grades (1-5) Figure 27 Aprenda Spanish Math, Secondary Grades (6-11) Figure 28 CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam) Pass Rates for Class of 2005, by Language Classification Figure 29 CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam) Pass Rates for Class of 2005, English Learners by ELD Level Figure 30 English Learners Initially Identified as Non-Proficient in L1 and L2 (Percentage) Figure 31 English Learners Initially Identified as Non-Proficient in L1 and L2 (Total Number) Figure 32 English Learners Advancing One ELD Level by L1 Proficiency Figure 33 English Learners (ELs) Who Tested Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Tests (CST) by L1 Proficiency Figure 34 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services Figure 35 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services By Proficiency in L Figure 36 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services By Ethnicity Figure 37 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services By Master Plan Program

20 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page i Introduction This report summarizes the outcomes for English learner programs in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for the school year. English learners are students identified as limited-english proficient (LEP) as a result of language assessments when they first enroll in school. This annual report fulfills Section 3942(2) of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations of the State Department of Education, which requires school districts to conduct an annual evaluation to demonstrate that schools are implementing effective consolidated programs under criteria established by the local governing board. The school year marked LAUSD s fifth year of implementing California Education Code , which was passed by the voters in 1998 as Proposition 227. The first year ( ) served as the baseline year for comparing subsequent outcomes for LAUSD s English learner programs. Proposition 227 required that schools provide instruction primarily in English to non-english proficient students. Programs for English Learners Programs for English learners in LAUSD offer a range of learning opportunities for students to achieve the two primary goals required by state and federal regulations: the acquisition of English proficiency and academic achievement in English. Figure 1 displays the three instructional models provided to English learners in LAUSD: the Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program, two alternative bilingual programs, and the mainstream English program. By State law, parents have the right to request an alternative program for their child by using a parental waiver for a bilingual program. Figure 1 shows that English learners ultimately reach mainstream English-only instruction through the three programs. Table 1 describes the SEI Program, as well as the two alternative bilingual programs that require a parental exception waiver, the Basic Bilingual Program and the Dual Language Program. Parents of English learners may also request a mainstream program designed for native-english speakers.

21 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page ii Figure 1 Table 1 Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program Basic Bilingual Program Dual Language Program Mainstream Program Programs for English Learners Students receive nearly all instruction in English, with curriculum and instruction designed for English learners. Students receive instruction to acquire the academic English they need to meet grade-level content standards, with the goal of developing the ability to understand and use English for social and academic purposes. Students are grouped by proficiency level for daily English language development lessons. Bilingual teachers use the primary language to teach grade-level academic subjects while students are learning English. English language development is taught daily. As students gain in English proficiency, English instruction is increased to teach academic subjects. English language instruction is provided in two languages. The goal is the development of bilingualism and biliteracy in two languages. The program is available in a limited number of schools. Students with reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) receive instruction in mainstream English classrooms designed for native- English speakers. Parents of English learners with less than reasonable fluency may request the mainstream English program.

22 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page iii Table 2 shows the number of students enrolled in elementary English learner programs in the school year. Table 2 English Learners in LAUSD Master Plan Programs Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program Grade Total SEI % Basic Bilingual Elementary Grades ( ) Alternative Bilingual Programs % Dual Language % Mainstream Program* Reasonable English Fluency Pre-K 6,239 4, % 1, % % 1 0.0% K 33,260 29, % 3, % % % 1 37,502 33, % 3, % % % 2 38,226 34, % 2, % % % 3 37,762 33, % 2, % % 1, % 4 31,987 28, % 1, % % 1, % 5 23,006 19, % % % 2, % % 7 1.7% 0 0.0% % Total 208, , % 15, % 1, % 6, % *English learners with reasonable fluency in English have reached ELD Level 5. % Table 3 displays enrollment in Master Plan Programs from to Some programs experienced a decline in enrollment when SEI was implemented in , while others increased in enrollment. The following trends in program enrollment were noted:! The percentage of English learners in the elementary Basic Bilingual Program declined from 69.5% in to 10.2% after implementation of SEI in By , 7.5% of English learners were enrolled in the bilingual program.! The percentage of students in the SEI Program increased from 22.4% prior to Proposition 227 in to 85.4% in the first year ( ) of implementation. By , nearly nine-in-ten (88.8%) English learners were enrolled in the SEI Program.

23 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page iv! Enrollment in Dual Language Programs doubled in , after slow gains in previous years. Table 3 English Learners in LAUSD Master Plan Programs Elementary Grades (K-6) Programs Taught Primarily (SEI) or Totally (Mainstream) in English Alternative Bilingual Programs Total SEI* % Main** % Bilingual*** % Dual Lang. % * 204,248 45, % 16, % 142, % % , , % 9, % 22, % % , , % 8, % 21, % % , , % 5, % 18, % % , , % 5, % 16, % % , , % 6, % 15, % 1, % * In , the English Language Development Program was similar to the Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program. **Students with reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) receive English-only instruction in mainstream classrooms, which are designed for native-english speakers. Parents of English learners with less than reasonable English fluency may request the mainstream English-only program for their child. ***In , LAUSD offered a regular and a modified bilingual program. The regular bilingual program offered primary language to 47.1% of the English learners. The modified bilingual program, comprising both English learners and native English speakers, offered instruction to 22.4% of English learners in L1 and in English. Comparison Groups and Research Questions One purpose of this report is to compare the progress of English learners with the progress of other language groups. In LAUSD, students are classified into the following four language groups: 1. English Learners (EL) Students with limited-english proficiency (LEP) with a home language other than English 2. Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient (RFEP) Students Former English learners who met all State and District criteria for reclassification.

24 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page v 3. English-Only (EO) Students Native English speakers 4. Initial Fluent-English Proficient (IFEP) Students Students initially identified as fluent-english proficient, with a home language other than English Figure 2 shows the percentage of students by language group, as measured by the R30 Language Census Report collected by the California Department of Education. The graph shows that more than four in ten students (43.3%) in LAUSD were classified as English learners. Figure 3 reveals that the percentage of English learners in LAUSD increased by 2% in compared to the previous year, reversing a five-year decline in English learner enrollment. Figure 2

25 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page vi Figure 3 Table 4 lists the evaluation questions that guide the Master Plan Evaluation Report for Wherever possible, information collected for Year 1 ( ) of Structured English Immersion implementation constitutes baseline year data.

26 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page vii Goal Table 4 Master Plan for English Learners Evaluation Goals Evaluation Questions 1. Evaluation of Instruction for English Language Development (ELD) To develop each student s fluency as effectively and efficiently as possible and... and meet California content standards Are English learners making expected progress in accordance with California English Language Development (ELD) Standards in acquiring English proficiency? 1. Overall, how many English learners in the elementary, middle, and high school grades met their respective yearly ELD goal? 2. How many English learners in the elementary grades met the yearly goal of advancing at least one English language development (ELD) level in the school year? 3. How many English learners in the middle and high school grades met the ELD goal of passing ESL or English language arts (ELA) each semester in ? 4. How many elementary English learners are making adequate progress toward attaining English proficiency in a timely manner by advancing one ELD level every year of instruction? 5. What is the academic effect of making adequate ELD progress by advancing one ELD level each year of instruction or falling behind the goal? 6. How many English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and alternative bilingual programs are making adequate progress toward attaining English proficiency by advancing one ELD level each year of instruction? 7. What is the typical classroom ELD composition? What is the average number of ELD levels in elementary classrooms? 8. What is the effect of classroom ELD composition (number of ELD levels) on achievement? 9. How many English learners in the elementary grades met the goal of attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after four years of instruction in LAUSD? 10. How many English learners new to LAUSD in the middle and high school grades met the goal of attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after two years of instruction in LAUSD? 11. Overall, how many English learners in elementary, middle, and high school have attained reasonable fluency in English (ELD 5)? 12. How many English learners in the elementary grades met the goal of reclassifying to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) after five years of instruction in LAUSD? 13. How many English learners new to LAUSD in the middle and high school grades met the goal of reclassifying to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) after three years of instruction? 14. Overall, how many English learners in elementary, middle, and high school reclassified to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP)? 15. How many English learners met the goal of reclassifying after two years in the middle and high school Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP)? 16. How long does it take English learners in the elementary grades to become proficient in English? 17. What were the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) outcomes?

27 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page viii Goal Table 4 Master Plan for English Learners Evaluation Goals Evaluation Questions 2. Evaluation of Language Arts Instruction To meet the California content standards in English Language Arts 3. Evaluation of Mathematics Instruction To meet the California content standards in mathematics Are English learners making expected progress in accordance with California English Language Arts (ELA) Standards? 1. What are the English language arts (ELA) outcomes for English learners, as measured by the California Standards Test (CST), and how do they compare with the results of EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 2. What are the ELA outcomes for English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and Alternative Bilingual Programs? 3. W hat are the ELA outcomes for English learners who received their entire education in either the Structured English Immersion (SEI) or Alternative Bilingual Program? 4. How well are English learners in LAUSD s Dual Language Programs performing academically in English language arts? 5. What are the District Standards-Based Performance outcomes in ELA for English learners compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 6. What are the Spanish language arts outcomes for English learners in the Spanish bilingual programs as measured by the Aprenda Achievement Test? Are English learners making expected progress in accordance with California Mathematics Standards? 1. What are the mathematics outcomes for English learners, as measured by the California Standards Test (CST), and how do they compare with the results of EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 2. What are the mathematics outcomes for English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and Bilingual Programs? 3. W hat are the math outcomes for English learners who received their entire education in either the Structured English Immersion (SEI) or Alternative Bilingual Program? 4. What are the mathematics outcomes for English learners in the bilingual program as measured by the Spanish Aprenda Achievement Test? 5. How well are English learners in Spanish and Korean Dual Language Program performing in mathematics? 4. Evaluation of Other Academic Programs Serving English Learners To ensure access to higher education opportunities What are the high school outcomes for English learners compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 1. How many English learners were enrolled in and passed college prep classes compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 2. W hat percentage of English learners and RFEP students are enrolled in high school advanced placement (AP) classes, compared with EO and IFEP students? 3. What percentage of English learners passed the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 4. What is the graduation rate for English learners compared with the District graduation average?

28 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page ix Goal Table 4 Master Plan for English Learners Evaluation Goals Evaluation Questions 5. Evaluation of Key English Learner Features That Affect Proficiency and Achievement To ensure access to learning opportunities that meet the full range of diverse needs 6. Evaluation of Other Programs Serving English Learners To ensure access to learning opportunities that meet the full range of diverse needs What are significant characteristics of English learners that affect language acquisition and academic achievement? 1. How many English learners test non-proficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2) when they first enroll in school? 2 What are the academic effects for English learners who test nonproficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2)? 3. What are the longitudinal effects of attending SRLDP on subsequent achievement, controlling for proficiency in both the home language (L1) and in English (L2)? 4. What are the academic outcomes for newcomers compared with other English learners? How do English learners compare with English proficient students in other LAUSD Programs? 1. How many English learners are enrolled in Gifted and Talented Programs, compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 2. How many English learners are in Special Education Programs compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 3. What is the relationship between teacher authorization and student achievement in Structured English Immersion classrooms? 4. What is the attendance rate of English learners compared with that of EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 5. What is the retention rate of English learners compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? 6. How many English learners participate in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program, compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? Goal 1 Evaluation of Instruction for English Language Development (ELD): Are English Learners Making Expected Progress in Acquiring English Proficiency? In , LAUSD implemented the California English Language Development (ELD) Standards for the elementary grades. The standards are organized into five ELD levels. An ELD level is equivalent to an ESL level. Each succeeding ELD level represents a progressively higher level of English proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In the elementary grades, growth in English proficiency is measured by student progress through the ELD levels. In the secondary grades, ELD progress is noted when

29 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page x English learners pass both semesters of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English language arts (ELA). The District recognizes that English learners will make academic gains when they acquire reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) in a timely manner. In LAUSD, reasonable fluency is attained when a student meets proficiency standards for ELD Level 4 (Early Advanced Proficiency) and begins working on standards for ELD Level 5 (Advanced Proficiency). An analysis of student progress in English language development shows that while some students attain reasonable fluency in a timely manner as described in Table 5, the majority need more time to acquire reasonable fluency. Table 5 shows the ELD progress that elementary and secondary English learners must make over time to demonstrate that they are making adequate progress in learning English. Table 5 Progress Demonstrating Adequate English Language Development (ELD) Progress Elementary Grades (K-5) Secondary Grades (6-12) Advance one ELD level each school year Attain reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after four (4) years of instruction Reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) after five (5) years of instruction Pass ELA or ESL class each semester Attain reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after two (2) years of instruction Reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) after three (3) years of instruction Question 1.1 Overall, how many English learners in the elementary, middle, and high school grades met their respective yearly ELD goal? Based on ELD outcomes, targets were established by the Language Acquisition Branch for increasing the percentage of students who met the elementary and secondary yearly ELD goals. Table 6 shows that 51.5% of elementary English learners advanced one ELD level in , an increase of nearly 9% from the

30 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xi previous year, slightly exceeding the District target of a 7% increase. The percentage of English learners who met the middle school (90.6%) and high school (85.7%) goal of passing both semesters of ESL/ELA in increased by 15.3% and 22.1% from the previous year, respectively. This was triple the 5% and 7% increase targeted for English learners in the middle and high school grades, respectively. Elementary and secondary ELD progress is discussed in greater detail in Questions 1.2 and 1.3, respectively. Overall, 61.9% of LAUSD s English learners met the yearly ELD goal in , an increase of 10.9% from This was double the 5% increase targeted for Significant gains at the middle and high school grades may be explained in part by implementation of the new High Point ELD Program in ESL classes and implementation of the Developing Readers and Writers Program for English learners in ELA classes in need of assistance in literacy development. These programs were first fully implemented in , and both contained highly structured diagnostic and placement tests with standardized curriculum, assessment, and grading criteria. Table 6 English Learners Who Met Yearly ELD Goal Outcomes Targets Outcomes Grade Meet ELD Goal % Increase Met ELD Goal % Increase Elementary* 42.6% 50% 7% 51.5% 8.9% Middle** 75.3% 80% 5% 90.6% 15.3% High** 62.6% 70% 7% 85.7% 22.1% Total 51.0% 56% 5% 61.9% 10.9% *Elementary School ELD Goal: Advance at least one ELD level in school year. **Middle and High School ELD Goal: Pass both semesters of ESL or English language arts (ELA).

31 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xii Question 1.2 How many English learners in the elementary grades met the yearly goal of advancing at least one English Language Development (ELD) level in the school year? Table 7 shows the number of English learners who made adequate ELD progress by advancing at least one ELD level in the school year. Based on ELD outcomes, the District s goal was to increase the percentage of students who advanced at least one ELD level by 7%, from 43% (42.6%) in to 50% in Table 7 illustrates that 51.5% of English learners in Grades K-5 met this goal. This represents an increase of nearly 9% from ,slightly exceeding the District goal of a 7% increase. Figure 4 (see page 15) shows that a greater percentage of English learners at the lower ELD levels (ELD 1 and ELD 2) met the District goal of advancing at least one ELD level than their counterparts at the higher ELD levels (ELD 3, ELD 4, ELD 5). It has generally been suggested by school-site administrators that a smaller percentage of students at ELD 3 advance to the next ELD level than students in the other ELD levels. However, Table 7 and Figure 4 show that goal of advancing at least one ELD level becomes more difficult to attain for students in the three highest ELD levels. As noted, the District goal was that 50% of the English learners advance at least one ELD level in the elementary grades. Table 7 shows that while students in ELD 1 and ELD 2 met this goal, students in the three highest ELD levels (ELD 3, ELD 4, ELD 5) did not meet the goal. Table 8 shows that the overall percentage of English learners who met the yearly ELD goal of advancing at least one ELD level in was about the same for students in the Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Programs. Figure 5 (see page 15) illustrates that the percentage of English learners meeting the yearly ELD goal has been nearly identical for students in the SEI and Bilingual Programs the past three years.

32 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xiii Table 7 English Language Development (ELD) Progress as Measured by LAUSD ELD Assessment Portfolio Elementary Grades ELD Level ELD Gains From to ELD Level ELD 1 ELD 2 ELD 3 ELD 4 ELD 5 Reclassified Total Decreased No Change Increased ELD 1 18,051 19,712 6, ,644 18,051 27, % 43.2% 14.2% 2.1% 0.6% 0.4% 39.5% 60.5% ELD ,777 21,463 4, , ,777 27, % 46.7% 42.1% 8.1% 1.4% 1.3% 0.3% 46.7% 53.0% ELD ,286 16,730 3,093 2,186 49, ,286 22, % 0.4% 55.1% 33.8% 6.2% 4.4% 0.4% 55.1% 44.4% ELD ,991 5,500 3,201 18, ,991 8, % 0.1% 0.5% 53.1% 29.2% 17.0% 0.7% 53.1% 46.2% ELD ,517 1,882 4, ,517 1, % 0.1% 0.2% 0.9% 56.5% 42.2% 1.3% 56.5% 42.2% Total 18,235 43,709 55,336 31,860 12,083 8, , ,622 87, % 25.8% 32.7% 18.8% 7.1% 4.8% 0.3% 48.2% 51.5%

33 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xiv Table 8 Students Who Advanced at Least One (1) ELD Level by Master Plan Program Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program N Met Target Elementary Grades ( ) Basic Bilingual Program % N Met Target Korean and Spanish Dual Language Programs % N Met Target District Total* % N Met Target ELD 1 38,857 24, % 5,013 2, % % 45,644 27, % ELD 2 45,579 24, % 3,215 1, % % 50,930 27, % ELD 3 44,028 17, % 1, % % 49,516 22, % ELD 4 12,843 2, % % % 18,816 8, % ELD % % % 4,455 1, % Total 141,600 69, % 9,989 4, % % 169,361 87, % *District total includes English learners in Mainstream Program. %

34 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xv Figure 4 Figure 5

35 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xvi Question 1.3 How many English learners in the middle and high school grades met the ELD goal of passing ESL or English language arts (ELA) each semester in ? Adequate ELD progress in middle and high school is attained by English learners who pass ESL or English Language Arts (ELA) in both the fall and spring semesters with a grade of D or higher. English learners in the Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP) do not take ESL classes, instead, they are enrolled in English language arts classes. Tables 9 and 10 show the percentage of English learners in middle and high school, respectively, who made adequate progress in ELD in the five-year period between the and school years. Based on outcomes, the following District ELD targets were established for secondary students in :! Middle School: The percentage of English learners in Grades 6-8 who pass ESL or ELA classes both semesters will increase by 5%, from 75% in to 80% in ! High School: The percentage of English learners in Grades 9-12 who pass ESL or ELA classes both semesters will increase by 7%, from 63% in to 70% in Middle School (Grades 6-8) Table 9 shows that overall, nine-in-ten (90.6%) English learners in Grades 6-8 met the District ELD goal of passing both semesters of ESL or English language arts in the school year. This represents an increase of 15.3% from the school year, when 75.3% of the middle school English learners met the goal. This gain of 15.3% was more than three times the goal of a 5% increase in the percentage of middle school students who pass ESL or ELA both semesters. The District goal that 80% of the students pass both semesters of ESL or ELA in the middle school grades was therefore met and exceeded in the year. The increase in English learners meeting the ELD goal in reversed a two-year decline in the percentage of middle school English learners who passed both semesters of ESL or ELA (see Figure 6 on page 18).

36 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xvii Table 9 Students Who Met ELD Goal of Passing Both Semesters of ESL or English Language Arts Middle School (Grades 6-8) ELD Level N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target ESL Intro A/B % % % % % ESL 1A/B 3,428 2, % 3,680 3, % 4,035 3, % 4,148 3, % 3,432 3, % ESL 2A/B 5,722 4, % 6,481 5, % 6,917 5, % 6,998 5, % 9,657 8, % ESL 3/4 6,685 5, % 7,244 5, % 6,308 5, % 8,361 6, % 6,775 6, % Eng. Lang. Arts 23,722 19, % 23,226 19, % 22,381 17, % 22,018 16, % 19,756 18, % Total 39,763 32, % 40,820 33, % 39,860 32, % 41,817 31, % 39,685 35, % % Table 10 Students Who Met ELD Goal of Passing Both Semesters of ESL or English Language Arts High School (Grades 9-12) ELD Level N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target ESL Intro A/B % % % % % ESL 1A/B 2,379 1, % 2,663 1, % 2,973 2, % 2,871 1, % 2,073 1, % ESL 2A/B 2,566 1, % 2,621 1, % 2,749 1, % 2,856 1, % 2,544 2, % ESL 3/4 2,787 1, % 3,292 2, % 3,277 2, % 3,475 2, % 2,364 1, % Eng. Lang. Arts 23,913 16, % 20,916 15, % 21,008 13, % 21,551 13, % 19,290 16, % Total 31,722 21, % 29,563 20, % 30,100 19, % 30,844 19, % 26,360 22, % %

37 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xviii High School (Grades 9-12) Table 10 and Figure 6 shows that overall, 85.7% of English learners in Grades 9-12 met the ELD goal by passing both semesters of ESL or English language arts in the school year. This represents a significant increase of 23.1% from the school year, when 62.3% of the high school English learners met the ELD goal. This gain of 23.1% was more than three times the goal of a 7% increase in the percentage of high school students who pass ESL or ELA both semesters. The District goal that 70% of the students pass both semesters of ESL and ELA in the high school grades was therefore met and exceeded in the year. The increase in English learners meeting the ELD goal in reversed a two-year decline in the percentage of high school English learners who passed both semesters of ESL or ELA. Figure 6

38 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xix Question 1.4 How many elementary English learners are making adequate progress toward attaining English proficiency in a timely manner by advancing one ELD level every year of instruction? The District goal is for elementary English learners to advance at least one ELD level each year of instruction. Students who advance one ELD level each year will attain reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after four years of instruction. Students who attain reasonable fluency are designated by the District and State as English proficient and able to participate in mainstream English classrooms. Figure 7 shows English learner cohorts that began in kindergarten and were initially identified with beginning English proficiency (ELD Level 1). For each grade-level cohort, the graph shows the ELD level that students should have completed by the end of if they made adequate progress, that is, advanced one ELD level each year of instruction. Within each grade-level cohort, the following four patterns of student ELD progress emerged:! Advanced ELD Progress: English learners were one or more ELD levels ahead of the ELD goal. On average, these students advanced more than one ELD level each school year and were making more than adequate progress toward attaining English proficiency.! Adequate ELD Progress: English learners advanced one ELD level each year of instruction. These students were making adequate progress ( on-pace ) toward attaining English proficiency in a timely manner.! Partial ELD Progress: English learners were one level behind ELD goal. These students did not advance one ELD level in one school year, and were not making adequate progress toward attaining English proficiency in a timely manner.! Limited ELD Progress: English learners were two or more ELD levels behind the ELD goal. These students did not advance one ELD level in at least two school years, and were making very limited progress toward attaining English proficiency. Figure 7 shows that at each succeeding grade level, a greater percentage of English learners fail to make adequate ELD progress. That is, a greater percentage of students fall behind the ELD goal each year they are enrolled in LAUSD. The following trends were noted:

39 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xx Figure 7! By Grade 1, one-in-three (33.4%) students had fallen behind one ELD level.! By Grade 2, one-in-ten (9.2%) students had fallen behind two ELD levels, another one-in-three (36.4%) were behind one ELD level! By Grade 3, one-in-four (26.7%) students were behind two or more ELD levels, another four-in-ten (41.7%) were one ELD level behind.! By Grade 4, the majority (50.8%) of students had fallen behind two or more ELD levels, another one-in-four (27.6%) students were behind one ELD level.! By Grade 5, the majority (55.4%) of students were behind two or more ELD levels by the time they matriculated to middle school, another one-in-seven (13.8%) were behind one ELD level. One-in-three (30.8%) students had met the ELD goal and had reclassified to fluent-english proficiency after five years of instruction.

40 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxi In general, as English learners entered the higher elementary grades, a greater percentage did not advance one ELD level each year of instruction. Moreover, by the time fifth graders matriculated from elementary into middle school, less than one-in-three (30.8%) who began in kindergarten had reclassified. By the end of Grade 5, the majority (55.4%) of the English learners had fallen behind by at least two ELD levels. Question 1.5 What is the academic effect of making adequate ELD progress by advancing one ELD level each year of instruction or falling behind the goal? Figures 8 to 10 show the academic consequences of meeting or failing to meet the goal of advancing one ELD level each year of instruction. The graphs show achievement by ELD progress as measured by the California Standards Test (CST). For all grade cohorts, the outcomes demonstrate a significant relationship between advancing one ELD level each year of instruction and greater achievement gains in English language arts and mathematics. To compare year-to-year achievement gains, the 2002 and 2003 CST scale score gains were converted to standardized gains. A standardized score transforms scores based on different scale scores to a common scale, allowing for direct comparison of the two sets of scores (Welkowitz, Ewen, & Cohen, 1992). After controlling for initial achievement differences, English learners in all the grade-level cohorts who met (Adequate Progress) or exceeded (Advanced Progress) the ELD goal of advancing one ELD level each year generally made significantly greater standardized gains in English language arts and mathematics than their peers who were one or two ELD levels behind the ELD goal. Moreover, English learners who advanced less than one ELD level each year (Partial Progress and Limited Progress) generally had negative gains in English language arts and mathematics.

41 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxii Figure 8 Figure 9

42 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxiii Figure 10 In summary, the more ELD levels students fall behind over time, the lower the achievement gains in English language arts and mathematics. Conversely, students who are making Adequate Progress (advancing one ELD each year) or Advanced Progress toward acquiring English proficiency have greater achievement gains over time. Students who advance more than one ELD level each year registered the greatest gains. This longitudinal trend was noted in all the grade-level cohorts, supporting a strong relationship between proficiency in English and achievement in English. An advantage of using standardized gains is that effect size differences can be directly computed by subtracting group standardized gains. For example, Figure 8 shows the Grade 3 standardized gain of.29 in ELA for students making Advanced Progress (advanced more than one ELD level each year) and the standardized gain of -.19 for students making Limited Progress (had fallen behind by two or more ELD levels). The effect size difference of.48, in favor of students making Advanced Progress in ELD, was calculated by subtracting the standardized gains of the two groups. An effect size thus measures the difference, in standard units, between scores.

43 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxiv An effect size difference greater than.20 standard units is generally considered to be educationally significant (Cohen, 1988). For example, the effect size difference of.48 in ELA noted above is an educationally significant difference, and means that 31% more students who made Advanced Progress in ELD demonstrated greater gains in literacy than students who made Limited Progress in ELD. Based on Cohen s (1988) discussion of effect sizes and overlap between group scores (similarity of group outcomes), an effect size difference of.48 translates into 31% more students making greater achievement gains. More recently, Lipsey and Wilson (1994) concluded that effect size differences between.10 and.20 may also be interpreted as educationally significant. Again utilizing Cohen s notion of overlap between group scores, effect size differences between.10 and.20 would mean that between 8% and 15% more students had made greater gains in English language arts. Employing Lipsey and Wilson s effect size criteria (effect size differences of.10 or greater), the following trends were gleaned from Table 11, which summarizes the effect size differences in ELA and math based on differential student ELD progress. In Grade 3, students who made greater longitudinal gains in ELD made significantly greater educational gains in English language arts and mathematics (effect size difference of.10 or greater):! Students one or more levels ahead of the ELD goal (Advanced Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their peers who advanced one ELD level each year (Adequate Progress), than peers one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress), and than peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)! Students who advanced one ELD level each year of instruction (Adequate Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their peers one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) and than peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)! Students who advanced one ELD level each year of instruction (Adequate Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their peers one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) and than peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)

44 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxv Table 11 Effect Size Differences Between Students in Each ELD Progress Group Based on Standard Scores from 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST) Grade 3 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Grade 4 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Grade 5 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.16.13! Students one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math in Grade 3 than their peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)

45 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxvi In Grade 4, the pattern was nearly identical to that in Grade 3, as the two student cohorts who made the greatest progress in ELD generally demonstrated significantly greater educational gains in achievement:! Students ahead of the ELD goal (Advanced Progress) and students who advanced one ELD level each year (Adequate Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their peers one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) and than peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)! Students one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress) In Grade 5, the following educationally significant gains were noted in English language arts and mathematics as a function of progress in ELD:! Students one or more levels ahead of the ELD goal (Advanced Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their counterparts one ELD level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) and than peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)! Students who advanced one ELD level each year of instruction (Adequate Progress) made greater gains in ELA than their peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress); they made greater gains in math than their peers one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) and than peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress)! Students one level behind the ELD goal (Partial Progress) made greater gains in ELA and math than their peers two levels behind the ELD goal (Limited Progress) Table 12 shows additional academic effects of advancing one ELD level each year of instruction or falling behind the ELD goal. The table demonstrates a direct relationship between ELD progress and proficiency in ELA, as measured by CST rubric scores. (The previous discussion reported achievement by ELD progress as measured by standardized CST scale score gains). CST rubric results are reported in one of five levels of proficiency in English language arts and mathematics: Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced. The state and federal goal is for students to score at Proficient or Advanced.

46 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxvii Table 12 Grade* Cohort ELD Goal** Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Limited Progress (2+ Levels Behind ELD Goal) English Language Arts ( ) Partial Progress (1 Level Behind ELD Goal) Adequate Progress (1 ELD Level Per Year) Advanced Progress (1+ Levels Ahead ELD Goal) Level N Proficient % N Proficient % N Proficient % N Proficient % 2 3 2, % 9, % 10,015 2, % 4,744 2, % 3 4 7, % 8, % 5, % 2,757 1, % , % 3, % 3,945 1, % 2,256 1, % 5 RFEP 7, % 1, % 6,367 2, % 1, % Total 28,152 1, % 22,931 2, % 25,329 7, % 11,386 5, % *Student in each grade cohort began in kindergarten and were in ELD Level 1 **Students in Kinder/ELD 1 cohort would have completed this ELD level by end of grade if they made adequate progress (advanced one ELD level each year).

47 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxviii Overall, more than four-in-ten (44.5%) students one or more levels ahead of the ELD goal (Advanced Progress) tested Proficient or higher in ELA on the CST, compared with three-in-ten (29.8%) students who advanced one ELD level each year (Adequate Progress), one-in-ten (11.0%) students who were one ELD level behind (Partial Progress), and one-in-fifteen (6.7%) students who were two or more ELD levels behind (Limited Progress). More than six times as many (44.5%) students who were one or more levels ahead the ELD goal tested Proficient or higher in ELA than their peers who were two or more levels behind the ELD goal (6.7%). This same group of students was also four times more likely to score Proficient or higher in ELA than their peers who were one level behind the ELD goal (11.0%). While more students who made Advanced ELD Progress scored Proficient or higher in ELA than students who made Adequate Progress (advanced one ELD each year), students in the latter group were more likely to score Proficient or higher in Grade 5 (38.7% vs. 27.9%). Moreover, a near equal percentage of students who made Adequate Progress (47.1%) and Advanced Progress (45.7%) in ELA scored Proficient or higher in Grade 4 ELA. Table 13 shows a relationship between ELD progress and proficiency in mathematics on the CST. Overall, a greater percentage of English learners tested Proficient or higher in mathematics than English language arts. More than six-in-ten (62.0%) students who were one or more levels ahead the ELD goal tested Proficient or higher in mathematics, compared with nearly half (47.9%) of the students who advanced one ELD level each school year, three-in-ten (29.0%) students who were one level behind the ELD goal, and two-in-ten (19.8%) students who were two or more levels behind the ELD goal. More than three times as many (62.0%) students who were one level ahead of the ELD goal tested Proficient or higher in mathematics than their peers who were two or more levels behind the ELD goal (19.8%). They were also twice as likely to score Proficient or higher in mathematics than their peers who were one level behind the ELD goal (29.0%).

48 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxix Table 13 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics ( ) Grade* Cohort ELD Goal** Limited Progress (2+ Levels Behind ELD Goal) Partial Progress (1 Level Behind ELD Goal) Adequate Progress (1 ELD Level Per Year) Advanced Progress (1+ Levels Ahead ELD Goal) Level N Proficient % N Proficient % N Proficient % N Proficient % 2 3 2, % 9,587 2, % 10,014 4, % 4,749 3, % 3 4 7,417 1, % 8,268 2, % 5,000 2, % 2,754 1, % ,644 2, % 3,775 1, % 3,945 2, % 2,253 1, % 5 RFEP 7, % 1, % 6,366 2, % 1, % Total 28,140 5, % 22,898 6, % 25,325 12, % 11,385 7, % *Student in each grade cohort began in kindergarten and were in ELD Level 1 **Students in Kinder/ELD 1 cohort would have completed this ELD level by end of grade if they made adequate progress (advanced one ELD level each year).

49 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxx While more students who made Advanced ELD Progress scored Proficient or higher in mathematics than students who made Adequate Progress, students in the latter group were more likely to score Proficient or higher in Grade 5 (47.0% vs. 36.8%). Moreover, a near equal percentage of students who made Adequate Progress (63.6%) and students who made Advanced Progress (63.2%) scored Proficient or higher in Grade 4 math. Tables 14 and 15 summarize the ELD findings presented in Tables 12 and 13, respectively. Table 14 shows the combined percentage of students who met or were ahead of the ELD goal and who tested Proficient or higher in English language arts (ELA). They were compared with the combined percentage of students who were one or more levels below the ELD goal. Overall, English learners who met or were ahead of the ELD goal were, on average, four times more likely to test Proficient or higher in ELA on the CST. These same students were twice as likely to test Proficient or higher on the mathematics section of the CST than their peers who had fallen behind in meeting the ELD goal. Grade* Cohort ELD Goal** Table 14 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts ( ) One or More Levels Behind ELD Goal Met or Ahead of ELD Goal Level N Proficient % N Proficient % ,198 1, % 14,759 4, % ,210 1, % 7,759 2, % ,417 1, % 6,201 2, % 5 RFEP 8, % 7,996 2, % Total 51,583 4, % 36,715 12, % *Student in each grade cohort began in kindergarten and were in ELD Level 1 **Students in Kinder/ELD 1 cohort would have completed this ELD level by end of grade if they made adequate progress (advanced one ELD level each year).

50 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxi Grade* Cohort ELD Goal** Table 15 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics ( ) One or More Levels Behind ELD Goal Met or Ahead of ELD Goal Level N Proficient % N Proficient % ,182 3, % 14,763 7, % ,685 3, % 7,754 3, % ,419 4, % 6,198 3, % 5 RFEP 8,752 1, % 7,995 3, % TOTAL 51,038 12, % 36,710 19, % *Student in each grade cohort began in kindergarten and were in ELD Level 1 **Students in Kinder/ELD 1 cohort would have completed this ELD level by end of grade if they made adequate progress (advanced one ELD level each year). The outcomes based on standardized CST scale score gains and CST rubric scores clearly demonstrate a direct and significant relationship between advancing one ELD level each year of instruction and greater achievement gains in English language arts and mathematics. For English learners, achievement in the core subjects is therefore linked to their level of English proficiency. District benchmarks were established for elementary English learners for the CST that illustrates the link between English language proficiency and expected academic achievement in English. Table 16 shows the CST benchmark in English language arts established for each ELD level. The table shows that the overall percentage of English learners who met the CST benchmark for each ELD level increased from 71.4% in 2002 to 78.0% in It is important to note, and explained in greater detail later, that Basic ELA proficiency was established as a CST benchmark for reclassification purposes by the California Department of Education.

51 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxii Table 16 English Learners Who Met CST Benchmark for English Language Arts (ELA) Established for Each ELD Level CST ELA Target Did Not Meet Target Met Target Level Academic Proficiency Level ELD 1 Far Below Basic 100.0% 100.0% ELD 2 Far Below Basic 100.0% 100.0% ELD 3 Below Basic 21.5% 16.0% 78.5% 84.0% ELD 4 Basic 42.0% 32.4% 58.0% 67.6% ELD 5 Basic, Proficient 27.4% 19.8% 72.6% 80.2% RFEP Proficient, Advanced 15.2% 7.4% 35.8% 52.4% Total 28.6% 22.0% 71.4% 78.0% Question 1.6 How many English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and the alternative bilingual programs are making adequate progress toward attaining English proficiency by advancing one ELD level each year of instruction? This section compares the ELD progress of student cohorts who participated continuously in either the SEI Program or alternative bilingual programs. ELD progress was tracked for students who received their entire education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual programs. Each cohort comprises students who began as English learners in kindergarten. The Grade 1-5 cohort does not include kindergarten because structured English immersion was first implemented in when these students were in Grade 1. Moreover, these are intact cohorts since each cohort includes students who began as English learners and later reclassified to English fluent proficiency. The District ELD goal is that English learners make adequate progress, that is, advance one ELD level each year of instruction. Table 17 shows English learner cohorts in the SEI program that began in kindergarten and tested as beginning English proficient (ELD Level 1). Table 18 shows the corresponding cohorts in alternative bilingual programs that began in kindergarten and in ELD Level 1.

52 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxiii Table 17 Students Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Each Year of Instruction Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program Longitudinal Cohorts Grade* Cohort ELD Goal** Total Limited Progress Partial Progress Adequate Progress Advanced Progress Level N 2+ Levels Behind ELD Goal % 1 Level Behind ELD Goal % 1 ELD Level Per Year N 1+ Levels Ahead ELD Goal % Grade K , % 7, % 11, % 5, % Grade K ,289 1, % 8, % 9, % 4, % Grade K ,571 2, % 5, % 2, % % Grade K-4 RFEP 7,678 4, % 2, % % % Grade 1-5 RFEP 6,560 3, % % 2, % 0.0% *Student in each grade cohort began in kindergarten and were in ELD Level 1 **Students in Kinder/ELD 1 cohort would have completed this ELD level by end of grade if they made adequate progress (advanced one ELD level each year).

53 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxiv Table 18 Students Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Each Year of Instruction Alternative Bilingual Programs Longitudinal Cohorts Grade* Cohort ELD Goal** Total Limited Progress Partial Progress Adequate Progress Advanced Progress Level N 2+ Levels Behind ELD Goal % 1 Level Behind ELD Goal % 1 ELD Level Per Year % 1+ Levels Ahead ELD Goal % Grade K-1 3 2, % 1, % 1, % % Grade K-2 4 2, % 1, % % % Grade K-3 5 1, % % % % Grade K-4 RFEP % % % % Grade 1-5 RFEP % % % 0.0% *Student in each grade cohort began in kindergarten and were in ELD Level 1 **Students in Kinder/ELD 1 cohort would have completed this ELD level by end of grade if they made adequate progress (advanced one ELD level each year).

54 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxv In the Grade K-1 cohort, a greater percentage of students in the SEI Program (70.7%) met or were ahead of the goal of advancing one ELD level each school year than their peers in alternative bilingual programs (53.5%). In other words, a greater proportion of students in the bilingual programs (46.5%) were falling behind in English proficiency than students in the SEI Program (29.3%). This same pattern was noted in the Grade K-2 cohort, where a greater percentage of students in the SEI Program (58.0%) met or were ahead of the ELD goal than students in the alternative bilingual programs (37.2%). The same pattern was present in the Grade K-3 cohort; 31.3% of SEI Program students and 8.6% of bilingual program students met or were ahead of the ELD goal. Conversely, 68.7% of students in SEI Program and 91.4% of students in the alternative bilingual programs were falling behind the ELD goal. In the K-4 cohort, the overwhelming majority of students in both the SEI and bilingual programs had fallen behind the ELD goal. Nearly two-in-three (63.4%) students in alternative bilingual programs and more than half (52.4%) in the SEI Program had fallen behind by two ELD levels or more. Only 16.2% and 8.6% of the students in the SEI and bilingual programs, respectively, met the ELD goal of advancing one ELD level each year of instruction. Students in the Grade 1-5 cohort were completing their elementary education. It is therefore important to know the ELD progress of these students who would be entering middle school. Four-in-ten (41.1%) students in alternative bilingual programs met the ELD goal, compared with one-in-three (33.2%) students in the SEI Program. These students had advanced an ELD level each year of elementary instruction, and had reclassified by the time they were ready to start middle school. However, half (48.3%) of the students in alternative bilingual programs and nearly six-in-ten students (56.8%) in the SEI Program had fallen two ELD levels behind by the time they would be entering middle school. In summary, although students in the SEI Program cohorts made greater ELD progress in the early grades, by Grade 4, students in both programs were making similar progress. By Grade 5, a greater percentage of students in alternative bilingual programs made ELD gains than their peers in the SEI Program. In general, as students from both programs moved into the higher elementary grades, the percentage of English learners who did not meet the goal of advancing one ELD level each year of instruction increased.

55 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxvi These outcomes suggest that the ELD progress noted in the early grades by the SEI Program student cohorts may not be sustained in the upper grades. On the other hand, while student cohorts in the alternative bilingual programs initially make slower ELD gains in the early grades, by Grade 4 they have caught up to their peers in the SEI Program in ELD gains, and by Grade 5, are making slightly greater ELD progress. Question 1.7 What is the typical classroom ELD composition? What is the average number of ELD levels in elementary classrooms? School organization and classroom composition has always been problematic in schools with English learner programs. For the best student outcomes, the District strongly recommends that students of the same ELD level be assigned to a classroom, and at most, classrooms should comprise students from two ELD levels. Figure 11 shows the average number of ELD levels represented in elementary classrooms. The graph illustrates that in , most classrooms (33.9%) were composed of three ELD levels. Overall, nearly two-in-three (64.7%) of the elementary classrooms were composed of three or more ELD levels. Only one-in-three (35.3%) classrooms were had one or two ELD levels, as recommended by the District s Language Acquisition Branch. Figure 12 reveals that the percentage of classrooms with one or two ELD levels declined over time. In , the year before implementation of the Structured English Immersion Program, slightly more than half (51.5%) of the elementary classrooms were composed of one or two ELD levels. Six years later in , about one-third (35.3%) of the classrooms were composed of one or two ELD levels. Conversely, during this sixyear period, the percentage of classrooms with three or more ELD levels increased from about half (48.5%) in to nearly two thirds in , an increase of 16.2%.

56 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxvii Figure 11 Figure 12

57 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxviii Figure 13 shows the average number of ELD levels in elementary classrooms in the between and Some trends noted during this six-year period include:! Classrooms represented by four ELD levels nearly doubled in this period; in the most recent school year, one-in-five (20.8%) classrooms had four ELD levels! Classrooms with two ELD levels declined by nearly half in this period; in the most recent school year, one-in-four (24.7%) classrooms had two ELD levels! Classrooms represented by five ELD levels nearly tripled in this period; in the most recent school year, one-in-seventeen classrooms had five ELD levels! Classrooms with one ELD level hovered around the same range; on average about one-in-ten classrooms had one ELD level in this six-year period! Classrooms with three ELD levels hovered around the same range; on average about slightly more than one-in-three classrooms had three ELD levels in this six-year period

58 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xxxix Question 1.8 What is the effect of classroom ELD composition (number of ELD levels) on achievement? Figures 14 to 16 show the consequences of having more than one or two ELD levels in classrooms, as measured by the California Standards Test. As noted, for best student achievement outcomes, the District recommends that classrooms be comprised of one or two ELD levels. The graphs clearly demonstrate an inverse relationship between the number of ELD levels in a classroom and student achievement. After controlling for initial achievement differences, English learners in classrooms with the fewest number of ELD levels generally performed better in English language arts and mathematics than their peers in classrooms with the greatest number of ELD levels. The following educationally significant outcomes (effect size differences of.10 or greater) were noted:! In Grade 3, students in classrooms with one ELD level made significantly greater gains in ELA and math than students in classrooms with two, three, four, and Figure 13 five ELD levels.

59 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xl! In Grade 4, students in classrooms with one ELD level made significantly greater gains in ELA and math than students in classrooms with three, four, and five ELD levels.! In Grade 4, students in classrooms with two ELD levels made significantly greater gains in ELA and math than students in classrooms with four ELD levels.! In Grade 5, students in classrooms with one ELD level made significantly greater gains in ELA and math than students in classrooms with two, three, four, and five ELD levels; they had significantly greater gains in math than their counterparts in classrooms with three, four, and five ELD levels.! In Grade 5, students in classrooms with two ELD levels made significantly greater gains in math than students in classrooms with three ELD levels. In summary, more ELD levels in a classroom generally resulted in lower student achievement gains in English language arts and mathematics. English learners in classrooms with the recommended one or two ELD levels made the greatest achievement gains. In no case did students in classrooms with three or more ELD levels make significantly greater gains than students in classrooms with one or two ELD levels.

60 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xli Figure 14 Figure 15

61 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xlii Figure 16 Question 1.9 How many English learners in the elementary grades met the goal of attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after four years of instruction in LAUSD? The short-term and long-term ELD goals for elementary students are illustrated on Table 5 (page 10). If students meet the short-term goal of advancing one ELD level each year of instruction (Objective 1.1), they will meet the long-term goal of attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) after four years of instruction. Students who attain reasonable fluency are assigned to receive instruction in mainstream English classrooms. Table 19 shows the percentage of elementary English learners who attained reasonable fluency after four years of instruction. The percentage of students meeting this four-year ELD goal has decreased the past two years ( and ). This decrease may be partly due to implementation of the new State ELD Standards and administration of the new California English Language Development Test (CELDT) in Prior to implementation of the State ELD Standards and administration of the CELDT, the percentage of English learners attaining reasonable fluency in English after four years of instruction had shown yearly improvement.

62 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xliii Table 19 English Learners Who Met Goal of Attaining Reasonable Fluency in English (ELD Level 5) Grade Level Goal* Elementary 4 Years 26.0% 10,969 of 42,190 Middle School 2 Years 69.4% 473 of 682 High School 2 Years 71.4% 709 of % 15,132 of 44, % 372 of % 684 of 1, % 18,194 of 42, % 697 of % 818 of 1, % 13,276 of 45, % 742 of 1, % 847 of 1, % 13,510 of 47, % 1,679 of 2, % 1603 of 2,330 *Indicates the expected number of years for meeting ELD Level 5 (Reasonable Fluency). Question 1.10 How many English learners new to LAUSD in the middle and high school grades met the goal of attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD 5) after two years of instruction in LAUSD? The goal for English learners new to LAUSD in the middle and high school grades is to attain reasonable fluency in English after two years of enrollment, that is, after four consecutive semesters. In the middle school grades in (Table 19), about sevenin-ten English learners attained reasonable fluency after two years of instruction. The percentage of middle school students meeting this two-year ELD goal has declined slightly the past two years, in and In the high school grades, the percentage of English learners attaining reasonable fluency after two years increased slightly in Overall, nearly seven-in-ten English learners in high school met the target of attaining reasonable fluency in English after two years of instruction. Question 1.11 Overall, how many English learners in elementary, middle, and high school have attained reasonable fluency in English (ELD 5)? Table 20 shows the percentage of all English learners in the elementary, middle, and high school grades who attained reasonable fluency in English (ELD 5) at some point in their educational careers. This includes students who attained reasonable fluency within the expected four-year period for elementary school and expected two-year period for middle and high school. It also included students who attained reasonable fluency beyond

63 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xliv the four-year elementary and two-year secondary goals. The percentage of all English learners in the elementary grades who reached ELD 5 has ranged between 2% and 5% between the and school years. During this same period, the percentage of all English learners in the middle school and high school grades that reached ELD 5 has varied between 30% and 35% and 27% to 33%, respectively. Table 20 English Learners Who Attained Reasonable Fluency (ELD Level 5) in English Grade Level Elementary 4.1% 8,427 of 205,547 Middle 35.9% 29,120 of 81,114 High 33.0% 25,925 of 78,561 Total 17.4% 63,472 of 365, % 7,805 of 223, % 26,788 of 83, % 23,392 of 82, % 57,985 of 388, % 4,890 of 232, % 26,654 of 89, % 24,357 of 88, % 55,901 of 411, % 9,214 of 224, % 33,726 of 95, % 33,202 of 93, % 76,142 of 413, % 12,498 of 240, % 37,574 of 103, % 33,202 of 102, % 83,274 of 413,995 Question 1.12 How many English learners in the elementary grades met the goal of reclassifying to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) after five years of instruction in LAUSD? If students advance one ELD level each year of instruction, after five years they will progress through the five ELD levels and reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) status. LAUSD therefore defines adequate progress toward reclassification as occurring after five years of instruction in the District. Prior to , the percentage of English learners reclassifying after five-years of instruction showed yearly improvement. Table 21 shows that the percentage of elementary English learners meeting the five-year reclassification goal decreased sharply the last two years in and This decrease is largely due to implementation

64 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xlv of the new California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and new State criteria for reclassification. Table 21 English Learners Who Met Benchmarks for Reclassifying to Fluent-English Proficiency (RFEP) Grade Level Goal* Elementary 5 Years Middle 3 Years High 3 Years 38.7% 16,432 of 42, % 32 of % 20 of % 20,879 of 49, % 63 of % 168 of 1, % 28,416 of 54, % 70 of % 153 of 1, % 17,311 of 43, % 14,436 of 47, % 46 of 3, % 77 of 746 *Indicates the expected number of years for meeting reclassification criteria. 3.6% 55 of 1,519 Question 1.13 How many English learners new to LAUSD in the middle and high school grades met the goal of reclassifying to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) after three years of instruction in LAUSD? The goal for English learners new to LAUSD in the middle and high school grades is to reclassify after three years of instruction, that is, after six semesters. In middle school ( Table 21), the percentage of English learners reclassifying after three years of instruction declined significantly in the school year. This decrease is discussed in greater detail in Question 1:11. In high school, the percentage of English learners reclassifying after three years also declined substantially in Again, see Question 1.11 for a full explanation. Question 1.14 Overall, how many English learners in elementary, middle, and high school reclassified to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP)? Table 22 shows the percentage of all English learners in the elementary, middle, and high school grades who reclassified at some point in their educational career. This includes all students who reclassified within and beyond the five-year reclassification goal

65 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xlvi in elementary school and the three-year goal in middle/high school. The percentage of English learners in the elementary grades who reclassified declined from 18.8% in to 9.9% in In the middle and high school grades, the percentage of students who reclassified also declined in , compared to the previous two years when the percentage of reclassified students had increased. Table 22 English Learners Who Have Reclassified to Fluent-English Proficiency (RFEP) Grade Level Elementary 12.7% 26,104 of 205,547 Middle 51.4% 41,693 of 81,114 High 60.2% 47,294 of 78, % 35,235 of 223, % 46,920 of 83, % 53,809 of 82, % 43,777 of 232, % 51,609 of 89, % 58,225 of 88, % 28,317 of 224, % 50,494 of 95, % 58,697 of 93, % 23,795 of 240, % 46,348 of 103, % 57,872 of 102,793 Total 31.5% 35.0% 37.4% 33.2% 26.3% Figure 17 shows the number and percentage of English learners who reclassified in LAUSD each year since , based on the annual California R30 Language Census Report collected by the State Department of Education. The R-30 Report records students who reclassified from December in the previous year through December in the current year. The graph shows that the number and percentage of students reclassified from December 2001 through December 2002 (reported in the school year) significantly declined compared with the previous reporting period, in part due to the new State reclassification criteria described below. Figure 18 compares the percentage of students reclassified in LAUSD with the State average. The percentage of students reclassified in LAUSD significantly declined in compared with the State reclassification rate.

66 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xlvii Figure 17 The sharp decline in the percentage of English learners reclassified in can be attributed in part to changes in State and District reclassification procedures and criteria. The new California Department of Education reclassification criteria for all school districts went into effect July Prior to implementation of the new criteria, schools could have reclassified students under District criteria still in effect in However, there was a six- to nine-month delay before schools received State CELDT data necessary for reclassifying students. Consequently, many students eligible for reclassification were not processed in time for the State R30 count in December Moreover, many schools that did have data available for reclassifying students under the current District criteria decided to wait until the California Department of Education unveiled the new reclassification criteria. Students that were eligible for reclassification under the existing criteria in were not processed in a timely manner and were therefore not included in the State s December 2002 R30 count.

67 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xlviii Figure 18 The reclassification results displayed in Figures 17 and 18 are therefore mainly based on reclassification that occurred using older language and achievement criteria the predated the new State criteria. In short, the fact that schools waited for delayed State test results and/or for the State to announce new reclassification criteria depressed the number of students reclassified in The new State reclassification criteria took effect July To reclassify, students must receive an overall score of 4 ( Early Advanced ) or greater on the CELDT; a score of Basic or greater on the English language arts section of the CST; and elementary report card marks of 3 or higher in English language arts and math, and secondary grades of C or higher in English and math. In July 2003, the District s Information Technology Division (ITD) began providing each school with a roster of students who meet all District and State reclassification criteria. Students who meet the new State and District reclassification criteria will be reported in the Master Plan Report.

68 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xlix Question 1.15 How many English learners met the goal of reclassifying after two years in the middle and high school Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP)? Table 23 shows the percentage of English learners in the Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP) who reclassified in the six-year period between the and school years after two years in PRP. PRP is designed for English learners with reasonable fluency (ELD Level 5) in the mainstream program who have not met reclassification criteria. The PRP provides instruction in English with SDAIE support. Students are expected to reclassify after two years in the program. The percentage of English learners in PRP who reclassified in decreased significantly compared with the previous year. Question 1.14 addresses some of the reasons for the decline in the percentage of students who reclassified in Question 1.16 How long does it take English learners in the elementary grades to become proficient in English? Table 24 depicts the percentage of English learners in the elementary grades who became proficient in English by It shows how long it took different cohorts of students to attain English proficiency. English proficiency is defined as attaining reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) or reclassifying. Table 24 shows the following trends:! 0.3% students were English proficient after one year of instruction! 2.0% students were English proficient after two years of instruction! 12.2% students were English proficient after three years of instruction! 16.1% students were English proficient after four years of instruction! 29.7% students were English proficient after five years of instruction! 49.5% students were English proficient after six years of instruction

69 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page l Grade ELs in PRP Table 23 English Learners (ELs) in Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP) Who Reclassified to Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP) After Two-Years in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP 7 6,762 1, % 8,335 1, % 6,501 1, % 6,574 1, % 6, % 8 8,119 2, % 9,162 1, % 7,489 1, % 7,789 1, % 6, % 9 9,021 1, % 10,628 1, % 9,350 1, % 10,228 1, % 10, % 10 6,326 1, % 6,597 1, % 5,766 1, % 6,372 1, % 6, % 11 4,046 1, % 4, % 3, % 3, % 3, % 12 3,480 1, % 3, % 2, % 3, % 3, % Total 37,754 9, % 42,110 7, % 35,453 7, % 37,736 7, % 37,446 2, % RFEP % RFEP

70 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page li The results of Table 24 demonstrate that a student s initial ELD level may determine the length of time it takes students to become proficient in English. About four-in-ten (42.3%) students who began in ELD 1 became proficient in English by the time they completed elementary school, after six years of instruction. More than half (50.4%) of the students who began in ELD 2 became proficient after six years. About two-in-three (64.3%) students who began in ELD 3 were English proficient by the time they finished elementary school. In summary, students who started school with lower ELD levels had the greatest difficulty attaining English proficiency by the time they finished elementary school. Moreover, these outcomes demonstrate that after six years of instruction, half of the elementary students who began in ELD 1 will enter the middle school grades without having attained proficiency in English, that is, achieving reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5) or reclassifying. Table 25 shows the percentage of students who attained English-proficiency in the elementary school grades over the past five years, between the and school years. The percentage of elementary students attaining reasonable fluency in English or reclassifying after six years in elementary school decreased in by 11% the past two years, from 61% in to 50% in After six years of elementary instruction, these students would be entering middle school, yet half of them had not attained proficiency in English.

71 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lii Table 24 Los Angeles Unified School District Percentage of English Learners Who Attained English Proficiency 1 by Length of Time in LAUSD ( ) Students Proficient in English by Years in School Proficient Students in Proficient After 1 Year (Enrolled Since 01-02) Proficient After 2 Years (Enrolled Since 00-01) Proficient After 3 Years (Enrolled Since 99-00) Proficient After 4 Years (Enrolled Since 98-99) Proficient After 5 Years (Enrolled Since 97-98) Proficient After 6 Years (Enrolled Since 96-97) Beginning ELD Level Total English proficient % N English proficient % N English proficient % N English proficient % N English proficient % N English proficient % N English proficient % ELD 1 159,910 14, % 33, % 37, % 40,711 3, % 21,333 2, % 15,266 3, % 12,053 5, % ELD 2 50,752 13, % 2, % 4, % 8,319 1, % 12,127 2, % 13,243 4, % 9,816 5, % ELD 3 13,152 5, % 1, % 1, % 1, % 2, % 3,936 2, % 2,559 1, % ELD 4 1, % % % % % % % Total 225,406 34, % 36, % 43, % 51,088 6, % 35,983 5, % 32,803 9, % 24,791 12, % 1 Students attain English proficiency when they reach ELD Level 5 (reasonable English fluency) or reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP).

72 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page liii Table 25 English Learners Who Become English Proficient* by Length of Time in Instruction Proficient After 1 Year Elementary (Grades K-5) Students Proficient in English by Years of Instruction Proficient After 2 Years Proficient After 3 Years Proficient After 4 Years Proficient After 5 Years Proficient After 6 Years % 7% 10% 21% 37% 63% % 9% 16% 27% 40% 59% % 9% 18% 34% 42% 61% ** 2% 7% 11% 23% 41% 52% % 2% 12% 16% 30% 50% *Students attain English proficiency when they reach ELD Level 5 (reasonable English fluency) or reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP). **The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) was first administered statewide, making the a baseline year for English proficiency. Question 1.17 What were the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) outcomes? The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) is administered annually each fall semester in November to all continuing English learners. It was first administered statewide in the fall semester of to assess progress in the California ELD Standards. The State ELD goal is for English learners to advance one CELDT level each year of instruction. An CELDT level is equivalent to an ESL level. The CELDT measures English proficiency in listening and speaking in Kindergarten and Grade 1, and assesses English proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in Grades CELDT scores are reported using a five-point proficiency scale, with a level 1 indicating Beginning English proficiency and a level 5 indicating Advanced English proficiency. A score of 4 ( Early Advanced proficiency ) or 5 ( Advanced proficiency) signals that a student may be ready to be reclassified.

73 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page liv It should be noted that the ELD levels assigned by the CELDT may be different from the ELD levels measured by the District ELD Portfolio. From the beginning, considerable District effort went into building consistency between the State ELD standards, teacher assessment using the District ELD Portfolios, and CELDT scores. Even so, teachers have reported inconsistencies between CELDT scores and ELD Portfolio scores. Therefore, the ELD level reported by the District Portfolio may differ from CELDT results. Tables 26 and 27 display English proficiency gains, as measured by the CELDT, for English learners in the elementary and secondary grades, respectively. Since the CELDT is administered to all continuing students at the beginning of the fall semester, Tables 26 and 27 actually reflect English proficiency (ELD) gains for , between November 2001 and November Overall, more than half (52.3%) of the elementary students advanced at least one CELDT level from 2001 to The elementary English proficiency gains based on the CELDT (52.3%) were nearly identical to the English proficiency gains based on the District ELD Portfolio (51.5%, Table 7 on page 13). As with English proficiency gains based on the District ELD Portfolio, a greater percentage of English learners at the lower CELDT levels (Beginning, 72.1%, and Early Intermediate, 61.9%) met the goal of gaining at least one level than their counterparts at the higher CELDT levels (Intermediate, 39.2%, Early Advanced, 40.1%, and Advanced, 52.3%). The goal of advancing at least one (CELDT) level becomes more difficult to attain for students in the three highest levels.

74 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lv Table 26 English Language Development (ELD) Gains as Measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Elementary Grades CELDT Level CELDT Gains From to CELDT Level Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced Reclassified Total Decreased No Change Increased Beginning 7,425 10,940 6,760 1, ,628 7,425 19, % 41.1% 25.4% 4.3% 1.0% 0.4% 27.9% 72.1% Early 3,101 17,292 24,597 6,479 1, ,458 3,101 17,292 33,065 Intermediate 5.8% 32.3% 46.0% 12.1% 2.6% 1.1% 5.8% 32.3% 61.9% Intermediate 1,372 8,588 29,595 16,009 5,043 4,463 65,070 9,960 29,595 25, % 13.2% 45.5% 24.6% 7.8% 6.9% 15.3% 45.5% 39.2% Early ,063 3,894 1,465 4,761 15,527 5,407 3,894 6,226 Advanced 4.3% 4.4% 26.2% 25.1% 9.4% 30.7% 34.8% 25.1% 40.1% Advanced ,242 2, , % 1.4% 9.9% 14.5% 19.0% 51.6% 29.4% 19.0% 51.6% Total 12,648 37,533 65,253 27,876 8,618 11, ,090 19,175 58,664 85, % 23.0% 40.0% 17.1% 5.3% 6.8% 11.8% 36.0% 52.3% In the secondary grades (Table 27), less than half (47.7%) of the English learners advanced at least one CELDT level from 2002 to The secondary English proficiency gains based on the CELDT were slightly lower than the gains of their elementary school peers (52.3%). Similar to their elementary peers, a greater percentage of secondary grade students at the lower CELDT levels (Beginning, 69.6%, and Early Intermediate, 59.9%) met the goal of gaining at least one level than their peers at the higher CELDT levels (Intermediate, 40.1%, Early Advanced, 39.0%, and Advanced, 45.7%). The goal of advancing at least one CELDT level also becomes more difficult to attain for secondary students in the three highest levels.

75 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lvi Table 27 English Language Development (ELD) Gains as Measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Secondary Grades CELDT Level CELDT Gains From to CELDT Level Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced Reclassified Total Decreased No Change Increased Beginning 2,790 4,241 1, ,188 2,790 6, % 46.2% 18.9% 3.0% 0.6% 1.0% 30.4% 69.6% Early 700 5,493 8,013 1, , ,493 9,236 Intermediate 4.5% 35.6% 51.9% 6.6% 0.7% 0.7% 4.5% 35.6% 59.9% Intermediate 732 1,864 18,292 10,612 1,700 1,697 34,897 2,596 18,292 14, % 5.3% 52.4% 30.4% 4.9% 4.9% 7.4% 52.4% 40.1% Early ,822 5,625 1,557 3,716 13,531 2,633 5,625 5,273 Advanced 5.0% 1.0% 13.5% 41.6% 11.5% 27.5% 19.5% 41.6% 39.0% Advanced , % 1.0% 8.4% 17.5% 24.3% 45.7% 30.1% 24.3% 45.7% Total 4,961 11,755 30,036 17,884 3,922 6,540 75,098 6,546 32,698 35, % 15.7% 40.0% 23.8% 5.2% 8.7% 8.7% 43.5% 47.7% California Standards Test (Mathematics Goal 2 Are English Learners Making Expected Progress in Accordance with California English Language Arts (ELA) Standards? Question 2.1 What are the English language arts (ELA) outcomes for English learners, as measured by the California Standards Test (CST), compared with the results for EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? The California Department of Education implemented new statewide curriculum standards in the school year. The California Standard Tests (CST) was piloted that same year to measure academic proficiency in content area instruction in English language arts (ELA) and in mathematics. The school year marked the first year of statewide administration of the CST.

76 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lvii Table 28 displays matched student progress in ELA from to for all elementary students, and Table 29 represents progress for English learners. Matched CST scores show year-to-year progress in ELA for the same students. The CST results represent the first year-to-year measure of progress in English language arts. About one-in-ten (10.7%) English learners scored Proficient or higher in English language arts, compared to about one-in-four (27.0%) of all students. An equal percentage of all students (38.0%) and English learners (38.9%) scored Basic. Students with a score of Basic are considered by the State... sufficiently prepared to participate effectively in the (ELA) curriculum. Moreover, the State recommends that English learners with an ELA score of Basic... should be considered for reclassification. About one-inthree (35.1%) of all elementary students and half (50.5%) of English learners scored Below Basic in ELA and are not considered by the State to be sufficiently prepared to participate effectively in the curriculum. Nearly one-in-three (31.9%) of all students showed ELA progress from to By comparison, 36.7% of English learners showed improvement in ELA. Table 30 displays ELA progress for all students in middle and high school from to , and Table 31 displays ELA progress for English learners. Less than one-in-four (23.3%) of all students in the secondary grades scored Proficient or higher in ELA, compared with less than two percent (1.8%) of English learners. About one-in-three (34.6%) of all secondary students had an ELA score of Basic, compared with one-in-five English learners (20.9%). In summary, 42.1% of all secondary students and 77.3% of English learners scored below Basic and were not sufficiently prepared to participate effectively in the secondary ELA curriculum. Overall, 31.5% of all students demonstrated improvement in ELA from to , compared with 38.8% of English learners.

77 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lviii Table 28 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Elementary Grades All Students Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient Far Below 10,618 12,249 4, ,199 10,618 16, Basic 39.0% 45.0% 15.2% 0.7% 0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 0.8% Below Basic 6,010 17,597 17,041 1, ,831 6,010 17,597 18,224 1, % 42.1% 40.7% 2.7% 0.1% 14.4% 42.1% 43.6% 2.8% Basic 963 7,859 32,045 10, ,409 8,822 32,045 11,542 11, % 15.0% 61.1% 21.0% 1.1% 16.8% 61.1% 22.0% 22.0% Proficient ,907 16,034 4,437 27,834 7,363 16,034 4,437 20, % 1.5% 24.8% 57.6% 15.9% 26.5% 57.6% 15.9% 73.5% Advanced ,228 6,256 9,719 3,463 9, % 0.1% 2.3% 33.2% 64.4% 35.6% 97.6% Total 17,637 38,127 60,339 31,581 11, ,992 25,658 76,294 50,784 42, % 24.0% 38.0% 19.9% 7.1% 16.1% 48.0% 31.9% 27.0%

78 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lix Table 29 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Elementary Grades English Learners Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 8,876 9,705 3, ,834 8,876 12, % 44.4% 14.2% 0.7% 0.0% 40.7% 59.3% 0.7% Below Basic 4,434 12,582 11, ,271 4,434 12,582 12, % 43.0% 39.4% 2.4% 0.1% 15.1% 43.0% 41.9% 2.5% Basic 607 4,579 14,965 3, ,195 5,186 14,965 4,044 4, % 18.9% 61.9% 16.0% 0.7% 21.4% 61.9% 16.7% 16.7% Proficient ,925 2, ,366 2,138 2, , % 3.4% 35.9% 50.3% 9.8% 39.8% 50.3% 9.8% 60.2% Advanced % 0.7% 7.4% 47.7% 44.3% 55.7% 92.0% Total 13,949 27,051 31,569 7, ,251 12,084 39,123 29,785 8, % 33.3% 38.9% 9.5% 1.2% 14.9% 48.2% 36.7% 10.7%

79 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lx Table 30 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Secondary Grades All Students Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 20,859 18,839 3, ,752 20,859 22, % 43.1% 9.0% 0.3% 0.0% 47.7% 52.3% 0.3% Below Basic 7,475 22,391 18, ,050 7,475 22,391 19, % 45.6% 37.4% 1.7% 0.0% 15.2% 45.6% 39.1% 1.7% Basic 1,596 8,402 37,333 12, ,360 9,998 37,333 13,029 13, % 13.9% 61.9% 20.7% 0.8% 16.6% 61.9% 21.6% 21.6% Proficient ,949 16,805 4,692 27,959 6,462 16,805 4,692 21, % 1.4% 21.3% 60.1% 16.8% 23.1% 60.1% 16.8% 76.9% Advanced ,590 6,152 8,923 2,771 8, % 0.2% 1.7% 29.0% 68.9% 31.1% 98.0% Total 30,062 50,039 65,695 32,861 11, ,044 26,706 97,388 59,798 44, % 26.3% 34.6% 17.3% 6.0% 14.1% 51.2% 31.5% 23.3%

80 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxi Table 31 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Secondary Grades English Learners Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 13,886 11,715 1, ,579 13,886 13, % 42.5% 7.0% 0.2% 0.0% 50.4% 49.7% 0.2% Below Basic 3,236 8,708 5, ,386 3,236 8,708 5, % 50.1% 30.2% 1.0% 0.0% 18.6% 50.1% 31.3% 1.1% Basic 298 1,401 3, ,573 1,699 3, % 25.1% 59.8% 9.6% 0.2% 30.5% 59.8% 9.8% 9.8% Proficient % 8.5% 37.7% 44.8% 6.7% 48.4% 44.8% 6.7% 51.6% Advanced % 8.7% 21.7% 26.1% 39.1% 60.9% 65.2% Total 17,426 21,845 10, ,784 5,057 26,024 19, % 43.0% 20.9% 1.7% 0.1% 10.0% 51.2% 38.8% 1.8%

81 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxii The California Standards Test plays an important role in the accountability framework for the State s Academic Performance Index (API) and for the U.S. Department of Education s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). As part of AYP, English learners must meet the same proficiency goals in English language arts as all other students. In the school year, the California State Board set a target that 13.6% of elementary and middle school, and 11.2% of high school students must score Proficient or higher in English language arts. AYP defines English learners as comprising both English learners and former English learners who reclassified but who have not scored Proficient or higher on the CST for three consecutive years. For this report, all English learners and all reclassified students comprise the English learner group. Reclassified students have not been tested for three consecutive years on the CST. The third year of CST administration will occur in ; at which time the three consecutive year criteria for reclassified students will take effect. Table 32 shows that 12.4% of elementary English learners and 52.3% of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher in ELA. When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 18.4% of the English learner subgroup scored Proficient or higher in ELA, thereby meeting the 13.6% AYP proficiency goal for In the elementary grades, a greater percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (52.3%) in ELA, compared with 37.4% of English-only students and 48.7% of IFEP students. Overall, 26.5% of all elementary students scored Proficient or higher in ELA, and 35.6% of all students had a score of Basic in ELA. The percentage of English learners with a score of Basic (36.2%) was nearly identical to that of the other three language groups. Table 33 shows that 1.6% of middle school English learners and 25.1% of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher in ELA. When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 12.7% of the English learner subgroup scored Proficient or higher in ELA, just missing the 13.6% AYP proficiency goal for middle school.

82 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxiii Table 32 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Language Group English Language Arts ( ) Elementary Grades Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total EO 23, % 26, % 69,992 IFEP 7, % 10, % 21,378 RFEP 9, % 12, % 23,140 EL 47, % 16, % 130,497 Total 87, % 64, % 245,007 Table 33 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Middle School Grades English Language Arts ( ) High School Grades Lang. Group Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total EO 15, % 13, % 47,466 11, % 13, % 36,705 IFEP 4, % 4, % 11,332 3, % 4, % 9,529 RFEP 21, % 11, % 45,533 18, % 10, % 41,708 EL 10, % % 51,181 6, % % 31,874 Total 53, % 30, % 155,512 40, % 28, % 119,816

83 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxiv Table 33 also shows that a smaller percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (25.1%) in English language arts than IFEP students (39.2%) and EO students (29.2%) in the middle school grades. The percentage (21.3%) of English learners with a score of Basic in ELA was well below that of the other three language groups. Overall, one-in-five (19.7%) of all students scored Proficient or higher in ELA in middle school, and one-in-three (34.1%) students had a score of Basic. In the high school grades, Table 33 depicts that 2.2% of English learners and 26.0% of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher in ELA. When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 15.7% of the English learner subgroup scored Proficient or higher in ELA, meeting the 11.2% AYP proficiency goal for high school. Table 33 additionally shows that a smaller percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (26.0%) in English language arts than IFEP students (44.3%) and EO students (35.6%) in the high school grades. The percentage (20.9%) of English learners with a score of Basic in ELA was well below that of the other three language groups. Over, one-in-four (24.1%) of all students scored Proficient or higher in ELA in high school, and one-in-three (33.5%) students had a score of Basic. Question 2.2 What are the English language arts outcomes for English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and Bilingual Programs? This question addresses the achievement outcomes for students in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and alterative bilingual programs. The next question (Question 3.3) presents the academic results for English learners who received their entire education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program. As noted in Question 1.2, about the same percentage of English learners in the SEI Program (49%) and alternative bilingual programs (50%) programs met the yearly ELD goal of advancing one ELD level in the school year (see Figure 5 on page 15). Students in either program therefore made the same progress toward becoming English proficient. Figure 5 also showed that students in both programs made the same progress toward attaining English proficiency for the past three years, ever since implementation of the California English Language Development Standards.

84 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxv Table 34 presents English language arts outcomes for students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs, as measured by the California Standards Tests (CST). A greater percentage of students in the SEI program scored Proficient or higher in ELA in Grades 2, 3, and 4 than their counterparts in the alternative bilingual programs. In Grade 5, few students in either program scored Proficient or higher. A greater percentage of English learners in the SEI also had a score of Basic than their bilingual program peers in all grades. Table 34 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient, or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Grade Basic Bilingual Program Proficient or Advanced English Language Arts ( ) Master Plan Program Structured English Immersion TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total % % 2,954 12, % 6, % 33, % % 2,473 10, % 3, % 32, % % 1,141 12, % 2, % 27, % % 661 6, % % 18,410 Total 1, % % 7,229 41, % 14, % 111,353 Another analysis was conducted based on matched student progress in ELA from to for students in the SEI Program (Table 35) and alternative bilingual programs (Table 36). Matched CST scores show year-to-year progress for the same students.

85 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxvi Table 35 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts LAUSD SEI Program Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 7,414 8,695 2, ,089 7,414 11, % 45.6% 14.9% 0.7% 0.0% 38.8% 61.2% 0.8% Below Basic 4,041 11,418 10, ,297 4,041 11,418 10, % 43.4% 38.8% 2.4% 0.1% 15.4% 43.4% 41.2% 2.4% Basic 562 4,189 12,908 3, ,047 4,751 12,908 3,388 3, % 19.9% 61.3% 15.4% 0.7% 22.6% 61.3% 16.1% 16.1% Proficient ,687 2, ,571 1,879 2, , % 3.5% 36.9% 49.3% 9.6% 41.1% 49.3% 9.6% 58.9% Advanced % 0.7% 7.9% 48.9% 42.5% 57.5% 91.4% Total 12,047 24,467 27,662 6, ,460 10,933 33,995 26,338 7, % 34.2% 38.7% 9.1% 1.1% 15.3% 47.6% 36.9% 10.2%

86 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxvii Table 36 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts LAUSD Bilingual Program Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased , % Proficient 49.1% 42.4% 8.3% 0.2% 0.0% 49.1% 50.9% 0.2% Below Basic , % 45.8% 32.1% 1.4% 0.0% 20.7% 45.8% 33.6% 1.4% Basic % 19.8% 62.7% 15.2% 0.6% 21.5% 62.7% 15.8% 15.8% Proficient % 1.3% 28.6% 49.4% 20.8% 29.9% 49.4% 20.8% 70.1% Advanced % 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Total 1,099 1, , ,730 1, % 39.4% 24.4% 3.9% 0.9% 10.9% 49.5% 39.2% 4.8%

87 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxviii One-in-ten (10.2%) students in the SEI Program scored Proficient or higher in ELA, compared with one-in-twenty (4.8%) students in the alternative bilingual programs. Moreover, a greater percentage of students in the SEI Program (38.7%) scored Basic in ELA than their peers in the alternative bilingual programs (24.1%). About the same percentage of students in the SEI Program (36.9%) and alternative bilingual programs (39.2%) showed ELA progress from to In short, while a greater percentage of students in the SEI Program scored Basic or higher than their counterparts in the bilingual programs, students in both programs made similar year-toyear ELA progress. The main reason for these seemingly contradictory findings is that a greater percentage of students in the bilingual programs (49.1%) began at the lowest ELA proficiency level (Far Below Basic) the previous year than their SEI peers (26.7%). Table 37 shows additional outcomes that address English learner progress in ELA. To compare year-to-year ELA progress, the 2002 CST and 2003 CST scale score gains were converted to standardized gains. This conversion transforms scores to a common scale, letting one directly compare the two sets of scores (also see Question 1.5 on pages for a more detailed explanation of standardized gains). Based on adjusted standardized gains to control for initial 2002 CST scores, no significant effect size differences (differences of.10 or greater) were noted in English language arts between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. These CST outcomes parallel year-to-year findings from the last three years. An analysis of achievement gains in Year 2 ( ), Year 3 ( ), and Year 4 ( ) of SEI Program implementation showed no significant differences in ELA gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs.

88 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxix Table 37 Grade 3 Matched Student Standardized Gains 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts Program N CST Standard Gain SEI 28, Standard* Gain Difference.06 Bilingual 1, Grade 4 SEI 24, Bilingual Grade 5 SEI 15, Bilingual *A Standardized Gain Difference between the SEI and Bilingual Programs is equivalent to an Effect Size Difference. Question 2.3 What are the longitudinal English language arts outcomes for English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and Alternative Bilingual Programs? This section presents the academic results for student cohorts who participated continuously in either the Structured English Immersion (SEI) or alternative bilingual program (Basic Bilingual and Dual Language Programs). These students received their entire elementary education in either the SEI Program or alternative bilingual program. Table 38 displays the SEI and bilingual program longitudinal cohorts and number of students in each cohort. The table also reveals that many English learners changed programs in the course of their elementary education, and received instruction in both programs (Mixed Program cohorts). Each cohort is comprised of students who began as English learners in kindergarten. The Grade 1-5 cohort does not include students program in kindergarten since the SEI Program was first implemented when these students were in Grade 1. These are intact longitudinal groups since each cohort includes students who reclassified

89 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxx to fluent English proficiency. In short, these are longitudinal cohorts of students who began as English learners as kindergartners (except for the Grade 1-5 cohort). Table 38 English Learner Longitudinal Cohorts in Master Plan Programs Cohort Structured English Immersion % Alternative Bilingual Programs % Mixed Programs* % Total Grade K-2 28, % 2, % 2, % 33,118 Grade K-3 26, % 1, % 3, % 31,174 Grade K-4 19, % % 3, % 23,684 Grade , % % 2, % 20,273 *English learners in Mixed Programs received instruction in both the Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Programs. Table 39 displays English language arts as measured by the California Standards Test performance standards rubric. A greater percentage of students in the SEI Program scored Proficient or higher in ELA in the Grade K-2, K-3, and K-4 cohorts than their peers in the alternative bilingual programs. However, in the Grade 1-5 cohort, a slightly greater percentage of students in the alternative bilingual programs cohort scored Proficient or higher in ELA. Proficiency in ELA for students in the Mixed Program group (received instruction in both SEI and bilingual programs) declined substantially for each succeeding grade-level cohort. Figure 19 shows additional outcomes that address student cohort progress in English language arts as measured by standardized CST gains. No significant effect size differences (standardized gains greater than.10) were noted in ELA between student cohorts in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. This is the first analysis of standardized achievement gains for longitudinal student cohorts who participated in either the SEI or alternative bilingual programs their entire elementary career.

90 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxi Table 39 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient, or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts ( ) Master Plan Program Alternative Bilingual Programs Structured English Immersion Mixed Programs* Grade Cohort Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced N % N % Total N % N % Total N % N % Total TOTAL K % % 1,653 7, % 4, % 19, % % 983 K % % 1,659 7, % 4, % 22, % % 2,382 K % % 669 8, % 3, % 19,271 1, % % 3, % % 781 6, % 3, % 16, % % 2,459 *English learners in Mixed Programs received instruction in both the Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Programs.

91 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxii Figure 19 These results parallel findings from the last three years that showed no significant differences in standardized ELA gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. However, an educationally significant difference (effect size of.13) in ELA was noted in the Grade 1-5 cohort between students in the alternative bilingual programs and their counterparts in the Mixed Program group, in favor of students in bilingual programs. Similar to the findings based on the CST performance standards rubric, students in mixed Master Plan programs (received instruction in both SEI and bilingual programs) performed lower than their peers who received continuous instruction in either the SEI or bilingual program. In short, program continuity is related with greater achievement outcomes, especially at the upper elementary grades when students are preparing to transition into middle school.

92 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxiii Question 2.4 How well are English learners in Dual Language Programs performing academically in English language arts? The District is implementing both a Spanish/English Dual Language Program (SDLP) and a Korean/English Dual Language Program (KDLP) in the elementary grades. The programs differ in language and in design. Table 40 displays each program s English language arts results as measured performance on the California Standards Test. A greater percentage of English learners in the KDLP scored Proficient or higher (64.4%) than their SDLP (12.7%) counterparts (Table 48). A greater percentage of students in the KDLP also scored Proficient or higher than students in the SEI Program (12.6%) and all bilingual programs (5.9%). About the same percentage of students in SDLP (12.7%) scored Proficient or higher as their SEI program peers (12.6%). A greater percentage of EO and IFEP students who participated in the SDLP (46.4%) or the KDLP (71.9%) scored Proficient or higher than their District EO (33.3%) and IFEP (34.7%) counterparts. In general, English learners who participated in an elementary Dual Language Program performed as well as or better than their SEI program peers in English language arts. English proficient students in the Dual Language Program outperformed their District counterparts. Table 40 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Language Group English Language Arts Elementary Grades ( ) Spanish Dual Language Basic Proficient or Advanced Master Plan Program Korean Dual Language TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total English Learners* % % % % 216 English Proficient** % % % % 89 Total % % % % 305 *Includes students who were English learners at start of program and reclassified to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP). **Includes English-only (EO) and Initial fluent English proficient (IFEP) students.

93 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxiv Question 2.5 What are the language arts outcomes for English learners, as measured by the District Standards-Based Performance assessment, compared with reclassified, EO, and IFEP students? In , language arts was also assessed using the District s Performance Assignment (PA). Tables 41 and 42 show matched student PA scores for students in the elementary and secondary grades, respectively, who were administered the PA in both and The tables therefore show year-to-year progress in language arts. The PA was administered in English to English learners with reasonable fluency in English (ELD Level 5). It was administered in Spanish to English learners in Spanish bilingual programs. In the elementary grades, about half (48.8%) of all students scored Proficient or higher in on the PA, compared with four-in-ten (39.4%) English learners. Additionally, about the same percentage of English learners (31.8%) and all students (28.0%) declined in language arts from to In the secondary grades (Table 42), half (49.4%) of all students and 17.3% of English learners scored Proficient or higher in language arts in One-in-four (26.9%) English learners showed a year-to-year increase in language arts, compared with the secondary average of 36.9%. One-in-five (19.6%) of all students declined in language arts from to , compared with nearly three-in-ten (28.9%) English learners. When comparing year-to-year outcomes on the language arts PA, a greater percentage (39.4%) of English learners in the elementary school scored Proficient or higher than their secondary school peers (17.3%). Looking at all elementary students (48.8%) and secondary students (49.4%), a similar percentage scored proficient or higher in language arts. Table 43 displays outcomes in Spanish language arts as measured by the Performance Assignment. More than four-in-ten (43.6%) English learners scored Proficient or higher on the Spanish language arts PA. About the same percentage of English learners scored Proficient or higher in Spanish language arts (43.6%) and English language arts (39.4%). Overall, about the same percentage of English learners who took the Spanish PA showed an increase, decrease, or no change as their counterparts who took the English language arts PA.

94 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxv Table 41 English Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes Elementary Grades All Students Performance Assignment 2003 Progress From 2002 to 2003 Performance Assign 2002 Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient Not Proficient 2,284 3,917 1, ,783 2,284 5,499 1, % 50.3% 18.4% 1.9% 29.3% 70.7% 20.3% Partial 3,399 13,656 8,880 1,298 27,233 3,399 13,656 10,178 10, % 50.1% 32.6% 4.8% 12.5% 50.1% 37.4% 37.4% Proficient 1,316 9,163 12,253 3,374 26,106 10,479 12,253 3,374 15, % 35.1% 46.9% 12.9% 40.1% 46.9% 12.9% 59.9% Advanced 170 1,501 3,823 2,482 7,976 5,494 6, % 18.8% 47.9% 31.1% 68.9% 79.1% Total 7,169 28,237 26,390 7,302 69,098 19,372 28,193 19,051 33, % 40.9% 38.2% 10.6% 28.0% 40.8% 27.6% 48.8% English Learners Not Proficient % 48.5% 16.4% 1.8% 33.3% 66.7% 18.1% Partial % 55.3% 29.5% 3.6% 11.5% 55.3% 33.2% 33.2% Proficient % 47.5% 39.6% 6.8% 53.6% 39.6% 6.8% 46.4% Advanced % 28.6% 51.1% 17.3% 82.7% 68.4% Total , % 49.6% 33.7% 5.7% 31.8% 42.8% 24.1% 39.4%

95 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxvi Table 42 English Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes Secondary Grades All Students Performance Assignment 2003 Progress From 2002 to 2003 Performance Assign 2002 Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient Not Proficient 6,431 8,955 2, ,748 6,431 12,317 3, % 47.8% 15.5% 2.4% 34.3% 65.7% 17.9% Partial 9,500 25,109 13,057 2,847 50,513 9,500 25,109 15,904 15, % 49.7% 25.8% 5.6% 18.8% 49.7% 31.5% 31.5% Proficient 1,316 3,438 15,239 14,440 34,433 4,754 15,239 14,440 29, % 10.0% 44.3% 41.9% 13.8% 44.3% 41.9% 86.2% Advanced 509 3,176 4,720 3,391 11,796 8,405 8, % 26.9% 40.0% 28.7% 71.3% 68.8% Total 17,756 40,678 35,925 21, ,490 22,659 46,779 42,661 57, % 35.2% 31.1% 18.3% 19.6% 40.5% 36.9% 49.4% English Learners Not Proficient 2,311 2, ,394 2,311 3, % 46.9% 9.4% 0.9% 42.8% 57.2% 10.3% Partial 2,419 4,608 1, ,479 2,419 4,608 1,452 1, % 54.3% 15.2% 1.9% 28.5% 54.3% 17.1% 17.1% Proficient 636 1, ,048 2, % 52.3% 22.7% 4.2% 73.1% 22.7% 4.2% 26.9% Advanced % 41.1% 33.9% 9.6% 90.4% 43.4% Total 5,426 8,888 2, ,308 4,998 7,611 4,662 2, % 51.4% 15.1% 2.2% 28.9% 44.0% 26.9% 17.3%

96 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxvii Table 43 Spanish Language Arts Performance Assignment (PA) Outcomes Elementary Grades Spanish PA Performance Assignment 2003 Progress From 2002 to 2003 Performance Assign 2002 Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient Not Proficient % 53.4% 21.1% 1.4% 24.1% 75.9% 22.5% Partial , % 50.7% 32.0% 4.0% 13.3% 50.7% 36.0% 36.0% Proficient , % 39.9% 42.7% 11.4% 45.9% 42.7% 11.4% 54.1% Advanced % 25.2% 45.3% 28.5% 71.5% 73.7% Total 365 1,472 1, , , , % 45.2% 35.3% 8.3% 27.7% 40.1% 29.8% 43.6%

97 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxviii Question 2.6 What are the Spanish language arts outcomes for English learners in Spanish bilingual programs, as measured by the Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test? Spanish reading outcomes for elementary and secondary grades, as measured by Aprenda Achievement Test, are displayed in Figures 20 and 21, respectively. Spanish language outcomes for elementary and secondary grades are depicted in Figures 22 and 23, respectively. The Spanish reading and language outcomes represent the six-year period covering the through school years. The Spanish reading and Spanish language outcomes are reported in mean percentile scores for all English learners tested. In , students learning to read in Spanish in the elementary grades scored th near or above the 50 mean percentile in Grades 1-3 and Grade 5. Figure 19 shows that, in general, English learners have shown improvement in Spanish reading across all grades every year since , the year prior to implementation of Structured English Immersion. English learners at each succeeding upper elementary grade generally scored lower in Spanish reading than their peers at the lower grades. The transitional nature of the Basic Bilingual Program causes a dip in scores in the upper elementary grades, as students transition from Spanish language arts to English language arts. As English learners with high Spanish achievement scores transition to English reading instruction, they no longer take the Aprenda Test. Those who take the Aprenda Test in the upper elementary grades are either newcomers or students who have not scored high enough to transition to English reading instruction. Therefore, the pool of English learners who take the Aprenda is continuously drained of high scoring students and replenished with lower scoring newcomers. Figure 21 shows the Spanish reading outcomes for middle and high school th th students. Students in Grades 6 through 9 scored between the 38 and 44 mean percentile in Spanish reading in However, students in Grades 10 and 11 scored th above the 50 mean percentile. Students in Grades 6, 8, and 9 decline in Spanish reading in compared with the previous school year.

98 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxix Figure 20 Figure 21

99 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxx th In , students in the elementary grades scored near or above the 50 mean percentile in Spanish language in Grades 1-3 (Figure 22). In general, English learners have shown improvement in Spanish language across all elementary grades every year since English learners at the upper elementary grades generally scored lower in Spanish language than their peers at the lower grades. As noted, the transitional nature of the Basic Bilingual Program causes a dip in scores in the upper elementary grades as English learners with high Spanish achievement scores transition to English reading instruction and no longer take the Aprenda Test. Figure 23 shows the Spanish language outcomes for middle and high school th st students. Students in Grades 6 through 9 scored between the 29 and 41 mean percentile in Spanish language in Students in Grades 10 and 11 scored near or th at the 50 mean percentile. Students in the upper secondary grades generally score higher than their peers in the lower secondary grades. English learners in Grades 6, 8, and 9 declined in Spanish language in compared with the previous school year. Figure 22

100 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxi Figure 23 Figure 24 depicts matched student scores for the Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test. Matched scores represent mean percentile scores for English learners who tested both in the and school years. The graph shows that matched Spanish reading and language scores increased from Grade 1 to Grade 2 and were above the 50 th mean percentile. These students will be tracked as they transition to mainstream English classrooms to determine whether Spanish academic gains translate into English achievement gains.

101 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxii Figure 24 Test ( Mathematics Goal 3: Are English Learners Making Expected Progress in Accordance with California Mathematics Standards? Question 3.1 What are the mathematics outcomes for English learners, as measured by the California Standards Test (CST), and how do they compare with the results of EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? The California Department of Education implemented new statewide curriculum standards in The California Standards Tests was first administered statewide in , providing baseline information in mathematics performance. Table 44 displays progress in mathematics from to for all elementary students, as measured by the CST standards performance rubric. Table 45 represents year-to-year progress in mathematics for English learners. The and CST results therefore represent the first year-to-year measure of progress in mathematics.

102 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxiii Table 44 shows that nearly one-in-three (30.9%) of all students in the District tested Proficient or higher in mathematics at the end of , compared with nearly one-in-five (17.7%) English learners (Table 46). The same percentage of all students and English learners (27.6%) scored Basic in mathematics. Students who score at the Basic level of mathematics proficiency are considered by the District and State sufficiently prepared to participate effectively in the curriculum. Nearly half (45.3%) of English learners scored Below Basic or lower in mathematics, compared with two-in-five (41.5%) of all elementary students. These students were therefore not sufficiently prepared to participate effectively in the mathematics curriculum. About the same percentage of all students (19.6%) and English learners (18.6%) made progress in mathematics from to These students showed year-toyear gains in mathematics proficiency. However, of concern to the District, more than onein-three (35.7%) of all students and nearly two-in-five (38.8%) English learners showed a year-to-year decline in mathematics performance. About half (48.6%) of all students and nearly two-in-three (62.2%) of English learners who scored Proficient in mathematics in scored below that level in

103 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxiv Table 44 California Standards Tests Mathematics Elementary Grades All Students Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 6,351 6, ,528 6,351 7, % 45.2% 6.9% 0.6% 0.4% 46.9% 53.1% 1.0% Below Basic 8,440 23,661 9,908 1, ,079 8,440 23,661 11,978 2, % 53.7% 22.5% 4.4% 0.3% 19.1% 53.7% 27.2% 4.7% Basic 1,962 15,614 17,742 7, ,763 17,576 17,742 8,445 8, % 35.7% 40.5% 17.5% 1.8% 40.2% 40.5% 19.3% 19.3% Proficient 363 5,158 13,633 15,663 4,596 39,413 19,154 15,663 4,596 20, % 13.1% 34.6% 39.7% 11.7% 48.6% 39.7% 11.7% 51.4% Advanced ,201 9,634 10,347 23,905 13,558 19, % 2.8% 13.4% 40.3% 43.3% 56.7% 83.6% Total 17,166 51,218 45,417 34,969 15, ,688 58,728 63,417 32,196 50, % 31.1% 27.6% 21.2% 9.7% 35.7% 38.5% 19.6% 30.9%

104 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxv Table 45 California Standards Tests Mathematics Elementary Grades English Learners Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 4,457 4, ,094 4,457 4, % 44.6% 6.0% 0.4% 0.0% 49.0% 51.0% 0.4% Below Basic 6,115 15,704 5, ,413 6,115 15,704 6,594 1, % 55.3% 19.6% 3.4% 0.2% 21.5% 55.3% 23.2% 3.6% Basic 1,474 10,210 9,144 3, ,256 11,684 9,144 3,428 3, % 42.1% 37.7% 12.9% 1.2% 48.2% 37.7% 14.1% 14.1% Proficient 280 3,331 6,520 5,164 1,002 16,297 10,131 5,164 1,002 6, % 20.4% 40.0% 31.7% 6.1% 62.2% 31.7% 6.1% 37.8% Advanced ,516 2,792 1,443 6,237 4,794 4, % 7.2% 24.3% 44.8% 23.1% 76.9% 67.9% Total 12,363 33,749 23,291 12,088 2,806 84,297 32,724 34,469 15,661 14, % 40.0% 27.6% 14.3% 3.3% 38.8% 40.9% 18.6% 17.7%

105 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxvi Table 46 displays mathematics progress in middle and high school grades from to , as measured by the CST. Table 48 represents the mathematics progress for English learners. About one-in-seven (13.7%) of all students and 3.4% of English learners scored Proficient or higher in mathematics. One-in-five (27.1%) of all secondary students scored Basic in mathematics proficiency, compared with less than onein-five (17.7%) English learners. In summary, six-in-ten (59.2%) of all students and eightin-ten (78.9%) English learners were not sufficiently prepared to participate effectively in the secondary mathematics curriculum since they scored below Basic proficiency on the State performance standard. Nearly the same percentage of all secondary students (23.9%) and English learners (27.0%) made progress toward proficiency in mathematics from to However, an even greater percentage of students declined in mathematics achievement, a pattern similar to that noted in elementary students. Nearly half (47.0%) of all secondary students and more than half (56.7%) of English learners who scored Proficient in scored below that level in As noted, the California Standards Tests is one component of the state and federal accountability framework. As part Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), English learners must meet the same academic benchmarks in mathematics as all students. For the school year, the state board set a target that 16.0% of all elementary and middle school students, and 9.6% of all secondary students, must score Proficient or higher in mathematics.

106 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxvii Table 46 California Standards Tests Math Performance Standard Secondary Grades All Students Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 13,660 15,193 2, ,177 13,660 17, % 48.7% 7.1% 0.4% 0.0% 43.8% 56.2% 0.4% Below Basic 17,898 38,051 15,627 1, ,796 17,898 38,051 16,847 1, % 52.3% 21.5% 1.6% 0.0% 24.6% 52.3% 23.1% 1.7% Basic 2,936 15,569 22,390 6, ,735 18,505 22,390 6,840 6, % 32.6% 46.9% 14.0% 0.4% 38.8% 46.9% 14.3% 14.3% Proficient 237 2,180 7,696 10,011 1,405 21,529 10,113 10,011 1,405 11, % 10.1% 35.7% 46.5% 6.5% 47.0% 46.5% 6.5% 53.0% Advanced ,416 2,348 5,166 2,818 4, % 0.8% 6.8% 46.8% 45.5% 54.5% 92.2% Total 34,740 71,036 48,273 20,399 3, ,403 49,334 84,112 42,609 24, % 39.8% 27.1% 11.4% 2.2% 27.7% 47.1% 23.9% 13.7%

107 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxviii Table 47 California Standards Tests Math Performance Standard Secondary Grades English Learners Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 6,921 6, ,703 6,921 7, % 47.2% 5.5% 0.2% 0.0% 47.1% 52.9% 0.3% Below Basic 7,210 12,950 4, ,462 7,210 12,950 4, % 52.9% 16.6% 1.0% 0.0% 29.5% 52.9% 17.6% 1.0% Basic 625 2,678 3, ,112 3,303 3, % 37.7% 43.4% 9.8% 0.3% 46.4% 43.4% 10.1% 10.1% Proficient , % 15.1% 39.4% 38.3% 4.9% 56.7% 38.3% 4.9% 43.3% Advanced % 2.5% 5.9% 46.2% 44.5% 55.5% 90.8% Total 14,783 22,750 8,428 1, ,591 11,257 23,419 12,862 1, % 47.8% 17.7% 3.1% 0.3% 23.7% 49.2% 27.0% 3.4%

108 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxix For the AYP, the English learner subgroup includes both English learners and reclassified students who have not scored Proficient or higher for three consecutive years. For the purposes of this report, all English learners and reclassified students comprise the English learner group. The CST has been administered two years, in the and school years. The third year of CST administration will be in when the three consecutive years criteria for reclassified students will take effect. Table 48 shows that 28.3% of elementary English learners and 62.4% of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher in mathematics. When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 33.4% of the English learner subgroup scored Proficient or higher in ELA, thereby meeting the 13.6% AYP proficiency goal for In the elementary grades, a greater percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (62.4%) in mathematics, compared with 44.0% of English-only students and 58.7% of IFEP students. Overall, 38.7% of all elementary students scored Proficient or higher in mathematics, and 25.5% of all students had a score of Basic in mathematics. The percentage of English learners with a score of Basic (27.4%) was greater than that of the other three language groups. Table 49 shows that 3.5% of middle school English learners and 21.8% of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher in mathematics. When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 12.0% of the English learner subgroup scored Proficient or higher in mathematics, missing the 13.6% AYP proficiency goal for middle school. Table 49 shows that a smaller percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (21.8%) in mathematics than IFEP students (31.5%). An equal percentage of English learners and EO students (21.8%) scored Proficient or higher in math in the middle school grades. The percentage (19.4%) of English learners with a score of Basic in mathematics was well below that of the other three language groups. Overall, 16.4% of all students scored Proficient or higher in mathematics in middle school, while 28.7% of all students had a score of Basic.

109 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xc Table 48 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics ( ) Elementary Grades Language Group Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total EOs 16, % 30, % 69,757 IFEPs 4, % 12, % 21,351 RFEPs 5, % 14, % 23,132 ELs 35, % 36, % 130,430 Total 62, % 94, % 244,670 Table 49 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic and Proficient or Higher on the California Standards Test (CST) Lang. Group Basic Middle School Grades Proficient or Advanced Mathematics ( ) High School Grades TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total EO 13, % 10, % 47,562 7, % 4, % 30,891 IFEP 3, % 3, % 11,328 2, % 1, % 8,344 RFEP 17, % 9, % 45,318 9, % 3, % 36,632 EL 10, % 1, % 51,691 4, % 1, % 26,829 Total 44, % 25, % 155,899 24, % 11, % 102,696

110 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xci In the high school grades, Table 49 shows that 4.3% of English learners and 10.4% of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher in mathematics. When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 7.8% of the English learner subgroup scored Proficient or higher in mathematics, missing the 11.2% AYP proficiency goal for high school. Table 49 shows that a smaller percentage of reclassified students scored Proficient or higher (10.4%) in mathematics than IFEP students (20.0%) and EO students (14.5%) in the high school grades. The percentage (16.4%) of English learners with a score of Basic in ELA was well below that of the other three language groups. Overall, one-in-ten (10.8%) of all students scored Proficient or higher in mathematics in high school, while nearly one-in-four (23.4%) of all students had a score of Basic. Question 3.2 What are the mathematics outcomes for English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program and Alternative Bilingual Programs? This question reports achievement in mathematics for students enrolled in either the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and alterative bilingual program in The next question (Question 3.3) presents the academic results for students who received their entire elementary education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program. Table 50 presents math outcomes for students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs, as measured by the California Standards Tests (CST) performance rubric. About the same percentage of students in both the SEI and alternative bilingual programs score Proficient or higher on the mathematics CST in Grades 2 and 5. In Grades 3 and 4, a slightly greater percentage of students in the SEI program scored Proficient or higher in mathematics their peers in the alternative bilingual programs. In general, about the same percentage of students in the SEI Program and alternative bilingual programs had a score of Basic in mathematics in all elementary grades.

111 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xcii Grade Table 50 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient, or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Basic Bilingual Program Mathematics ( ) Master Plan Program Cohorts Proficient or Advanced Structured English Immersion TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total % % 2,966 9, % 12, % 33, % % 2,470 9, % 9, % 32, % % 1,142 8, % 7, % 27, % % 664 4, % 2, % 18,204 Total 1, % 1, % 7,242 31, % 32, % 111,071 Another analysis was conducted based on matched student progress in math from to for students in the SEI Program (Table 51) and alternative bilingual programs (Table 52). Matched CST scores show year-to-year progress for the same students. One-in-four (26.1%) students in the SEI Program scored Proficient or higher in mathematics, compared with one-in-five (22.2%) students in the alternative bilingual programs. Nearly the same percentage of students in both the SEI Program (28.7%) and alternative bilingual programs (27.8%) scored Basic in mathematics. About the same percentage of students in the SEI Program (38.9%) and alternative bilingual programs (39.8%) showed progress in mathematics from to

112 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xciii Table 51 California Standards Tests Mathematics LAUSD SEI Program Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 3,999 5,564 1, ,193 3,999 7, % 49.7% 11.9% 2.4% 0.3% 35.7% 64.3% 2.7% Below Basic 3,690 14,131 9,078 2, ,285 3,690 14,131 12,464 3, % 46.7% 30.0% 9.9% 1.3% 12.2% 46.7% 41.2% 11.2% Basic 490 4,902 7,949 5,631 1,323 20,295 5,392 7,949 6,954 6, % 24.2% 39.2% 27.7% 6.5% 26.6% 39.2% 34.3% 34.3% Proficient ,733 4,406 2,373 10,394 3,615 4,406 2,373 6, % 8.2% 26.3% 42.4% 22.8% 34.8% 42.4% 22.8% 65.2% Advanced ,179 2,322 1,143 2, % 1.9% 11.4% 35.8% 50.8% 49.2% 86.6% Total 8,214 25,490 21,357 14,116 5,312 74,489 13,840 30,485 28,985 19, % 34.2% 28.7% 19.0% 7.1% 18.6% 40.9% 38.9% 26.1%

113 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xciv Table 52 California Standards Tests Mathematics LAUSD Bilingual Program Level Progress From to Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 38.2% 48.9% 12.3% 0.6% 0.1% 38.2% 61.8% 0.7% Below Basic , % 48.8% 30.5% 8.4% 1.1% 11.1% 48.8% 40.0% 9.5% Basic % 24.1% 39.9% 29.1% 4.7% 26.3% 39.9% 33.8% 33.8% Proficient % 11.3% 23.1% 40.1% 25.1% 34.8% 40.1% 25.1% 65.2% Advanced % 7.2% 9.0% 34.2% 49.6% 50.5% 83.8% Total 460 1,357 1, , ,531 1, % 37.3% 27.8% 16.3% 5.9% 16.5% 42.1% 39.8% 22.2%

114 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xcv Table 53 shows additional outcomes that address English learner progress in mathematics. To compare year-to-year math progress, the 2002 CST and 2003 CST scale score gains were converted to standardized gains. This conversion transforms scores to a common scale, letting one directly compare the two sets of scores (also see Question 1.5 on pages for a more detailed explanation of standardized gains). Based on adjusted standardized gains to control for initial 2002 CST scores, no significant effect size differences (differences of.10 or greater) were noted in mathematics between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. These CST outcomes parallel year-to-year findings from the last three years. An analysis of achievement in Year 2 ( ), Year 3 ( ), and Year 4 ( ) of SEI Program implementation showed no significant differences in math gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. Table 53 Matched Student Standardized Gains Grade and 2003 California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics Program N CST Standard Gain SEI 30, Standard* Gain Difference.05 Bilingual 2, Grade 4 SEI 25, Bilingual Grade 5 SEI 16, Bilingual *A Standardized Gain Difference between the SEI and Bilingual Programs is equivalent to an Effect Size Difference.

115 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xcvi Question 3.3 What are the mathematics outcomes for longitudinal cohorts of English learners who participated in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and Bilingual Programs? This section presents the academic results for student cohorts who participated continuously in either the Structured English Immersion (SEI) or alternative bilingual program (Basic Bilingual and Dual Language Programs). These students received their entire elementary education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program. Table 38 (see page 69) displays the SEI and bilingual program longitudinal cohorts and number of students in each cohort. The table also shows that many English learners changed programs in the course of their elementary education, and received instruction in both programs (Mixed Program cohorts). Each cohort is comprised of students who began as English learners in kindergarten. The Grade 1-5 cohort does not include students program in kindergarten since the SEI Program was first implemented when these students were in Grade 1. These are intact longitudinal groups since each cohort includes students who reclassified to fluent English proficiency. In short, these are longitudinal cohorts of students who began as English learners as kindergartners (except for the Grade 1-5 cohort). Table 54 displays mathematics outcomes as measured by the California Standards Test performance standards rubric. A greater percentage of students in the SEI Program scored Proficient or higher in math in the Grade K-2, K-3, and K-4 cohorts than their peers in the alternative bilingual programs. However, in the Grade 1-5 cohort, a similar percentage of students in the SEI (25.1%) and bilingual programs (26.2%) scored Proficient or higher in math. A similar proportion of English learners in the SEI and Mixed programs scored proficient or higher in math in the Grade K-2 cohort (39.1% and 38.1%, respectively) and in the Grade K-3 cohort (37.4% and 36.5%, respectively). However, proficiency in math for students in the Mixed Program group (received instruction in both SEI and bilingual programs) declined substantially in the Grade K-4 and Grade 1-5 cohorts.

116 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xcvii Table 54 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient, or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics ( ) Master Plan Program Alternative Bilingual Programs Structured English Immersion Mixed Programs* Grade Cohort Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced N % N % Total N % N % Total N % N % Total TOTAL K % % 1,663 5, % 7, % 18, % % 983 K % % 1,655 6, % 8, % 22, % % 2,380 K % % 667 5, % 6, % 19,268 1, % % 3, % % 781 4, % 4, % 16, % % 2,460 *English learners in Mixed Programs received instruction in both the Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Programs.

117 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xcviii Figure 25 shows additional student cohort progress in mathematics as measured by standardized CST gains. Students in these grade-level cohorts received their entire elementary education in either the SEI or alternative bilingual program. No significant effect size differences (standardized gains greater than.10) were noted in math between student cohorts in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. Figure 25 These results parallel findings from the last three years that showed no significant differences in standardized math gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs. However, an educationally significant difference (effect size of.10) in math was noted in the Grade 1-5 cohort between students in the SEI and Mixed Program groups, in favor of students in the SEI Program. Similar to the findings based on the CST performance standards rubric, students in mixed Master Plan programs (received

118 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page xcix instruction in both SEI and bilingual programs) performed lower than their peers in the Grade 1-5 cohort. In short, program continuity may be related with greater achievement outcomes at the upper elementary grades when students are preparing to transition into middle school. Question 3.4 How well are English learners in Dual Language Programs performing in mathematics? Table 55 displays the mathematics results, as measured by the California Standards Test, for students in the Spanish/English Dual Language Program (SDLP) and the Korean/English Dual Language Program (KDLP) in the elementary grades. A greater percentage of English learners in the KDLP scored Proficient or higher (79.7%) than their SDLP (44.7%) counterparts. More students in both the KDLP and SDLP scored Proficient or higher than the LAUSD average (38.7%) in mathematics. Table 55 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic or Proficient on the California Standards Test (CST) Language Group Mathematics Elementary Grades ( ) Spanish Dual Language Master Plan Program Korean Dual Language Basic Proficient TOTAL Basic Proficient TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total English Learners* % % % % 216 English Proficient** % % % % 89 Total % % % % 305 *Includes students who were English learners at start of program and reclassified to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP). **Includes English-only (EO) and Initial fluent English proficient (IFEP) students.

119 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page c Question 3.5 How well are English learners in LAUSD s Bilingual Program performing academically in math in the elementary grades, as measured by the Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test? Mathematics outcomes, as measured by the Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test, are displayed in Figures 26 and 27. The math scores represent the mean percentile scores for all students who were tested at each grade. th In general, English learners in the elementary scored near or above the 50 mean percentile in all grades tested. That is, these students were performing at grade level in math. Moreover, students at all grades tested in showed improvement in math compared with the previous year. In fact, Figure 26 shows that students in Grades 2-5 have improved in math every year since , the year prior to implementation of the SEI Program. Figure 27 shows that students scored below grade level in Aprenda math in the middle and high school grades. English learners in Grades 7, 9, and 10 showed improvement in math performance compared with the previous year. Students in Grades 11, while not showing an increase compared with the previous year, showed no decline either. Students in middle school (Grade 6 and Grade 8) showed a decline in Aprenda math performance. Figure 24 (page 81) depicts Grade 2 matched math scores as measured by the Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test. Matched scores represent mean percentile scores for English learners who were tested in both the and school years. The graph shows that matched Aprenda math scores increased from Grade 1 to Grade 2 and th were above the 50 mean percentile. These students will be tracked as they make the transition to instruction in English to verify whether Spanish academic gains translate into English gains.

120 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page ci Figure 26 Figure 27

121 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cii Goal 4: What are the High School Outcomes for English Learners compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? Question 4.1 How many English learners were enrolled in and passed college prep classes compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? Tables 56 and 57 provide the number and percentage of high school students, by language classification, who were enrolled in and passed college prep classes (also referred to as A-G Courses) in English language arts, mathematics, science, and history. As per University of California and California State University regulations, a grade of C or higher in A-G courses is considered a passing grade. In general, English learners were less likely to be enrolled in college prep classes than students in the other language groups. They were also less likely, when enrolled in college prep classes, to pass those classes than their peers in the other language groups. However, former English learners (RFEP students) were enrolled in college prep classes at comparable rates with their EO and IFEP peers. Reclassified students also had similar passing rates in these classes as their English proficient peers. Lang. Group Total Enrolled Table 56 Students Who Were Enrolled In and Passed College Prep Classes (A-G Courses) % in A-G Class High School Grades ( ) English Language Arts Enrolled Passed % Passed % in A-G Class Mathematics Enrolled Passed % Passed EO 56, % 49,109 33, % 51.9% 29,212 16, % IFEP 13, % 12,649 9, % 60.2% 8,036 4, % RFEP 57, % 55,700 37, % 58.8% 33,975 19, % EL 44, % 32,591 17, % 38.9% 17,495 7, % Total 172, % 150,049 98, % 51.5% 88,718 48, % *As per University of California and California State University statue, a grade of C or higher in an A-G Course (College Prep Class) is considered a passing grade.

122 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page ciii Lang. Group Total Enrolled Table 57 Students Who Were Enrolled In and Passed College Prep Classes (A-G Courses) % in A-G Class High School Grades ( ) Science Enrolled Passed % Passed % in A-G Class History Enrolled Passed % Passed EO 56, % 41,258 23, % 72.2% 40,632 23, % IFEP 13, % 10,632 6, % 80.2% 10,708 6, % RFEP 57, % 46,213 25, % 80.1% 46,296 26, % EL 44, % 29,080 12, % 62.0% 27,864 12, % Total 172, % 127,183 67, % 72.8% 125,500 69, % *As per University of California and California State University regulations, a grade of C or higher in an A-G Course (college prep class) is considered a passing grade. Slightly more than half (55.1%) of English learners enrolled in college prep English had a passing grade, compared with about two-in-three students in the other language groups. Of concern is that less than half of English learners enrolled in mathematics (44.3%), science (42.1%), and history (44.7%) A-G courses had a passing grade. By comparison, students in the other language groups had passing rates in these subjects ranging between 55%-61%. About four-in-ten high school students were not earning college credit in mathematics, science, and history for lack of a passing grade of C or higher. Even worse, nearly six-in-ten English learners were not receiving credit in these subjects due to non-passing grades. Overall, nearly half of the students enrolled in college prep classes did not receive a passing grade or course credit. These students will not be eligible to attend the University of California or the California State University for lack of appropriate credits. Their only recourse would be to attend adult school to earn graduate requirements or a California two-year Community College.

123 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page civ Question 4.2 What percentage of English Learners and reclassified students are enrolled in high school advanced placement (AP) classes, compared with EO and IFEP students? Table 58 shows the number of English learners and reclassified students who were enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) classes the past five years, between and The table compares AP class enrollment of English learners and reclassified students to that of English-only and IFEP students. It should be noted that students may be enrolled in multiple AP classes. Table 58 shows Advanced Placement enrollment by student language classification and by subject. The table also displays the percentage of students by language classification enrolled in AP classes. The percentage of students enrolled in the AP classes is determined by dividing the students in the classes by the total students in each language group. English learners were less frequently enrolled in AP classes than their peers from the other three language groups, except for AP Spanish. Over the past five years, English learners and reclassified students have been most often enrolled in AP Spanish classes. In fact, reclassified students (5.0%) are the language group most often enrolled in AP Spanish. Reclassified student enrollment has continued to increase in AP English, AP history, and AP science classes over the past five years. IFEP students were most often enrolled in Advanced Placement classes in English, calculus, history, and science classes than students in the other language groups. They were nearly twice more likely to be enrolled in AP calculus and AP science classes than their peers from the other language groups. However, the percentage of IFEP students in AP calculus dropped by half from the previous year, from 7.0% to 3.7%. Nearly one-inten IFEP students comprised AP English class enrollment. Like English learners, IFEP students have a home language other than English, however test proficient in English when they first enroll in school.

124 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cv Table 58 Students in Advanced Placement (AP) Classes Grades 9-12 Language Group English Arts Calculus History Science Art Spanish Other Total Students in Language Group English-only , % % 2, % 1, % % % % 50, , % % 1, % 1, % % % % 51, , % % 2, % 1, % % % % 52, , % % 2, % 2, % % % % 54, , % % 2, % 2, % % % % 56,249 IFEP , % % 1, % % % % % 18, , % % 1, % % % % % 17, , % % 1, % % % % % 15, , % % 1, % % % % % 13, , % % 1, % % % % % 13,348

125 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cvi Table 58 Students in Advanced Placement (AP) Classes Grades 9-12 Language Group English Arts Calculus History Science Art Spanish Other Total Students in Language Group Reclassified Students , % 1, % 1, % 1, % % 2, % % 47, , % 1, % 1, % 1, % % 2, % % 53, , % 1, % 2, % 1, % % 3, % % 58, , % 1, % 2, % 2, % % 2, % % 58, , % 1, % 2, % % % 2, % % 57,824 English Learners % % % % % % 1.01% 35, % % % % % % 18.05% 35, % % % % % % 6.02% 35, % % % % % % % 40, % % % % % % % 44,969

126 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cvii Table 58 Students in Advanced Placement (AP) Classes Grades 9-12 Language Group English Arts Calculus History Science Art Spanish Other Total Students in Language Group Total , % 2, % 4, % 3, % % 4, % % 152, , % 2, % 4, % 3, % % 4, % 1, % 157, , % 2, % 5, % 4, % 1, % 4, % 1, % 161, , % 2, % 7, % 5, % % 4, % 1, % 166, , % % 6, % 6, % % 4, % 1, % 172,390

127 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cviii Question 4.3 What percentage of English learners passed the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) compared with English-only, IFEP, and reclassified students? The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) was administered in to th all 10 graders statewide. The CAHSEE outcomes will be used statewide to ensure that schools are meeting the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) high school requirements. The CAHSEE results represent baseline year results to measure subsequent progress in meeting the high school exit exam requirements. Figure 28 compares the CAHSEE pass rates for the class of 2005 by language classification. These students were 10 th graders in the testing period. English learners had the lowest pass rates of the four language groups. However, reclassified students had the second highest pass rate. Thus, it would appear that English learners who reclassify stand a greater chance of passing the high exit exam. Students will be required to pass the CAHSEE beginning in in order to receive their high school diploma. Figure 29 displays CAHSEE pass rates for English learners by English language development (ELD) level. As expected, there is a one-to-one relationship between greater English proficiency, as measured by ESL level, and passing the English language arts section of the high school exit exam. However, students in ESL 2A, ESL 3, and ESL 4 had a higher pass rate in mathematics than English learners in PRP.

128 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cix Figure 28 Figure 29

129 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cx Question 4.4 What is the graduation rate for English learners compared with the District graduation average? The District recently completed a four-year longitudinal study of student graduation th rates. The study identified 9 grade student cohorts, by language group, in and tracked their progress through graduation in (see Tables 59 and 60). These student cohorts were continuously enrolled in the LAUSD four-year high school curriculum. th Graduation rates were tracked for the following 9 grade cohorts of English learners (including students who reclassified in high school), English-only students, IFEP students, and reclassified students (students who reclassified before entering high school):! Middle School Cohort Students who matriculated into high school from an LAUSD middle school! Transfer Cohort Students who transferred to LAUSD from another district! Immigrant Cohort Students who immigrated to the country within last three years! Retained Cohort Students who repeated Grade 9 due to lack of high school th credits to advance onto the 10 grade In , 56,102 students were enrolled in Grade 9 in LAUSD. English learners th comprised one-third (33.7% or 18,884) of the 9 grade enrollment. Of the English learners th who began as 9 graders in the study:! Nearly six-in-ten (57.9% or 10,932) matriculated from an LAUSD middle school.! Nearly one-in-seven (14.9% or 2,806) transferred to LAUSD from another district.! Nearly one-in-ten (8.5% or 1,611) were newcomers who immigrated within the last three years.! Nearly one-in-five (18.7% or 3,535) repeated Grade 9 because they did not earn enough credits to advance to the next grade. Of the 56,102 students enrolled in the Grade 9 cohorts in , two-in-three (66.3% or 37,218) were English proficient speakers (English-only, IFEP, and pre-high school reclassified students). Of these students:

130 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxi! More than seven-in-ten (71.9% or 26,768) matriculated from an LAUSD middle school.! About one-in-seven (15.4% or 5,730) transferred from another district.! Nearly one-in-eight (12.7% or 4,720) were repeating Grade 9 because they did not earn enough credits to advance to Grade 10. In summary, a significantly greater percentage of English proficient students (71.9%) matriculated from middle school into high school than their English learner counterparts (57.9%). About the same percentage of English learners (14.9%) and English proficient th students (15.4%) transferred to LAUSD as 9 graders. Finally, a greater percentage of th English learners (18.7%) had repeated the 9 grade than their English proficient peers (12.7%). This was not a study about students who drop out of high school. Students missing from each cohort at each succeeding grade level may have dropped-out, moved to another district or state, transferred to a non-public school, or moved to another schooling opportunity (school to work, adult education or training program). Neither the District nor the California Department of Education has the tracking capacity to follow students that leave the District or drop out. With this caveat in mind, the following four-year trends were noted:! Middle School Cohort: For students who matriculated in from a District middle school to high school, 55.9% (6,108 of 10,932) of English learners (Table 59) and 69.6% (16,893 of 26,768) of English proficient students (Table 60) were still enrolled in LAUSD through the school year.! Transfer Cohort: For students who transferred into District high schools as 9 th graders in , 22.3% (627 of 2806) English learners were still enrolled in high school through (Table 59), compared with 33.3% (1,908 of 5,730) of English proficient students (Table 60). th! Newcomer Cohort: For newcomer 9 graders in , 32.6% (526 of 1,611) were still enrolled in high school in (Table 59).! Retained Cohort: For students retained in Grade 9 in , 6.4% (228 of 3,535) English learners (Table 59) were still enrolled in high school through , compared with 4.1% (192 of 4,720) of English proficient students (Table 60).

131 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxii 9th Grade Cohort (1999)* Table 59 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for 9th Grade Cohorts (1999) English Learners Spring 2000 Spring 2001 Spring 2002 Graduated Grade N % Grade N % Grade N % N % Middle Missing 1, % Missing 3, % Missing 4, % School 9 2, % , % 9-11a 1, % 10 6, % 11 4, % 12 4, % 3, % % % Total 10,932 Total 10,932 Total 10,932 th 9 Grade Missing 1, % Missing 1, % Missing 2, % Transfers % % 9-11a % % % % % % % Total 2,806 Total 2,806 Total 2,806 th 9 Grade Missing % Missing % Missing 1, % Newcomers % % 9-11a % % % % % % % Total 1,611 Total 1,611 Total 1,611 Retained Missing 1, % Missing 2, % Missing 3, % 9 th Grade % % 9-11a % 10 1, % % % % % % Total 3,535 Total 3,535 Total 3,535 *Middle school cohort comprised of students who matriculated into high school (9th grade ) from 8th grade. New 9th graders are students new to LAUSD. Retained 9th graders did not earn enough credits to advance to 10th grade. Newcomers are recent immigrants (within the last years). **Gray shaded row identifies typical progression through the high school grades, that is, students who advance one grade per year. Based on the four-year high school enrollment patterns, key findings emerged. The th following 9 grade student cohorts were most likely to continue their high school education, in descending order:! English proficient students (Table 60) who matriculated from a District middle school to high school (69.9%)! English learners (Table 59) who matriculated from a District middle school to high school (55.9%)

132 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxiii! Newcomer students (32.6%) and English proficient transfer students (33.3%), Table 59. th! Regardless of language group, nearly all 9 graders who had not accumulated th enough high school credits in to advance to the 10 grade were no longer enrolled in an LAUSD high school four years later in Overall, four-in-ten (39.7% or 7,489 of 18,884) English learners enrolled in th as 9 graders were still enrolled in an LAUSD high school in For English proficient students, more than half (55.7% or 20,730 of 37,218) were still in a District high school. The previous section covered students stilled enrolled in school after four years of high school. This section summarizes students who received their high school diplomat after four years. The following high school graduation patterns were noted, in descending order, as defined by students receiving their diploma:! Of English proficient students who matriculated from a District middle school to high school, 57.3% received their diploma in four years (Table 60).! Of English learners who matriculated from a District middle school to high school, 36.2% received their diploma in four years (Table 59).! Of English proficient students who transferred to a District high school in Grade 9, 27.9% received their diploma in four years (Table 60).! Newcomers who enter the District in Grade 9, 19.6% received their diploma in four years (Table 59).! Of English learners who transferred a high school in Grade 9, 13.2% received their diploma in four years (Table 59).! For students who were retained in Grade 9, in , 3.3% of English learners (Table 59) and 1.6% of English proficient students (Table 60) received their diploma in four years. Students in the English learner and English proficient cohorts who were retained in th the 9 grade were therefore overwhelmingly not likely to graduate from high school four th years later. In short, repeating 9 grade is a strong predictor of failure to graduate from high school.

133 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxiv 9th Grade Cohort (1999)* Table 60 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for 9th Grade Cohorts (1999) English Proficient Students Spring 2000 Spring 2001 Spring 2002 Graduated Grade N % Grade N % Grade N % N % Middle Missing 3, % Missing 6, % Missing 8, % School 9 3, % , % 9-11a 1, % 10 20, % 11 17, % 12 16, % 15, % % % Total 26,768 Total 26,768 Total 26,768 th 9 Grade Missing 2, % Missing 3, % Missing 3, % Transfers % % 9-11a % 10 2, % 11 1, % 12 1, % 1, % % % Total 5,730 Total 5,730 Total 5,730 Retained Missing 2, % Missing 3, % Missing 4, % 9 th Grade % % 9-11a % 10 1, % % % % % % Total 4,720 Total 4,720 Total 4,720 *Middle school cohort comprised of students who matriculated into high school (9th grade ) from 8th grade. New 9th graders are students new to LAUSD. Retained 9th graders did not earn enough credits to advance to 10th grade. **Gray shaded row identifies typical progression through the high school grades, that is, students who advance one grade per year. Overall, 25.2% (4,755 of 18,884) of all English learners (Table 59) who were 9 th graders in graduated four years later in By comparison, nearly twice as many (45.7% or 17,011 of 37,218) English proficient students (Table 60) who were 9 th graders in had earned their high school diploma four years later. It is generally assumed that students in the lower ESL levels have the lowest graduation rates since they have more ground to make up in acquiring English proficiency skills. Table 61 shows graduation by ESL level. Students in the Middle School Cohort showed the expected developmental pattern, whereby English learners at the higher ELD levels progressively had higher graduation rates than those in the lower ELD levels.

134 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxv Table 61 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for English Learners 9th Grade Cohorts by ELD Level (1999) Middle School Cohort Transfer Cohort Newcomer Cohort Retained Cohort ELD Level ( ) Grade 9 ( ) Grade Grads %* 12 Grads ( ) Grade 9 Grade 12 Grads %* ( ) ( ) Grads Grade 9 Grade 12 ( ) ( ) Grads %* Grads Grade 9 Grade 12 ( ) ( ) Grads %* Grads Intro ESL % % % % ESL 1A/B % % % % ESL 2A/B % % % % ESL 3/4 1, % % % % PRP** 7,880 4,564 2, % % % % Total 9,922 5,503 3, % % % % *Percent high school graduates based on number of 9th grade students in **PRP refers to Preparation for Reclassification Program; English learners take English language arts courses.

135 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxvi However, English learners in the other three cohorts showed different graduation rates as a function of ELD level. Students in the Transfer Cohort had higher graduation rates at the lower ELD levels than at the higher ELD levels. That is, students in the higher ELD levels (ESL 3/4 and PRP) showed declining graduation rates. This finding is perplexing given that students in ESL 3/4 and PRP are considered to be reasonably fluent in English and have therefore attained the necessary English proficiency to receive instruction in mainstream English classrooms. Newcomer students had the highest graduation rate in one of the lower ELD levels (ESL 2A/B). Moreover, immigrant students who began in ESL 1A/B (18.8%) were almost as likely to graduate as their counterparts in ESL 3/4 (22.2%). In the Newcomer Cohort, students in the higher ELD levels did not have higher graduation rates than those in the lower ELD levels. Students in the Retained Cohort had equally low graduation rates across all ELD levels. Goal 5: What are significant characteristics of English learners that affect language acquisition and academic achievement? Question 5.1 How many English learners test non-proficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2) when they first enrolled in school? Figures 30 and 31 show the number and percentage, respectively, of English learners who initially tested non-proficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2) when they first enrolled in school. The number and percentage of students who initially tested non-proficient in both L1 and L2 has increased significantly since the school year. By the school year, more than half (55.3%) of LAUSD s English

136 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxvii learners tested non-proficient in both their home language and in English upon entering school. Students who initially test non-proficient in both L1 and L2 are generally considered at-risk English learners, while those who test proficient in L1 and nonproficient in L2 are considered typical English learners. Figure 30

137 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxviii Figure 31 Question 5.2 What are the academic effects for English learners who test non-proficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2)? Students who initially test non-proficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2) when they first begin school present an instructional challenge for LAUSD. As Figures 30 and 31 show, these at-risk students now constitute the majority of English learners in LAUSD. Students who lack proficiency in their home language (L1) and in English (L2), as indicated by initial language assessments, are likely to need more time to attain English proficiency. This is a concern that has been previously addressed by the California Department of Education in the Theoretical Framework for Schooling and Language Minority Students. Figure 32 shows that students who tested non-proficient in both L1 and L2 made fewer gains in English proficiency, as measured by progress through the ELD levels, over the past three years. That is, lack of proficiency in the home language, as indicated by

138 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxix initial language testing upon entering school, may influence the length of time it takes students to attain English proficiency. Figure 33 shows additional academic outcomes associated with non-proficient scores in both the home language and in English. Both at-risk and typical English learners scored well below the District proficiency baseline in English language arts as measured by the California Standards Test. However, a much greater percentage of typical English learners (15.2%) scored proficient or advanced in ELA than their at-risk counterparts (9.6%). In mathematics, the percentage of typical English learners (32.6%) scoring Proficient or higher was closer to the District baseline (38.6%) than their at-risk peers (24.1%). Figure 32

139 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxx Figure 33 Moreover, as reported on pages , English learners with non-proficient scores in both L1 and L2 when they started school were two times more likely to receive Special Education services than their counterparts who tested non-proficient only in English (L2). In summary, there is a relationship between level of proficiency in the home language (L1) and subsequent outcomes in English proficiency and achievement. The academic effects of testing non-proficient in L1 and L2 are additionally discussed in the preschool longitudinal study (Pre K to Grade 8) in Question 5.3.

140 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxi Question 5.3 What are the longitudinal academic outcomes for English learners who test non-proficient in both their home language (L1) and in English (L2), and who attended the District s preschool program? The previous section (Question 5.2) reported English proficiency and achievement outcomes in for students who initially tested non-proficient in their home language (L1) and in English (L2). These students were identified as at-risk English learners. This section reports the longitudinal (Grade K-8) outcomes for both typical and at-risk English learners who participated or did not participate in the District s School Readiness Language Development Program (SRLDP). The purpose of SRLDP is to provide a pre-k program to increase language, cognitive, and social skills for academic readiness. Four cohorts of English learners (EL) were identified who began their LAUSD education as kindergartners in : 1. At-risk EL students, no SRLDP participation 2. At-risk EL students, SRLDP participation 3. Typical EL students, no SRLDP participation 4. Typical EL students, SRLDP participation At-risk English learners are those students who tested non-proficient in both L1 and L2 when they started school. Typical English learners are those students who tested proficient in L1 and non-proficient in L2 when they began school. For English learners who did not take part in SRLDP, there is no way to verify the pre-k experience of students in Cohorts 1 and 3 who did not take part in SRLDP. The longitudinal outcomes of each cohort of English learners were compared with each other. The longitudinal study focused on outcomes at two points in the educational career of students: 1) at completion of elementary school, and 2) at culmination of middle school. To summarize, English learners in the four cohorts began as kindergartners in , should have completed elementary school in , and should have matriculated from middle school in Two general trends were noted as displayed on Table 62.

141 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxii Table 62 Selected Outcomes for English Learners Who Participated in SRLDP At-Risk English Learners 1 cxxii Typical English Learners 2 No SRLDP SRLDP No SRLDP SRLDP Kinder Cohort ( ) 7,232 4,496 11,467 8,112 Free Lunch Program ( ) 67.0% 74.0% 65.6% 75.2% th Elementary Outcomes in (Most Students in 5 Grade) Still Enrolled in ,398 (74.6%) Special Education ( ) 19.6% (1,058 of 5,398) Retained in Elementary 7.5% (405 of 5,398) Reclassified in Elementary 39.3% (2,124 of 5,398) English Proficient (ELD5/RFEP) ( ) 47.2% (2,549 of 5,398) 3,451 (76.8%) 17.2% (596 of 3451) 3.8% (130 of 3,451) 43.6% (1,503 of 3,451) 51.6% (1,780 of 3,451) th Middle School Outcomes in (Most Students in 8 Grade) Still Enrolled in ,640 (64.2%) Special Education ( ) 19.7% (914 of 4,640) th Below 8 Grade Level (Retained in a prior grade) 10.7% (515 of 4,803) Reclassified in Middle School 47.2% (2,190 of 4,640) English Proficient (ELD & RFEP) ( ) English Language Arts Proficiency (2003 CST) Math Proficiency (2003 CST) 61.8% (2,549 of 5,398) 8.1% (373 of 4,583) 8.2% (370 of 4,489) Algebra Enrollment ( ) 18.4% (852 of 4,440) Algebra Passed ( C or higher) 64.8% (552 of 852) 1 2 3,016 (67.1%) 15.9% (479 of 3,016) 6.5% (204 of 3,125) 54.4% (1,640 of 3,016) 70.4% (2,122 of 3,016) 9.2% (279 of 3,016) 8.7% (258 of 2,970) 22.2% (669 of 3,016) 68.0% (445 of 669) 8,592 (74.9%) 9.0% (770 of 8,592) 3.8% (325 of 8,592) 48.7% (4,181 of 8,592) 57.4% (4,936 of 8,592) 7,420 (64.7%) 8.4% (623 of 7,420) 7.3% (552 of 7,609) 59.6% (4,420 of 7,420) 75.0% (5,565 of 7,420) 11.0% (812 of 7,363) 9.1% (661 of 7,227) 22.5% (1,666 of 7,420) 65.9% (1,098 of 1,666) Students who tested non-proficient in their home language and non-proficient in English. Students who tested proficient in their home language and non-proficient in English. 6,331 (78.0%) 8.1% (513 of 6,331) 1.8% (111 of 6,331) 56.2% (3,558 of 6,331) 64.4% (4,075 of 6,331) 5,512 (67.9%) 7.1% (392 of 5,512) 3.6% (202 of 5,627) 67.4% (3,713 of 5,512) 80.6% (4,442 of 5,512) 13.8% (756 of 5,480) 11.2% (602 of 5,394) 27.7% (1,528 of 5,512) 71.3% (1,090 of 1,528)

142 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxiii First, both at-risk and typical English learners who participated in SRLDP performed better on selected academic indicators than their counterparts who did not take part in the preschool program. At-risk English learners who participated in SRLDP were more likely to attain English proficiency, more likely to reclassify, less likely to be retained in the elementary grades, less likely to be placed in special education, and more likely to enroll in Algebra than their at-risk English learner counterparts with no SRLDP preschool experience. The same pattern held for typical English learners with SRLDP participation compared with their typical English learner peers with no SRLDP participation. These positive outcomes occurred despite the fact that SRLDP students more often came from lower income families, as indicated by student eligibility for the free/reduced lunch program. Second, there was a linear relationship between English learner subgroup type and participation in SRLDP. Typical English learners with SRLDP participation performed the best of all four cohorts on all academic indicators. The next best performance was shown by the typical English learner cohort with no SRLDP participation. They were followed by the at-risk cohort that participated in SRLDP. At-risk English learners who did not participate in SRLDP lagged behind all student cohorts on all achievement indices. They had the highest rate of special education placements in the elementary and secondary grades, the highest elementary retention rate, the lowest reclassification rates, the slowest rate of English proficiency, and enrolled less often in algebra classes. This longitudinal study therefore supports the findings reported in Question 5.2, that at-risk English learners who scored non-proficient in L1 and L2 when they first began school generally performed lower academically than their typical English learner peers who scored proficient in the home language (L1). Therefore, students who score nonproficient in both their home language and in English when they begin school represent a significant academic challenge to LAUSD. The study also demonstrates that the long-term achievement of at-risk English learners may be mediated by preschool experience. However, the percentage of English learners in SRLDP has declined over time. For instance, in the longitudinal sample, about four-in-ten (38.3%) at-risk English learners participated in LAUSD s preschool program. More recently, in , about one-in-four (23%) at-risk English cxxiii

143 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxiv learners participated in the SRLDP program. Therefore, the great majority of at-risk English learners have no preschool experience when they begin in LAUSD. Question 5.4 What percentage of District s English learners are newcomers? Table 63 displays the percentage of English learners born in the United States and those who are newcomers. In , more than four-in-five (84.2%) elementary English learners, about two-in-three (70.2%) middle school English learners, and nearly half (45.1%) of high school English learners were born in the United States. In the middle school grades, nearly one-in-three English learners were newcomers (29.8%). In the high school grades, more than half (54.9%) of the English learners were immigrants. The elementary grades are the entry point for most newcomers (34,218), followed by the high school grades (24,678). In high school, students are assigned to grades on the basis of credits earned toward graduation. Almost all high school newcomers are placed in Grade 9 because few students transfer enough credits to place them in the higher grades. Table 63 Percentage of U.S. Born English Learners and Immigrant English Learners U.S. Born English Learners Newcomers N % N % TOTAL Elementary School 182, % 34, % 216,659 Middle School 39, % 16, % 56,858 High School 20, % 24, % 44,969 TOTAL 242, % 75, % 318,486 cxxiv

144 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxv Question 2.5 What are the academic outcomes for newcomers compared with other English learners? Table 64 shows that a slightly smaller percentage of newcomers in the elementary grades (52.9%) scored non-proficient in both their home language and in English (at-risk students) when they began school than their U.S. born peers (56.4%). However, a greater percentage of newcomers in middle school (58.9%) and high school (60.7%) scored nonproficient in L1 and L2 than their typical English learner counterparts. At-risk English learners score non-proficient in their home language when they begin school, but they can communicate in their home language. It has been demonstrated (MacSwan & Glass, 2002) that scoring non-proficient in L1 is a proxy for lack of literacy skills in L1, since formal oral language assessments rely on literacy skills ( e.g., metalinguistic skills and story retelling) which students may not yet possess. Table 64 Percentage of At-Risk* English Learners Who Scored Non-Proficient in Home Language (L1) and in English (L2) Newcomer Students ( ) U.S. Born English Learners At-Risk English Learners Typical English Learners TOTAL At-Risk English Learners Typical English Learners TOTAL Grade N % N % Total N % N % Total Elem 16, % 14, % 30,376 97, % 75, % 172,985 Middle 6, % 4, % 11,724 18, % 18, % 37,310 High 10, % 6, % 16,783 10, % 8, % 18,478 Total 33, % 25, % 58, , % 102, % 228,773 *At-risk English learners scored non-proficient in both the home language (L1) and in English (L2) when they first enrolled in school; Typical English learners scored proficient in L1 but non-proficient in L2. cxxv

145 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxvi Table 65 shows that overall, U.S. born English learners (16.0%) were two times more likely to receive special education services than newcomer students (8.4%). By the high school grades, U.S. born English learners (28.3%) were more than three times likely to be in special education than newcomers (9.0%). These results need to be interpreted in the context of special education (see pages ), which show a disproportionate placement of English learners in the secondary grades. Table 65 Percentage of English Learners in Special Education Services by Immigrant Status Newcomer Students ( ) U.S. Born English Learners Grade N Special Ed % N Special Ed % Elementary 34,218 2, % 161,443 20, % Middle 16,921 1, % 39,937 8, % High 24,678 2, % 20,291 5, % TOTAL 75,817 6, % 221,671 35, % While U.S. born English learners are placed in special education services significantly more often than their newcomer immigrant peers, no differences were noted in the percentage of students who met their respective ELD goals (Table 66). Nor were any differences noted in the percentage of elementary and secondary students who scored proficient on the English language arts (Table 67) section of the California Standards Test. No differences were noted in the elementary grades in the percentage of students who scored proficient on the mathematics section (Table 68) of the CST. However, a greater percentage of immigrant English learners in the middle and high grades scored proficient or advanced in mathematics on the CST than their U.S. born peers. cxxvi

146 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxvii Table 66 Percentage of English Learners Who Met ELD Goal* Newcomer Students Grade N Met ELD Target ( ) U.S. Born English Learners % N Met ELD Target Elementary 23,051 11, % 138,083 67, % Middle School 13,015 11, % 31,500 28, % High School 16,758 14, % 13,037 11, % *Elementary students met goal when they advanced at least one ELD level in Secondary students met goal when they passed ESL or ELA each semester in % Table 67 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Higher on the California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts ( ) Newcomer Students U.S. Born English Learners Grade N Proficient % N Proficient % Elementary 22,738 2, % 107,759 13, % Middle 15, % 35, % High 17, % 14, % cxxvii

147 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxviii Table 68 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Higher on the California Standards Test (CST) Newcomer Students Mathematics ( ) U.S. Born English Learners Grade N Proficient % N Proficient % Elementary 22,755 6, % 107,675 30, % Middle 15, % 36, % High 14, % 12, % Percentage of E Goal 6: Evaluation of Other Programs and Services for English Learners Question 6.1 How many English learners and reclassified students are enrolled in Gifted and Talented Programs, compared with English proficient students? Table 69 shows the number of English learners in the District s Gifted and Talented Programs, compared with English-only, IFEP, and reclassified students over the five-year period from through A greater proportion of IFEP students were enrolled in the gifted programs each year than students from the other language groups. However, nearly an equal proportion of IFEP and reclassified students were enrolled in these programs in By contrast, less than 1% of English learners were enrolled in the gifted programs the last five years. The overall percentage of students in LAUSD identified as gifted has increased the past four years. When IFEP and EO students are combined, 12.8% (35,980 of 281,377) were in the gifted program in , an increase from 12.3% in When English learners and reclassified students are combined, 4.8% (21,627 of 446,474) were in the gifted programs, an improvement from the 4.6% in Table 69 shows that reclassified students were more likely to be identified as gifted (14.8%) than EO and IFEP students combined (12.8%). cxxviii

148 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxix Table 69 Students in Gifted Program by Language Group Elementary and Secondary Schools N Gifted % N Gifted % N Gifted % N Gifted % N Gifted % EO 231,379 19, % 240,268 18, % 216,987 22, % 219,353 25, % 221,364 26, % IFEP 58,139 7, % 57,824 6, % 58,145 7, % 56,924 8, % 60,013 9, % LEP 293,105 2, % 289,130 1, % 283,566 1, % 304,797 2, % 318,544 2, % RFEP 116,719 14, % 136,702 13, % 154,397 16, % 138,066 17, % 127,930 18, % Total 699,342 43, % 723,924 40, % 713,095 47, % 719,140 54, % 727,851 57, % cxxix

149 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxx Question 6.2 How many English learners are in Special Education Programs compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? The number of students who received special education services in the District increased by 23.7%, to 83,510 in (Table 70) from 67,489 in The school year was the first year that special education information was available on LAUSD s Student Information System (SIS) database, and therefore represents baseline year data. The number of English learners receiving special education services increased by nearly twice the LAUSD rate, by 44.2% to 42,034 in (Table 70) from 29,148 in Since , the total number of students in LAUSD receiving special education services increased by 16,021; 12,886 of these students were English learners. In other words, while English learners make up 43% of LAUSD s enrollment, they have accounted for 80.4% of the increase in students receiving special education services. Figure 34 shows the percentage of all students and English learners who received special education services by grade level. From Grade 5 through Grade 12, English learners were disproportionately placed in special education compared with the District baseline. Table 71 shows English learners receiving special education services by initial primary language proficiency (L1) and English proficiency (L2). The number of typical English learners who tested proficient in L1 and non-proficient in L2 and who received special education services increased by 19.2%, to 11,458 in (Table 71) from 9,605 in However, the number of at-risk English learners who initially tested nonproficient in both L1 and L2 and received special education services increased by 56.2%, to 27,837 in from 17,819 in , a threefold increase compared with typical English learners. Figure 35 shows that at-risk English learners received special education services at a greater rate than the LAUSD average at all grade levels. The graph also shows that typical English learners were overrepresented in special education only in the elementary grades, but are over-represented in the middle and high school grades. cxxx

150 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxi Total Students Table 70 Los Angeles Unified School District Students and English Learners in Special Education ( ) Students in Special Education % in Special Education Total English Learners English Learners in Special Ed % in Special Education Pre-K 18,662 3, % 9, % Kinder 58,735 4, % 34,641 2, % Grade 1 63,703 5, % 38,156 2, % Grade 2 65,822 7, % 38,820 4, % Grade 3 66,037 8, % 38,467 4, % Grade 4 63,192 8, % 32,801 4, % Grade 5 58,250 7, % 22,760 3, % Grade 6 58,558 7, % 24,049 4, % Grade 7 57,097 7, % 18,563 3, % Grade 8 52,493 6, % 15,557 2, % Grade 9 64,830 7, % 21,290 3, % Grade 10 44,723 4, % 11,498 2, % Grade 11 33,377 3, % 7,295 1, % Grade 12 29,460 2, % 4,886 1, % TOTAL 734,939 83, % 318,331 42, % cxxxi

151 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxii Table 71 Los Angeles Unified School District English Learners in Special Education by Primary Language (L1) and English (L2) Proficiency ( ) English Learners with L1 & L2 Proficiency Test English Learners in Special Ed % in Special Ed L1 Proficiency & Limited L2 Proficiency English Learners in Special Ed % in Special Ed Limited L1 Proficiency and Limited L2 Proficiency English Learners in Special Ed % in Special Ed Pre-K 8, % 3, % 4, % Kinder 30,569 1, % 11, % 18,659 1, % Grade 1 35,338 2, % 14, % 20,663 2, % Grade 2 37,257 3, % 16, % 21,034 3, % Grade 3 37,039 4, % 17,033 1, % 20,006 3, % Grade 4 31,762 4, % 15,524 1, % 16,238 3, % Grade 5 22,839 3, % 11,362 1, % 11,477 2, % Grade 6 20,634 4, % 10,209 1, % 10,425 2, % Grade 7 15,825 3, % 7,492 1, % 8,333 2, % Grade 8 13,082 2, % 5, % 7,107 1, % Grade 9 15,997 3, % 6,930 1, % 9,067 2, % Grade 10 9,041 1, % 3, % 5,268 1, % Grade 11 6,042 1, % 2, % 3, % Grade 12 4, % 1, % 2, % TOTAL 287,693 39, % 128,580 11, % 159,113 27, % cxxxii

152 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxiii Figure 34 Figure 35 cxxxiii

153 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxiv At-risk English learners who tested non-proficient in L1 and in L2 were placed in special education services two to three times the LAUSD average in Grades K-12 (Figure 35). Figure 36 and Table 72 also show that African American students were also placed in special education services at a greater rate (16.9%) than the LAUSD average in In short, at-risk English learners and African American students comprise the student subgroups most likely to receive special education services. Table 73 shows that students are most likely to receive special education services in the upper elementary grades (3-5) and middle school grades. However, the percentage of typical and at-risk English learners receiving special education services increased at each succeeding grade level group (Table 73). Figure 36 cxxxiv

154 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxv Table 72 Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs by Subgroups LAUSD (All Students) 9.7% 10.4% 10.8% 11.1% 11.4% English Learners (ELs) 10.0% 11.1% 12.6% 12.9% 13.2% Typical ELs (L1 Proficient) 6.6% 7.4% 8.2% 8.6% 8.9% At-Risk ELs (L1 Non-Proficient) 14.5% 15.7% 16.7% 17.2% 17.5% Latino Students 8.9% 9.6% 10.1% 10.6% 10.8% African American Students 14.8% 15.8% 16.5% 16.8% 16.9% White Students 11.2% 11.9% 12.2% 12.6% 12.7% Table 73 Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs Early Elementary (Pre-K to Grade 2) Upper Elementary (Grades 3-5) Middle School (Grades 6-8) High School (Grades 9-12) LAUSD (All Students) 9.3% 13.1% 12.8% 10.6% English Learners (ELs) 8.0% 14.4% 18.6% 17.7% Typical ELs (L1 Proficient) At-Risk ELs (L1 Non-Proficient) 3.2% 9.0% 15.0% 16.8% 11.0% 19.3% 25.2% 24.3% Latino Students 8.7% 12.4% 12.4% 10.2% African American Students 12.1% 18.4% 19.4% 17.3% White Students 13.9% 15.8% 12.2% 9.4% cxxxv

155 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxvi In short, at-risk English learners who tested non-proficient in both L1 and L2 account for the increase in the number of English Learners receiving greater special education services compared with the LAUSD average. Students who initially tested non-proficient in L1 and L2 now represent the majority of English Learners in LAUSD. As noted, Figure 30 (page 116) shows that by , 55.3% of English Learners had initially tested nonproficient in L1 and L2. The number of at-risk English learners has risen steadily the past ten years, presenting LAUSD with a unique educational challenge. The following trends were also noted in the school year:! Beginning in Grade 5, a significantly greater percentage of English learners received special education services than all other students (Figure 32 and Table 70).! Between Grades 5-8, about one in five English learners was receiving special education services (Figure 34 and Tables 70 and 73).! Students who tested non-proficient in both English and in their home language were nearly twice as likely to receive special education services at all grade levels than English Learners proficient in their home language (Figure 35 and Table 71).! English learners in Structured English Immersion (SEI) classrooms were more likely to receive special education services than their bilingual classroom counterparts (Figure 37).! In the secondary grades, African American students were nearly twice more likely to receive special education services than White or Latino students (Figure 36 and Table 73).! Overall, English learners who tested initially as non-proficient in both their home language and English (Figure 35 and Table 71), and African American students (Figure 36 and Table 73) were the two student subgroups most likely to receive special education services. cxxxvi

156 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxvii Figure 37 Question 6.3 What is the relationship between teacher authorization and student achievement in Structured English Immersion classrooms? The California Department of Education authorizes teachers, with any of the following three credentialing, to provide instruction to English learners:! Bilingual Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) certificate (includes older certificates such as Bilingual Certificate of Competency) authorizes teachers to teach ELD and content in the primary language or SDAIE! Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) certificate (includes older certificates such as Language Development Specialist) authorizes teachers to teach ELD and content in SDAIE! SB1969 ELD/SDAIE certificate, depending upon training, authorizes teachers to teach only ELD, only content in SDAIE, or ELD and content in SDAIE cxxxvii

157 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxviii Table 74 shows that in , more than two-in-five English learners were in classrooms with teachers who had no authorization. In fact, more students were in classrooms with teachers with no authorization (39.3%) than were in classrooms with BCLAD teachers (20%) or CLAD teachers (32.1%). This pattern has been consistent the past five years between the and school years. Table 74 Percentage of English Learners in Classrooms with Teachers with Authorization to Instruct Them Elementary Grades BCLAD 32.7% 32.5% 26.4% 31.4% 20.0% CLAD 15.4% 17.0% 15.3% 27.7% 32.1% SB 1969/ELD 6.3% 6.7% 6.2% 5.9% 8.7% No Authorization 45.5% 43.8% 52.1% 35.0% 39.3% To measure the relationship between teacher authorization and student achievement, the reading, language, and math gains were examined for English learners in Grade 2 and 3 taught by teachers with BCLAD, CLAD, SB1969 authorizations, or no authorization. Achievement gains were compared by teacher authorization, controlling for student ELD level and initial achievement level. No significant achievement differences were noted in in reading, language, and math as a function of teacher authorization. However, a significant difference was detected in in Grade 2 math, where English learners in the lower ELD levels with BCLAD teachers had greater adjusted gains than their counterparts in classrooms with SB 1969/ESL teachers. In , students with a CLAD teacher also made greater gains in math than their counterparts who were taught by teachers with no authorization. In , students with BCLAD teachers made greater gains in Grade 2 language and cxxxviii

158 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxix math than their peers with teachers with no authorization. This shows that teachers lacking authorization to teach English learners may result in fewer achievement gains. Question 6.4 What is the attendance rate of English Learners compared with RFEP, EO, and IFEP students? Table 75 displays the average attendance for students in Grades 6-12, by language classification, for the past five years. Overall attendance improved in the secondary grades in compared with the previous year. School attendance improved for students in all four language classification groups except English learners. The attendance rate of English learners declined by 1.5%. This means English learners attended about three fewer days of school than the previous year. The data are currently not available in LAUSD s Information Technology Division (ITD) to report elementary school attendance by language group. Table 75 Average Attendance Middle and High Schools (Grades 6-12) Lang. Group N Average Attend N Average Attend N Average Attend N Average Attend N Average Attend EO 97, % 99, % 102, % 105, % 108, % IFEP 29, % 28, % 26, % 24, % 25, % RFEP 80, % 79, % 79, % 89, % 104, % EL 89, % 100, % 110, % 109, % 101, % Total 297, % 308, % 317, % 329, % 339, % cxxxix

159 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxl Question 6.5 What is the retention rate of English Learners compared with reclassified, EO, and IFEP students? Table 76 shows the total number and percentage of students who have been retained at any time in elementary school (cumulative retention rate). Overall, the percentage of students who were retained in elementary school more than tripled from 2.3% in to 7.5% in In , the percentage of English Learners (9.5%) who were retained at some point in elementary school was nearly twice that of EO students (5.8%), nearly three times that of IFEP students (3.7%) and RFEP students (3.3%). The average percentage of students who had been retained at some point in the elementary grades was 7.5%. Table 77 shows the percentage of students retained in a given school year. Overall, the proportion of elementary students retained in the school year declined to 1.8 from about 2.6% in The percentage of English Learners (2.3%) retained in was greater than that of EO students (1.4%), IFEP students (0.9%), and former English learners who reclassified (0.2%). Table 78 displays the students who were retained in Grade 2 as part of LAUSD s Standards-Based Promotion Policy. Less than 5% (4.6%) of Grade 2 students were retained in , a decline from 8.3% the previous school year. English learners (5.9%) were two to three times more likely to be retained in Grade 2 than EO students (3.1%) and IFEP students (2.1%). The District s Standards-Based Promotion Policy responded to California Assembly Bill 1626 that required schools to identify students at risk of not promoting and provide extended-day intervention. Students in Grades 2 who did not advance to the next grade were assigned to the Intensive Academic Support (IAS) Program for one year. Table 76 also shows that prior to implementation of the new Promotion Policy in , English learners were retained at about the same rate as their peers in the other language groups. cxl

160 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxli N Table 76 Total Students Retained in Elementary School Cumulative Retention Rate Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained EO 117,468 2, % 114,836 2, % 110,462 5, % 109,179 6, % 113,040 6, % IFEP 27, % 28, % 30, % 30,902 1, % 34,890 1, % LEP 200,598 5, % 197,625 6, % 192,834 13, % 204,847 18, % 216,659 20, % RFEP 27, % 35, % 44, % 28, % 23, % Total 373,427 8, % 377,026 10, % 378,419 20, % 373,471 26, % 388,282 29, % % N Table 77 Students Retained in Elementary School Retention Rate In Given School Year % N Retained Retained % N Retained % N Retained cxli % N Retained % N Retained EO 117, % 114,836 1, % 110,462 2, % 109,179 2, % 113,040 1, % IFEP 27, % 28, % 30, % 30, % 34, % LEP 200,598 1, % 197,625 2, % 192,834 8, % 204,847 7, % 216,659 4, % RFEP 27, % 35, % 44, % 28, % 23, % Total 373,427 2, % 377,026 4, % 378,419 12, % 373,471 9, % 388,282 6, % %

161 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxlii N Table 78 Students Retained in Grade Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained EO 20, % 19, % 19,772 1, % 19,278 1, % 18, % IFEP 4, % 4, % 5, % 5, % 6, % LEP 39, % 37, % 40,726 5, % 42,666 4, % 38,820 2, % RFEP 1, % 2, % 3, % 1, % 1, % Total 65, % 65,145 1, % 69,665 6, % 68,694 5, % 65,273 3, % % N Table 79 English Learners Who Were Retained by Proficiency in Home Language (L1) and English (L2) % N Retained Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained Non-Non 85,877 3, % 90,193 3, % 94,945 7, % 96,547 10, % 113,302 12, % Typical 106,349 1, % 99,328 2, % 90,305 5, % 97,547 7, % 90,059 7, % Total 192,226 5, % 189,521 6, % 185,250 13, % 194,094 17, % 203,361 20, % % cxlii

162 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxliii Table 79 shows that at-risk English learners, initially classified as non-proficient both in their home language (L1) and in English (L2), were retained at a greater rate (10.9%) than typical English learners (8.9%) who were proficient in their home language. Question 6.6 How many English Learners participate in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program, compared with EO, IFEP, and RFEP students? Table 80 displays the proportion of students participating in the Free/Reduced Lunch program by language classification group. Overall, nearly eight-in-ten (78.6%) students in the District participated in the program in , an increase of nearly 3½% from the previous year. The outcomes represents the largest percentage of students in the lunch program over the past five years. The proportion of students in the program increased for all language groups, with IFEP (5.2%) and EO students (5.1%) showing the greatest increase. The percentage of English learners and reclassified students in the program increased by 2.6% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with the previous year. Table 80 Students in Free/Reduced Lunch Program by Language Group Elementary and Secondary Schools N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm EOs 231, % 240, % 216, % 219, % 221, % IFEPs 58, % 57, % 58, % 56, % 60, % ELs 293, % 289, % 283, % 304, % 318, % RFEPs 116, % 136, % 154, % 138, % 127, % Total 699, % 723, % 713, % 719, % 727, % cxliii

163 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxliv cxliv

164 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxlv Figures 15 to 18 show the differential academic effects having the recommended number of ELD levels in a classroom or having more than the recommended levels. cxlv

165 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxlvi cxlvi

166 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxlvii Figure 21 shows the number and percentage of English learners who reclassified in LAUSD since , based on the annual R30 Language Census Report collected by the California Department of Education. The R-30 Report records students who reclassified from December in the previous year through December in the current year. The graph shows that the number and percentage of students reclassified from December 2001 through December 2002 (reported in the school year) significantly declined compared with the previous reporting period, in part due to the new State reclassification criteria described below. Figure 22 compares the percentage of students reclassified in LAUSD with the State average. The percentage of students reclassified in LAUSD significantly declined in compared with the State reclassification rate. The school year marked the first full year that the new California Department of Education reclassification criteria were implemented statewide by all school districts. For students to reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) status, they must score Early Advanced or Advanced on the California English Language Development (CELDT) Test, score Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the English language arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST), and meet district contentarea standards in English language arts. Two reasons exist for the plunge in the number of students reclassified in LAUSD. First, the new California Department of Education reclassification criteria went into effect July 2003, at the beginning of the school year. However, the data necessary to identify students who meet State reclassification criteria in are based on results from the November 2002 California English Language Development (CELDT) Test and the May 2003 California Standards Test (CST). The Director of LAUSD s Language Acquisition Branch reported that many schools delayed reclassifying students until the new State criteria was announced in July Consequently, many students were not reclassified in since the State criteria was not announced until after the school year. First, the school year marked the first full year that the new California Department of Education reclassification criteria were implemented statewide by all school districts. For students to reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP) status, they must score Early Advanced or Advanced on the California English Language Development (CELDT) Test, score Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the English language arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST), and meet district contentarea standards in English language arts. cxlvii

167 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxlviii Figure 19 Figure 20 cxlviii

168 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cxlix Since the CELDT and CST are administered at different testing periods, the number of students eligible for reclassification may have been greatly underestimated in the initial implementation phase of the new State reclassification criteria. The CELDT is administered annually in November to all returning students, at the beginning of each school year. However, the CST is administered annually in May, at the end of each school year. The reclassification results displayed in Figures 19 and 20 are based on November 2001 CELDT results, May 2002 CST outcomes, and LAUSD content area standards. Both tests were therefore administered in the school year, but this data necessary for reclassifying students were not available until the school year. The complete 2001 CELDT and 2002 CST reclassification data became available to schools by September 2002, at the school year. The District s Information Technology Division (ITD) provided all schools with a roster of all students who had met the State 2001 CELDT and 2002 CST reclassification criteria. However, two conditions arose that delayed the reclassification process. First, if students had transferred to another school, or had matriculated from elementary to middle school, or matriculated from middle to high school, the students current school would not have the most recent data necessary to begin the reclassification process. Second, schools that received rosters identifying students who met State reclassification criteria did not have data available for identifying students who met District content-area standards in reading and math. To meet District subject standards, students in the elementary grades must receive a report card mark of 3 ( Meets Standards ) or 4 ( Advanced ) in reading and math in the fall semester. In the middle and high school grades, students must receive a grade of C or higher in English language arts and math in the fall semester. While schools received the ITD rosters in September informing them which students met State reclassification criteria, schools had to wait until fall semesters grades where submitting the following January to identify students who met District content-area standards. At the elementary level, the automated grading system was not ready until July Student grades were therefore not posted on ITD s centralized database that would have allowed an updated report showing which students met both State and District reclassification requirements. For students to reclassified in , schools had to manually identify students who met District subject area requirements. Consequently, many elementary were reclassified in time At the secondary level, the automated grading system has been in place for ten years. However, as Table 60 (see page 108) demonstrates, only slightly more than four in ten (44.3%) English learners were passing College Prep math classes with a grade of C or higher, while slightly more than half (55.1%) were passing College prep English language arts with a grade of C or higher. This means that even if students passed the State reclassification criteria, about half were not meeting District reclassification requirements. Prior to implementation of the State and District reclassification criteria, to cxlix

169 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cl th reclassify, students needed only to score at the 36 percentile or higher in reading and language on a standardized test., however, based on While grades were entered manually, school In other words, for the reclassification process to even begin, school in had to wait ten months before they received the Stateentire for for November 2001 data. Aside from Moreover, the LAUSD By , many students may have changed schools by transferring or through matriculation. Many students who met the State criteria for reclassification may have moved on before it could be determined whether they had also met the District content area criteria for reclassification. Table 22 Students Who Met State Reclassification Criteria on CELDT and CST But Not Reclassified California English Language Development Test (CELDT) California Standards Test (CST) Not Reclassified November 2001 May ,513 November 2002 May ,525 November 2002 May ,113 To reclassified to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP), students must score early advanced or higher on the CELDT and basic or higher on the CST. Table 22 Students Who Met State Reclassification Criteria on CELDT and CST But Not Reclassified English Proficiency Assessment Achievement Test Not Reclassified CELDT November 2001 SAT/9 May ,513 cl

170 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cli CELDT November 2002 SAT/9 May ,525 CELDT November 2002 CST May ,113 To reclassified to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP), students must score early advanced or higher on the CELDT and basic or higher on the CST. Even when all CELDT and CST data were available for identifying students who met State reclassification criteria, an analysis of the data necessary for reclassifying students in reveals that an additional 9,513 students may have been eligible for reclassification according to State criteria (Table 22). These students met both the CELDT (score of early advanced or higher) and CST (score of basic or higher) State criteria necessary for reclassification. However, these students may have moved from the school before they could be assessed on the District content area standards. In short, students eligible for reclassification by State standards may be overlooked as schools rely on data from the previous year to reclassify students in the current year. The November 2002 CELDT outcomes were not available until the spring semester of the school year. These results were therefore not available for the annual State R-30 Report in December Had the November 2002 CELDT results been available in time for the December 2002 R-30 Report, an analysis of the data necessary for reclassification in shows that an additional 19,525 students may have been eligible for reclassification, as depicted on Table 22. However, these students, when reclassified, should be counted in the December 2003 R-30 Report, and the results will be reported in the Master Plan Evaluation Report. Based on actual CELDT and CST outcomes (November 2002 CELDT and May 2003 CST results) displayed on Table 20, 32,113 English learners were identified who met the State reclassification criteria. This data were not available until September 2003, when students had moved onto the next grade level or school. Many of these English learners may be reported in the December 2003 R-30 Report as reclassified students. If most of these students are reclassified in time for the December 2003 R-30 Report, the number of some 32,113 newly reclassified students would be comparable to the 31,000 to 35,000 students that were reclassified annually between the through the school years (see Table 19), prior to implementation of the new State reclassification criteria. In summary, the lag time in the availability of CELDT and CST results due to different testing periods apparently created an initial backlog in the number of students identified for reclassification in This initially resulted in an undercount of students eligible for reclassification, thereby contributing to the significantly lower cli

171 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clii reclassification rates displayed in Figures 19 and 20. However, a reanalysis of the CELDT and CST data revealed that as many as 32,000 students may be eligible for reclassification in the most recent annual State R-30 Language Census Report. clii

172 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cliii cliii

173 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page cliv cliv

174 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clv Grade 3 Table 11 Effect Size Differences Between Students in Each ELD Progress Group 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Grade 3 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Grade 4 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Grade 5 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math Reading Language Math 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) clv

175 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clvi a 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Reading Language Math Educational effect size differences between.10 and.20 standard deviations may clvi

176 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clvii clvii

177 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clviii clviii

178 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clix Table 11 Effect Size Differences Between Students in Each ELD Progress Group Grade 3 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Grade 4 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Grade 5 1+ Level Ahead of ELD Goal (Advanced Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics English Lang Arts Mathematics 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) SAT/CAT6 CST SAT/CAT ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) SAT/CAT6 CST SAT/CAT ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) CST SAT/CAT6 CST ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) SAT/CAT6 CST SAT/CAT Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) CST SAT/CAT6 CST ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) CST SAT/CAT6 CST clix

179 Master Plan Evaluation Report ( ) for English Learner Programs Page clx 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics of.53 and.26 were observed in Grade 2 and Grade 3 mathematics, respectively, in favor of students in the SEI Program. In the course of the study, it was discovered that students who "repeat" 9th grade, due to lack of high school credits to advance to the next grade, constitute a significant th group. 9 grade repeaters comprised nearly one-in-five (18.7%) of all English learner th 9 graders in clx