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?
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1999-2000, 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2001-02 ELD outcomes, 2002-03 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 2002-03, an increase of nearly 9% from the
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2002-03, an increase of 10.9% from 2001-2002. This was double the 5% increase targeted for 2002-03. 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 2002-03, 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 2001-02 Outcomes 2002-03 Targets 2002-03 Outcomes Grade 2001-2002 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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 school year? Table 7 shows the number of English learners who made adequate ELD progress by advancing at least one ELD level in the 2002-03 school year. Based on 2001-02 ELD outcomes, the District s 2002-03 goal was to increase the percentage of students who advanced at least one ELD level by 7%, from 43% (42.6%) in 2001-02 to 50% in 2002-03. Table 7 illustrates that 51.5% of English learners in Grades K-5 met this goal. This represents an increase of nearly 9% from 2001-2002,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 2002-03 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 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xiii Table 7 English Language Development (ELD) Progress as Measured by LAUSD ELD Assessment Portfolio Elementary Grades ELD Level 2002-03 ELD Gains From 2001-02 to 2002-03 ELD Level 2001-2002 ELD 1 ELD 2 ELD 3 ELD 4 ELD 5 Reclassified Total Decreased No Change Increased ELD 1 18,051 19,712 6,477 955 251 198 45,644 18,051 27,593 39.5% 43.2% 14.2% 2.1% 0.6% 0.4% 39.5% 60.5% ELD 2 152 23,777 21,463 4,145 722 671 50,930 152 23,777 27,001 0.3% 46.7% 42.1% 8.1% 1.4% 1.3% 0.3% 46.7% 53.0% ELD 3 22 199 27,286 16,730 3,093 2,186 49,516 221 27,286 22,009 0.0% 0.4% 55.1% 33.8% 6.2% 4.4% 0.4% 55.1% 44.4% ELD 4 5 18 101 9,991 5,500 3,201 18,816 124 9,991 8,701 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 53.1% 29.2% 17.0% 0.7% 53.1% 46.2% ELD 5 5 3 9 39 2,517 1,882 4,455 56 2,517 1,882 0.1% 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 8,138 169,361 553 81,622 87,186 10.8% 25.8% 32.7% 18.8% 7.1% 4.8% 0.3% 48.2% 51.5%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) Basic Bilingual Program % N Met Target Korean and Spanish Dual Language Programs % N Met Target District Total* % N Met Target ELD 1 38,857 24,149 62.1% 5,013 2,711 54.1% 172 112 65.1% 45,644 27,593 60.5% ELD 2 45,579 24,158 53.0% 3,215 1,593 49.5% 189 127 67.2% 50,930 27,001 53.0% ELD 3 44,028 17,926 40.7% 1,577 608 38.6% 103 76 73.8% 49,516 22,009 44.4% ELD 4 12,843 2,981 23.2% 182 52 28.6% 51 37 72.5% 18,816 8,701 46.2% ELD 5 293 0 0.0% 2 0 0.0% 4 4 100.0% 4,455 1,882 42.2% Total 141,600 69,214 48.9% 9,989 4,964 49.7% 519 356 68.6% 169,361 87,186 51.5% *District total includes English learners in Mainstream Program. %
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xv Figure 4 Figure 5
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03? 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 1998-1999 and 2002-03 school years. Based on 2001-02 outcomes, the following District ELD targets were established for secondary students in 2002-03:! 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 2001-02 to 80% in 2002-03.! 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 2001-02 to 70% in 2002-03. 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 2002-03 school year. This represents an increase of 15.3% from the 2001-02 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 year. The increase in English learners meeting the ELD goal in 2002-03 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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target ESL Intro A/B 206 189 91.7% 189 151 79.9% 219 193 88.1% 292 241 82.5% 65 59 90.8% ESL 1A/B 3,428 2,815 82.1% 3,680 3,023 82.1% 4,035 3,409 84.5% 4,148 3,193 77.0% 3,432 3,060 89.2% ESL 2A/B 5,722 4,494 78.5% 6,481 5,220 80.5% 6,917 5,531 80.0% 6,998 5,026 71.8% 9,657 8,531 88.3% ESL 3/4 6,685 5,468 81.8% 7,244 5,653 78.0% 6,308 5,722 90.7% 8,361 6,347 75.9% 6,775 6,047 89.3% Eng. Lang. Arts 23,722 19,091 80.5% 23,226 19,778 85.2% 22,381 17,512 78.2% 22,018 16,689 75.8% 19,756 18,244 92.3% Total 39,763 32,057 80.6% 40,820 33,825 82.9% 39,860 32,367 81.2% 41,817 31,496 75.3% 39,685 35,941 90.6% % 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 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target % N Met Target ESL Intro A/B 77 50 64.9% 71 34 47.9% 93 59 63.4% 91 44 48.4% 89 70 78.7% ESL 1A/B 2,379 1,799 75.6% 2,663 1,752 65.8% 2,973 2,018 67.9% 2,871 1,873 65.2% 2,073 1,695 81.8% ESL 2A/B 2,566 1,830 71.3% 2,621 1,754 66.9% 2,749 1,927 70.1% 2,856 1,838 64.4% 2,544 2,063 81.1% ESL 3/4 2,787 1,766 63.4% 3,292 2,133 64.8% 3,277 2,165 66.1% 3,475 2,204 63.4% 2,364 1,984 83.9% Eng. Lang. Arts 23,913 16,084 67.3% 20,916 15,115 72.3% 21,008 13,290 63.3% 21,551 13,347 61.9% 19,290 16,778 87.0% Total 31,722 21,529 67.9% 29,563 20,788 70.3% 30,100 19,459 64.6% 30,844 19,306 62.6% 26,360 22,590 85.7% %
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 school year. This represents a significant increase of 23.1% from the 2001-02 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 year. The increase in English learners meeting the ELD goal in 2002-03 reversed a two-year decline in the percentage of high school English learners who passed both semesters of ESL or ELA. Figure 6
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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:
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xxii Figure 8 Figure 9
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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)
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.48.59.34.42.18.24 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.30.35.16.18 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.14.17 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.36.34.23.21.04.02 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.32.32.19.19 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.13.13 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.29.27.13.14.06.00 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.23.27.07.14 1 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)
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) 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 2,603 253 9.7% 9,595 901 9.4% 10,015 2,238 22.3% 4,744 2,422 51.1% 3 4 7,419 440 5.9% 8,291 897 10.8% 5,002 998 20.0% 2,757 1,164 42.2% 4 5 10,642 871 8.2% 3,775 609 16.1% 3,945 1,857 47.1% 2,256 1,032 45.7% 5 RFEP 7,488 322 4.3% 1,270 110 8.7% 6,367 2,464 38.7% 1,629 454 27.9% Total 28,152 1,886 6.7% 22,931 2,517 11.0% 25,329 7,557 29.8% 11,386 5,072 44.5% *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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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%).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xxix Table 13 Students by Cohort Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics (2002-03) 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 2,595 569 21.9% 9,587 2,524 26.3% 10,014 4,427 44.2% 4,749 3,239 68.2% 3 4 7,417 1,473 19.9% 8,268 2,472 29.9% 5,000 2,200 44.0% 2,754 1,792 65.1% 4 5 10,644 2,635 24.8% 3,775 1,385 36.7% 3,945 2,508 63.6% 2,253 1,424 63.2% 5 RFEP 7,484 888 11.9% 1,268 255 20.1% 6,366 2,990 47.0% 1,629 599 36.8% Total 28,140 5,565 19.8% 22,898 6,636 29.0% 25,325 12,125 47.9% 11,385 7,054 62.0% *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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) One or More Levels Behind ELD Goal Met or Ahead of ELD Goal Level N Proficient % N Proficient % 2 3 12,198 1,154 9.5% 14,759 4,660 31.6% 3 4 16,210 1,337 8.2% 7,759 2,162 27.9% 4 5 14,417 1,480 10.3% 6,201 2,889 46.6% 5 RFEP 8,758 432 4.9% 7,996 2,918 36.5% Total 51,583 4,403 8.5% 36,715 12,629 34.4% *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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) One or More Levels Behind ELD Goal Met or Ahead of ELD Goal Level N Proficient % N Proficient % 2 3 12,182 3,093 25.4% 14,763 7,666 51.9% 3 4 15,685 3,945 25.2% 7,754 3,992 51.5% 4 5 14,419 4,020 27.9% 6,198 3,932 63.4% 5 RFEP 8,752 1,143 13.1% 7,995 3,589 44.9% TOTAL 51,038 12,201 23.9% 36,710 19,179 52.2% *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 2003. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002 2003 2002 2003 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 1998-99 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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-1 3 24,628-0.0% 7,216 7.9% 11,793 47.9% 5,619 22.8% Grade K-2 4 23,289 1,632 7.0% 8,146 35.0% 9,321 40.0% 4,190 18.0% Grade K-3 5 11,571 2,648 22.9% 5,191 44.9% 2,831 24.5% 901 7.8% Grade K-4 RFEP 7,678 4,025 52.4% 2,408 31.4% 401 5.2% 844 11.0% Grade 1-5 RFEP 6,560 3,917 59.7% 462 7.0% 2,181 33.2% 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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2,595-0.0% 1,208 46.6% 1,221 47.1% 166 6.4% Grade K-2 4 2,234 236 10.6% 1,167 52.2% 785 35.1% 46 2.1% Grade K-3 5 1,029 411 39.9% 374 36.3% 212 20.6% 32 3.1% Grade K-4 RFEP 432 274 63.4% 121 28.0% 10 2.3% 27 6.3% Grade 1-5 RFEP 389 188 48.3% 41 10.5% 160 41.1% 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).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03, 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 1997-98, 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 2002-03, 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 1997-98 to nearly two thirds in 2002-03, an increase of 16.2%.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xxxvii Figure 11 Figure 12
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xxxviii Figure 13 shows the average number of ELD levels in elementary classrooms in the between 1997-98 and 2002-03. 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xli Figure 14 Figure 15
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2001-02 and 2002-03). 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 2001-02. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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* 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 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 993 33.7% 15,132 of 44,902 74.7% 372 of 780 63.4% 684 of 1,079 42.4% 18,194 of 42,911 77.8% 697 of 896 65.5% 818 of 1,249 29.1% 13,276 of 45,623 73.9% 742 of 1,005 64.2% 847 of 1,320 28.3% 13,510 of 47,741 71.8% 1,679 of 2,338 68.8% 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 2002-03 (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 2001-02 and 2002-03. In the high school grades, the percentage of English learners attaining reasonable fluency after two years increased slightly in 2002-2003. 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 and 2002-03 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 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 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 365,222 3.5% 7,805 of 223,007 32.2% 26,788 of 83,191 28.3% 23,392 of 82,656 14.9% 57,985 of 388,854 2.1% 4,890 of 232,856 29.8% 26,654 of 89,443 27.4% 24,357 of 88,893 13.6% 55,901 of 411,192 4.1% 9,214 of 224,738 35.4% 33,726 of 95,271 30.8% 33,202 of 93,986 17.4% 76,142 of 413,995 5.2% 12,498 of 240,352 36.4% 37,574 of 103,225 32.3% 33,202 of 102,793 16.6% 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 2001-02, 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 2001-02 and 2002-03. This decrease is largely due to implementation
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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* 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Elementary 5 Years Middle 3 Years High 3 Years 38.7% 16,432 of 42,438 15.0% 32 of 213 5.7% 20 of 350 42.0% 20,879 of 49,712 18.5% 63 of 341 13.8% 168 of 1,219 52.1% 28,416 of 54,541 18.3% 70 of 382 11.6% 153 of 1,316 39.5% 17,311 of 43,826 30.7% 14,436 of 47,023 1.4% 46 of 3,297 10.3% 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 2002-03 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 2002-03. 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2000-01 to 9.9% in 2002-03. In the middle and high school grades, the percentage of students who reclassified also declined in 2001-02, 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 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Elementary 12.7% 26,104 of 205,547 Middle 51.4% 41,693 of 81,114 High 60.2% 47,294 of 78,561 15.8% 35,235 of 223,007 56.4% 46,920 of 83,191 65.1% 53,809 of 82,656 18.8% 43,777 of 232,856 57.7% 51,609 of 89,443 65.5% 58,225 of 88,893 12.6% 28,317 of 224,738 53.0% 50,494 of 95,271 62.4% 58,697 of 93,986 9.9% 23,795 of 240,352 44.9% 46,348 of 103,225 56.3% 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 1990-91, 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 compared with the State reclassification rate.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xlvii Figure 17 The sharp decline in the percentage of English learners reclassified in 2002-03 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 2003. Prior to implementation of the new criteria, schools could have reclassified students under District criteria still in effect in 2002-03. 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 2002. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xlviii Figure 18 The 2002-03 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 2002-03. The new State reclassification criteria took effect July 2003. 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 2003-04 Master Plan Report.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 and 2002-03 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 2002-03 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 2002-03. 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 2002-03. 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP RFEP % RFEP ELs in PRP 7 6,762 1,503 22.2% 8,335 1,161 13.9% 6,501 1,342 20.6% 6,574 1,616 24.6% 6,663 618 9.3% 8 8,119 2,227 27.4% 9,162 1,810 19.8% 7,489 1,908 25.5% 7,789 1,286 16.5% 6,965 511 7.3% 9 9,021 1,756 19.5% 10,628 1,463 13.8% 9,350 1,545 16.5% 10,228 1,619 15.8% 10,379 400 3.9% 10 6,326 1,641 25.9% 6,597 1,159 17.6% 5,766 1,344 23.3% 6,372 1,210 19.0% 6,204 408 6.6% 11 4,046 1,343 33.2% 4,205 961 22.9% 3,475 947 27.3% 3,636 893 24.6% 3,942 294 7.5% 12 3,480 1,365 39.2% 3,183 822 25.8% 2,872 869 30.3% 3,137 807 25.7% 3,293 327 9.9% Total 37,754 9,835 26.1% 42,110 7,376 17.5% 35,453 7,955 22.4% 37,736 7,431 19.7% 37,446 2,558 6.8% RFEP % RFEP
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 and 2002-03 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 2000-01 to 50% in 2002-03. After six years of elementary instruction, these students would be entering middle school, yet half of them had not attained proficiency in English.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) Students Proficient in English by Years in School Proficient Students in 2001-2002 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 14,953 9.4% 33,021 48 0.1% 37,526 438 1.2% 40,711 3,531 8.7% 21,333 2,507 11.8% 15,266 3,331 21.8% 12,053 5,098 42.3% ELD 2 50,752 13,977 27.5% 2,683 11 0.4% 4,564 195 4.3% 8,319 1,888 22.7% 12,127 2,384 19.7% 13,243 4,200 31.7% 9,816 5,299 54.0% ELD 3 13,152 5,261 40.0% 1,078 22 2.0% 1,522 144 9.5% 1,804 668 37.0% 2,253 778 34.5% 3,936 2,003 50.9% 2,559 1,646 64.3% ELD 4 1,592 801 50.3% 99 20 20.2% 248 83 33.5% 254 127 50.0% 270 126 46.7% 358 206 57.5% 363 239 65.8% Total 225,406 34,992 15.5% 36,881 101 0.3% 43,860 860 2.0% 51,088 6,214 12.2% 35,983 5,795 16.1% 32,803 9,740 29.7% 24,791 12,282 49.5% 1 Students attain English proficiency when they reach ELD Level 5 (reasonable English fluency) or reclassify to fluent-english proficiency (RFEP).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-1999 10% 7% 10% 21% 37% 63% 1999-2000 5% 9% 16% 27% 40% 59% 2000-2001 10% 9% 18% 34% 42% 61% 2001-2002** 2% 7% 11% 23% 41% 52% 2002-2003 1% 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 2001-2002 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 2001-02 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 2-12. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2001-02, between November 2001 and November 2002. Overall, more than half (52.3%) of the elementary students advanced at least one CELDT level from 2001 to 2002. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 CELDT Gains From 2001-02 to 2002-03 CELDT Level 2001-02 Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced Reclassified Total Decreased No Change Increased Beginning 7,425 10,940 6,760 1,144 256 103 26,628 7,425 19,203 27.9% 41.1% 25.4% 4.3% 1.0% 0.4% 27.9% 72.1% Early 3,101 17,292 24,597 6,479 1,396 593 53,458 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 25,515 2.1% 13.2% 45.5% 24.6% 7.8% 6.9% 15.3% 45.5% 39.2% Early 664 680 4,063 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 86 33 238 350 458 1,242 2,407 707 458 1,242 3.6% 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 11,162 163,090 19,175 58,664 85,251 7.8% 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 2003. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 CELDT Gains From 2001-02 to 2002-03 CELDT Level 2001-02 Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced Reclassified Total Decreased No Change Increased Beginning 2,790 4,241 1,737 274 58 88 9,188 2,790 6,398 30.4% 46.2% 18.9% 3.0% 0.6% 1.0% 30.4% 69.6% Early 700 5,493 8,013 1,013 109 101 15,429 700 5,493 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 14,009 2.1% 5.3% 52.4% 30.4% 4.9% 4.9% 7.4% 52.4% 40.1% Early 675 136 1,822 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 64 21 172 360 498 938 2,053 617 498 938 3.1% 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 35,854 6.6% 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 2000-01 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 2001-02 school year marked the first year of statewide administration of the CST.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lvii Table 28 displays matched student progress in ELA from 2001-02 to 2002-03 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 2002-03 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 2001-02 to 2002-03. 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 2001-02 to 2002-03, 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 2001-02 to 2002-03, compared with 38.8% of English learners.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lviii Table 28 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Elementary Grades All Students 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient Far Below 10,618 12,249 4,123 196 13 27,199 10,618 16,581 209 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 1,140 43 41,831 6,010 17,597 18,224 1,183 14.4% 42.1% 40.7% 2.7% 0.1% 14.4% 42.1% 43.6% 2.8% Basic 963 7,859 32,045 10,983 559 52,409 8,822 32,045 11,542 11,542 1.8% 15.0% 61.1% 21.0% 1.1% 16.8% 61.1% 22.0% 22.0% Proficient 46 410 6,907 16,034 4,437 27,834 7,363 16,034 4,437 20,471 0.2% 1.5% 24.8% 57.6% 15.9% 26.5% 57.6% 15.9% 73.5% Advanced 0 12 223 3,228 6,256 9,719 3,463 9,484 0.0% 0.1% 2.3% 33.2% 64.4% 35.6% 97.6% Total 17,637 38,127 60,339 31,581 11,308 158,992 25,658 76,294 50,784 42,889 11.1% 24.0% 38.0% 19.9% 7.1% 16.1% 48.0% 31.9% 27.0%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lix Table 29 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Elementary Grades English Learners 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 8,876 9,705 3,102 144 7 21,834 8,876 12,958 151 40.7% 44.4% 14.2% 0.7% 0.0% 40.7% 59.3% 0.7% Below Basic 4,434 12,582 11,534 699 22 29,271 4,434 12,582 12,255 721 15.1% 43.0% 39.4% 2.4% 0.1% 15.1% 43.0% 41.9% 2.5% Basic 607 4,579 14,965 3,867 177 24,195 5,186 14,965 4,044 4,044 2.5% 18.9% 61.9% 16.0% 0.7% 21.4% 61.9% 16.7% 16.7% Proficient 32 181 1,925 2,700 528 5,366 2,138 2,700 528 3,228 0.6% 3.4% 35.9% 50.3% 9.8% 39.8% 50.3% 9.8% 60.2% Advanced 0 4 43 279 259 585 326 538 0.0% 0.7% 7.4% 47.7% 44.3% 55.7% 92.0% Total 13,949 27,051 31,569 7,689 993 81,251 12,084 39,123 29,785 8,682 17.2% 33.3% 38.9% 9.5% 1.2% 14.9% 48.2% 36.7% 10.7%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lx Table 30 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Secondary Grades All Students 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 20,859 18,839 3,924 121 9 43,752 20,859 22,893 130 47.7% 43.1% 9.0% 0.3% 0.0% 47.7% 52.3% 0.3% Below Basic 7,475 22,391 18,334 827 23 49,050 7,475 22,391 19,184 850 15.2% 45.6% 37.4% 1.7% 0.0% 15.2% 45.6% 39.1% 1.7% Basic 1,596 8,402 37,333 12,518 511 60,360 9,998 37,333 13,029 13,029 2.6% 13.9% 61.9% 20.7% 0.8% 16.6% 61.9% 21.6% 21.6% Proficient 124 389 5,949 16,805 4,692 27,959 6,462 16,805 4,692 21,497 0.4% 1.4% 21.3% 60.1% 16.8% 23.1% 60.1% 16.8% 76.9% Advanced 8 18 155 2,590 6,152 8,923 2,771 8,742 0.1% 0.2% 1.7% 29.0% 68.9% 31.1% 98.0% Total 30,062 50,039 65,695 32,861 11,387 190,044 26,706 97,388 59,798 44,248 15.8% 26.3% 34.6% 17.3% 6.0% 14.1% 51.2% 31.5% 23.3%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxi Table 31 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts Secondary Grades English Learners 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 13,886 11,715 1,924 51 3 27,579 13,886 13,693 54 50.4% 42.5% 7.0% 0.2% 0.0% 50.4% 49.7% 0.2% Below Basic 3,236 8,708 5,257 178 7 17,386 3,236 8,708 5,442 185 18.6% 50.1% 30.2% 1.0% 0.0% 18.6% 50.1% 31.3% 1.1% Basic 298 1,401 3,330 535 9 5,573 1,699 3,330 544 544 5.3% 25.1% 59.8% 9.6% 0.2% 30.5% 59.8% 9.8% 9.8% Proficient 5 19 84 100 15 223 108 100 15 115 2.2% 8.5% 37.7% 44.8% 6.7% 48.4% 44.8% 6.7% 51.6% Advanced 1 2 5 6 9 23 14 15 4.3% 8.7% 21.7% 26.1% 39.1% 60.9% 65.2% Total 17,426 21,845 10,600 870 43 50,784 5,057 26,024 19,694 913 34.3% 43.0% 20.9% 1.7% 0.1% 10.0% 51.2% 38.8% 1.8%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2003-04; 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 2002-03. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) Elementary Grades Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total EO 23,309 33.3% 26,161 37.4% 69,992 IFEP 7,419 34.7% 10,415 48.7% 21,378 RFEP 9,309 40.2% 12,095 52.3% 23,140 EL 47,211 36.2% 16,147 12.4% 130,497 Total 87,248 35.6% 64,818 26.5% 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 (2002-03) High School Grades Lang. Group Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total EO 15,927 33.6% 13,849 29.2% 47,466 11,669 31.8% 13,071 35.6% 36,705 IFEP 4,338 38.3% 4,440 39.2% 11,332 3,378 35.5% 4,224 44.3% 9,529 RFEP 21,882 48.1% 11,451 25.1% 45,533 18,499 44.4% 10,824 26.0% 41,708 EL 10,912 21.3% 839 1.6% 51,181 6,646 20.9% 700 2.2% 31,874 Total 53,059 34.1% 30,579 19.7% 155,512 40,192 33.5% 28,819 24.1% 119,816
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 English language arts outcomes for English learners in the Structured English Immersion (SEI) and Bilingual Programs? This question addresses the 2002-03 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 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxv Table 34 presents 2002-03 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 (2002-03) Master Plan Program Structured English Immersion TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total 2 643 21.8% 244 8.3% 2,954 12,344 37.1% 6,376 19.2% 33,257 3 441 17.8% 106 4.3% 2,473 10,532 32.5% 3,942 12.2% 32,380 4 361 31.6% 64 5.6% 1,141 12,148 44.5% 2,843 10.4% 27,306 5 167 25.3% 16 2.4% 661 6,544 35.5% 867 4.7% 18,410 Total 1,612 22.3% 430 5.9% 7,229 41,568 37.3% 14,028 12.6% 111,353 Another analysis was conducted based on matched student progress in ELA from 2001-02 to 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxvi Table 35 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts LAUSD SEI Program 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 7,414 8,695 2,836 137 7 19,089 7,414 11,675 144 38.8% 45.6% 14.9% 0.7% 0.0% 38.8% 61.2% 0.8% Below Basic 4,041 11,418 10,195 623 20 26,297 4,041 11,418 10,838 643 15.4% 43.4% 38.8% 2.4% 0.1% 15.4% 43.4% 41.2% 2.4% Basic 562 4,189 12,908 3,240 148 21,047 4,751 12,908 3,388 3,388 2.7% 19.9% 61.3% 15.4% 0.7% 22.6% 61.3% 16.1% 16.1% Proficient 30 162 1,687 2,255 437 4,571 1,879 2,255 437 2,692 0.7% 3.5% 36.9% 49.3% 9.6% 41.1% 49.3% 9.6% 58.9% Advanced 0 3 36 223 194 456 262 417 0.0% 0.7% 7.9% 48.9% 42.5% 57.5% 91.4% Total 12,047 24,467 27,662 6,478 806 71,460 10,933 33,995 26,338 7,284 16.9% 34.2% 38.7% 9.1% 1.1% 15.3% 47.6% 36.9% 10.2%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxvii Table 36 California Standards Test Gains English Language Arts LAUSD Bilingual Program 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased 841 726 143 4 0 1,714 841 873 4 % Proficient 49.1% 42.4% 8.3% 0.2% 0.0% 49.1% 50.9% 0.2% Below Basic 250 554 389 17 0 1,210 250 554 406 17 20.7% 45.8% 32.1% 1.4% 0.0% 20.7% 45.8% 33.6% 1.4% Basic 8 94 297 72 3 474 102 297 75 75 1.7% 19.8% 62.7% 15.2% 0.6% 21.5% 62.7% 15.8% 15.8% Proficient 0 1 22 38 16 77 23 38 16 54 0.0% 1.3% 28.6% 49.4% 20.8% 29.9% 49.4% 20.8% 70.1% Advanced 0 0 0 6 12 18 6 18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Total 1,099 1,375 851 137 31 3,493 381 1,730 1,370 168 31.5% 39.4% 24.4% 3.9% 0.9% 10.9% 49.5% 39.2% 4.8%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2001-02 to 2002-03. 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 21-26 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 (1999-00), Year 3 (2000-01), and Year 4 (2001-02) of SEI Program implementation showed no significant differences in ELA gains between students in the SEI and alternative bilingual programs.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 28,791 -.31 Standard* Gain Difference.06 Bilingual 1,953 -.38 Grade 4 SEI 24,424.20 -.01 Bilingual 934.21 Grade 5 SEI 15,118 -.15.06 Bilingual 492 -.21 *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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 Cohort Structured English Immersion % Alternative Bilingual Programs % Mixed Programs* % Total Grade K-2 28,467 86.0% 2,366 7.1% 2,285 6.9% 33,118 Grade K-3 26,322 84.4% 1,791 5.7% 3,061 9.8% 31,174 Grade K-4 19,446 82.1% 683 2.9% 3,555 15.0% 23,684 Grade 1-5 16,962 83.7% 808 4.0% 2,503 12.3% 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) 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-2 384 23.2% 137 8.3% 1,653 7,118 37.5% 4,373 23.0% 19,002 358 36.4% 163 16.6% 983 K-3 352 21.2% 112 6.8% 1,659 7,991 35.7% 4,250 19.0% 22,407 775 32.5% 347 14.6% 2,382 K-4 245 36.6% 63 9.4% 669 8,740 45.4% 3,205 16.6% 19,271 1,508 43.1% 323 9.2% 3,498 1-5 293 37.5% 168 21.5% 781 6,934 41.2% 3,061 18.2% 16,843 826 33.6% 159 6.5% 2,459 *English learners in Mixed Programs received instruction in both the Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Programs.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) 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* 83 37.7% 28 12.7% 220 57 26.4% 139 64.4% 216 English Proficient** 37 33.0% 52 46.4% 112 20 22.5% 64 71.9% 89 Total 120 36.1% 80 24.1% 332 77 25.2% 203 66.6% 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03, 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 2001-02 and 2002-03. 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 2002-03 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 2001-2002 to 2002-03. 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 2002-2003. 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 2002-02 to 2002-03, 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1,434 148 7,783 2,284 5,499 1,582 29.3% 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 10,178 12.5% 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 15,627 5.0% 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 6,305 2.1% 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 33,692 10.4% 40.9% 38.2% 10.6% 28.0% 40.8% 27.6% 48.8% English Learners Not Proficient 57 83 28 3 171 57 114 31 33.3% 48.5% 16.4% 1.8% 33.3% 66.7% 18.1% Partial 86 414 221 27 748 86 414 248 248 11.5% 55.3% 29.5% 3.6% 11.5% 55.3% 33.2% 33.2% Proficient 39 300 250 43 632 339 250 43 293 6.2% 47.5% 39.6% 6.8% 53.6% 39.6% 6.8% 46.4% Advanced 4 38 68 23 133 110 91 3.0% 28.6% 51.1% 17.3% 82.7% 68.4% Total 186 835 567 96 1,684 535 721 405 663 11.0% 49.6% 33.7% 5.7% 31.8% 42.8% 24.1% 39.4%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2,909 453 18,748 6,431 12,317 3,362 34.3% 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 15,904 18.8% 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 29,679 3.8% 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 8,111 4.3% 26.9% 40.0% 28.7% 71.3% 68.8% Total 17,756 40,678 35,925 21,131 115,490 22,659 46,779 42,661 57,056 15.4% 35.2% 31.1% 18.3% 19.6% 40.5% 36.9% 49.4% English Learners Not Proficient 2,311 2,528 505 50 5,394 2,311 3,083 555 42.8% 46.9% 9.4% 0.9% 42.8% 57.2% 10.3% Partial 2,419 4,608 1,287 165 8,479 2,419 4,608 1,452 1,452 28.5% 54.3% 15.2% 1.9% 28.5% 54.3% 17.1% 17.1% Proficient 636 1,593 692 127 3,048 2,229 692 127 819 20.9% 52.3% 22.7% 4.2% 73.1% 22.7% 4.2% 26.9% Advanced 60 159 131 37 387 350 168 15.5% 41.1% 33.9% 9.6% 90.4% 43.4% Total 5,426 8,888 2,615 379 17,308 4,998 7,611 4,662 2,994 31.4% 51.4% 15.1% 2.2% 28.9% 44.0% 26.9% 17.3%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 106 235 93 6 440 106 334 99 24.1% 53.4% 21.1% 1.4% 24.1% 75.9% 22.5% Partial 187 716 451 57 1,411 187 716 508 508 13.3% 50.7% 32.0% 4.0% 13.3% 50.7% 36.0% 36.0% Proficient 69 452 484 129 1,134 521 484 129 613 6.1% 39.9% 42.7% 11.4% 45.9% 42.7% 11.4% 54.1% Advanced 3 69 124 78 274 196 202 1.1% 25.2% 45.3% 28.5% 71.5% 73.7% Total 365 1,472 1,152 270 3,259 904 1,306 971 1,422 11.2% 45.2% 35.3% 8.3% 27.7% 40.1% 29.8% 43.6%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1997-98 through 2002-03 school years. The Spanish reading and Spanish language outcomes are reported in mean percentile scores for all English learners tested. In 2002-03, 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 1997-98, 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 2002-03. 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 2002-03 compared with the previous school year.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxix Figure 20 Figure 21
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxx th In 2002-03, 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 1997-98. 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 2002-03. 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 2002-03 compared with the previous school year. Figure 22
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2001-02 and 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2000-01. The California Standards Tests was first administered statewide in 2001-02, providing baseline information in mathematics performance. Table 44 displays progress in mathematics from 2001-02 to 2002-03 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 2001-02 and 2002-03 CST results therefore represent the first year-to-year measure of progress in mathematics.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03, 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 2001-02 to 2002-03. 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 2001-02 scored below that level in 2002-03.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxiv Table 44 California Standards Tests Mathematics Elementary Grades All Students 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 6,351 6,112 933 79 53 13,528 6,351 7,177 132 46.9% 45.2% 6.9% 0.6% 0.4% 46.9% 53.1% 1.0% Below Basic 8,440 23,661 9,908 1,953 117 44,079 8,440 23,661 11,978 2,070 19.1% 53.7% 22.5% 4.4% 0.3% 19.1% 53.7% 27.2% 4.7% Basic 1,962 15,614 17,742 7,640 805 43,763 17,576 17,742 8,445 8,445 4.5% 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 20,259 0.9% 13.1% 34.6% 39.7% 11.7% 48.6% 39.7% 11.7% 51.4% Advanced 50 673 3,201 9,634 10,347 23,905 13,558 19,981 0.2% 2.8% 13.4% 40.3% 43.3% 56.7% 83.6% Total 17,166 51,218 45,417 34,969 15,918 164,688 58,728 63,417 32,196 50,887 10.4% 31.1% 27.6% 21.2% 9.7% 35.7% 38.5% 19.6% 30.9%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxv Table 45 California Standards Tests Mathematics Elementary Grades English Learners 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 4,457 4,055 543 36 3 9,094 4,457 4,637 39 49.0% 44.6% 6.0% 0.4% 0.0% 49.0% 51.0% 0.4% Below Basic 6,115 15,704 5,568 970 56 28,413 6,115 15,704 6,594 1,026 21.5% 55.3% 19.6% 3.4% 0.2% 21.5% 55.3% 23.2% 3.6% Basic 1,474 10,210 9,144 3,126 302 24,256 11,684 9,144 3,428 3,428 6.1% 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 6,166 1.7% 20.4% 40.0% 31.7% 6.1% 62.2% 31.7% 6.1% 37.8% Advanced 37 449 1,516 2,792 1,443 6,237 4,794 4,235 0.6% 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 14,894 14.7% 40.0% 27.6% 14.3% 3.3% 38.8% 40.9% 18.6% 17.7%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxvi Table 46 displays mathematics progress in middle and high school grades from 2001-02 to 2002-03, 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 2001-02 to 2002-03. 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 2001-02 scored below that level in 2002-03. 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 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxvii Table 46 California Standards Tests Math Performance Standard Secondary Grades All Students 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 13,660 15,193 2,210 109 5 31,177 13,660 17,517 114 43.8% 48.7% 7.1% 0.4% 0.0% 43.8% 56.2% 0.4% Below Basic 17,898 38,051 15,627 1,193 27 72,796 17,898 38,051 16,847 1,220 24.6% 52.3% 21.5% 1.6% 0.0% 24.6% 52.3% 23.1% 1.7% Basic 2,936 15,569 22,390 6,670 170 47,735 18,505 22,390 6,840 6,840 6.2% 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 11,416 1.1% 10.1% 35.7% 46.5% 6.5% 47.0% 46.5% 6.5% 53.0% Advanced 9 43 350 2,416 2,348 5,166 2,818 4,764 0.2% 0.8% 6.8% 46.8% 45.5% 54.5% 92.2% Total 34,740 71,036 48,273 20,399 3,955 178,403 49,334 84,112 42,609 24,354 19.5% 39.8% 27.1% 11.4% 2.2% 27.7% 47.1% 23.9% 13.7%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page lxxxviii Table 47 California Standards Tests Math Performance Standard Secondary Grades English Learners 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 6,921 6,938 806 36 2 14,703 6,921 7,782 38 47.1% 47.2% 5.5% 0.2% 0.0% 47.1% 52.9% 0.3% Below Basic 7,210 12,950 4,054 243 5 24,462 7,210 12,950 4,302 248 29.5% 52.9% 16.6% 1.0% 0.0% 29.5% 52.9% 17.6% 1.0% Basic 625 2,678 3,090 695 24 7,112 3,303 3,090 719 719 8.8% 37.7% 43.4% 9.8% 0.3% 46.4% 43.4% 10.1% 10.1% Proficient 26 181 471 458 59 1,195 678 458 59 517 2.2% 15.1% 39.4% 38.3% 4.9% 56.7% 38.3% 4.9% 43.3% Advanced 1 3 7 55 53 119 66 108 0.8% 2.5% 5.9% 46.2% 44.5% 55.5% 90.8% Total 14,783 22,750 8,428 1,487 143 47,591 11,257 23,419 12,862 1,630 31.1% 47.8% 17.7% 3.1% 0.3% 23.7% 49.2% 27.0% 3.4%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years. The third year of CST administration will be in 2003-04 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 2002-03. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xc Table 48 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics (2002-03) Elementary Grades Language Group Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total EOs 16,150 23.2% 30,690 44.0% 69,757 IFEPs 4,859 22.8% 12,530 58.7% 21,351 RFEPs 5,577 24.1% 14,434 62.4% 23,132 ELs 35,787 27.4% 36,957 28.3% 130,430 Total 62,373 25.5% 94,611 38.7% 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 (2002-03) High School Grades TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total EO 13,317 28.0% 10,358 21.8% 47,562 7,375 23.9% 4,467 14.5% 30,891 IFEP 3,845 33.9% 3,565 31.5% 11,328 2,446 29.3% 1,670 20.0% 8,344 RFEP 17,619 38.9% 9,868 21.8% 45,318 9,799 26.8% 3,793 10.4% 36,632 EL 10,013 19.4% 1,795 3.5% 51,691 4,387 16.4% 1,155 4.3% 26,829 Total 44,794 28.7% 25,586 16.4% 155,899 24,007 23.4% 11,085 10.8% 102,696
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2002-2003. 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 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) Master Plan Program Cohorts Proficient or Advanced Structured English Immersion TOTAL Basic Proficient or Advanced TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total 2 816 27.5% 978 33.0% 2,966 9,237 27.8% 12,253 36.9% 33,232 3 656 26.6% 575 23.3% 2,470 9,188 28.4% 9,768 30.2% 32,346 4 368 32.2% 233 20.4% 1,142 8,391 30.7% 7,732 28.3% 27,289 5 140 21.1% 82 12.3% 664 4,507 24.8% 2,362 13.0% 18,204 Total 1,980 27.3% 1,868 25.8% 7,242 31,323 28.2% 32,115 28.9% 111,071 Another analysis was conducted based on matched student progress in math from 2001-02 to 2002-03 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 2001-02 to 2002-03.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xciii Table 51 California Standards Tests Mathematics LAUSD SEI Program 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased % Proficient 3,999 5,564 1,332 263 35 11,193 3,999 7,194 298 35.7% 49.7% 11.9% 2.4% 0.3% 35.7% 64.3% 2.7% Below Basic 3,690 14,131 9,078 2,984 402 30,285 3,690 14,131 12,464 3,386 12.2% 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 6,954 2.4% 24.2% 39.2% 27.7% 6.5% 26.6% 39.2% 34.3% 34.3% Proficient 32 850 2,733 4,406 2,373 10,394 3,615 4,406 2,373 6,779 0.3% 8.2% 26.3% 42.4% 22.8% 34.8% 42.4% 22.8% 65.2% Advanced 3 43 265 832 1,179 2,322 1,143 2,011 0.1% 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 19,428 11.0% 34.2% 28.7% 19.0% 7.1% 18.6% 40.9% 38.9% 26.1%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xciv Table 52 California Standards Tests Mathematics LAUSD Bilingual Program 2002-03 Level Progress From 2001-02 to 2002-03 2001-02 Level Far Below Basic Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Total Decreased No Change Increased 268 343 86 4 1 702 268 434 5 % Proficient 38.2% 48.9% 12.3% 0.6% 0.1% 38.2% 61.8% 0.7% Below Basic 170 745 466 128 17 1,526 170 745 611 145 11.1% 48.8% 30.5% 8.4% 1.1% 11.1% 48.8% 40.0% 9.5% Basic 20 216 358 261 42 897 236 358 303 303 2.2% 24.1% 39.9% 29.1% 4.7% 26.3% 39.9% 33.8% 33.8% Proficient 2 45 92 160 100 399 139 160 100 260 0.5% 11.3% 23.1% 40.1% 25.1% 34.8% 40.1% 25.1% 65.2% Advanced 0 8 10 38 55 111 56 93 0.0% 7.2% 9.0% 34.2% 49.6% 50.5% 83.8% Total 460 1,357 1,012 591 215 3,635 601 1,531 1,448 806 12.7% 37.3% 27.8% 16.3% 5.9% 16.5% 42.1% 39.8% 22.2%
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 21-26 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 (1999-00), Year 3 (2000-01), and Year 4 (2001-02) 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 3 2002 and 2003 California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics Program N CST Standard Gain SEI 30,266 -.05 Standard* Gain Difference.05 Bilingual 2,130 -.10 Grade 4 SEI 25,424 -.06.07 Bilingual 934 -.13 Grade 5 SEI 16,832 -.10 -.03 Bilingual 557 -.07 *A Standardized Gain Difference between the SEI and Bilingual Programs is equivalent to an Effect Size Difference.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page xcvii Table 54 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Basic, Proficient, or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics (2002-03) 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-2 466 28.0% 562 33.8% 1,663 5,201 27.4% 7,416 39.1% 18,988 262 26.7% 375 38.1% 983 K-3 456 27.6% 460 27.8% 1,655 6,323 28.3% 8,375 37.4% 22,380 656 27.6% 868 36.5% 2,380 K-4 233 34.9% 157 23.5% 667 5,849 30.4% 6,427 33.4% 19,268 1,092 31.2% 936 26.8% 3,495 1-5 216 27.7% 205 26.2% 781 4,498 26.7% 4,231 25.1% 16,837 567 23.0% 338 13.7% 2,460 *English learners in Mixed Programs received instruction in both the Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Programs.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) Spanish Dual Language Master Plan Program Korean Dual Language Basic Proficient TOTAL Basic Proficient TOTAL N % N % Total N % N % Total English Learners* 52 23.7% 86 39.3% 219 33 15.3% 175 81.0% 216 English Proficient** 27 24.1% 62 55.4% 112 16 18.0% 68 76.4% 89 Total 79 23.9% 148 44.7% 331 49 16.1% 243 79.7% 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 1997-98, 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 2001-02 and 2002-03 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page ci Figure 26 Figure 27
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) English Language Arts Enrolled Passed % Passed % in A-G Class Mathematics Enrolled Passed % Passed EO 56,249 87.3% 49,109 33,573 68.4% 51.9% 29,212 16,917 57.9% IFEP 13,348 94.8% 12,649 9,117 72.1% 60.2% 8,036 4,956 61.7% RFEP 57,824 96.3% 55,700 37,687 67.7% 58.8% 33,975 19,005 55.9% EL 44,969 72.5% 32,591 17,967 55.1% 38.9% 17,495 7,747 44.3% Total 172,390 87.0% 150,049 98,344 65.5% 51.5% 88,718 48,625 54.8% *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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) Science Enrolled Passed % Passed % in A-G Class History Enrolled Passed % Passed EO 56,249 73.3% 41,258 23,258 56.4% 72.2% 40,632 23,816 58.6% IFEP 13,348 79.7% 10,632 6,385 60.1% 80.2% 10,708 6,584 61.5% RFEP 57,824 79.9% 46,213 25,383 54.9% 80.1% 46,296 26,411 57.0% EL 44,969 64.7% 29,080 12,243 42.1% 62.0% 27,864 12,469 44.7% Total 172,390 73.8% 127,183 67,269 52.9% 72.8% 125,500 69,280 55.2% *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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 and 2002-03. 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 2,454 4.9% 972 1.9% 2,074 4.1% 1,264 2.5% 351 0.7% 385 0.7% 109 0.2% 50,287 1999-00 2,692 5.3% 998 1.9% 1,805 3.5% 1,320 2.6% 384 0.7% 460 0.9% 377 0.7% 51,218 2000-01 2,947 5.6% 940 1.8% 2,466 4.7% 1,439 2.8% 450 0.9% 380 0.7% 418 0.8% 52,257 2001-02 3,102 5.7% 954 1.8% 2,912 5.4% 2,060 3.8% 189 0.3% 399 0.7% 485 0.9% 54,050 2002-03 3,306 5.9% 951 1.7% 2,794 5.0% 2,149 3.8% 150 0.3% 403 0.7% 647 1.2% 56,249 IFEP 1998-99 1,071 5.7% 705 3.8% 1,037 5.6% 861 4.6% 167 0.9% 648 3.5% 64 0.3% 18,645 1999-00 1,272 7.4% 721 4.2% 1,140 6.7% 864 5.1% 148 0.9% 683 4.0% 253 1.5% 17,066 2000-01 1,265 8.3% 629 4.1% 1,017 6.7% 787 5.2% 147 1.0% 555 3.7% 200 1.3% 15,170 2001-02 1,067 7.9% 954 7.0% 1,075 7.9% 894 6.6% 56 0.4% 469 3.5% 222 1.6% 13,545 2002-03 1,123 8.4% 495 3.7% 1,024 7.7% 967 7.2% 46 0.3% 378 2.8% 246 1.8% 13,348
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 1,686 3.6% 1,178 2.5% 1,513 3.2% 1,247 2.6% 291 0.6% 2,330 4.9% 62 0.5% 47,355 1999-00 2,062 3.8% 1,209 2.2% 1,706 3.2% 1,458 2.7% 312 0.6% 2,831 5.3% 483 0.9% 53,909 2000-01 2,608 4.5% 1,250 2.1% 2,221 3.8% 1,765 3.0% 367 0.6% 3,031 5.2% 444 0.8% 58,314 2001-02 2,913 4.9% 1,258 2.1% 2,938 5.0% 2,348 4.0% 200 0.3% 2,985 5.1% 544 0.9% 58,903 2002-03 3,039 5.3% 1,267 2.2% 2,956 5.1% 2511 4.3% 153 0.3% 2,899 5.0% 606 1.0% 57,824 English Learners 1998-99 43 0.1% 87 0.2% 61 0.2% 70 0.2% 48 0.1% 693 1.9% 1.01% 35,745 1999-00 35 0.1% 71 0.2% 46 0.1% 62 0.2% 55 0.2% 582 1.6% 18.05% 35,739 2000-01 41 0.1% 69 0.2% 54 0.2% 59 0.2% 73 0.2% 593 1.7% 6.02% 35,862 2001-02 68 0.2% 80 0.2% 120 0.3% 179 0.4% 50 0.1% 856 2.1% 41 0.1% 40,031 2002-03 96 0.2% 116 0.2% 138 0.3% 373 0.8% 51 0.1% 933 2.1% 31 0.1% 44,969
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 5,254 3.5% 2,942 1.9% 4,685 3.1% 3,442 3.2% 857 0.6% 4,056 2.7% 236 0.2% 152,032 1999-00 6,061 3.8% 2,999 1.9% 4,697 3.0% 3,704 2.3% 899 0.6% 4,556 2.9% 1,131 0.7% 157,932 2000-01 6,861 4.2% 2,888 1.8% 5,758 3.6% 4,050 2.5% 1,037 0.6% 4,559 2.8% 1,068 0.7% 161,603 2001-02 7,150 4.3% 2,791 1.7% 7,045 4.2% 5,481 3.3% 495 0.3% 4,709 2.8% 1,270 0.8% 166,529 2002-03 7,564 4.4% 2829 1.6% 6,912 4.0% 6,000 3.5% 400 0.2% 4,613 2.7% 1,530 0.9% 172,390
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 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 2002-03 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 2005-06 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cix Figure 28 Figure 29
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 and tracked their progress through graduation in 2001-02 (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 1998-99, 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 1998-99, two-in-three (66.3% or 37,218) were English proficient speakers (English-only, IFEP, and pre-high school reclassified students). Of these students:
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-99 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 2001-2002 school year.! Transfer Cohort: For students who transferred into District high schools as 9 th graders in 1998-99, 22.3% (627 of 2806) English learners were still enrolled in high school through 2001-2002 (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 1998-99, 32.6% (526 of 1,611) were still enrolled in high school in 2001-2002 (Table 59).! Retained Cohort: For students retained in Grade 9 in 1998-99, 6.4% (228 of 3,535) English learners (Table 59) were still enrolled in high school through 2001-2002, compared with 4.1% (192 of 4,720) of English proficient students (Table 60).
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1,923 17.6% Missing 3,411 31.2% Missing 4,824 44.1% School 9 2,546 23.3% 9-10 2,686 24.6% 9-11a 1,388 12.7% 10 6,459 59.1% 11 4,829 44.2% 12 4,720 43.2% 3,954 36.2% 11-12 4 0.0% 12 6 0.1% Total 10,932 Total 10,932 Total 10,932 th 9 Grade Missing 1,399 49.9% Missing 1,820 64.9% Missing 2,179 77.7% Transfers 9 362 12.9% 9-10 354 12.6% 9-11a 166 5.9% 10 976 34.8% 11 546 19.5% 12 461 16.4% 369 13.2% 11-12 69 2.5% 12 86 3.1% Total 2,806 Total 2,806 Total 2,806 th 9 Grade Missing 609 37.8% Missing 848 52.6% Missing 1,085 67.3% Newcomers 9 151 9.4% 9-10 144 8.9% 9-11a 126 7.8% 10 785 48.7% 11 550 34.1% 12 400 24.8% 316 19.6% 11-12 66 4.1% 12 69 4.3% Total 1,611 Total 1,611 Total 1,611 Retained Missing 1,671 47.3% Missing 2,405 68.0% Missing 3,307 93.6% 9 th Grade 9 323 9.1% 9-10 237 6.7% 9-11a 61 1.7% 10 1,272 36.0% 11 482 13.6% 12 167 4.7% 116 3.3% 11-12 269 7.6% 12 411 11.6% 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%)
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1997-98 to advance to the 10 grade were no longer enrolled in an LAUSD high school four years later in 2001-2002. Overall, four-in-ten (39.7% or 7,489 of 18,884) English learners enrolled in 1998-99 th as 9 graders were still enrolled in an LAUSD high school in 2001-2002. 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 1998-99, 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 3,515 13.1% Missing 6,080 22.7% Missing 8,138 30.4% School 9 3,007 11.2% 9-10 3,392 12.7% 9-11a 1,737 6.5% 10 20,240 75.6% 11 17,263 64.5% 12 16,893 63.1% 15,338 57.3% 11-12 6 0.0% 12 33 0.1% Total 26,768 Total 26,768 Total 26,768 th 9 Grade Missing 2,515 43.9% Missing 3,266 57.0% Missing 3,822 66.7% Transfers 9 527 9.2% 9-10 428 7.5% 9-11a 195 3.4% 10 2,549 44.5% 11 1,876 32.7% 12 1,713 29.9% 1,596 27.9% 11-12 139 2.4% 12 160 2.8% Total 5,730 Total 5,730 Total 5,730 Retained Missing 2,148 45.5% Missing 3,003 63.6% Missing 4,528 95.9% 9 th Grade 9 250 5.3% 9-10 213 4.5% 9-11a 64 1.4% 10 1,707 36.2% 11 553 11.7% 12 128 2.7% 77 1.6% 11-12 615 13.0% 12 951 20.1% 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 1998-99 graduated four years later in 2001-2002. 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 1998-99 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (1998-99) Grade 9 (1998-99) Grade Grads %* 12 Grads (2001-02) Grade 9 Grade 12 Grads %* (1998-99) (2001-02) Grads Grade 9 Grade 12 (1998-99) (2001-02) Grads %* Grads Grade 9 Grade 12 (1998-99) (2001-02) Grads %* Grads Intro ESL 2 0 0 0.0% 20 3 1 2.2% 71 14 1 1.4% 7 0 0 0.0% ESL 1A/B 275 110 38 13.8% 809 186 96 11.9% 1176 385 221 18.8% 194 21 8 4.1% ESL 2A/B 717 319 197 27.5% 235 47 33 14.0% 189 66 57 30.2% 301 27 9 3.0% ESL 3/4 1,048 510 355 33.9% 221 40 20 9.1% 81 23 18 22.2% 369 21 11 3.0% PRP** 7,880 4,564 2,913 37.0% 1284 298 105 8.2% 65 21 18 27.7% 2457 145 73 3.0% Total 9,922 5,503 3,503 35.3% 2578 586 255 9.9% 1591 521 315 19.8% 3337 226 101 3.0% *Percent high school graduates based on number of 9th grade students in 1998-99. **PRP refers to Preparation for Reclassification Program; English learners take English language arts courses.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1993-94 school year. By the 2002-03 school year, more than half (55.3%) of LAUSD s English
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxx Figure 33 Moreover, as reported on pages 116-118, 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.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 1994-95: 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 1994-95, should have completed elementary school in 1999-00, and should have matriculated from middle school in 2002-03. Two general trends were noted as displayed on Table 62.
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (1994-95) 7,232 4,496 11,467 8,112 Free Lunch Program (1994-95) 67.0% 74.0% 65.6% 75.2% th Elementary Outcomes in 1999-00 (Most Students in 5 Grade) Still Enrolled in 1999-00 5,398 (74.6%) Special Education (1999-00) 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) (1999-2000) 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 2002-03 (Most Students in 8 Grade) Still Enrolled in 2002-03 4,640 (64.2%) Special Education (2002-03) 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) (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) 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)
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1994-95 longitudinal sample, about four-in-ten (38.3%) at-risk English learners participated in LAUSD s preschool program. More recently, in 2002-03, about one-in-four (23%) at-risk English cxxiii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03, 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 182,441 84.2% 34,218 15.8% 216,659 Middle School 39,937 70.2% 16,921 29.8% 56,858 High School 20,291 45.1% 24,678 54.9% 44,969 TOTAL 242,669 76.2% 75,817 23.8% 318,486 cxxiv
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) 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 16,075 52.9% 14,301 47.1% 30,376 97,227 56.2% 75,758 43.8% 172,985 Middle 6,904 58.9% 4,820 41.1% 11,724 18,637 50.0% 18,673 50.0% 37,310 High 10,179 60.7% 6,604 39.3% 16,783 10,070 54.5% 8,408 45.5% 18,478 Total 33,158 56.3% 25,725 43.7% 58,883 125,934 55.0% 102,839 45.0% 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 129-136), 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 (2002-03) U.S. Born English Learners Grade N Special Ed % N Special Ed % Elementary 34,218 2,497 7.3% 161,443 20,998 13.0% Middle 16,921 1,647 9.7% 39,937 8,767 22.0% High 24,678 2,223 9.0% 20,291 5,737 28.3% TOTAL 75,817 6,367 8.4% 221,671 35,502 16.0% 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxxvii Table 66 Percentage of English Learners Who Met ELD Goal* Newcomer Students Grade N Met ELD Target (2002-03) U.S. Born English Learners % N Met ELD Target Elementary 23,051 11,891 51.6% 138,083 67,134 48.6% Middle School 13,015 11,935 91.7% 31,500 28,590 90.8% High School 16,758 14,511 86.6% 13,037 11,132 85.4% *Elementary students met goal when they advanced at least one ELD level in 2002-03. Secondary students met goal when they passed ESL or ELA each semester in 2002-03. % Table 67 Percentage of English Learners Scoring Proficient or Higher on the California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts (2002-03) Newcomer Students U.S. Born English Learners Grade N Proficient % N Proficient % Elementary 22,738 2,912 12.8% 107,759 13,235 12.3% Middle 15,360 341 2.2% 35,821 498 1.4% High 17,290 434 2.5% 14,584 266 1.8% cxxvii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) U.S. Born English Learners Grade N Proficient % N Proficient % Elementary 22,755 6,895 30.3% 107,675 30,062 27.9% Middle 15,468 945 6.1% 36,223 850 2.3% High 14,744 924 6.3% 12,085 231 1.9% 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 1998-99 through 2002-03. 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 2002-03. 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 2002-03, an increase from 12.3% in 2001-02. 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 2001-02. 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxxix Table 69 Students in Gifted Program by Language Group Elementary and Secondary Schools 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 N Gifted % N Gifted % N Gifted % N Gifted % N Gifted % EO 231,379 19,906 8.6% 240,268 18,763 7.8% 216,987 22,165 10.2% 219,353 25,438 11.6% 221,364 26,811 12.1% IFEP 58,139 7,495 12.9% 57,824 6,814 11.8% 58,145 7,517 12.9% 56,924 8,480 14.9% 60,013 9,169 15.3% LEP 293,105 2,167 0.7% 289,130 1,978 0.7% 283,566 1,537 0.5% 304,797 2,495 0.8% 318,544 2,735 0.9% RFEP 116,719 14,134 12.1% 136,702 13,388 9.8% 154,397 16,182 10.5% 138,066 17,896 13.0% 127,930 18,892 14.8% Total 699,342 43,702 6.2% 723,924 40,943 5.7% 713,095 47,401 6.6% 719,140 54,309 7.6% 727,851 57,607 7.9% cxxix
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 (Table 70) from 67,489 in 1998-99. The 1998-99 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 2002-03 (Table 70) from 29,148 in 1998-99. Since 1998-99, 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 2002-03 (Table 71) from 9,605 in 1998-99. 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 2002-03 from 17,819 in 1998-99, 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxi Total Students Table 70 Los Angeles Unified School District Students and English Learners in Special Education (2002-03) Students in Special Education % in Special Education Total English Learners English Learners in Special Ed % in Special Education Pre-K 18,662 3,080 16.5% 9,548 467 4.9% Kinder 58,735 4,011 6.8% 34,641 2,247 6.5% Grade 1 63,703 5,189 8.1% 38,156 2,948 7.7% Grade 2 65,822 7,048 10.7% 38,820 4,032 10.4% Grade 3 66,037 8,239 12.5% 38,467 4,815 12.5% Grade 4 63,192 8,431 13.3% 32,801 4,753 14.5% Grade 5 58,250 7,853 13.5% 22,760 3,995 17.6% Grade 6 58,558 7,828 13.4% 24,049 4,383 18.2% Grade 7 57,097 7,343 12.9% 18,563 3,552 19.1% Grade 8 52,493 6,282 12.0% 15,557 2,884 18.5% Grade 9 64,830 7,537 11.6% 21,290 3,487 16.4% Grade 10 44,723 4,795 10.7% 11,498 2,080 18.1% Grade 11 33,377 3,228 9.7% 7,295 1,380 18.9% Grade 12 29,460 2,646 9.0% 4,886 1,011 20.7% TOTAL 734,939 83,510 11.4% 318,331 42,034 13.2% cxxxi
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 (2002-03) 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 8,087 306 3.8% 3,165 28 0.9% 4,922 278 5.6% Kinder 30,569 1,836 6.0% 11,910 230 1.9% 18,659 1,606 8.6% Grade 1 35,338 2,663 7.5% 14,675 422 2.9% 20,663 2,241 10.8% Grade 2 37,257 3,821 10.3% 16,223 771 4.8% 21,034 3,050 14.5% Grade 3 37,039 4,657 12.6% 17,033 1,226 7.2% 20,006 3,431 17.2% Grade 4 31,762 4,642 14.6% 15,524 1,415 9.1% 16,238 3,227 19.9% Grade 5 22,839 3,858 16.9% 11,362 1,290 11.4% 11,477 2,568 22.4% Grade 6 20,634 4,017 19.5% 10,209 1,406 13.8% 10,425 2,611 25.0% Grade 7 15,825 3,333 21.1% 7,492 1,162 15.5% 8,333 2,171 26.1% Grade 8 13,082 2,729 20.9% 5,975 987 16.5% 7,107 1,742 24.5% Grade 9 15,997 3,276 20.5% 6,930 1,183 17.1% 9,067 2,093 23.1% Grade 10 9,041 1,962 21.7% 3,773 666 17.7% 5,268 1,296 24.6% Grade 11 6,042 1,271 21.0% 2,608 422 16.2% 3,434 849 24.7% Grade 12 4,181 924 22.1% 1,701 250 14.7% 2,480 674 27.2% TOTAL 287,693 39,295 13.7% 128,580 11,458 8.9% 159,113 27,837 17.5% cxxxii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxiii Figure 34 Figure 35 cxxxiii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03. 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxv Table 72 Percentage of Students in Special Education Programs by Subgroups 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 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 2002-03 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03, 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 2002-2003 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxxxviii Table 74 shows that in 2002-03, 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 1998-99 and 2002-03 school years. Table 74 Percentage of English Learners in Classrooms with Teachers with Authorization to Instruct Them Elementary Grades 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 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 2002-03 in reading, language, and math as a function of teacher authorization. However, a significant difference was detected in 2001-02 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 2001-02, students with a CLAD teacher also made greater gains in math than their counterparts who were taught by teachers with no authorization. In 2000-01, students with BCLAD teachers made greater gains in Grade 2 language and cxxxviii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Lang. Group N Average Attend N Average Attend N Average Attend N Average Attend N Average Attend EO 97,835 90.1% 99,573 90.5% 102,048 90.6% 105,865 91.0% 108,324 91.3% IFEP 29,437 92.1% 28,034 92.4% 26,238 92.8% 24,849 93.4% 25,123 93.6% RFEP 80,984 90.2% 79,885 90.2% 79,444 90.2% 89,729 91.1% 104,237 93.6% EL 89,125 93.1% 100,934 93.1% 110,052 92.9% 109,523 93.3% 101,885 91.8% Total 297,381 91.2% 308,426 91.6% 317,782 91.5% 329,966 92.0% 339,569 92.5% cxxxix
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 1998-1999 to 7.5% in 2002-03. In 2002-03, 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 2002-03 school year declined to 1.8 from about 2.6% in 2001-02. The percentage of English Learners (2.3%) retained in 2002-03 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 2002-03, 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 2000-2001, English learners were retained at about the same rate as their peers in the other language groups. cxl
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxli N Table 76 Total Students Retained in Elementary School Cumulative Retention Rate 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained EO 117,468 2,551 2.2% 114,836 2,967 2.6% 110,462 5,053 4.6% 109,179 6,047 5.5% 113,040 6,511 5.8% IFEP 27,767 364 1.3% 28,798 432 1.5% 30,784 830 2.7% 30,902 1,089 3.5% 34,890 1,307 3.7% LEP 200,598 5,133 2.6% 197,625 6,666 3.4% 192,834 13,636 7.1% 204,847 18,282 8.9% 216,659 20,667 9.5% RFEP 27,594 442 1.6% 35,767 531 1.5% 44,339 931 2.1% 28,543 701 2.5% 23,693 790 3.3% Total 373,427 8,490 2.3% 377,026 10,596 2.8% 378,419 20,450 5.4% 373,471 26,119 7.0% 388,282 29,275 7.5% % N Table 77 Students Retained in Elementary School Retention Rate In Given School Year 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 % N Retained Retained % N Retained % N Retained cxli % N Retained % N Retained EO 117,468 764 0.7% 114,836 1,079 0.9% 110,462 2,529 2.3% 109,179 2,090 1.9% 113,040 1,526 1.4% IFEP 27,767 102 0.4% 28,798 174 0.6% 30,784 474 1.5% 30,902 410 1.3% 34,890 319 0.9% LEP 200,598 1,522 0.8% 197,625 2,964 1.5% 192,834 8,871 4.6% 204,847 7,093 3.5% 216,659 4,917 2.3% RFEP 27,594 25 0.1% 35,767 71 0.2% 44,339 248 0.6% 28,543 53 0.2% 23,693 47 0.2% Total 373,427 2,413 0.6% 377,026 4,288 1.1% 378,419 12,122 3.2% 373,471 9,646 2.6% 388,282 6,809 1.8% %
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxlii N Table 78 Students Retained in Grade 2 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained EO 20,319 148 0.7% 19,511 264 1.4% 19,772 1,489 7.5% 19,278 1,156 6.0% 18,684 587 3.1% IFEP 4,723 20 0.4% 4,975 50 1.0% 5,240 256 4.9% 5,689 210 3.7% 6,246 135 2.2% LEP 39,387 325 0.8% 37,906 835 2.2% 40,726 5,149 12.6% 42,666 4,355 10.2% 38,820 2,275 5.9% RFEP 1,042 2 0.2% 2,753 6 0.2% 3,927 94 2.4% 1,061 10 0.9% 1,523 5 0.3% Total 65,471 495 0.8% 65,145 1,155 1.8% 69,665 6,988 10.0% 68,694 5,731 8.3% 65,273 3,002 4.6% % N Table 79 English Learners Who Were Retained by Proficiency in Home Language (L1) and English (L2) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 % N Retained Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained % N Retained Non-Non 85,877 3,063 3.6% 90,193 3,942 4.4% 94,945 7,919 8.3% 96,547 10,329 10.7% 113,302 12,296 10.9% Typical 106,349 1,949 1.8% 99,328 2,553 2.6% 90,305 5,425 6.0% 97,547 7,113 7.3% 90,059 7,973 8.9% Total 192,226 5,012 2.6% 189,521 6,495 3.4% 185,250 13,344 7.2% 194,094 17,442 9.0% 203,361 20,269 10.0% % cxlii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03, an increase of nearly 3½% from the previous year. The 2002-03 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 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm N Lunch Prgm EOs 231,379 55.1% 240,268 52.3% 216,987 54.3% 219,353 53.5% 221,364 58.6% IFEPs 58,139 67.8% 57,824 68.8% 58,145 66.6% 56,924 68.2% 60,013 73.4% ELs 293,105 89.7% 289,130 90.3% 283,566 87.9% 304,797 89.5% 318,544 92.1% RFEPs 116,719 82.8% 136,702 84.3% 154,397 81.7% 138,066 81.1% 127,930 82.3% Total 699,342 75.3% 723,924 74.8% 713,095 74.6% 719,140 75.2% 727,851 78.6% cxliii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxliv cxliv
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxlvi cxlvi
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxlvii Figure 21 shows the number and percentage of English learners who reclassified in LAUSD since 1990-91, 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 2002-2003 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 2002-03 compared with the State reclassification rate. The 2002-03 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 2003-04 school year. However, the data necessary to identify students who meet State reclassification criteria in 2003-04 are based on 2002-03 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 2003. Consequently, many students were not reclassified in 2002-2003 since the State criteria was not announced until after the school year. First, the 2002-03 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cxlviii Figure 19 Figure 20 cxlviii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-03 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 2001-02 school year, but this data necessary for reclassifying students were not available until the 2002-03 school year. The complete 2001 CELDT and 2002 CST reclassification data became available to schools by September 2002, at the 2002-03 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 2003. 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 2002-03, 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 2002-2003 had to wait ten months before they received the Stateentire for for November 2001 data. Aside from Moreover, the LAUSD By 2002-03, 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 2002 9,513 November 2002 May 2002 19,525 November 2002 May 2003 32,113 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 2002 9,513 cl
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cli CELDT November 2002 SAT/9 May 2002 19,525 CELDT November 2002 CST May 2003 32,113 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 2001-02 data necessary for reclassifying students in 2002-03 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 2002-2003 school year. These results were therefore not available for the annual State R-30 Report in December 2002. 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 2002-2003 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 2003-2004 Master Plan Evaluation Report. Based on actual 2002-2003 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 1998-99 through the 2001-2002 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 2002-2003. This initially resulted in an undercount of students eligible for reclassification, thereby contributing to the significantly lower cli
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cliii cliii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page cliv cliv
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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).24.50.34.13.35.20.06.15.08 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress).13.15.26.11.09.16.04.04.08 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress).25.25.23.22.24.21.09.09.09 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress).20.26.16.19.26.16 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).18.35.26.07.20.12 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).11.11.18.07.05.08 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).16.16.14.13.15.12 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).13.18.10.12.18.10 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress).11.15.14 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress).04.00.10 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress).03.01.02 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress).01.00.00 clv
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page clvi a 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) Reading Language Math.16.08.06 Educational effect size differences between.10 and.20 standard deviations may clvi
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page clvii clvii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page clviii clviii
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) 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 6.13.26.11.16.04.08 63 1.39 39.73 19.35 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).11.18.07.08 SAT/CAT6 CST SAT/CAT 6.25.23.22.21.09.09.29.98.26.89.13.25 2+ ELD Levels Below ELD Goal (Limited Progress) Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) CST SAT/CAT6 CST.44 1.04.20.38 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).16.14.13.12 SAT/CAT6 CST SAT/CAT 6.20.16.19.16.32.79.30.91.04.10.24.72 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) CST SAT/CAT6 CST.16.73.13.64 1 ELD Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress).13.10.12.10.03.09.03.09 Met ELD Goal (Adequate Progress) CST SAT/CAT6 CST.10.63.16.75.01.00.02 -.12 clix
Master Plan Evaluation Report (2002-03) for English Learner Programs Page clx 1 Level Below ELD Goal (Partial Progress) English Lang Arts Mathematics.16.06.14.16 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 1998-99. clx