Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13
(USC Thesis Other)
CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 1
CST PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN TWO NEIGHBORING
DISTRICTS FROM 2002-03 to 2012-13
by
Olga Lidia Rios
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2015
Copyright 2015 Olga Lidia Rios
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 2
Dedication
I want to dedicate this dissertation to English learners across the country. I was once an
English learner and recognize the potential each has to improve his or her life through education.
We all benefit when, as a society, we make giving every English learner access to the quality
education all children deserve.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 3
Acknowledgements
Attaining this degree was an amazing accomplishment. I want to first acknowledge my
children, Clarissa and Andres, for having shared every challenge and success on this magnificent
journey. They are and always will be my inspiration to succeed. I want to also thank my brother,
Hugo, and wonderful friend, Mark, for their relentless encouragement; my other siblings
Mariana, Gaby, Art, and Juan for their unwavering support; and my parents, Arturo and
Guadalupe Rios, for the sacrifices they made in order to give me access to a better life – mission
accomplished.
There were many friends who also shared in this experience or did not hesitate to provide
much encouragement and support along the way. They played such a significant role that I want
to thank them as well. They include my work friends, Haide Gamboa and Veronica Reynolds;
my best friend, Gabriela Contreras; and fellow Trojans, Xochitl Martinez, Dylan Lira, Jose
Garza, Heidi Parragil and Marco Sanchez: Fight on!
In addition, I have much appreciation for every one of my professors for being so
engaging and knowledgeable. I want to give a special thanks to my committee for their
professional guidance: Dr. Dennis Hocevar, my dissertation chair and my committee members,
Dr. Juliettta Shakhbagova, and Dr. Xochitl Martinez. Lastly, I want to thank the countless
individuals who have directly and indirectly impacted my life: people whose words and actions
motivated me to reach for the stars.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Statement of the Problem 10
Organization of the Study 13
Research Questions 13
Research Objective 14
Purpose of Study 14
Definition of Terms and Acronyms 14
Significance of the Study 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 20
Bilingual Education: A Federal Mandate 20
Themes in the ELL Literature 23
Language Acquisition 23
The ELL Achievement Gap 24
No Child Left Behind Act 26
Public Opinion Weighs in on Educating ELLs 26
ELLs: A New Majority 30
Instructional Practices 32
Summary 37
Chapter Three: Methodology 38
Research Questions 38
Research Design 39
Setting 39
Participants 41
Instrumentation 42
Data Analysis 44
Research Questions 44
Internal and External Validity 45
Summary 45
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion 47
Research Questions 47
Research Question One 48
Research Question Two 55
Research Question Three: 62
Research Question Four 65
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion and Recommendations 68
Longitudinal Changes for English Learners 68
Comparison to Whites 70
Comparison to the Top Ten ELL Serving Districts in California 70
Reclassification of ELLs 71
Discussion 71
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 5
Future Research and Recommendations 72
References 75
Appendix A: Longitudinal Change at ABC 78
Appendix B: Longitudinal Change at BUSD 79
Appendix C: Achievement Gap at ABC and BUSD 80
Appendix D: RFEP and White Performance at BUSD 81
Appendix E: RFEP and White Performance at ABC 82
Appendix F: Reclassification Rates at ABC and BUSD 83
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Increase in Percent Proficient or Above in English Language Arts
from 2003-2013 for ELLs (Appendices A and B) 53
Table 2: Summary of Increase in Percent Proficient or Above in Mathematics from
2003-2013 for ELLs (Appendices A and B) 54
Table 3: Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap
2003-2013 in ELA at BUSD (Appendix C) 56
Table 4: Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap for
2003-2013 in Mathematics at BUSD (Appendix C) 57
Table 5: Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap for
2003-2013 in ELA at ABC (Appendix C) 58
Table 6: Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap for
2003-2013 in Mathematics at ABC (Appendix C) 58
Table 7: Comparison White and RFEP in ELA at BUSD 2003-2013(Appendix D) 59
Table 8: Comparison White and RFEP in Mathematics at BUSD 2003-2013 (Appendix D) 60
Table 9: Comparison White and RFEP in ELA at ABC 2003-2013 (Appendix E) 61
Table 10: Comparison White and RFEP in Mathematics at ABC 2003-2013 (Appendix E) 61
Table 11: Comparison of Top ELL Serving Districts, State of CA, BUSD and ABC in
Student Performance English Language Arts for Grade Four 2003-2013 (Appendix F) 64
Table 12: Comparison of Top ELL Serving Districts, State of CA, BUSD, and ABC in
Student Performance for Mathematics in Grade Four 2003-2013 (Appendix F) 65
Table 13: Reclassification Percentage Rates from 2003-2013 (Appendix F) 66
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 7
Abstract
California has the largest share of the English Language Learner (ELL) student
population in the U.S., and it continues to grow. English Language Learners are the fastest
growing group in the public school population and they are underachieving.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal changes in the performance of
English learners from 2003 to 2013 in grades two to eight in the ABC Unified School District
(ABCUSD) and the Bellflower Unified School District (BUSD). This study examined (a) the
extent, to which ELL performance improved in both urban districts in California Standards Test
(CST) English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics; (b) the level of achievement compared to
Whites; (c) the rates of reclassification; and (d) the progress, or lack of, compared to the top ten
ELL serving districts in California.
The findings of this study demonstrated a positive longitudinal change in student
achievement for ABCUSD than for BUSD in the years 2003-2013. Both districts improved
outcomes in English language arts and in mathematics. This is also true state wide as the pool of
ELLs has grown smaller over the years. Therefore, progress has been made at the local and state
level. Reclassification rates remain a challenge since only one district showed improvement in
reclassification rates. Lastly, ABC and Bellflower Unified outperformed most or all of the top
ten ELL serving districts in California.
The state has acknowledged the significance of educating ELLs; therefore, examining
progress made will afford all stakeholders important information. Documenting the longitudinal
changes in ELL performance data in these two districts will help determine if the districts are
experiencing success in educating this growing group of students. It will provide important
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 8
information for researchers, surrounding districts and the districts themselves by helping to
inform and set the direction of their future efforts.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
California has the largest share of the English Language Learner (ELL) student
population, and it continues to grow. According to the California Department of Education
(CDE), in the 2012-2013 school year, there were approximately 1.346 million ELL in California
public schools, almost the same as in 2011-2012 (CDE, 2014). The U.S. saw a 60 percent
increase in the last decade of English learners (Lee, 2013). This made up 10 percent of the total
pre-K-12 student population and 29 percent of the total students in California schools (NCES,
2014). It is estimated that by 2020 over half of the public school student population will have
non-English speaking backgrounds (Lee, 2013). To address the educational needs of the
growing number of ELL students, California has delineated two district and school goals; (a) to
ensure that English learners acquire full proficiency in English as quickly and effectively as
possible and attain parity with native speakers of English; and (b) to ensure that English learners,
within a reasonable period of time, achieve the same rigorous grade-level academic standards
that are expected of all students (CDE, 2013). Educating this significant and growing population
of ELL students has become the priority for California school districts.
A few questions remain: (a) how effectively school districts heeded the call to action; (b)
how many ELL students are reclassified every year; and (c) what level of achievement districts
have attained in meeting the two goals set forth by the state? This study will analyze data from
two neighboring public school districts in southern California in an effort to answer these
questions. These two districts are representative of districts across California with similar
percentages of ELLs. The districts are Bellflower Unified School District and ABC Unified
School District. The study will evaluate the achievement of ELLs over ten years (2003-2013),
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 10
explain how ELLs have fared academically in each district, and compare the extent of that
achievement.
One of the districts, Bellflower USD, is an urban district in Los Angeles County. It
served 13,721 students in 2013. It has eleven elementary schools, two middle schools and three
high schools. The student population is made up of the following major ethnic groups: 62
percent Latino; 14 percent African American; 11 percent white; and five percent Filipino. The
ELL population is at 21 percent, and 66 percent of all students are on free and reduced lunch.
Bellflower USD is a low-income Latino district that has an ELL population where national
projections already hold true.
The second district is ABC Unified School District. It is also an urban district in Los
Angeles County. It served 20,845 students in 2013. It has nineteen elementary schools, five
middle schools, and six high schools. The major ethnic groups are the following: 44 percent
Latino; 25 percent Asian; 11 percent Filipino; and nine percent African American (Ed Data,
2014). The number of ELLs is at 20 percent, and 50 percent of students are on free and reduced
meals. ABC Unified is more diverse than Bellflower Unified, but similarly has a significant
number of ELLs (one in five), and is also largely low-income.
Statement of the Problem
ELLs are the fastest growing group in the public school population, and they are
underachieving. This issue has created challenges for school districts across the state. It is
estimated that, by 2015, ELL enrollment in U.S. schools will reach 10 million, and that almost
one out of every four students will be an ELL (NAE, 2014). By 2020, over half of all public
school students will be of non-English speaking backgrounds (Lee, 2013). In 2012, the number
was 29 percent in California, and for one of the largest school districts around, Los Angeles
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 11
Unified School District, that number was 44 percent (NCES, 2012). Other statistics challenge
common held beliefs. For example, it may be surprising to learn that 76 percent of the ELL
elementary students and 56 percent of secondary ELL students are U.S. born; and that more than
half of ELLs in public schools are second or third-generation native U.S. born children (NEA,
2014). Of these students, 85 percent say they speak Spanish at home (PPIC, 2014). The majority
of ELL students in public schools are no longer immigrants, but rather Spanish speaking native-
born citizens of this country.
Unfortunately, the academic achievement of ELLs is markedly low when compared to
Whites, and this fact is an area of alarm. According to 2011 National Association of Educational
Progress (NAEP) statistics, the number of ELLs who scored above the basic level on 2011
fourth-grade NAEP Assessment was 25 percent, compared to 66 percent of Whites. The
numbers in eighth-grade were even more dismal with 21 percent of ELLs scoring above basic in
reading, compared to 74 percent of Whites. The gap in achievement proves a disparity and
inequity in educational attainment by ELLs. This is a serious social and educational problem.
Lack of educational success results in dismal life trajectories and pose societal problems across
the country (Hoff, 2013). If this problem is ignored, students will continue to show a wide gap
in achievement compared to non-English learners, and could result in large number of students
being uneducated and poorly prepared for an ever growing global society (Borrero, 2013).
Improving educational outcomes of ELLs is a national, state, and local imperative. Identifying
districts that are attaining success is of immediate importance. ELLs also need to be prepared
with 21
st
Century Skills and graduate college and career ready.
In addition to the low academic achievement, another area of concern for districts in
California has been the level of students who are reclassified each year. Title III of the
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 12
Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires states to administer a test to newly enrolled
students whose primary language is not English to determine their level of fluency in English. In
California, the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) meets this requirement
and has been used since 2001. Students labeled as ELLs must be given the CELDT every year
until they are reclassified. The California Department of Education (CDE) has outlined criteria
for the reclassification of ELL students: the first is an assessment of English language
proficiency using an objective assessment instrument such as the CELDT. The CELDT that is
given to ELL students in grades two through twelve requires an overall score of Early Advanced
or higher; and it requires Intermediate scores or higher for each domain of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing for a student to qualify to become Reclassified Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP). The other performance levels of the CELDT are: Beginning, Early Intermediate,
Intermediate, Early Advanced, or Advanced. The goal of every student is to reclassify in the
shortest time possible.
A student qualifies for reclassification if he or she can prove proficiency in English in the
areas of listening; speaking, reading, and writing according to CELDT guidelines and meets
other district preset criteria (which is often aligned to CDE criteria). This includes teacher
evaluation, such as a review of the student’s curriculum mastery or grades; a student’s
performance of basic skills as measured by the English language arts California Standards Test
(CST); and parent opinion and consultation. Once all of these requirements are met, the student
can be reclassified as RFEP. Becoming reclassified is important to student’s academic success.
Being reclassified is associated with stronger academic performance since reclassified students
are more likely to achieve CST scores of proficient or above (Hill, 2012). Reclassifying students
benefit the student and the school and hold a more promising future for all.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 13
Organization of the Study
Both Bellflower USD and ABC USD serve a large number of ELL students. Better
educating English language learners, has become a priority of national, state, and local reform
efforts. What this study intends to do is analyze the achievement levels from 2003 to 2013 in
these two urban districts and compare CST performance data. The intent is to analyze
longitudinal changes in performance assessments of ELLs in grades two through eight in math
and language arts. It will also evaluate ELL performance compared to Whites in the school
district and determine if the achievement gap for these two groups has increased or decreased.
Determining how well each district is improving the academic achievement of ELLs is central to
current reform efforts and will provide important information about the effectiveness of the
individual district’s efforts.
Research Questions
Questions:
1. What are the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight in ELL
student outcomes for ABCUSD and BUSD in CST mathematics performance and ELA
CST performance?
2. How do ELLs compare to White students in student outcomes over the years of 2003-
2013? In other words, has the gap between the ELLs and White student population
increased, decreased, or remained the same in ABC and Bellflower Unified School
Districts?
3. How does ELL progress in ABC and Bellflower school districts compare to the top ten
ELL serving districts in California?
4. What are the longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD?
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 14
Research Objective
The objective of the research study is to evaluate and document the longitudinal changes
in the CST performance of ELL students in mathematics and in ELA over ten-year period in
grades two to eight in the ABCUSD and BUSD. This study will examine the extent to which
ELL performance has improved in these two urban districts on standardized tests; how the level
of achievement compares to Whites; how this progress, or lack of, compares to other California
districts; and the changes on reclassification rates of ELLs.
Purpose of Study
ELL students make up a large share of the school population that ABC Unified and
Bellflower Unified serve. With such fast growing student population, it is important to analyze
the extent to which performance on standardized tests has been improving. California has
acknowledged the significance of educating ELLs, therefore, examining the extent of progress
made will yield important information. Documenting the longitudinal changes in ELL
performance data in these two districts will help determine if the districts are experiencing
success in student outcomes for this growing group of students; if they are closing the
achievement gap; if their efforts are showing better progress than the surrounding districts; and if
they are improving in their reclassification rates. Additionally, it may provide important
information for researchers, surrounding districts, and the districts themselves about the direction
of their efforts.
Definition of Terms and Acronyms
ABCUSD - ABC Unified School District
BUSD - Bellflower Unified School District
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 15
Bilingual Education - teaching academic content in two languages, in a native language with
varying amounts of each language used in compliance with a program model.
BICS - Basic interpersonal communicative skills
CALP - Cognitive/academic language proficiency
CCSS - Common Core State Standards
CCR - College and Career Ready
CDE - California Department of Education
CELDT - California English Development Test
CST - California Standards Test
ELL - English language learners are students who enter school without the English language
skills needed to participate in and access the academic curriculum.
ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ELD - English Language Development
EO - English Only
LEA - Local Education Agency
LCAP - Local Control Accountability Plan
LCFF - Local Control Funding Formula
NAEP - National Assessment for Educational Progress is the largest nationally representative
and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various
subject areas.
RFEP - Reclassified Fluent English Proficient Students are identified as ELLs until they achieve
district-specified scores on state achievement tests and criteria and become reclassified.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 16
STAR - Standardized Test and Reporting is the assessment given to students in grades two to
eleven from 2001 to 2012.
SBE - State Board of Education
SBAC - Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
Significance of the Study
Educating English language learners is of immediate urgency in California and
throughout the United States. ELLs are a subgroup that has gained added visibility in light of
recent figures naming it as the fastest growing subgroup in public schools. Alarming, however,
is the bleak level of achievement that they are attaining, in large part because of a persistent gap
in achievement that is higher than for other subgroups. According to NAEP statistics, ELL’s had
a 43-point gap in achievement in the 1998’s 8
th
grade reading test as compared to Whites. The
gap was at 39-points in 2013, a difference of four point improvement in over ten years. It is
important to identify districts showing progress in educating ELLs.
Efforts to attain educational equity began in 1968 with the passing of the Bilingual
Education Act as Tittle VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and
became cemented with the decision in 1974 in which Lau v. Nichols held that school districts
must help students overcome language barriers, so they can access the core curriculum. Because
much discretion was given districts to implement these policies, there were not many gains made
for English learners. As a result, in 1981 a case known as Castaneda v. Pickard dictated that
educating English learners must be guided by three standards: that the approach must be based
on sound theory; that the approach be implemented adequately; and that, after a period of time
the approach be evaluated for its effectiveness. Unfortunately, still, there are no policies for
identifying, assessing, placing or instructing English language learners that are consistent
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 17
throughout the country or state. Therefore, even though there are laws advocating and protecting
the rights of ELLs, the reality is that they are not being enforced in way that benefit these
students in a large scale.
A primary culprit for such a situation is the political climate of recent years. How to best
educate ELL’s has, in current and past times, been a politically charged issue. This is evident in
the anti-immigrant and English only movements. The legislations that spread across the
country, such as Proposition 227 in California banning bilingual education, soon followed in
other states such as Arizona and Massachusetts; even though the strongest research evidence to
date proves that instruction in the native language results in better outcomes in literacy in
English for ELLs (Hakuta, 2011; Hoff, 2010). Politicians and the voting public seemed to have
ignored the academic community in regards to what is the best approach for educating English
learners, and about how they learn English best. It appears that schools are more apt to act
according to the political climate of the time than in the true best interest of ELLs; policy dictates
how students are educated and not sound research.
In years to come, policy at the federal level did continue to address the needs of ELLs. It
focused on increased accountability. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), states
were expected to comply with provisions for ELLs. For the first time, districts were required to
report CST scores for ELLs and meet targets set by individual states for Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) or face sanctions (NCLB, 2001). Accountability measures were put in place that
required states to develop English language proficiency standards and implement English
language proficiency tests: both had to be aligned to academic standards (NCLB, 2001).
Regulations required students to be tested in mathematics and in reading, if students had been in
a U.S. school for at least one year.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 18
A decade later, there was another overhaul of the educational system brought about by
the standards movement in the new millennium. In August of 2012, the State Board of
Education adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in ELA and mathematics for the
state of California. The standards, as well as a new assessment tool Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC), were fully operational and administered in the 2014-2015
academic year. The intent was to help ensure all students were literate and College and Career
Ready (CCR) by the end of high school (CDE, 2014). The CDE designated a “portrait” of
students who met the standards and exhibit abilities of a “literate individual.” Ideally, students
would be able (a) to demonstrate independence; (b) to respond to the varying demands of
audience, task, purpose, and discipline; (c) to comprehend as well as critique; (d) to value
evidence; (e) to use technology and digital media strategically and capably; and (f) to understand
other perspectives and cultures. CCSS is a step forward in the quest to better prepare all students
to successfully navigate the world of college and or career more effectively.
Unfortunately, the standards are limited in some ways. The CCSS limitations are that
they (a) define what all students should be able to do and not how teachers should teach; (b) do
not describe all that can or should be taught; (c) do not define the nature of advanced work for
students who meet the standard before the end of high school; (d) set grade-specific standards
but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are
well below or well above expectations; (e) it is beyond the scope of the standards to define the
full range of support appropriate for ELLs and for students with special needs; and (f) while the
ELA content area literacy components described are critical to College and Career Ready, they
do not define the whole of such readiness (CDE, 2014). Even though CCSS require that all
students be held to the same high standards, and it includes ELLs, it gives little guidance for
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 19
addressing the challenges facing ELLs. CCSS, as well as the other educational reform policies,
seem to have good intentions, but the lack of explicit guidelines for educating and supporting
ELLs may just continue to leave them behind.
The adoption of Common Core State Standards, as well as the current movement for 21st
Century Skills, pose a unique opportunity for school districts to better serve their English
language learner population and embrace research-based approaches. One such approach is
bilingualism. Hakuta (2011) asserts that the evidence suggesting cognitive benefits of
bilingualism is very strong. The discussion among districts, then, should not be about whether or
not to use the student’s native language as an asset to enable English learners to become
proficient in English, but rather how to best provide a program that does so. The number of ELL
students is the highest it has been in decades. Gaging ELL student performance is of great
importance because the economic and social well being of the U.S. economy depends on the
quality of education their youth attain.
Other more recent efforts to bring educational equity and improve outcomes for ELLs are
the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).
This new way of funding schools took place during the 2013-2014 school year. It became the
largest change to California’s school finance model in about 40 years with the intended goal of
improving equity, transparency, and performance (CDE, 2015). This funding formula allocates
money to specific population of students (a) low-income; (b) foster children; and (c) English
learners (CDE, 2015). English learners should see an increase in the level of support received at
the local school level. This study, therefore, holds great significance in identifying and
evaluating the level of progress attained in both districts in light of changing policies, reforms,
and new initiatives.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Educating English language learners is of urgent importance. The performance of ELLs
has immediate social and economic implications. The purpose of this literature review is to
provide a historical look at the policies affecting ELLs and to illuminate several common themes
that emerged in the ELL literature. These factors include bilingual education, the achievement
gap, a growing majority and instructional practices.
Bilingual Education: A Federal Mandate
Although bilingual education was a right for all English language learners (ELLs) since
1968, many ELLs were not in bilingual education programs. According to research, the setback
is that ELLs are receiving instruction primarily in English without the necessary support in their
native language (Hakuta, 2011; Hoff, 2010). For many years, the law required bilingual
education for ELLs, yet few districts had a program in place that followed the law (Hakuta,
2011). Without instruction in their native language, students may continue to show a wide gap in
achievement compared to Whites, and this result will continue in a large portion of students
being uneducated and poorly prepared for an ever growing global society (Borrero, 2013). One
way to close the existing achievement gap of ELLs is for school districts to be more effective in
addressing ELL’s social and academic needs and by embracing bilingual education. Educating
English learners is a federal mandate and a pathway for attaining educational equity. It began in
1968 with the passing of the Bilingual Education Act as Title VII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and later became cemented with the decision in 1974
in which Lau v. Nichols held that school districts must help students overcome language barriers,
so they can access the core curriculum. Because much discretion was given to districts to
implement these policies, there were not many gains made for English learners. As a result, in
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 21
1981 a case known as Castaneda v. Pickard dictated that educating English learners must be
guided by three standards: that the approach must be based on sound theory; that the approach be
implemented adequately; and that, after a period of time the approach be evaluated for its
effectiveness. Unfortunately, still, there are no policies for identifying, assessing, placing or
instructing English language learners. Therefore, even though there are laws advocating and
protecting the rights of ELLs, the reality is that they are not being enforced in a way that benefits
these students.
A primary culprit for such a situation is the political climate of recent years. Bilingual
education has, in recent times, been a politically charged issue. This statement is evident in the
anti-immigrant and English only movements. The legislations that spread across the country by
the passing of such propositions as Proposition 227 in California, banning bilingual education,
soon followed in other states such as Arizona and Massachusetts. This even though the strongest
research evidence to date proves that instruction in the native language results in better outcomes
in literacy in English for ELLs (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 2010; Hakuta, 2011; Hoff, 2010).
Politicians and the general voting public seemed to ignore the academic community in regards to
what is best for educating English learners, and about how they learn English best. It appeared
that schools were more apt to act according to the political climate of the time rather than in the
true best interest of ELLs, and that politicians dictate how students are educated and not sound
research.
Policy at the federal level continued to try and address the needs of ELLs. In the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, states were expected to comply with provisions for ELLs. For the
first time, districts were required to report CST scores for ELLs and to meet targets set by
individual states for “adequate yearly progress” or AYP or face sanctions (NCLB, 2001).
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 22
Accountability measures were put in place to require states to develop English language
proficiency standards and implement English language proficiency tests; both had to be aligned
to academic standards (NCLB, 2001). Regulations asked that students be tested in mathematics
and in reading after the students had been in a U.S. school for at least one year.
A decade later, there was another overhaul of the educational system brought about by
the standards movement. In August of 2012, the State Board of Education adopted the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) in ELA and mathematics for the state of California. The new
standards, as well as a new assessment tool SBAC, were fully operational and administered in
the 2014-2015 academic year. The intent being to help ensure that all students are literate and
college and career ready (CCR) by the end of high school (CDE, 2014). The CDE has designated
a “portrait” of students who meet the standards and exhibit abilities of a “literate individual.”
Ideally, students should be able (a) to demonstrate independence; (b) to respond to the varying
demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline; (c) to comprehend as well as critique; (d) to
value evidence; (e) to use technology and digital media strategically and capably; and (f) to
understand other perspectives and cultures. CCSS is a step forward in the quest to better prepare
all students to successfully navigate the world of college and or career more effectively.
However, the standards are limited in some ways. The CCSS limitations are that they (a)
define what all students should be able to do not how teachers should teach; (b) do not describe
all that can or should be taught; (c) do not define the nature of advanced work for students who
meet the standard before the end of high school; (d) set grade-specific standards but do not
define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or
well above expectations; (e) it is beyond the scope of the standards to define the full range of
support appropriate for ELLs and for students with special needs; and (f) while the ELA content
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 23
area literacy components described are critical to college and career ready, they do not define the
whole of such readiness (CDE, 2014). Even though CCSS require that all students be held to the
same high standards, and it includes ELLs, it gives little guidance for addressing the challenges
facing ELLs. CCSS, as well as the other policies, seem to have good intentions. Unfortunately,
the lack of explicit guidelines for educating and supporting ELLs may just continue to leave
them behind.
Themes in the ELL Literature
To begin, much of the literature on English language learners (ELLs) focuses on several
common themes, all of which have a direct impact on the academic performance of ELLs. One
theme highlights the long-standing and pervasive gap in achievement between ELLs and Whites.
A second theme points to a long standing gap between research and practice about how to best
educate ELLs and the influence of public opinion on educational policy. A third theme features
the power of specific instructional strategies for improving achievement outcomes for ELLs. A
final theme in the ELL literature is the local, state, and national urgency in educating such a
growing segment of the student population. This next section of the literature review is intended
to illuminate the challenges and opportunities in educating ELLs.
Language Acquisition
Learning English is no easy task. Some researchers argue that it may take one to two
years to learn conversational English, however, it may take at least five years or longer for
language learners, such as ELLs, to catch up to native English speakers in academic English
(Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1980; Cummins, 2011; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Success for
English learners requires concrete cognitive academic instruction provided in both the first and
second languages, and generally takes from 4 to 7 years to reach national norms on standardized
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 24
tests in reading and others measuring thinking skills, while they may reach national norms in as
little as 2 years in tests like mathematics and language arts (Collier, 1989). Learning English is a
task that takes more years to accomplish than present policies dictate.
The ELL Achievement Gap
The gap in achievement between ELLs and Whites is pervasive and well documented.
English Language Learners (ELLs) consistently underperform. The fastest growing population
of students in urban schools is children of immigrants (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011).
According to the Migration Policy Institute Fact Sheet, in 2007-08 that number was over 5.3
million students enrolled in U.S. public schools, or about 11 percent were ELLs. According to
2012 NCES statistics, in California alone, the number of language minority students was at 29
percent of the total student enrollment. For one of the largest school districts around, Los
Angeles Unified School District, that number was 44 percent (Fact Sheet, 2008). Yet, the
achievement was at all-time low. According to 2009 NAEP statistics, the number of ELLs who
scored above the basic level in reading on the fourth-grade NAEP Assessment was 25 percent,
compared to 66 percent of Whites. In that same year, the numbers for eighth-grade were even
more dismal with 21 percent of ELLs scoring above basic in reading, compared to 74 percent of
Whites. The gap in achievement proves the inequity in educational attainment by ELLs and the
school’s failure in preparing them for an increasingly global society. According to the above
statistics, the probability is very high that ELLs are in every classroom across the state of
California and in significant numbers, thus presenting a serious problem of practice for
educators. A disparity exists in the educational attainment of ELLs as compared to Whites, and
it does not have to be this way.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 25
Dropout rates are a special concern to ELLs. For the first time in California, 80 percent
of all students who started high school in 2009-10 graduated with their class in 2013 (CDE,
2014). A slight increase from the previous year, with gains seen in ELLs. ELL graduation rate
was 62.7 percent in the years 2012/13. With 1.5 million ELL students, the state accounts for
nearly half of the country’s ELL population; that means that 600,000 ELL students fail to
graduate (or 17 percent of all ELL students (Romo, 2013). An investigation by the U.S.
Department of Education found a disproportionate number of ELL students were dropping out of
school almost as twice as often as their non-ELL counterparts (DOE, 2012).
The future with such a low level of academic attainment looks bleak for ELLs, a majority
of whom are Spanish-speaking or Latino (85 percent). According to Fry (2003) Latino students,
regardless of how long their ancestors have been in the U.S., are far less likely to graduate high
school on time in comparison to White students. Without a high school diploma, students face a
long list of disadvantages: they are paid significantly less when they enter the workforce, and
they have fewer employment opportunities; there is also some association with socially
debilitating behaviors including crime, teen pregnancy, and idleness (Fry, 2003). The dropout
rate among Latinos has also been consistently high. The dropout rate for Latinos is three times
as much as that of Whites (Fry, 2003). According to statistics, approximately 2.9 million Latinos
are enrolled in U.S. high schools, representing 17 percent of all secondary public school students,
yet they are less likely to complete high school than non-Latinos (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). This
wide gap in achievement halts the possible successful participation in society and upward
mobility of ELLs.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 26
No Child Left Behind Act
There appears to be a connection between NCLB and the low performance of English
learners. According to Lewis (2005), NCLB destroyed previous efforts to improve education of
ELLs since it expects students to test ten months into the American education system. Requiring
students to take such assessments is inadequate. He goes on to claim that NCLB is a step
backwards from ELL provisions in the 1994 version of the K-12 law, which favored funding for
ELL programs, focused on proficient bilingualism and biliteracy, as well as English proficiency
rather than remedial standards: an approach based on research (Lewis, 2005). Under NCLB
metrics, underachievement is concentrated in schools serving low-income and racially/culturally
marginalized students, and it is argued that improvements will come from a greater focus on
equity rather than punitive use of high-stakes standardized tests (Cummins, 2011). Capps, et al
(2005) argue that NCLB had the potential to actually improve the education of immigrant and
ELLs in a few important ways; however, resulting evidence proves it fell short of its intended
outcomes. The underachievement of ELLs has been directly impacted by policies, such as
NCLB.
Public Opinion Weighs in on Educating ELLs
The literature cites a desperate need for a paradigm shift if improvements are to be made
in educating ELLs. Educators need to adopt a positive paradigm that embraces inter-language,
which assumes that one language helps learn a second (McGlynn, 2009). For too many years,
educators have debated the merits of bilingual education, yet research shows that bilingual
education is a necessity for ELLs students to attain academic success. Several researchers have
pointed to three elements that show promise (a) delivering instruction in the native language (b)
valuing the cultural assets of students and (c) utilizing effective instructional practices (Borrero,
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 27
2011; Calderon et al., 2011; Hakuta, 2011). As noted earlier, not only has federal law required
that districts offer programs in the native language, research proves this to be the most effective
method to attain literacy in English. The academic community has demonstrated that bilingual
education is what ELLs need to attain academic success. The time has come for districts to heed
their advice and adopt and implement an education program in practice and in spirit that
promotes bilingual education.
Delivering instruction in the native language is critical to ensuring better outcomes for
ELLs. Hakuta (2011) suggests that having in place an explicit program of instruction for ELLs
that enhances their access to, and comprehension of, academic subjects yields great results in the
development of English. Such a program is a literacy program in their native language. There
are a variety of schools that have implemented various successful bilingual programs that are
research-based and effective. The priority must be to ensure literacy because, if students can read
in one language, they can read in general. Teaching kids to read and write in their native
language has so many added advantages, including that children can immediately make sense of
what they are learning, and that parents can play a more active role in their children’s education.
In order to accomplish this task, schools must have access to quality materials for both
instruction and for enrichment -- one example is a library rich with reading books in the language
of the students. A library well-stocked with books in both the native language and English can
be one way to help develop a program of study that will make literacy and bilingualism a reality
for ELLs.
Instruction in the native language improves outcomes in other ways. Calderon et al.
(2011) reported on a study where two languages (Spanish and English) were taught in K-12 and
separated for instruction; English language learners improved 45 percent, and exceeded grade
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 28
level in reading after two years. The improvement helped the school go from low performing to
high performing in the same time (Calderon et al., 2011). This type of school structure utilized
bilingual education as its guide. Unfortunately, this presents a problem because there are so
many languages. Hoff (213) points to this problem by highlighting that a bilingual program may
be feasible for Spanish ELLs because of their large numbers, but not so feasible for lesser
common languages. Cogner (2010) also points out that Spanish speakers in bilingual education
are the only language group that receives language instruction (in some form) than any other
ELL group. What researchers agreed upon is that bilingual education, when implemented well,
delivers better outcomes than no bilingual education (Borrero, 2011; Cagner, 2010; Calderon et
al., 2011; Chang 2008; Hakuta, 2011). Districts can improve the academic achievement of ELL
by incorporating native instruction into their curriculum.
An added condition necessary for ELLs to benefit academically from a bilingual
education program is a welcoming environment where a student’s cultural assets are valued and
even celebrated. The entire school can promote the value of bilingualism and biliteracy. Borrero
(2011) highlighted the need for students to feel welcomed and validated by their immediate and
at-large environment in school. This result can be achieved in a variety of ways. One place is
the classroom. For ELLs, having a teacher that is both bilingual and bicultural can send the
message that a second language is of high value, also can serve as a role model of what can be
attained by the students. Having a teacher who shares the cultural background of the students
can lead students to see first hand the possibility of their own future success. Other strategies to
establish this sense of value is to have staff throughout the school speak the native language of
the children, so that communication barriers do not exist. Cultural celebrations of both the native
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 29
culture of the children and U.S. culture will promote a sense of value of a student’s heritage,
while at the same promoting adoption of their new environment and celebrating diversity.
Valuing the cultural assets of these students can yield positive results. Researchers point
to the need for schools, and especially, teachers of ELL students, to appreciate the student’s
primary language and home culture (Borrero, 2011; Calderon et al., 2011; Hakuta, 2011).
Bilingual education programs appear to send this message. Hoff (2013) further reiterates this
point by insisting that programs that support the development in English for ELLs should not
include devaluing or diminishing children’s language skills. Efforts to support the development
of English skills should add to the repertoire of skills the children bring from home (Hoff, 2013).
Including the home language and culture of ELLs and providing opportunities for them to utilize
these assets at school can have positive social and academic outcomes.
These researchers also suggests that speaking more than one language is a cultural and
social asset that is often overlooked in public schools (Borrero, 2011; Calderon et al., 2011;
Hakuta, 2011). More specifically, Borrero and Yeh, (2010) found that students needed to feel
like their language or culture is welcomed, and that educators should strive to make school a
place where ELL students feel they are welcomed, feel they belong, and adopt educational
practices and policies that exemplify this belief. Valuing the cultural assets of ELLs appears to
be a way to improve student outcomes. The finding appears to suggest that schools are not doing
this on a grand scale and, therefore, more research is needed to identify specifically how this can
be accomplished and realized for ELLs in all public schools.
Perhaps in light of changing demographics, not only in education, but across the social
spectrum, a bill has been introduced to the California legislature called SB 1174: California
Education for A Global Economy Initiative, which reignites the bilingual education debate. If
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 30
passed, this bill would reverse the English Only Initiative 227 that banned bilingual education in
California in 1998. Research on the effects of Proposition 227 found that, after three years of
instruction, only 12 percent of ELLs in California had acquired sufficient academic English to be
redesignated as English-proficient (Cummins, 2011). If approved, this new bill would be
presented to voters in the 2016 elections. The bill recognizes the value of the research proving
that teaching students in their native language can improve academic achievement of ELLs. Not
only that, but also with the implementation of CCSS and the need for students to be prepared
with 21
st
Century Skills, becoming bilingual and biliterate is not only a necessity and an asset, it
celebrates the diversity in California schools and neighborhoods and prepares students to better
participate in a global society.
ELLs: A New Majority
Numbers have shifted. According to NCES’s 2014 report, for the first time ever,
minorities are projected to make up 50 percent of the U.S. K-12 public school population for the
2014-2015 school year. This shift is not something unexpected. The national population has
been supporting this growing trend for years, especially among Latinos. Latino children will
account for 26 percent of all public school children. They will account for 29 percent of the
students in the 2019-20 academic school year (NCES, 2014). In California, this fact is not new.
The number of minority non-White children for 2013-2014 was 75 percent; the number of Latino
students was 53 percent of total student enrollment (CDE, 2014). When looking at the decade
this study will evaluate, the numbers were only slightly different. In 2012-13, Latinos made up
53 percent of total student enrollment. In 2002-03, the numbers were at 45 percent of total
enrollment (CDE, 2014). This number represents an increase of 8 percent in the span of ten
years. A majority of ELLs are Spanish speaking and Latino.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 31
The growth in the number of ELLs has outpaced other groups. ELL students constituted
an average of 23 percent of public school enrollment in 2011-2012 (NCES, 2014). In the 2013-
2014 school year, there were approximately 1.413 million ELLs in California –similar numbers
to 2012-2013 (CDE, 2014). The recorded numbers for Spring 2014 in California public schools,
demonstrated that ELLs made up 23 percent of total enrollment or 1,413,549 students (CDE,
2014). The majority of ELLs are enrolled in elementary grades K-6 (73 percent) while the rest
are enrolled in the secondary grades (CDE, 2014). Most ELLs (84 percent) speak Spanish as
their primary language.
This shift is likely to exacerbate the challenges. According to experts, low-income
students of color tend to attend schools that are highly segregated by race and the schools tend to
have fewer high-quality teachers than those in affluent areas (Roach, 2014). This issue has
negative outcomes for students. About one-fourth of Latino and African American children live
below the poverty line (NCES, 2014). ELLs tend to fall into this category, as well.
Another challenge is college completion. Despite California having the largest Latino
population in the U.S., there are no California higher education institutions in the top five at the
associate or bachelor’s level graduating Latino students, according to Excelencia in Education, a
data driven organization which uses census data along with the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (Latino College Completion Report, 2014). California is a state that is
30 percent Latino, and even though enrollment numbers are high, only 16 percent Latinos who
are 25 and older possess an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. There appears to be a huge gap in
completion rates. According to Excelencia, the only way to get from enrollment to completion is
through retention.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 32
Latinos are part of the national future and need postsecondary degrees. According to
labor experts, by the year 2020 there will be 50 million new jobs in the U.S. that will require
some form of postsecondary degree or credential. Latinos will need to earn 5.5 million more
degrees above current levels by 2020 in order for the U.S. to regain the top ranking in the world
for college degree attainment (Mazyck, 2014). Unfortunately, universities aren’t graduating
enough Latinos to keep up with labor market demands.
Along with challenges, there are opportunities for real systemic change in the way
students of color are educated in the U.S. The adoption of Common Core Standards, as well as
the current movement for 21st Century learning, presents a unique opportunity for school
districts to better serve English language learners. Hakuta (2011) asserts that the evidence
suggesting cognitive benefits of bilingualism is very strong. Other researchers reaffirm the
findings of research over three decades, and that is the value in incorporating students’ primary
(non-English) language in instruction (Hakuta, 2011; Maxwell-Jolly & Gandara, 1997). The
discussion among districts should not be about whether or not to use the student’s native
language as an asset to enable English learners to become proficient in English, but rather how to
best provide a program that does so well. Again, this may be the way to truly educate students
for the 21
st
century.
Instructional Practices
Another theme that emerged in the ELL literature was that good instruction is an
important element for improving outcomes for ELLs. Good instruction is critical to student
achievement in a bilingual education program or any program (Hakuta, 2011). There is little
debate about what is required of a program that will improve outcomes for students; all of the
researchers emphasize effective instruction as the most critical element (Borrero, 2011; Calderon
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 33
et al., 2011; Hakuta, 2011). Hakuta (2010) outlines elements she found in a school district
(Sanger Unified) that went from program improvement to being named a California
Distinguished School. They were professional learning communities that were focused on
student learning, data, and instructional strategies. Good instruction seemed to remedy ELL’s
low achievement. The researcher found that, at this district, over 80 percent of ELLs attained
proficiency in English within seven years. Particularly explicit program of instruction for ELLs
and enhancing ELL students’ access to and comprehension of core academic subjects afforded
ELLs better outcomes (Hakuta, 2011). Effective schools matter and good instruction matters.
The third condition is effective instructional practices. The classroom is the most
important place for ELLs to attain success. Hakuta (2011) pointed to a variety of strategies to
attain better outcomes. One strategy is the institutionalizing of professional learning
communities. When teachers work together and focus on student learning, data, and
instructional strategies, students win. In order for a bilingual program to be effective, the staff
must have a common knowledge of what bilingual education is, and why it is important,
regardless of political ideology. The literature identified, as a problem, the lack of preparation
for dealing with English learners in the regular classroom. It is imperative that the work begins
with teachers. Teachers are at the forefront of education and must be the most well trained
professionals in best practices when it comes to working with ELLs.
The literature also has identified other specific instructional practices, such as cooperative
learning. More strategies can be identified through on-going and consistent professional
development in language acquisition. Schools can also play an important role in fostering
effective practices for English learners. Calderon et al. (2011) point to some of the elements in
school structure that yield positive results. Some of these include the constant collection and use
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 34
of ongoing formative data on learning -- figuring out who is learning and who is not and why.
Also important is a strong focus on providing support for staff in the form of professional
development. Another element of a great bilingual program is strong parent and family support.
The classroom is the place for the most impact. According to Calderon et al. (2011) what
matters most in educating ELLs is the quality of instruction. This instruction takes the form of
explicit teaching of vocabulary, decoding and fluency, and text comprehension (Calderon et al.,
2011; Collier, 1989; Cummings, 1980). For example, Cummings (1980) pioneered the term
cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALPS) as it refers to formal academic learning and
basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS). When teachers explicitly teach listening,
speaking, reading, and writing about subject area content material, there is an increase in student
success in school. Another prominent researcher, Collier (1989), also asserts that the language
needed for school is very complex and unique and that assuming that a child who carries on a
conversation, sounding like a native speaker, is completely proficient is inaccurate. Both
researchers agree that in order for a child to attain the type of language needed for demanding
tasks, such as those measured in standardized tests, require five to seven years of study in a
second language to reach native-speaker levels in school language and not the two to three years
needed to reach proficiency in basic language skills as is often thought (Collier, 1989;
Cummings, 1980). A better understanding of the important role of CALPS/BICS by educational
leaders and teachers can lead to better assessment, placement, and reclassification of ELLs.
Another challenge in ELLs receiving the effective instruction is teacher preparation.
According to an NEA Policy Brief (2011), only 29.5 percent of general education teachers have
opportunities for professional development in working with ELLs, even though most general
education teachers have at least one ELL in their classroom; only 20 states require all general
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 35
education teachers to complete coursework on working with ELLs; and only 27 percent said they
were “very well prepared” to meet the needs of ELLs while 12 percent reported they were “not at
all prepared”. An investigation by The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE)
in partnership with The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) set
out to identify three critical areas of knowledge in the area of pedagogy, linguistics, and cultural
and linguistic diversity among teachers of ELLs. What they found was the area of linguistics
receives less emphasis at both state and institutional levels; that few Institutions of Higher
Education (IHEs) offer bilingual teacher preparation, and less than 1/6 of teachers surveyed
require preparation for mainstream teachers to work with ELLs (Menken & Atunez, 2001). It is
imperative that teacher preparation programs examine the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
that mainstream teachers need to develop in order to better work with ELL (de Jong & Harper,
2005). They go on to contend that a “just good teaching” approach will simply not be good
enough because it fails to account for two of the most important learner variables affecting ELLs
school success –their success linguistic and cultural diversity (de Jong & Harper, 2005). Teacher
attitudes toward their students matter.
Research also points out that ELLs spend most of their time in regular classrooms with
teachers who feel that they are poorly prepared to meet their needs. As of 2000, 41 percent of
teachers had taught English learners, but only 13 percent had received any specialized training
(Calderon et al., 2011). According to Maxwell-Jolly and Gandara (1997), the most effective
teachers are prepared to use a combination of approaches, depending on the special needs of
individual students, and no single program is likely to provide the “magic bullet” for all ELL
students. Teachers have the ultimate power to improve student outcomes for ELLs; therefore
more resources and professional development are immediately needed.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 36
In a government-funded report, researchers outlined three findings about ELLs: (a)
Instruction in the primary language helps ELLs achieve. Teaching academic skills such as
reading in the first language is more effective in terms of second language achievement than
simply immersing students in English instruction; (b) Good instruction helps ELLs achieve.
ELLs learn much the same way as non-ELLs and good instruction for students in general tends
to be good instruction for ELLs in particular; and (c) English learners require instructional
accommodations. These include use of primary language for clarification and explanation, clear
instructions and expectations, predictable and consistent classrooms procedures; focusing on
similarities and differences between native language and English; building and recognizing
students’ attainment levels in their native language; identifying and clarifying difficult words and
passages within text to make comprehension easier; summarizing; giving students extra practice
in reading words, sentences and stories; giving attention to vocabulary; and paraphrasing
students’ remarks and encouraging them to elaborate on those remarks (August, Shanahan &
Escamilla, 2009).
Once again CCSS holds promising for ELLs. Lachat (2002) contends that the standards
movement has challenged educators to no longer accept low expectations for so many students,
educators should create stronger connections between what and how students learn in school and
how they will be expected to perform as adults, and that this is how students will develop the
reasoning and problem solving skills needed. CCSS calls for a shift in what is taught and how.
Educational equity has shifted in the 21
st
century form ‘access for all’ to ‘high quality education
for all’ (Lachat, 2002). If it delivers, ELL students will finally have access to the high quality
education they so desperately need to improve their educational outcomes.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 37
Summary
In conclusion, this literature review’s purpose was to illuminate some common threads in
the literature of ELLs. It began with a background of federal and state mandates for educating
ELLs. Next, it outlined some long-standing common themes in the literature. One such theme
was the pervasive gap in achievement between ELLs and Whites. Another was the
overshadowing role of public opinion dictating policies for educating ELLs. A third was the
power of good instruction for improving learning and academic outcomes for students. Lastly, is
the urgency of better educating ELLs, given that they now represent a fifth of the school
population and a significant portion of the future labor force.
What was missing in the literature of ELLs was documentation of any real progress on a
large scale. It is disconcerting to recognize that the concerns of researchers regarding ELLs have
spanned decades. The challenges of twenty years ago continue today, however, the stakes are so
much higher. The future of this country rests on the education of its young people. The intent of
this study is to determine if two area districts have experienced any positive changes in the
educational outcome of ELLs. The next chapter will outline the methodology used for the study.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 38
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to conduct a quantitative study to evaluate the longitudinal
changes in reclassification rates and the CST performance of ELL students in mathematics and
ELA over ten years in grades two through eight in the ABCUSD and BUSD. This study will
examine the reclassification rates of ELLs; the extent to which ELL performance has improved
in both urban districts; how the level of achievement compares to Whites, and how this progress;
or lack of, compares to other California districts. ELL students make up a large share of the
school population that ABC Unified and Bellflower Unified serve. With such fast growing
student population, it is important to analyze the extent to which performance on standardized
tests has been improving. The state has acknowledged the significance of educating ELLs;
therefore, examining the extent of progress will afford all stakeholders important information.
Documenting the longitudinal changes in ELL performance data in these two districts will help
determine if the districts are experiencing success in educating this growing group of students. It
may provide important information for researchers, surrounding districts and the districts
themselves about the direction of their efforts.
Research Questions
1. What are the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight in ELL
student outcomes for ABCUSD and BUSD in CST mathematics performance and ELA
CST performance?
2. How do ELLs compare to White students in student outcomes over the years of 2003-
2012? In other words, has the gap between the ELLs and White student population
increased, decreased, or remained the same in ABC and Bellflower Unified School
Districts?
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 39
3. How does ELL progress in ABC and Bellflower school districts compare to the top ten
ELL serving districts in California?
4. What are the longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD?
Research Design
The purpose of this study is to conduct a quantitative analysis to evaluate the longitudinal
changes in the CST performance of ELL students from 2003-2013 in mathematics and language
arts in grades two through eight in the ABC Unified School District and Bellflower Unified
School District. This study will examine the extent to which ELL performance has improved in
both urban districts; how the level of achievement compares to Whites; and how this progress, or
lack of progress, compares to other California districts. The independent variables for this study
are grade level and ELL student status as compared to White students. The dependent variable is
the performance outcome data (CST scores) in English Language Arts as reported by the
California Department of Education.
Setting
California’s landscape has been changing dramatically in the past decades. California
has the largest share of the English Language Learner (ELL) student population and it continues
to grow. According to the California Department of Education, in the 2012-2013 school year,
there were approximately 1.346 million English learners in California public schools, almost the
same as in 2011-2012 (CalEdFacts, 2014). The U.S. saw a 60 percent increase in the last decade
of English learners (Lee, 2013). This made up 10 percent of the total pre-K-12 student
population and 29 percent of the total students in California schools (NCES, 2014). It is
estimated that by 2020 over half of the public school student population will have non-English
speaking backgrounds (Lee, 2013). To address the educational needs of the growing number of
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 40
ELL students, California has delineated two district and school goals; (a) to ensure that English
learners acquire full proficiency in English as quickly and effectively as possible and attain
parity with native speakers of English; and (b) to ensure that English learners, within a
reasonable period of time, achieve the same rigorous grade-level academic standards that are
expected of all students (CDE, 2013). Educating ELL students has become the priority for
California school districts. The underachievement of this subgroup demands immediate national,
state, and local attention.
Bellflower Unified is nestled in the city of Bellflower, California. It is an urban
community in Los Angeles County. It serves the communities of Bellflower and parts of
Lakewood.
ABC Unified, on the other hand, represents five cities; Cerritos; parts of Lakewood; parts
of Artesia; Hawaiian Gardens; parts of Long Beach, and Norwalk. It is also an urban district in
Los Angeles County. Both districts share common demographics and profile of students.
Bellflower Unified is an urban district in Los Angeles County. It served 13,721 students in
2013. It has eleven elementary schools, two middle schools and three high schools. The student
population is made up of the following major ethnic groups: 62 percent Latino; 14 percent
African American; 12 percent white; and 5 percent Filipino. The ELL population is at 21 percent
and 67 percent free and reduced lunch. Bellflower is mainly a low-income Latino district that
has an ELL population where national statistics will soon hold true.
ABC Unified is also an urban district in Los Angeles County. It served 20,845 students
in 2013. It has nineteen elementary schools, five middle schools, and six high schools. The
major ethnic groups are the following: 44 percent Latino; 25 percent Asian; 11 percent Filipino;
and 9 percent African American (Ed Data, 2014). The number of ELLs is at 20 percent and 50
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 41
percent free and reduced lunch. The district is more diverse, but also has a significant number of
ELLs (one in five) and largely low-income.
Participants
The population for this study is defined as all ELL students who attended school in
grades 2-8 during the sampling time frame of 2002/2003-2012/2013 school years, in both
districts. ELL students are those who have been identified through a home survey as English
language learners.
One group of participants is from the Bellflower Unified School District. It served
13,721 students in 2013. It has eleven elementary schools, two middle schools and three high
schools. The student population is made up of the following major ethnic groups: 62 percent
Latino; 14 percent African American; 12 percent white; and 5 percent Filipino. The ELL
population is at 21 percent and 69 percent free and reduced lunch. Bellflower is a mainly a low-
income Latino district that has an ELL population demonstrative of national statistics (one in
five).
The other group is from the ABC Unified School District. It served 20,845 students in
2013. It has nineteen elementary schools, five middle schools, and six high schools. The major
ethnic groups are the following: 44 percent Latino; 25 percent Asian; 11 percent Filipino; and 9
percent African American (Ed Data, 2014). The number of ELLs is at 20 percent and it has a 50
percent free and reduced lunch student count. This district is more diverse, but also has a
significant number of ELLs (one in five) and is largely low-income.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 42
Instrumentation
The instrumentation for this study is the California Standards Test (CST). California has
been utilizing the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) to measure performance
of students in primary and secondary education for years; it is the cornerstone of the recent
statewide student assessment system. The purpose of STAR are to (a) provide individual results
to students, parents/guardians, and teachers; (b) to produce school, district, and county results for
grades two to eleven to monitor progress toward meeting state performance targets; and (c)
produce results that allow federal government to monitor progress toward meeting accountability
targets of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (CDE, 2013). The STAR
program had four separate assessment components: (a) California Alternative Performance
Assessment (CAPA), this alternative assessment is for students with significant cognitive
disabilities who have and individualized education program (IEP); (b) California Modified
Assessment (CMA), this alternative assessment is for students who have an IEP and meet the
CMA eligibility criteria; (c) California Standards Test (CST), this are criterion-referenced tests
that assess the California content standards in ELA, mathematics, science and history-social
science; and the (d) Standards-based Test in Spanish (STS) - a criterion referenced tests aligned
to the California content standards for reading/language arts and mathematics (CDE, 2014). For
the purpose of this study, only the CST score results will be analyzed.
The history of the STAR Program dates back to the late 90’s when it was established by
the Legislature. The California Legislature required that the State Board of Education (SBE)
designate a norm-referenced test for grades two through eleven and made it clear that the test be
augmented with items that assess specific content standards adopted by them (CDE, 2014). In
1999, the Legislature required the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), with the
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 43
approval of the SBE, provide for the development of an assessment instrument that would
measure the extent to which students in grades two to eleven were achieving California’s content
standards (CDE, 2014). In 2001, the Legislature required the SSPI, with the approval of the
SBE, provide achievement tests that were completely standard-based in ELA, mathematics,
science, and history-social science: these tests became the CSTs (CDE, 2014). Since their
inception, the CST has been the mandatory assessment measure for all public education
agencies. Also as a result, school, district, county, and state-level reports, disaggregated by
student’s English-language fluency, gender, economic status, and disability status must be
distributed to district and county officials by the CDE and posted on the CDE website by August
15 of each year (CDE, 2014).
The STAR Program was reauthorized in 2004 by the Legislature to continue to be
administered through 2011. Also in 2004, it was required that an achievement test in the most
common primary language for ELLs (Spanish) be developed which was aligned to state
standards in ELA and mathematics (STS), but in 2005 a bill changed this and required ELL
students to take the STAR test in English (CDE, 2014). In 2010, the STAR Program was
extended to July 1, 2013, but the STAR Program was declared inoperative July 1, 2014 (CDE,
2013). The reason that the program was stopped was that California joined the Smarter Balance
Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a new testing system, to align ELA and mathematics
assessment to the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) adopted by the SBE in 2010
(CDE, 2013).
Therefore, since 1999 all California students, including ELLs and students in special
education programs, had to participate in the STAR program and take the CST in ELA and
mathematics for grades two through eleven (CDE, 2014). The SBE approved five performance
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 44
levels for reporting STAR results: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic
(CDE, 2014). Performance levels describe student achievement on the California content
standards and individual student and group results are reported using scaled scores and
performance levels. According to the CDE website, the STAR Program, every spring, looks at
how well schools and students are performing. The test was designed to measure the extent to
which local educational agencies (LEAs) provide instruction in California content standards and
how well students are achieving the knowledge and skills in the various subjects as required by
the CDE.
Data Analysis
In order to evaluate the changes in CST performance in mathematics and language arts
from 2003-2013 in grades two through eight of student outcomes, CST scores will be analyzed
and charted to make comparisons and measure growth. Comparison tables will demonstrate
changes. The data for analysis will be obtained from one primary source: California Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program under the California Department of Education. Also,
interviews will be conducted with lead individuals at ABC USD and Bellflower USD in charge
of ELL services to gain some added insight to align with given results of the performance of
ELLs.
Research Questions
1. What are the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight in ELL
student outcomes for ABCUSD and BUSD in CST mathematics performance and ELA
CST performance?
2. How do ELLs compare to White students in student outcomes over the years of 2003-
2012? In other words, has the gap between the ELLs and White student population
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 45
increased, decreased, or remained the same in ABC and Bellflower Unified School
Districts?
3. How does ELL progress in ABC and Bellflower school districts compare to the top ten
ELL serving districts in California?
4. What are the longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD?
Internal and External Validity
The process of validation involves accumulating evidence to provide a sound scientific
basis for the proposed score interpretations. It is the interpretations of test scores for proposed
uses that are evaluated, not the test itself. The process for such evaluation can be found on the
CST technical report. For the purpose of this study, it will be assumed that the instrument (CST)
used (CST) to assess student performance is valid.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to conduct a quantitative study to evaluate the longitudinal
changes in the performance of ELL students over the past ten years in grades two to eight in the
ABC Unified and Bellflower Unified School Districts. This study will examine the extent, to
which ELL performance has improved in both urban districts; how the level of achievement
compares to Whites, and how this progress, or lack of, compares to other California districts.
ELL students make up a large share of the school population that ABC Unified and Bellflower
Unified serve. With such fast growing student populations, it is important to analyze the extent
to which performance on standardized tests has been improving. The state has acknowledged the
significance of educating ELLs; therefore, examining the extent of progress will afford all
stakeholders important information. Documenting the longitudinal changes in ELL performance
data in these two districts will help determine if the districts are experiencing success in
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 46
educating this growing group of students. It may provide important information for researchers,
surrounding districts and the districts themselves about the direction of their efforts. The
following chapter will discuss the results of this study.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 47
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to conduct a quantitative study to evaluate the longitudinal
changes in the performance of English learners from 2003 to 2013 in grades two to eight in the
ABC Unified and Bellflower Unified School Districts. This study examined the extent to which
ELL performance improved in both urban districts; how the level of achievement compared to
Whites, and how this progress, or lack of, compared to other California districts. ELL students
make up a large share of the school population that ABC Unified and Bellflower Unified serve.
With such a fast growing student population, it is important to analyze the extent to which
performance on standardized tests improved.
The state has acknowledged the significance of educating ELLs, therefore, examining the
extent of progress will afford all stakeholders important information. Documenting the
longitudinal changes in ELL performance data in these two districts will help determine if the
districts are experiencing success in educating this growing group of students. It may provide
important information for researchers, surrounding districts and the districts themselves. It may
also inform and help to set the direction of their efforts. This chapter will include the general
aspects of the research; a reporting of the findings, which will be organized by research question;
and a discussion, which will include a reflection on findings and provide insight about what the
findings mean. It will finally identify themes that emerged in the research.
Research Questions
1. What are the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight in ELL
student outcomes for ABCUSD and BUSD in CST mathematics performance and ELA
CST performance?
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 48
2. How do ELLs compare to White students in student outcomes over the years of 2003-
2012? In other words, has the gap between the ELLs and White student population
increased, decreased, or remained the same in ABC and Bellflower Unified School
Districts?
3. How does ELL progress in ABC and Bellflower school districts compare to the top ten
ELL serving districts in California?
4. What are the longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD?
Research Question One
What are the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight ELL (EL and
RFEP) student outcomes in ABC and Bellflower Unified School Districts?
The California Standards Tests (CSTs) measure the achievement of California state
standards in English-language arts, mathematics, science, and history-social science for grades 2-
11 (Ed-Data, 2014). All students in grades 2-11 take the CST in English-language arts. In grades
2-7, students take the same grade-level math test. For grades 8-11, the test depends on the
specific math course in which the student is enrolled. For example, in some areas 8
th
graders
begin Algebra I, while in others areas they may take the General Mathematics CST, which tests
grades 6 and 7 standards, until they complete Algebra I (Ed-Data, 2014).
The State Board of Education set five benchmarks to indicate a student’s proficiency on
the CST. These levels are “advanced,” “proficient,” “basic,” “below basic,” and “far below
basic,” and are based on a student’s scale score on the test. For example, students who score
between 300 and 349 fall with in the performance band of “basic.” The cut scores for “basic”
(300) and “proficient” (350) stay the same every year, but the scores for other achievement levels
may vary slightly among grade levels and from year to year. The State Board of Education has
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 49
established “proficient” or above as the desired achievement goal for all students (Ed-Data,
2014). This benchmark includes ELLs.
STAR results are reported by the CDE at the state, county, district, and school levels.
Results are provided for all students, as well as by gender, ethnicity, parent education, and
English-language proficiency. For groups of less than ten students, results are not reported to
protect the privacy of the students. Also, no individual student scores are reported publicly. They
are only to be reviewed by the student’s parents, teacher, and local district officials and only in
the school district where the student was tested (Ed-Data, 2014). STAR results reported by the
CDE for the years 2002-2003 and 2012-2013 will be utilized for this section.
For the purpose of this research, an English Language Learner is a student who does not
speak English, or whose native language is not English and who is not currently able to perform
ordinary classwork in English. The California Standardized Test (CST) is the instrument used to
measure achievement. The data was obtained from the Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program listed under the California Department of Education website. The CSTs were
first implemented in 2001 under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The tests were first
administered in 2001.
The finding of this research is that both districts experienced success in elevating the
achievement levels of their ELL students. ABC Unified in 2003 had an average of 20 percent of
ELL students scoring proficient or above in language arts and by 2013, that average had
increased to 36 percent. This increase was an average of 16 percentage points over ten years in
grades two to eighth. Some grade levels had a much higher increase over the ten-year period.
The grade with the highest point difference was second grade, with an increase of 27 percentage
points over the ten-year period. The grade with the least point difference was eighth-grade, with
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 50
an increase of three percentage points. A trend appeared to be that the lower elementary grades
(2-5) experienced the greatest increase in students scoring proficient and above in language arts
with an average of 22 percentage points increase, while the later grades (6-8) experienced the
lower difference in point increase with an average of eight percentage points increase.
In mathematics, the trend continued with an improvement of ELL students scoring
proficient or above. The longitudinal changes demonstrate an increase in student achievement
over the ten-year period. ABC Unified in 2003 had an average of 30 percent of ELL students
scoring proficient or above in mathematics in grades two through eight and by 2013, that average
had increased to 48 percent. This increase measured 18 percentage points over ten years. Some
grade levels had a much higher increase over the ten-year period. The grade with the highest
point difference was third-grade, with an increase of 26 percentage points over the ten-year
period. The grade with the least point difference was sixth-grade, with an increase of 12
percentage points. A trend again appeared to be that the lower elementary grades (2-5)
experienced the greatest increase in students scoring proficient and above in mathematics with an
average of 20 percentage points increase, while the later grades (6-8) experienced the lower
difference in point increase with an average of 15 percentage points increase.
Students at BUSD also demonstrated an increase in achievement in English language
arts. BUSD in 2003 had an average of 11 percent of ELL students scoring proficient or above
and by 2013 that average had increased to 26 percent. This was an increase of 15 percentage
points over ten years in grades two to eight. Some grade levels had a much higher increase over
the ten-year period. The grade with the highest point difference was fourth-grade, with an
increase of 25 percentage points over the ten-year period. The grade with the least point
difference was in seventh grade with an increase of four percentage points. A trend at BUSD
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 51
appeared to be that the lower elementary grades (2-4) experienced the greatest increase in
students scoring proficient and above in language arts with an average of 21 percentage points
increase, while the later grades (5-8) experienced the lower difference in point increase with an
average of 10 percentage points increase.
In mathematics, the trend continued with more ELL students scoring proficient or above
at BUSD by 2013. The longitudinal changes demonstrate an increase in student achievement
over the ten-year period. BUSD, in 2003, had an average of 22 percent of ELL students scoring
proficient or above in mathematics and by 2013, that average had increased to 40 percent. This
increase of 18 percentage points was measured over ten years in grades two to eight. Some
grade levels had a much higher increase over the ten-year period. The grade with the highest
point difference was fifth-grade, with an increase of 31 percentage points over the ten-year
period. The grade with the least point difference was sixth and seventh-grade, with an increase of
eight percentage points each. A trend, again, appeared to be that the lower elementary grades (2-
5) experienced the greatest increase in students scoring proficient and above in mathematics with
an average of 22 percentage points increase, while the later grades (6-8) experienced the lower
difference in point increase with an average of 13 percentage points increase.
Both ABC and BUSD have elementary schools, which serve grades K-6, and middle
schools, which are for students in grades 6-8. It appears that a much higher number of ELL
students attained proficient or above status in elementary grades (2-6) than they did in middle
school grades (7-8). The percentage of students attaining proficient or above in ELA at BUSD,
ranged in scores from 26 percent to 45 percent proficient or above at the elementary school grade
levels (grades 2-6). However, the percentage decreased in middle school (grades 7-8). In middle
school, the range of ELLs attaining proficiency in language arts grew from eight percent to 11
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 52
percent. In mathematics, the trend was similar. The range of students attaining proficient or
above ranged from 25 percent to 65 percent proficient in elementary grades (2-6). In middle
school, the percentage of students scoring proficient or above fell to 11 percent in seventh grade.
At ABC, the percentage of ELL students scoring proficient or above in ELA in
elementary school ranged from 27 percent to 58 percent, and in middle school the numbers
dropped to 12 percent and 23 percent proficient or above. In mathematics, the ranges were also
lower at the middle school than the elementary. The range of ELLs scoring proficient or above
in elementary (2-6) was 32 percent to 68 percent and in middle school (7-8) the range was from
30 percent and 39 percent in 2013. It appears that students scored higher levels of proficient or
above in elementary grades than they did in the middle school grades.
When comparing the longitudinal progress of ABC and Bellflower, the findings proved
that ABC experienced a higher success rate average than Bellflower in the achievement scores of
English learners. In English Language Arts (ELA), the results for the years 2003-2013
demonstrate an increase in achievement in all grade levels. As Table 1 shows, both districts
experienced growth in ELA achievement, and the increase is listed by grade level. ABC
experienced its highest increase of 27 percentage points in second grade. Its score rose from 31
percent proficient or above in 2003 to 58 percent of ELLs scoring proficient or above in 2013 in
ELA, an increase of 27 percentage points. BUSD attained its highest score increase in grade four
with 20 percent of students scoring proficient or above in 2003, and by 2013, that number rose to
45 percent of students scoring proficient or above in ELA. This was an increase of 25
percentage points for that grade level by 2013. It is clear that both districts experienced a hike in
achievement from 2003 to 2013. Overall, the average percentage of students scoring proficient or
above in ELA in grades two to eight was 26 percent for Bellflower and 36 percent for ABC.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 53
There was a 10 percent point difference in favor of ABC. Therefore, the longitudinal student
achievement was higher for ABCUSD than for BUSD in the years 2003-2013 in ELA.
Table 1
Summary of Increase in Percent Proficient or Above in English Language Arts from 2003-2013
for ELLs (Appendices A and B)
ABC Change in BUSD Change in
2003 2013 Percentage 2003 2013 Percentage
Grade 2 .31 .58 +27 .24 .41 +17
Grade 3 .23 .39 +16 .18 .26 +8
Grade 4 .30 .51 +21 .20 .45 +25
Grade 5 .16 .40 +24 0.3 .26 +23
Grade 6 .15 .27 +12 0.8 .26 +18
Grade 7 .14 .23 +9 0.4 0.8 +4
Grade 8 .09 .12 +3 0.3 .11 +8
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
In mathematics, the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight ELL
student outcomes in ABC and Bellflower Unified School Districts were equal. Table 2
demonstrates the variations in achievement. BUSD experienced a higher success rate, but the
growth was identical. In 2003, ABC had an average of 30 percent students scoring proficient or
above. By 2013, the number had increased to 48 percent; ABC had a growth of 18 percentage
points. BUSD had an average of 22 percent of students scoring proficient or above in 2003, and
that number grew to 40 percent in 2013. There was an increase of 18 percentage points. Both
districts grew at the same degree. Some of the grade levels with the highest increase were the
lower elementary grades. At ABC, grades two to four had an average of 65 percent of ELL
students scoring proficient or above, while at BUSD the average for the same grade levels was
57 percent -- the higher the grade, the lower the percentage. The lowest percentage was found at
BUSD in 7
th
grade with only 11 percent of ELL students scoring proficient or above by 2013. At
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 54
ABC, the lowest percentage was found in eighth-grade, with 30 percent of ELL students scoring
proficient or above.
Overall, in mathematics, it appears both districts experienced equal growth. Although
both districts experienced similar growth in achievement, the actual percentage of students
scoring proficient or above was higher for ABC. ABC’s scores were eight percentage points
higher than BUSD. The ELL students at ABC experienced a higher success rate in student
outcomes than the ELL students at BUSD in mathematics for the ten-year period.
Table 2
Summary of Increase in Percent Proficient or Above in Mathematics from 2003-2013 for ELLs
(Appendices A and B)
ABC Change in BUSD Change in
2003 2013 Percentage 2003 2013 Percentage
Grade 2 .47 .68 +21 .45 .56 +11
Grade 3 .39 .65 +26 .34 .51 +17
Grade 4 .44 .62 +18 .37 .65 +28
Grade 5 .23 .37 +14 .13 .42 +29
Grade 6 .20 .32 +12 .17 .25 +8
Grade 7 .20 .39 +19 .03 .11 +8
Grade 8 .15 .30 +15 .04 .27 +23
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
The longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight ELL (EL and RFEP)
student outcomes in ABC and Bellflower Unified School Districts demonstrate an overall
improvement. This improvement is also evident even though the pool of ELL students has
decreased across the state. According to the Digest of Education Statistics in 2002-03, the
number of students participating in programs for English learners was 1,587,771 or 26 percent of
students and in 2012-13 that number was 1,391,913 or 23 percent of students (NCES, 2014). One
interpretation of this data is that the size of this group of students has decreased as a result of
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 55
being re-designated and thus exiting English learner programs. The efforts in the state of
California to improve student outcomes have had a positive effect.
Research Question Two
How do ELLs compare to White students in student outcomes over the ten-year period? In other
words, has the gap between the ELLs and White student population increased, decreased, or
remained the same in ABC and Bellflower Unified School Districts?
A gap in achievement between students of color and Whites and others is known as
“achievement gap.” At both ABC and BUSD, this achievement gap appears to be persistent with
ELL students.
This persistent achievement gap is a reality in both districts. Bellflower experienced
limited success in decreasing the achievement gap between Whites and English Learners in the
lower grades over the period of 2003 to 2013, but not so in the later grades. Table 3 shows that,
although the gap still existed in grades two, three, and four, the achievement gap decreased
equally by five points in each grade level over the ten-year period. However, in grades five to
eight, the gap increased at every grade. It had a great increase in the middle school grades of
seven and eight. In grade seven, the gap in achievement in 2003 was 38 points, and it grew by
21 points, so that in 2013 there was a 59-point gap in achievement. In grade eight, the
achievement gap had increased by 24 points and it had a 50-point gap in achievement. In the
years 2003 to 2013, the gap in achievement did not decrease in a majority of the grades, in fact, it
increased. Bellflower did not experience success in closing the achievement gap between Whites
and English learners in English Language Arts.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 56
Table 3
Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap 2003-2013 in ELA at BUSD
(Appendix C)
BUSD 2003 BUSD 2013
ELL White Gap ELL White Gap Change
Grade 2 .24 .48 24 .41 .60 19 -5
Grade 3 .18 .45 27 .26 .48 22 -5
Grade 4 .20 .48 28 .45 .78 33 -5
Grade 5 .03 .40 37 .26 .65 39 +2
Grade 6 .08 .46 38 .26 .72 46 +8
Grade 7 .04 .42 38 .08 .67 59 +21
Grade 8 .03 .29 26 .11 .61 50 +24
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
Closing the achievement gap was a challenge in mathematics as well. Once again,
Bellflower experienced limited success in closing the achievement gap in all grades. In grades
two through five, the gap decreased. Grade two had the most success. By 2013, the
achievement gap had decreased by 26 points in grade two; in grade three, it had decreased by 25
points; in grade four, it had decreased by 20 points; and in grade five, it decreased by five points.
However, the achievement gap between Whites and English learners increased dramatically in
grades six through eight. In grade six, the gap grew from 30-points in 2003 to 45-points in 2013;
a growth of 15 points. In grade seven, the gap, again, increased from 24-points to 51 points –a
growth of 27 points. In grade eight, the gap increased from 11 points to 25 points –a growth of
14 points. Although, Bellflower experienced an overall improvement in ELL achievement in
ELA, the gap in achievement between Whites and ELL did not decrease: it had an overall
increase, particularly in grades six to eight. As was the case with ELA, by 2013 the gap in
achievement in mathematics did not decrease. Although, Bellflower experienced an overall
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 57
improvement in ELL achievement in mathematics, the gap between Whites and ELL did not
decrease: it increased. Whites continue to outperform ELL students by a wide margin.
Table 4
Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap for 2003-2013 in
Mathematics at BUSD (Appendix C)
BUSD 2003 BUSD 2013
ELL White Gap ELL White Gap Change
Grade 2 .24 .68 44 .56 .74 18 -26
Grade 3 .18 .55 37 .51 .73 22 -15
Grade 4 .20 .54 34 .65 .79 14 -20
Grade 5 0.3 .44 41 .42 .79 37 -4
Grade 6 0.8 .38 30 .25 .70 45 +15
Grade 7 0.4 .28 24 .11 .62 51 +27
Grade 8 0.3 .14 11 .27 .52 25 +14
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
Closing the achievement gap was also a challenge at ABC. The district had limited
success in closing the achievement gap between Whites and English learners in English language
arts. Only in grade three did the achievement gap narrow; in grade two it remained the same; and
in the rest of the grades the achievement gap widened. In grade four the achievement gap grew
from 19 to 29 points; in grade five the gap grew from 31 to 38 points; in grade six the gap grew
from 32 to 54 points; in grade seven the gap grew from 24 to 53; and in grade eight it grew from
35 to 63. The gap in achievement increased in all but one of the grades of the grades. ABC did
not experience success in closing the gap of achievement between Whites and English learners in
the area of English language arts. On average the achievement gap increased by 13 points.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 58
Table 5
Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap for 2003-2013 in ELA at
ABC (Appendix C)
ABC 2003 ABC 2013
ELL White Gap ELL White Gap Change
Grade 2 .31 .49 18 .58 .76 18 0
Grade 3 .23 .45 22 .39 .59 20 -2
Grade 4 .30 .49 19 .51 .80 29 +10
Grade 5 .16 .47 31 .40 .78 38 +7
Grade 6 .15 .47 32 .27 .81 54 +22
Grade 7 .14 .38 24 .23 .76 53 +29
Grade 8 0.9 .44 35 .12 .75 63 +28
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
Table 6
Longitudinal Changes in White and ELL Student Achievement Gap for 2003-2013 in
Mathematics at ABC (Appendix C)
ABC 2003 ABC 2013
ELL White Gap ELL White Gap Change
Grade 2 .47 .63 16 .68 .87 19 +3
Grade 3 .39 .55 16 .65 .84 19 +3
Grade 4 .44 .53 9 .62 .80 18 +9
Grade 5 .23 .39 16 .37 .82 45 +29
Grade 6 .20 .44 24 .32 .72 40 +16
Grade 7 .20 .34 14 .39 .64 25 +11
Grade 8 .15 .32 17 .30 .44 14 -3
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
In mathematics, the gap between Whites and English learners widened in all but grade
eight in the ten-year span at ABC. Here, again, there was no success in closing the gap in
achievement. The increase was greatest in grade five where that gap increased by 29 points. In
the other grades, the gap also increased: grade two the gap increased from 16 to 19 points; grade
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 59
four the gap increased from 16 to 19 points; grade 4 the gap increased from 9 to 18 points; grade
five the gap increased from 16 to 45 points; in grade six, the gap increased from 24 to 40 points;
and in grade seven, the gap grew from 14 to 27 points. Only in grade eight did the gap narrow
from 17 to 14: a decrease of three points. It is important to note that although ELL students
improved in performance, the achievement gap between Whites and English learners at ABC
widened in all but eighth grade between 2003 and 20013. On average the gap increased by ten
points.
Table 7
Comparison White and RFEP in ELA at BUSD 2003-2013(Appendix D)
BUSD 2003 BUSD 2013
Whites RFEP Gap White RFEP Gap
Grade 2 .48 N/A * .60 N/A *
Grade 3 .45 .83 38 .48 .83 35
Grade 4 .48 .98 50 .78 .98 20
Grade 5 .40 .91 51 .65 .91 26
Grade 6 .46 .89 43 .72 .89 17
Grade 7 .42 .61 19 .67 .61 -6
Grade 8 .29 .68 39 .61 .68 7
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 60
Table 8
Comparison White and RFEP in Mathematics at BUSD 2003-2013 (Appendix D)
BUSD 2003 BUSD 2013
Whites RFEP Gap White RFEP Gap
Grade 2 .68 N/A * .74 N/A *
Grade 3 .55 N/A * .73 .93 20
Grade 4 .54 .56 2 .79 .96 17
Grade 5 .44 .44 0 .79 .88 9
Grade 6 .38 .47 9 .70 .77 7
Grade 7 .28 .32 4 .62 .58 -4
Grade 8 .14 .19 5 .52 .63 11
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
At BUSD, the performance gap in grades two to eight varied according to subject area.
In each grade level, there was a gap in favor of RFEPs. The gap existed in 2003 and continued
in 2013. By 2013, the gap in ELA between Whites and RFEP students ranged from 20 to 35
points in grades two to five. RFEP students in grades four attained 98 percent proficient or
above, while Whites attained 78 percent proficient or advanced. The gap lessened in grades six
to eight. In grade seven, the gap actually was in favor of Whites, and it is the only grade in
which the gap was reversed by six points. In mathematics, that gap also existed in 2003, but was
much less. The range was only from two to nine points. In 2013, the gap had widened with a
range of seven to 20 points. In both subject areas, it is apparent that RFEP students
outperformed White students.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 61
Table 9
Comparison White and RFEP in ELA at ABC 2003-2013 (Appendix E)
ABC 2003 ABC 2013
Whites RFEP Gap White RFEP Gap
Grade 2 .49 .79 * .76 NA *
Grade 3 .45 .85 38 .59 .92 35
Grade 4 .49 .84 50 .80 .98 20
Grade 5 .47 .68 51 .78 .89 26
Grade 6 .47 .68 43 .81 .91 17
Grade 7 .38 .66 19 .76 .82 -6
Grade 8 .44 .56 39 .75 .72 7
Source: California Department of Education STAR Reports
Table 10
Comparison White and RFEP in Mathematics at ABC 2003-2013 (Appendix E)
ABC 2003 ABC 2013
Whites RFEP Gap White RFEP Gap
Grade 2 .63 .79 16 .87 N/A *
Grade 3 .55 .87 48 .84 .99 15
Grade 4 .53 .84 31 .80 .97 17
Grade 5 .39 .64 25 .82 .90 8
Grade 6 .44 .68 24 .72 .82 8
Grade 7 .34 .61 27 .64 .76 12
Grade 8 .32 .40 8 .44 .52 8
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
In summary, students who are reclassified outperformed White students in both districts
and in ELA and mathematics. Reclassifying students appears to have a significant impact on
achievement. In all grades this trend was true. In grade three at ABC Unified, 99 percent of
RFEP scored proficient or above. Therefore, one way to close the achievement gap is to help
more students reclassify as early as possible.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 62
Research Question Three:
How does ELL progress in ABC and Bellflower school districts compare to progress in the top
ten ELL serving districts in California?
California has the largest share of the ELL student population in the United States, and it
continues to grow. According to the California Department of Education, in the 2012-2013
school year, there were approximately 1.346 million English learners in California public
schools, almost the same as in 2011-2012 (CalEdFacts, 2014). By the spring of 2014, that
number had increased to 1.413 million, constituting 22.7 percent of the total enrollment in
California public schools—more than any other state in the country and accounting for almost
one-third of English Learners in the entire U.S. (CDE, 2015). The majority of English Learners
(73 percent) are enrolled in the elementary grades, kindergarten through grade six. The rest (27
percent) are enrolled in the secondary grades, seven through twelve, and in the ungraded
category (CDE, 2015). A total of 2,685,793 students speak a language other than English in their
homes, representing about 43 percent of the state’s public school enrollment (CDE, 2015). It is
estimated that by 2020 over half of the public school student population will have non-English
speaking backgrounds (Lee, 2013). To address the educational needs of the growing number of
ELL students, California has delineated two district and school goals; (a) to ensure that English
learners acquire full proficiency in English as quickly and effectively as possible and attain
parity with native speakers of English; and (b) to ensure that English learners, within a
reasonable period of time, achieve the same rigorous grade-level academic standards that are
expected of all students (CDE, 2015). Although English learner data are collected for 60
language groups, 95 percent speak one of the top ten languages in the state: Spanish 84.24
percent; Vietnamese 2.3 percent; Pilipino 1.4 percent; Cantonese 1.3 percent; Mandarin 1.2
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 63
percent; Arabic 1.1 percent; Hmong 0.9 percent; Korean 0.9 percent; Punjabi 0.6 percent; and
Russian 0.5 percent (CDE, 2015). Educating this significant and growing population of ELL
students has become the priority for California school districts.
English Learners can be found in districts throughout California. The top ten ELL
serving districts include: Los Angeles Unified 171,000; San Diego Unified 34,000; Santa Ana
Unified 26,000; Garden Grove Unified 19,000; Long Beach Unified 18,000; Fresno Unified
17,000; San Bernardino City Unified 15,000; San Francisco Unified 15,000; Oakland Unified
14,000; and Fontana Unified 13,000 (EdTrust, 2014). Each of these ten districts educates 25
percent of the state’s ELL students. Findings suggest that ABC and Bellflower’s success in
educating ELL students is comparable and, in some cases, better than other school districts in
California.
Table 11 and 12 compare the top ten ELL serving districts, ABC and Bellflower districts,
and scores for the state of California. These districts have the largest ELL student population.
The scores are a sample of CST performance in grade four in the years 2003 and 2013 according
to the California Department of Education’s STAR reports. The tables also highlight the change
in achievement in both ELA and mathematics. ABC and Bellflower’s ELA performance
improvement was better than all, or most, of the top ten districts. ABC outperformed the top
ten ELL serving districts in the area of language arts. The difference in improvement scores was
one point more than twice that of the state of California.
Bellflower was in the top three. Only San Diego Unified and ABC Unified scored a higher point
difference. In math, they outperformed eight of the ten districts. Only San Diego Unified and
Fresno Unified had a higher growth than the twenty-eight-point growth that ABC and Bellflower
each experienced. However, they had a six-point growth advantage over the state scores. The
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 64
progress of ABC and Bellflower Unified was higher than a majority of the top ten districts with
high ELL student population, and its progress was higher than the overall state of California’s
progress.
Table 11
Comparison of Top ELL Serving Districts, State of CA, BUSD and ABC in Student Performance
English Language Arts for Grade Four 2003-2013 (Appendix F)
District 2003 2013 Change
ABC Unified .20 .51 +31
San Diego Unified .17 .44 +27
Bellflower Unified .20 .45 +25
Fontana Unified .09 .30 +21
Long Beach Unified .16 .34 +18
Oakland Unified .06 .23 +17
San Bernardino Unified .10 .25 +15
State of California .15 .30 +15
Fresno Unified .11 .25 +14
Santa Ana Unified .10 .21 +11
Garden Grove Unified .27 .37 +10
San Francisco Unified .25 .32 +7
Los Angeles Unified .14 .15 +1
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 65
Table 12
Comparison of Top ELL Serving Districts, State of CA, BUSD, and ABC in Student Performance
for Mathematics in Grade Four 2003-2013 (Appendix F)
District 2003 2013 Change
San Diego Unified .24 .61 +37
Fresno Unified .22 .57 +35
ABC Unified .37 .65 +28
Bellflower Unified .37 .65 +28
Fontana Unified .24 .51 +27
Long Beach Unified .29 .56 +27
Garden Grove Unified .49 .75 +26
San Bernardino Unified .28 .52 +24
Oakland Unified .20 .43 +23
Santa Ana Unified .24 .47 +23
State of California .29 .51 +22
San Francisco Unified .41 .55 +14
Los Angeles Unified .31 .42 +11
(Source: California Department of Education STAR Report)
Research Question Four
What are the longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD from
2003 to 2013?
Reclassifying students is important to English learners. During the years 2003 to 2013,
ABC demonstrated negative changes in reclassification rates. Table 13 shows these changes.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 66
Overall by 2013, 11.6 percent of students were reclassified at ABC (a total of 476 students out of
4,228). This rate was a decrease from 2003 when their percentage was higher at 12.3 percent (a
total of 604 students out of 4,806). The rate of reclassification dropped by 0.7 percent. Also,
when comparing these numbers to the state numbers, ABC’s numbers of reclassified also showed
a negative change. The percentage was lower than the state’s by 0.6 percentage points. Fewer
students were being reclassified over the years of the study; ABC did not demonstrate
improvement in this area.
Bellflower’s reclassification rate showed improvement. In 2003, the rate of students
being reclassified was eight percent (211 students out of 2706); however, by 2013 that number
had increased to eight and a half percent (248 students out of 2,796). The longitudinal change
was positive and demonstrated a half of a percentage increase over the years of this study. This
number was lower than the state’s percentage by 3.7 percent points.
Table 13
Reclassification Percentage Rates from 2003-2013 (Appendix F)
Year ABC Bellflower State
2013 11.6 8.5 12.2
2012 12.0 10.8 16.3
2011 12.3 7.8 11.6
2010 11.0 8.0 10.8
2009 11.8 9.5 9.6
2008 13.6 5.0 9.2
2007 11.1 6.0 9.6
2006 12.8 5.4 9.0
2005 15.5 12.6 8.3
2004 15.3 9.9 7.7
2003 12.3 8.0 7.8
Source: California Department of Education STAR Report
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 67
The longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD from 2003
to 2013 were positive for Bellflower and negative for ABC. Bellflower demonstrated
improvement, while ABC’s rate decreased slightly; however, ABC’s percentage of student
reclassified was higher than ABC’s by 3.1 percentage points. Reclassifying students is a priority
and both ABC’s and Bellflower’s outcomes showed an upward trend.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 68
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this study suggest that longitudinal progress was made at both ABC and
Bellflower Unified. The data used for analysis in this study were obtained form the California
Department of Education Data and Statistics reporting site. The four guiding research questions
were the following:
1. What are the longitudinal changes (2003 to 2013) in grade two through eight in ELL
student outcomes for ABCUSD and BUSD in CST mathematics performance and ELA
CST performance?
2. How do ELLs compare to White students in student outcomes over the years of 2003-
2012? In other words, has the gap between the ELLs and White student population
increased, decreased, or remained the same in ABC and Bellflower Unified School
Districts?
3. How does ELL progress in ABC and Bellflower school districts compare to the top ten
ELL serving districts in California?
4. What are the longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD?
Longitudinal Changes for English Learners
Both districts demonstrated improved achievement outcomes in language arts and
mathematics with their English language learners. In language arts, ABC boosted average
student achievement scores from 30 percent to 48 percent: this was an increase of 18 points from
2003 to 2013 in grades two to eight. Some grades experienced higher outcome growth than
others. Most progress was observed in the elementary grades. Second grade experienced the
greatest increase in achievement with 27-points, while eighth-grade saw the lowest growth with a
3-point increase; however, all grades experienced growth. In mathematics, ABC experienced an
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 69
18-point increase in percentage of students scoring proficient or above. Their number grew from
30 percent to 48 percent of ELL scoring proficient or above in mathematics by 2013. As was the
case with language arts, there was much higher growth in the elementary grades, although grade
eight did see a growth of 23 points by 2013. The ELL students at ABC demonstrated positive
longitudinal change.
Bellflower also experienced positive longitudinal change. In language arts, Bellflower
had an average of 11 percent of ELL students scoring proficient or above, and by 2013 that
average had increased to 26 percent: a growth of 15 points. As was the case with language arts,
some grades did better than others. In the elementary grades, grade two had the highest progress
with a 27-point increase in their math scores: scores rose from 31 percent to 58 percent. The
grade with the least progress was eight-grade with 3-point increase; however, all grades
demonstrated some growth. The average growth in grades two to eight was 16 points form 2003-
2013. In mathematics, the scores also rose. In 2003, the average of ELL scoring proficient or
above was at 22 percent, and by 2012 the average had risen to 40 percent: an increase of 18
points. The grade with the highest increase in achievement scores was grade five: scores rose
from 13 percent to 42 percent. Both districts experienced positive longitudinal change in
language arts and mathematics. RFEP student scores also fared better in 2012 in both districts. In
both districts, grade four showed the most success: 98 percent of RFEP students scored
proficient or above in language arts by 2012 (an increase of 14 points at ABC and 55 points at
Bellflower from the scores in 2003). The average percentage of RFEP students scoring
proficient or above was 83 percent for ABC and 79 percent for Bellflower. Overall, both districts
experienced positive longitudinal change. ABC outperformed Bellflower in student outcomes,
but both districts improved student achievement for ELL.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 70
Comparison to Whites
When comparing achievement outcomes of ELL and White students at both districts, the
results were alarming: there was a persistent gap in achievement, and in some grades, the gap in
achievement grew even wider over the ten-year period. This was the case at Bellflower, where
in eight grade the gap increased by 24 points in language arts. The lower grades experienced
some success; in grades two to four, the gap decreased by 5 points in each grade.
In mathematics, the gap between ELLs and Whites was decreased in the lower grades
more so than in the later grades. Grade two saw the highest gains by narrowing the gap by 26
points; however, in grade seven the gap increased by 27 points. ABC only narrowed the gap in
grade three by 3 points. Every other grade level saw no change (grade two) or the gap increased
by over twenty points (grade 6,7 and 8): in grade seven the gap widened by 29 points from 2003
to 2012. In mathematics, the gap once again widened for all grades except one (eight grade). In
grade five the gap was at 45 points in 2012: this is an increase of 29 points from 2003. Both
districts did not show positive longitudinal change in closing the achievement gap between
Whites and English learners.
Comparison to the Top Ten ELL Serving Districts in California
English learner progress in ABC and Bellflower compares favorably to other California
districts. Performance of both districts was compared to the top ten ELL serving districts in
California. The findings suggest that ABC’s and Bellflower’s ELA performance improvement
was equal to or better than nine of the top ten districts. The only district whose growth was
greater was San Diego Unified; its growth was 6 points higher than ABC’s, and 2 points higher
than Bellflower’s progress. ABC had 6 points growth gain over California’s state scores, while
Bellflower had 10 points higher than the state’s scores.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 71
In mathematics, ABC Unified outperformed seven of the ten districts. Only San Diego
Unified, Fresno Unified, and Santa Ana Unified had a higher growth than the 28-point growth
that ABC and Bellflower each experienced. In addition, they had a 6-point growth advantage
over the state’s scores. The progress of ABC and Bellflower Unified was higher than a majority
of the top ten ELL serving districts, and their progress was higher than the overall progress for
the state of California in both language arts and mathematics.
Reclassification of ELLs
The longitudinal changes in reclassification rates in both BUSD and ABCUSD from 2003
to 2013 were negative for Bellflower and for ABC in English language arts. In mathematics the
gap increased for ABC Unified, but decreased slightly for Bellflower Unified. Although the gap
did decrease for some of the years, for others it increased in both districts. Reclassifying students
needs to become a top priority for both ABC and Bellflower, since it appears to be a major
challenge. Reclassification is a vital pathway to success for ELLs and it should become a top
priority. It is important for districts to direct much of their efforts to ensuring a higher rate of
success.
Discussion
The objective of the research study was to evaluate the longitudinal changes in the CST
performance of ELL students in mathematics, ELA, and reclassification rates over a ten-year-
period in grades two to eight in the ABC and Bellflower Unified school districts. This study
examined the extent to which ELL performance improved in these two urban districts; how the
level of achievement compared to Whites; and how this progress, or lack of, compared to other
California districts.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 72
English learners make up a large share of the school population that ABC Unified and
Bellflower Unified serve. Their presence has been growing in recent years and will continue to
grow in the coming years. Their success is inextricably tied to the success of the state and the
nation: it is imperative that ELLs do well academically. With such a fast growing student
population, it was important to analyze the extent to which performance on standardized tests
improved. Districts across California have acknowledged the urgency in educating ELLs,
therefore, examining the extent of progress made has yielded important information.
Documenting the longitudinal changes in ELL performance outcomes in these two districts
helped determine the areas in which both districts experienced success. The measurement and
reporting of these changes may help inform the efforts of educating this growing group of
students, so that they either continue in their efforts or redirect their resources to better serve
these students. Additionally, it may provide important information for researchers, surrounding
districts and the districts themselves about the direction of their efforts.
The findings of this research have direct implications for ABC and Bellflower and for the
state, in general. There is an urgent need to improve the outcome of English learners. These
findings suggest, that progress has been made at both districts. California has also experienced
success. The pool of students participating in English learner programs has decreased. The
future of ELLs looks promising.
Future Research and Recommendations
The progress attained by the ABC Unified and Bellflower Unified is something to
celebrate. The evidence in this research suggests that improving student outcomes for English
learners was an attainable goal for both districts and the state. There are three recommendations
for future research to further these efforts (a) examine ways that administrators inhibit or
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 73
promote the improving of outcomes for English learners; (b) understand the ways that educators
develop strategic measures which encourage early reclassification of ELLs; and (c) understand
the factors that divide students who do reclassify and those who don't, given similar educational
experiences.
The primary goal of every district in California should be to continue make improving
outcomes of ELL the goal of every educator. ELL students are present in classrooms across the
state. The purpose of education is to create a stable society, where, at the heart, is the educated
and resourceful individual. This is true for every student, and it includes English learners. If
districts make improving outcomes of ELL a top priority and back that up with deliberate
actions, then more progress can be expected. When it becomes the priority of every educator,
then all students benefit. Most English learners were born in the U.S. and English is not
completely foreign to them. Monitoring the academic progress of English learners early on in
their academic lives is important. Too often the academic fate of English learners is left to the
teacher. It is the teacher who can have the most impact. Unfortunately, teachers of English
learners have limited experience and training and often do not have adequate resources. They
have too many students and are not equipped to address the needs of these students. Districts can
change this issue by monitoring ELLs and providing support to teachers and students inside and
outside of the classroom and by providing adequate training.
Another recommendation is to develop policy to encourage districts to reclassify students
earlier. The findings suggest that students who reclassify early do extremely well in state
assessment measures. The earlier students are reclassified, the better they perform academically.
It is in both the student’s and the school’s best interest to reclassify ELLs as early as possible.
Under the current system, there are financial incentives when a student is not reclassified
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 74
because funding for that student is lost when he or she is no longer an ELL. Continuing funding
for such students for an extended period of time or providing a financial incentive beyond the
current level for students who attain reclassification status can remedy this problem.
A final recommendation is to better understand the factors that contribute to some
students reclassifying while others do not. Much has been studied about the academic factors that
determine success for English learners, and not enough is known about any social or
psychological factors, which can have an effect as well. For example, determining if motivation
and self-efficacy are important dynamics can yield important information -- as can the level of
literacy in a home language.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 75
References
August, D., Shanahan, T, & Escamilla, K. (2009). Developing literacy in second language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth.
Journal of Literacy Research. 44(4).
Bartolomé, L. (2002). Creating an equal playing field: Teachers as advocates, border crossers,
and cultural brokers. In Z.F. Beykont (Ed.). The power of culture: teaching across
language difference (pp.167-191). Cambridge, MA. Harvard Educational Publishing.
Borrero N.E., Yeh C.J. (2011). Ecological English language learning among ethnic minority
youth. Educational Researcher, 39 (8), pp. 571-581.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners: The
future of children, 21(1), 103-127.
California Department of Education. (2013). Facts about English learners in California-
CalEdFacts: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second
language. TESOL Quarterly. 23(3), 509-531.
Conger, D. (2010). Does bilingual education interfere with English-‐Language acquisition? Social
Science Quarterly, 91(4), 1103-1122.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummins, J. (2011). Literacy engagement: fueling academic growth for English learners. The
Reading Teacher, 65(2): 142-146.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 76
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: implications for
bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2): 175–187.
de Jong, E. & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is
being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 101-124.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
language leanrers. The SIOP mode. Second Edition. Needham Heights. MA. Allyn &
Bacon.
Ed-Data: Fiscal, Demographic, and Performance Data on California’s k-12 Schools. (2014).
District Reports: http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
Fry, R. (2003) High school dropout rates for latino youth. ERIC Digest for Urban Education.
(ED482920).
Garcia, E., & Jensen, B. (2009). Social Policy Report.
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights:
Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163-174.
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-ses and
language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental
Psychology, 49(1), 43.
Kohler, A. & Lazarin, M. (2007) Hispanic education in the United States. Statistical Brief.
National Council of La Raza: Statistical Brief. 8.
Lee, S. (2013). New talk about ELL students. The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8) 66-69.
Lewis, A. C. (2005). English learners. The Education Digest, 70(5), 70-71.
Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Gandara, P. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2), 305-323.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 77
McGlynn, A. P. (2009, Feb 09). Experts report on the ells achievement gap. The Hispanic
Outlook in Higher Education, 19, 34-35.
Menken, K. & Atunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers
working with limited English proficient students. Washington, D.C. National
Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education.
Menken, K. (2010) NCLB and English learners: challenges and consequences. Theory into
Practice, 49(2), 121-128.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Descriptive summary report: with an essay on
access and choice in postsecondary education (NCES 96-175). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Education Association (2011). Professional development for general education
teachers of English language learners. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012).
Winsler, A., Kim, Y. K., & Richard, E. R. (2014). Socio-emotional skills, behavior problems,
and Spanish competence predict the acquisition of English among English language
learners in poverty. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2242-2254.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 78
Appendix A
Longitudinal Change at ABC
Longitudinal+Change+at+ABC+
0+
10+
20+
30+
40+
50+
60+
ELA+ Math+
2003+
2013+
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 79
Appendix B
Longitudinal Change at BUSD
Longitudinal+Change+at+BUSD++
0+
5+
10+
15+
20+
25+
30+
35+
40+
45+
ELA+ Math+
2003+
2013+
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 80
Appendix C
Achievement Gap at ABC and BUSD
Achievement*Gap*at*at*ABC*and*BUSD*
0*
5*
10*
15*
20*
25*
30*
35*
40*
45*
ABC*ELA* ABC*Math* BUSD*ELA* BUSD*Math*
2003*
2013*
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 81
Appendix D
RFEP and White Performance at BUSD
RFEP%and%White%Performance%at%BUSD%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ELA%2003% ELA%2013% Math%2003% Math%2013%
Whites%BUSD%
RFEP%BUSD%
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 82
Appendix E
RFEP and White Performance at ABC
RFEP%and%White%Performance%at%ABC%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ELA%2003% ELA%2013% Math%2003% Math%2013%
Whites%ABC%
RFEP%ABC%
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 83
Appendix F
Reclassification Rates at ABC and BUSD
Reclassifica)on,Rates,at,ABC,and,
BUSD,
0,
2,
4,
6,
8,
10,
12,
14,
ABC, BUSD,
2003,
2013,
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
California has the largest share of the English Language Learner (ELL) student population in the U.S., and it continues to grow. English Language Learners are the fastest growing group in the public school population and they are underachieving. ❧ The purpose of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal changes in the performance of English learners from 2003 to 2013 in grades two to eight in the ABC Unified School District (ABCUSD) and the Bellflower Unified School District (BUSD). This study examined (a) the extent, to which ELL performance improved in both urban districts in California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...
PDF
Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices
PDF
Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners
PDF
A longitudinal investigation of reading in high-stakes tests for adolescent English language learners
PDF
Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Comparative evaluation of English learner student achievement in inner city urban schools
PDF
An investigation of hiring English language learner paraprofessionals in Hawaii
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rios, Olga Lidia
(author)
Core Title
CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/16/2015
Defense Date
09/08/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Martinez, Xochitl (
committee member
), Shakhbagova, Julietta (
committee member
)
Creator Email
olgarios@usc.edu,olgausc2015@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-182642
Unique identifier
UC11276433
Identifier
etd-RiosOlgaLi-3912.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-182642 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RiosOlgaLi-3912.pdf
Dmrecord
182642
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Rios, Olga Lidia
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
English learners