Master Plan Evaluation Report for English Learner Programs

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page i Los Angeles Unified School District Master Plan Evaluation Report for English Learner Programs 2002-03 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 90017 (213) 241-5582

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002. The report accomplishes the following:! Provides outcomes for the first five years of Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program implementation, from 1998-99 through 2002-03. The 1998-99 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 2002-03. Enrollment in the SEI Program has ranged between 85% and 89% since implementation of SEI in 1998-99. 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:

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03.! 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 2002-03. 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page iv Master Plan Outcomes (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2001-02.! 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 2001-02.! 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 2001-02. 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (1999-00), Year 3 (2000-01), and Year 4 (2001-02) 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 2003-2004 school year:! In Grades K-5, increase the percentage of English learners who advance one ELD level from 51% in 2002-03 to 55% in 2003-04.! In Grades 6-8, increase the percentage of English learners who pass one ESL or ELA course each semester from 91% in 2002-03 to 95% in 2003-04.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 to 90% in 2003-04.! In Grades K-5, increase the percentage of English learners who meet reclassification criteria within five years from 30% in 2002-03 to 35% in 2003-04.! In Grades 6-12, increase the percentage of English learners who meet reclassification criteria within three years from 2% in 2002-03 to 5% in 2003-04. 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 2002-03 due to changes in State assessment criteria. The goal in 2003-04 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 1998-99. 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 2001-2002. 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

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03)............. 3 Table 3 English Learners in LAUSD Master Plan Programs, Six-Year Trend........ 4 Table 4 Master Plan for English Learners Evaluation Goals..................... 7 Table 5 Progress for Demonstrating Adequate English Language Development (ELD) Progress... 10 Table 6 English Learners Who Met Yearly ELD Goal.......................... 11 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 English Language Development (ELD) Progress as Measured by LAUSD ELD Assessment Portfolio, Elementary Grades................. 13 Students Who Advanced at Least One (1) ELD Level by Master Plan Program... 14 Students Who Met ELD Goal of Passing Both Semesters of ESL and/or English Language Arts: Middle School.............................. 17 Students Who Met ELD Goal of Passing Both Semesters of ESL and/or English Language Arts: High School... 17 Table 11 Effect Size Differences Between Students in Each ELD Progress Group.... 25 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 (2002-03).. 27 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by ELD Progress: Mathematics (2002-03).......... 29 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST), English Language Arts (2002-03)........ 30 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST), Mathematics (2002-03)................ 31 English Learners Who Met CST Benchmark for English Language Arts (ELA) Established for Each ELD Level.............................. 32

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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....... 33 Students Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Per Year of Instruction: Bilingual Program: Longitudinal Cohorts............................ 34 English Learners Who Met ELD Goal of Attaining Reasonable Fluency In English (ELD Level 5)... 43 English Learners Who Have Attained Reasonable Fluency in English (ELD Level 5)... 44 English Learners Who Met Benchmarks for Reclassifying to Fluent-English Proficiency (RFEP)... 45 English Learners Who Have Reclassified to Fluent-English Proficiency (RFEP)... 46 English Learners in Preparation for Reclassification Program (PRP) Who Reclassified to Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP) After Two-Years....... 50 Percentage of English Learners Who Attained English Proficient by Length of Time in LAUSD (2002-2003)............................. 52 English Learners Who Become English Proficient by Length of Time in Instruction, Five-Year Trend............................... 53 English Language Development (ELD) Gains as Measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Elementary Grades... 55 English Language Development (ELD) Gains as Measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Secondary Grades... 56 California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Elementary Grades, All Students... 58 California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Elementary Grades, English Learners.............................. 59 California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Secondary Grades, All Students... 60

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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... 61 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts (Elementary Grades)... 63 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): English Language Arts (Middle and High School Grades)..................... 63 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..... 65 California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program........................ 66 California Standards Test Gains, English Language Arts: Bilingual Program... 67 Matched Student Standardized Gains, 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST), English Language Arts: SEI and Bilingual Programs... 69 Table 38 English Learner Longitudinal Cohorts in Master Plan Programs.......... 70 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............................ 71 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.......... 73 English Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes: Elementary Grades... 75 English Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes: Secondary Grades... 76 Spanish Language Arts Performance Assignment Outcomes: Elementary Grades... 77

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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... 84 California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades English Learners... 85 California Standards Test: Mathematics: Secondary Grades All Students... 87 California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades English Learners... 88 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics (Elementary School)... 90 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics (Middle and High School)... 90 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...... 92 California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program........................ 93 California Standards Test: Mathematics: Elementary Grades Bilingual Program... 94 Matched Student Standardized Gains, 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST), Mathematics: SEI and Bilingual Programs........ 95 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics Master Plan Program Cohorts... 97 Percentage of English Learners (EL) Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics, Spanish and Korean Dual Language Programs....................... 99 Students Who Were Enrolled In and Passed College Prep Classes (A-G Courses): English Language Arts and Math..................... 102

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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... 103 Table 58 Students in Advanced Placement (AP) Classes (Grades 9-12)........... 105 th Table 59 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for 9 Grade Cohorts (1999): English Learners... 112 th Table 60 Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for 9 Grade Cohorts (1999) English Proficient Students... 114 Table 61 th Spring 2002 Graduation Rates for English Learners: 9 Grade Cohorts By ELD Level (1999)... 115 Table 62 Selected Outcomes for English Learners Who Participated in SRLDP..... 122 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 (2002-2003).................... 125 Percentage of English Learners in Special Education Services by Immigrant Status... 126 Percentage of English Learners Who Met ELD Goal by Immigrant Status... 127 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by Immigrant Status: English Language Arts... 127 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) by Immigrant Status: Mathematics....... 128 Students in Gifted Program by Language Group: Elementary and Secondary Schools... 129 Table 70 Students and English Learners in Special Education (2002-03)........... 131 Table 71 Table 72 English Learners in Special Education by Primary Language (L1) and English (L2) Proficiency (2002-03)............................. 132 Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs by Subgroups... 135

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xvii Page Table 73 Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs (2001-03)........ 135 Table 74 Percentage of English Learners in Classrooms with Teachers With Authorization to Instruct Them... 138 Table 75 Average Attendance: Middle and High Schools (Grades 6-12)........... 139 Table 76 Table 77 Total Students Retained in Elementary School: Cumulative Retention Rate... 141 Students Retained in Elementary School: Retention Rate in Given School Year.............................. 141 Table 78 Students Retained in Grade 2... 142 Table 79 Table 80 English Learners Who Have Been Retained by Proficiency in Home Language (L1) and English (L2)... 142 Students in Free Lunch and Reduced Lunch Program Elementary and Secondary Schools... 143 Figures Page Figure 1 Master Plan Programs for English Learners..................... 2 Figure 2 English Learners in LAUSD: 2002-03.......................... 5 Figure 3 Percentage of English Learners in LAUSD...................... 6 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... 15 English Learners Who Advanced at Least One ELD Level Each Semester: Middle and High School........................... 18 English Learners Who Met Standard of Advancing One ELD Level Per Year (2001-2002): Grades 1-5...................... 20

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 3... 22 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Student Cohort Which Began in Kindergarten and ELD 1: Grade 4... 22 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Student Cohort Which Began in Kindergarten and ELD 1: Grade 5... 23 Figure 11 ELD Levels in Classroom: Grades K-5 (2002-03)..................... 37 Figure 12 Percentage of Classrooms Comprised of One or Two ELD Levels....... 37 Figure 13 ELD Levels in Classroom: Grades K-5, Five-Year Trend............... 35 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Controlling for ELD Levels in Classrooms, Grade 3................... 41 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Controlling for ELD Levels in Classrooms, Grade 4................... 41 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Controlling for ELD Levels in Classrooms, Grade 5................... 42 Figure 17 Number of English Learners Reclassified to FEP (LAUSD)............. 47 Figure 18 Number of English Learners Reclassified to FEP (LAUSD and State)..... 48 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.......................... 72 Figure 20 Aprenda Spanish Reading, Elementary Grades (1-5).................. 79 Figure 21 Aprenda Spanish Reading, Secondary Grades (6-11)................. 79 Figure 22 Aprenda Spanish Language, Elementary Grades (1-5)........... 80 Figure 23 Aprenda Spanish Language, Secondary Grades (6-11)........... 81

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xix Page Figure 24 Aprenda Spanish Achievement Test: Reading, Language, and Math Two-Year Matched Scores... 82 Figure 25 California Standards Test (CST) 2002 to 2003 Gains: Students Who Received Entire Elementary Education in Either SEI or Bilingual Program, Mathematics... 98 Figure 26 Aprenda Spanish Math, Elementary Grades (1-5)............... 101 Figure 27 Aprenda Spanish Math, Secondary Grades (6-11)............... 101 Figure 28 CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam) Pass Rates for Class of 2005, by Language Classification..................... 109 Figure 29 CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam) Pass Rates for Class of 2005, English Learners by ELD Level.................. 109 Figure 30 English Learners Initially Identified as Non-Proficient in L1 and L2 (Percentage)... 117 Figure 31 English Learners Initially Identified as Non-Proficient in L1 and L2 (Total Number)... 118 Figure 32 English Learners Advancing One ELD Level by L1 Proficiency..... 119 Figure 33 English Learners (ELs) Who Tested Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Tests (CST) by L1 Proficiency........... 120 Figure 34 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services..... 133 Figure 35 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services By Proficiency in L1... 133 Figure 36 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services By Ethnicity... 134 Figure 37 Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services By Master Plan Program... 137

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 school year marked LAUSD s fifth year of implementing California Education Code 300-340, which was passed by the voters in 1998 as Proposition 227. The first year (1998-99) 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page iii Table 2 shows the number of students enrolled in elementary English learner programs in the 2002-03 school year. Table 2 English Learners in LAUSD Master Plan Programs Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program Grade Total SEI % Basic Bilingual Elementary Grades (2002-03) Alternative Bilingual Programs % Dual Language % Mainstream Program* Reasonable English Fluency Pre-K 6,239 4,827 77.4% 1,356 21.7% 55 0.9% 1 0.0% K 33,260 29,207 87.8% 3,637 10.9% 390 1.2% 26 0.1% 1 37,502 33,676 89.8% 3,436 9.2% 291 0.8% 99 0.3% 2 38,226 34,600 90.5% 2,983 7.8% 210 0.5% 433 1.1% 3 37,762 33,885 89.7% 2,490 6.6% 151 0.4% 1,236 3.3% 4 31,987 28,935 90.5% 1,095 3.4% 142 0.4% 1,815 5.7% 5 23,006 19,675 85.5% 650 2.8% 142 0.6% 2,539 11.0% 6 410 296 72.2% 7 1.7% 0 0.0% 107 26.1% Total 208,392 185,101 88.8% 15,654 7.5% 1,381 0.7% 6,256 3.0% *English learners with reasonable fluency in English have reached ELD Level 5. % Table 3 displays enrollment in Master Plan Programs from 1997-98 to 2002-03. Some programs experienced a decline in enrollment when SEI was implemented in 1998-99, 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 1997-98 to 10.2% after implementation of SEI in 1998-99. By 2002-03, 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 1997-98 to 85.4% in the first year (1998-99) of implementation. By 2002-03, nearly nine-in-ten (88.8%) English learners were enrolled in the SEI Program.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page iv! Enrollment in Dual Language Programs doubled in 2002-03, 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. % 1997-98* 204,248 45,690 22.4% 16,057 7.9% 142,032 69.5% 469 0.2% 1998-99 217,120 185,408 85.4% 9,056 4.2% 22,156 10.2% 500 0.2% 1999-00 209,451 178,274 85.1% 8,885 4.2% 21,798 10.4% 494 0.2% 2000-01 203,519 178,468 87.7% 5,758 2.8% 18,777 9.2% 516 0.3% 2001-02 207,829 185,401 89.2% 5,057 2.4% 16,802 8.1% 569 0.3% 2002-03 208,439 185,147 88.8% 6,257 3.0% 15,654 7.5% 1,381 0.7% * In 1997-98, 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 1997-98, 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.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 compared to the previous year, reversing a five-year decline in English learner enrollment. Figure 2

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page vi Figure 3 Table 4 lists the evaluation questions that guide the Master Plan Evaluation Report for 2002-03. Wherever possible, information collected for Year 1 (1998-99) of Structured English Immersion implementation constitutes baseline year data.

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2002-03? 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?

Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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?