University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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 ...

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Running head: EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT i

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 (RFEPS)

AT SHANGRI-LA HIGH SCHOOL

by

Eva Miles

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

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Eva Miles

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT ii

Dedication

To my dad, I wish you were still with us so you could see me walk across
the stage. To my mom, your influence has always driven me to be the best person I
could be. To my family (Kuya Nic, Nenet, Nikki and Jennifer), thank you for all
your support. Nikki, I have always been your tutor in your studies. God must have
had a plan as to why you became your professor’s research assistant; it is as if He
knew I was going to need help with my studies. Jen, I hope you enjoy your
experience as a research assistant as well.
To my friends and relatives, sorry for being unavailable on many occasions
but the good news - I am back.
To my husband, best friend and anchor, thank you. You have been patient
and supportive with me even when I was going through my moments. Now, I
promise you … the best is yet to come.
To God, thank you for helping me “change my stars.”

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT iii

Acknowledgements

To Professor Dennis Hocevar, thank you for making learning statistics fun.
To Professor Pedro Garcia and Dr. Francisca Owoaje, thank you for taking the time
out of your busy schedules to guide me through the dissertation process.
To the Technology team at our district, thank you for all your help with
gathering the students’ data.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ......................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... iii
List of Tables.................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................ viii
Abstract ............................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Background ......................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ................................................ 17
Importance of the Study ........................................... 18
Definition of Terms .................................................. 19

Chapter Two: Literature Review .............................................................. 23
Assessments ............................................................. 23
Open Enrollment (Tracking/De-Tracking) .............. 25
English Language Learners ...................................... 29
Standards Movement ................................................ 32
Data-Driven Instruction ........................................... 34
Reflection and/or Teacher Reflection ...................... 36

Chapter Three: Methodology ..................................................................... 43
Design Summary ...................................................... 44
Participants and Setting ............................................ 46
Intervention .............................................................. 47
Instrumentation and Procedures ............................... 48
Limitations of the Study ........................................... 51

Chapter Four: Results ............................................................................... 53
Findings .................................................................... 54

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT v

Chapter Five: Discussion ......................................................................... 66
Summary .................................................................. 66
Results and Discussions ........................................... 70
Limitations of This Case Study ................................ 78
Conclusions .............................................................. 80

References ....................................................................................................... 84

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT vi

List of Tables

Table 1: 2011 STAR Test Results, State of California —
California Standardized Test — English Language
Arts — All Students 6

Table 2: 2011 STAR Test Results, State of California —
California Standardized Test Scores — English
Language Arts — English Language Learners 7

Table 3 2011 Shangri-la High School — California
Standardized Test — English Language Arts —
All Shangri-la Students 7

Table 4: Shangri-la High School — English Language Arts —
English Language Learners 8

Table 5: Shangri-la High School — English Language Arts —
Re-designated Fluent English Proficient Students 8

Table 6: Stratification of Sections Prior to Open Enrollment 11

Table 7: Shangri-la High School — Report Card Analyses
Percentage of D’s and F’s 12

Table 8: Performance Bands for Reflection Sessions 21

Table 9: Diagram of Before and After Treatment 45

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics — California Standardized
Test Scores 55

Table 11: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects — California
Standardized Tests Scores 57

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics — California High School
Exit Exam Scores 59

Table 13: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects — California
High School Exit Exam Scores 59

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT vii

Table 14: California Standardized Test — Language Fluency
and Year 62

Table 15: California Standardized Test — English Language
Arts Score Range 63

Table 16: California High School Exit Exam Scores —
Language Fluency and Year 64

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Tenth Grade Student Passing Rates by
Demographic Group – English Language Arts —
Number of Percentage of Students in the
Class of 2009 Passing the CAHSEE ELA Test
through May 2009 10

Figure 2: Gradual Release of Responsibility Model 37

Figure 3: Explanations for the Literacy Gap 38

Figure 4: Mainstream versus Diverse 40

Figure 5: California Standards Test — English Language
Arts Score Range 49

Figure 6: California Standardized Test — Reliability of
Standards and Error of Measurement 49

Figure 7: Summary of Cut Scores and Passing Rates
Based on Equating Samples 51

Figure 8: California Standardized Test — Mean Scores 61

Figure 9: California High School Exit Exam Means
Scale Scores — Estimated Marginal Means 63

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT ix

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact 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 (RFEPs) at Shangri-la High School. Participants of this study consisted of
the student population enrolled in English classes from grades 9 to 11 in an urban
high school with total student enrollment of 2,445 in school year 2011-2012, of
which 697 were ELLs. A retrospective control group design was used to analyze
the data collected before and after the intervention period. The measurement tools
utilized were the test performance of the students in the English Language Arts
portion of the California Standardized tests (CST) and the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The findings from this study indicate that the intervention
had a significant positive effect on the CST ELA scores of the ELLs versus the
RFEP students. However, the intervention did not have a significant effect on the
CAHSEE ELA scores of the ELLs versus the RFEP students. Moreover, there was
no interaction between the language placement and the intervention for either the
CST or CAHSEE.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background
The U.S. Census Bureau states that 45 % of the children enrolled in
kindergarten through 12
th
grade in California in 2006 speak a language other than
English at home. California has the highest population of students with a home
language other than English in the United States, followed by Texas with 35%,
New Mexico 34% and Arizona 32%. This phenomenon is not new in our
educational system. In 1909, 58% of the students in 37 of the nation’s largest cities
were of foreign-born parentage (Keeping Track, Oakes, 1985, 20). A major
challenge in secondary schooling at the turn of the century was the diversity of the
governance and curriculum of the schools. According to Oakes (1985, 21), “The
solution that the education experts came up with to address this challenge was to
provide curriculum differentiation and tracking based on ability grouping.”
The most recent policy to address these concerns in education was Public
Law 107-110, commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). According to
the U.S. Department of Education, this law, enacted on January 8, 2002, listed
several mandates to the states, such as:
1. Ensuring that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems,
teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional materials were
aligned with challenging State academic standards so that students, teachers,

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 2

parents, and administrators could measure progress against common
expectations for student academic achievement;
2. meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s
highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children; and
3. closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children,
especially the achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students,
and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers. (1439-
1440)
NCLB mandated that educators adhere to delivering common standards,
data accountability, teacher improvement and focus on the subgroups. Before
NCLB, anecdotes of teachers delivering lessons that were of personal interests
instead of a purposeful curriculum were fairly common. This implied that there
were no accountability measures for teachers’ performances and no procedures in
place to assess students’ learning.
However, with the advent of NCLB, those practices had to change. Under
NCLB, teachers were required to be familiar with the philosophy behind using
standards to provide students with equal access to content. In this new era of
accountability, the stakes were even higher for teachers to utilize standards
purposefully because of the urgency of covering as many standards as possible
within the school year in order to prepare students for standardized tests.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 3

Menkin (2008, 118) described this phenomenon in “English Learners Left
Behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy” as an era wherein testing had
become part of the education for all students in the United States including English
Language Learners (ELLs). This posed a problem because the educational
landscape created an emphasis on test performance by students despite the fact that
more immigrants arrived in the United States in the past decade. It was estimated
that there were more than five million ELLs from all over the world attending
public schools in the United States (3). In other words, more and more students
who were enrolled in American public schools who were barely learning to master
the English Language were subjected to testing. Unfortunately, their test
performance did not reflect their mastery of the content.
While the original intent of NCLB was to provide access to content for all
students including disadvantaged students such as minorities and ELLs, the law had
unintended consequences due to the importance of test results in relation to the
placement of students. Menken (2008) further stated that the mastery of English
Language had become a liability for ELLs because the tests were written for
students who were proficient in the English Language and did not necessarily
measure mastery of the content (3).
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2005) shared this sentiment when they stated
that there was no problem more serious that the failure of students of color in urban
settings to acquire literacy skills. In their study entitled “Turn up that Radio,” they
described literacy skills as the necessary tools that students needed in order to

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 4

advance academically, professionally and to actively participate as citizens. These
academic literacies were their tools to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
(285). Another study entitled “Culturally Responsive Instruction as a Dimension of
New Literacies (2001) described the problem of improving the literacy
achievement of students of diverse backgrounds as an extremely urgent one, for the
sake of the students and their families. In the United States, these students make up
an increasing proportion of school-age population, particularly in the low-income
areas, where social and economic difficulties continue to mount (Au, 2). The
inability of this growing population to achieve literacy proficiency had tremendous
effects not only on the students but also to the society and the future economic
well-being of the nation.
Because of these issues, Brock, Moore and Parks (2007) suggested that
educators of future teachers needed to prepare pre-service teachers to address the
needs of a culturally and linguistically diverse population to avoid mismatches
between the educators and students in the classroom. This problem needed to be
addressed because the problem was not going to disappear. In fact, it was
estimated that by the year 2030, 40% of all students would come from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds (298). Teachers needed to have an
understanding of how to best serve the student population they were teaching.
Otherwise, the achievement gap would have detrimental effects not only in the test
performance, but also in the quality of the workforce of our society.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 5

Statement of the Problem
According to Menken (2008), “Tests now carry higher stakes than ever
before for individual students, as they are used in most states as the primary criteria
for high school graduation, grade promotion, and placement into tracked programs
(118-199).” While students were learning English, they were also being tested on
the academic content of the disciplines. It was not surprising then that there was a
disparity in the academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) as
measured by standardized tests. Unfortunately, these scores were used to place
students in clusters according to abilities. According to a study by the Rand
Corporation, some studies have found that tracking may have raised achievement
for high-track students slightly, but when these gains were found, low-track
students suffered a corresponding loss (Oakes, 1990, 20-31). For many students,
ELLs were never re-designated even if they came to California schools as
kindergartners. Some students leave high school without ever leaving remedial
English classes. As a result, they never had access to college-level classes even if
they were cognitively able to understand the content. In addition, many teachers
develop low expectations for these students due to the students’ inability to
communicate in English.
In the state of California, for instance, the 2011 Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) results showed for all students that 55% of 9
th
grade students,
48% of 10
th
grade students, and 45% of 11
th
grade students scored Proficient or

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 6

Advanced in the California Standardized Test-English Language Arts (CST-ELA)
test (See Table 1). For the same testing period, the English Language Learners
scored 11% as Proficient or Advanced in 9
th
grade and 6% in 10
th
grade and 6% in
11
th
grade (See Table 2).

Table 1: 2011 STAR Test Results, State of California — California
Standardized Test — English Language Arts – All Students

All Students
Result type 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Students
Tested

463,191 438,195 432,641 436,838 432,055 436,542 441,289 478,071 466,937 446,860
% of
Enrollment

98.5% 94.7% 93.2% 92.8% 93.0% 93.3% 93.5% 94.1% 94.3% 94.5%
Students
with Scores

462,432 437,697 432,356 436,554 431,719 436,002 440,587 476,644 465,457 445,361
Mean Scale
Score

359.5 345.3 371.6 362.0 358.4 360.3 361.8 357.7 346.4 341.7
% Advanced 27%

18% 37% 30% 27% 24% 30% 28% 21% 21%
% Proficient 29%

28% 27% 29% 28% 33% 27% 27% 27% 24%
% Basic 23%

29% 23% 25% 29% 26% 26% 26% 30% 28%
% Below
Basic

12% 1% 9% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 14% 14%
% Far
Below Basic
8% 8% 3% 6% 4% 6% 7% 7% 9% 12%
(Source: www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)
While these statistics seem alarming, the statistics were mirrored by the
school described in the case study namely, Shangri-la High School. At Shangri-La
High School, 33 % of the 9
th
grade students, 25% of the 10
th
grade students, and
24% of the 11
th
grade student scored Advanced or Proficient. The ELLs received
4% in 9
th
grade, 2% in 10
th
grade and 1% in 11
th
grade. (See Tables 3, 4, and 5)

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 7

Table 2: 2011 STAR Test Results, State of California — California
Standardized Test — English Language Arts – English Language
Learners

English Language Learners
Result type 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Students Tested

172,934 146,124 122,166 97,895 76,278 67,273 64,695 72,126 63,524 55,900
% of
Enrollment

36.8% 31.6% 26.3% 20.8% 16.4% 14.4% 13.7% 14.2% 12.8% 11.8%
Students with
Scores

172,687 145,970 122,078 97,801 76,212 67,164 64,556 71,783 63,190 55,634
Mean Scale
Score

338.0 315.0 332.9 317.3 309.2 301.8 299.6 298.4 289.8 278.1
% Advanced

16% 5% 11% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
% Proficient

26% 19% 26% 19% 12% 12% 9% 9% 5% 5%
% Basic

29%

35% 37% 39% 43% 37% 36% 37% 32% 25%
% Below Basic

18% 26% 19% 23% 29% 30% 29% 30% 36% 33%
% Far Below
Basic
12% 15% 7% 14% 13% 20% 23% 23% 25% 37%
(Source: www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)

Table 3: 2011 Shangri-la High School — California Standardized Test —
English Language Arts — All Shangri-la Students

All Shangri-la Students
Result type 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Students
Tested

604 609 629
% of
Enrollment

95.7% 97.3% 98.0%
Students with
Scores

604 609 628
Mean Scale
Score

324.0 319.0 311.3
% Advanced

8% 6% 7%
% Proficient

26% 19% 17%
% Basic

32% 42% 32%
% Below
Basic

21% 20% 25%
% Far Below
Basic
14% 13% 18%
(Source: www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 8

Table 4: Shangri-la High School — English Language Arts — English
Language Learners

Shangri-la’s English Language Learners
Result type 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Students
Tested

169 163 172
% of
Enrollment

26.8% 26.0% 26.8%
Students
with Scores

169 163 171
Mean Scale
Score

282.5 277.0 267.0
% Proficient
and Above
4% 2% 1%
(Source: www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)

Table 5: Shangri-la High School — English Language Arts — Re-designated
Fluent English Proficient Students

RFEP Students
Result type 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Students
Tested

251 302 282
% of
Enrollment

39.8% 48.2% 43.9%
Students
with Scores

251 302 282
Mean Scale
Score

345.3 338.5 332.3
% Proficient
and Above
49% 34% 32%
(Source:www.cde.ca.gov)

The RFEP students outscored the overall student population. It is necessary
to note that according to the California Department of Education, an “RFEP student
is one whose primary language is not English and who was re-designated from
English Language learner to fluent-English-proficient. Re-designation is based on

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 9

assessment of English proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing as
currently measured by the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT), teacher evaluation, parent input, and the student’s performance of basic
skills. Basic skills are measured by the California Standardized Test (CST) in
English Language Arts (ELA).” (www.cde.ca.gov)
At Shangri-la High School, there are five different classifications of
students based on Language fluency Language Fluency, namely:
1. English Only (EO)
2. IFEP (Initially Fluent English Proficient)
3. English Language Learner (ELL)
4. Re-designated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)
5. To be determined
Sometimes, “To be determined” simply means that the Office of Shangri-la Unified
School District (referred to as ‘District’ from hereon) may not have received the
records of a newly-enrolled student or that a student may not have completed the
CELDT.
Another assessment that reflects disparity in test performance is the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). According to an independent
evaluator hired by the California Department of Education called Human Resources
Research Organization (HumRRO), the majority of the students who did not pass
the CAHSEE were English Language Learners (ELLs). Figure No. 1 below

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 10

reflects that in the last five years, the ELL category consistently had the lowest
percentage of students who passed the CAHSEE.

(Source: Becker, D.E. Wise. L, & Watters, C. Independent Evaluation of the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) HUMRRO, 85)
Figure 1: Tenth Grade Student Passing Rates by Demographic Group –
English Language Arts — Number of Percentage of Students in the
Class of 2009 Passing the CAHSEE ELA Test through May 2009

Another challenge before the implementation of the “Open enrollment”
policy was the different stratification of classes for students. This served as a gate-
keeper for ELLs to gain access to college-level classes. Table 6 is an example of
how one grade level (i.e., English 9) was traditionally stratified based on students’
previous performance on the CST. Students were tracked into different settings
according to CST scores. The rationale was that lower level sections were created

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 11

to provide students with a setting where they might be successful. Table 6 also
shows that before an ELL student who might have been placed in an ELM A
(English Learner class) class could have access to an English Language Honors
(English 9 H A class) which was the highest level, there were several categories to
surpass. For instance, there were English A (Mainstream) classes, SEI A classes
(Structured English Immersion), and AFUEL (Academy For Urban Ecology at
Shangri-la AFUEL). The Honors classes almost always meant a pathway towards
the Advanced Placement classes for their junior or senior year. AFUEL originally
started as a club; however, it later became recognized as a program wherein
students were placed if they did not qualify for Honors classes. This became
another level for students depending on cognitive ability and/or language ability.

Table 6: Stratification of Sections Prior to Open Enrollment
English 9 H A
English 9 A
English 9 AFUEL A
English 9 SEI A
English 9 ELM A

However, based on the self-study report submitted to the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 2011-2012, the data showed that
placing the students in the lower level classes simply because of language fluency

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 12

did not improve the students’ performance in class. Grade Point Averages (GPAs)
in these sections were lower than the regular settings. In the last three semesters,
there was a larger ratio of D’s and F’s in the lower level sections across content
areas. The original intent of placing students in less rigorous classes while they
were in the process of mastering the English language was to allow them to
experience academic success. However, the stratification had an opposite effect.
Table 7 is a sample of the D’s and F’s reported for school year 2009-2010 for
History classes (grade percentages before the program changes).

Table 7: Shangri-la High School — Report Card Analyses Percentage of
D’s and F’s
Subject
% of
A's
% of
B's
% of
C's
% of
D's
% of
F's
GPA
US History A 15.50% 12.8 16.7 20.9 32.9 1.56
US History H A 63.2 23.7 7.9 5.3 0 4.45
US History AP 23.9 46.7 17.4 9.8 2.2 3.78

Background Information
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the majority of the population at the
City of Shangri-la was African American between 1970 and 1990; however, it is
presently a predominately Latino community. There are approximately 69,700
residents in the Shangri-la community wherein 83.2% are Hispanic or Latino,
11.2% African American, and approximately 5% belong to other ethnicities. Over

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 13

50% of the housing units in the City of Shangri-la are occupied by renters. The
dominant language in this city is the Spanish Language. In the 2010 census,
speakers of Spanish as their first language accounted for 78.7 % of the residents.
Open Enrollment
Phase I of the treatment occurred in 2011-2012 whereby the District
introduced a system-wide policy change. There were two changes introduced by
the District — open enrollment and curriculum alignment of standards. For Open
Enrollment, the District removed the practice of placing students in so-called
“GATE/Honors” classes. The Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) designation
was removed from course names. Honors and Advanced Placement (AP) classes
were made available to all students through open enrollment instead of being solely
based on grades. Moreover, the English Language Learners (ELLs) were also
placed in mainstream classes if they had been in American schools for three or
more years.
Historically, there were many different levels of classes, from AP English to
GATE/Honors, Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program,
AFUEL [students who do not meet the AVID requirements], but these were not
considered Honors, and Structured English Immersion (SEI) [quasi-intervention
classes for ELLs]. All the various levels made it difficult for ELLs to have access
to rigorous classes. For school year 2011-2012, students were placed in mixed-
ability groupings but additional support was provided to ELLs through additional
shadow classes. The shadow classes were homogenous groups based on ability as

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 14

reflected in the California Standardized Test (CST) scores. The rationale for the
shadow classes was to provide support for the ELLs in their mainstream classes.
Shadow classes reviewed problematic lessons or previewed future lessons in the
mainstream classes. Advanced Placement (AP), Pre-AP, and Honors classes (i.e.,
college preparatory classes) were still offered but were based on open-enrollment.
In practice, Open Enrollment at the District meant that if a student requested
to enroll in an AP English class, acceptance would no longer be based on CST
scores or Language Fluency designation. Students were now allowed to enroll in
more rigorous subjects, if the students so desired. The California Department of
Education defines open enrollment as the ability of students to enroll in a different
school with a higher Academic Performance Index (API) than the pupil’s school of
residence. This was based on SBX5 4 called “Open Enrollment Act” that was
signed into law on January 7, 2010, and became effective on April 14, 2010.
(Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/op/)
Curriculum Alignment
The second part of the intervention was the curriculum alignment aspect.
The curriculum alignment consisted of a multi-step process that was started during
the school year 2010-2011. Curriculum alignment was the terminology adopted by
the District to describe the move to have all the teachers in the English and
Mathematics departments at all levels (i.e., elementary, middle school and high
school levels) deliver instruction pertaining to selected essential standards chosen

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 15

by the teachers. The teachers also created unit assessments to measure the success
of the students per unit. Finally, as a follow-up to the curriculum alignment, a
protocol was established to analyze data after the unit assessments were given to
students. The District implemented these steps to counteract challenges in the
past. For example with regards to assessments, the District previously provided
tests called Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs) to all the school sites. However, the
results were never analyzed because majority of the time, the content did not
correspond with the pacing guides. It was not uncommon for teachers to receive
pacing guides stating ‘Narrative Unit’ for Unit One, but when the tests were
delivered; the assessments were based on a ‘Persuasive Unit’.
To address this situation, in 2010-2011, the District hired a state-approved
group of consultants to assist the English and math departments for the Pilot
Program. These two departments created Unit Assessments that were based on the
standards taught per unit and provided the same assessment to all the schools
within the District (e.g., same Unit Assessment 1 for all the high schools, all the
elementary grades, etc.). This was very important because the District created an
articulation of standards among all grade levels in the entire school District.
Phase II of the intervention occurred in 2011-2012, whereby the District
adopted a protocol of providing the common assessments to the students, followed
by a Reflection Session per grade level or by discipline. After the results’ analyses,
teachers agreed upon key strategies to be implemented for the next unit of study.
These steps were illustrated in a study entitled Practices that support Data Use in

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 16

Urban High Schools by Lachat and Smith (2005) that described a series of steps
including data disaggregation, collaborative inquiry, adoption of policy and
practice implementations in urban high schools.
During Phase II of the District-wide changes, the English and Math teachers
had to agree to a District-wide consensus regarding what standards to teach for
each particular unit. Part of this process included having the 10
th
grade English
teachers compare the standards that were covered on the California High School
Exit Exams (CAHSEE) and the CSTs. The teachers also compared the blueprint
standards of the CAHSEE and the CST in order to select the standards that were
highly tested in both exams. These standards were included in Units 1 to 3 and the
remaining standards were placed in Units 4 and 5. In order to ensure the integrity
of the scores and the tests, the state-approved company called Principal’s
Exchange, prepared the assessments for Units 2 and 4. The teachers had no access
to the content of the assessment before the tests were administered to the students.
For Phase III, school year 2012-2013, the District was in its second year of
implementation with the English and Math Departments and it started the
intervention with the History and Science Departments. Eventually, it was the goal
of the District to have all the disciplines undergo the same training in curriculum
alignment and creation of unit assessment per unit of study. Another change that
was initiated during this phase was the district-wide training of all counselors. The
counselors were provided training on how to implement the District’s Open
enrollment policy so that there was uniformity in the placement of students.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 17

Purpose of the Study
The educational landscape might veer in another direction if NCLB were to
be rewritten by 2014, much like the events that followed after the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) enacted in April 11, 1965.
However, what is evident is that American schools need to continue to research and
find promising practices that will help our students compete in an ever-changing
global market. It is also evident that the needs of students in high poverty areas and
lower performing students have to be addressed. The purpose of this study is to
answer the following research questions:
1. Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention
score higher on the California Standardized Test - English section compared
to the students in the retrospective control group?
2. Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention
score higher on the California High School Exit Exam – English section
compared to the students in the retrospective control group?
3. Does the effect of the 2012 intervention depend on ELL or RFEP language
classification?
This case study documented the implementation of an intervention program
and showcased data gathered to describe the effects of the treatment which
consisted of: (1) open enrollment; (2) curriculum alignment of standards in
English; and (3) data-driven instruction. Although the intervention was

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 18

implemented to English and Math classes, the data focused on the English
performance of all 9
th
to 11
th
grade students with an emphasis on the ELL and
RFEP students.

Importance of the Study
On a global perspective, Thomas Friedman had long been known for
coining the concept ‘The World is Flat.’ This implied that gone was the era when
certain countries held monopolies in certain industries. Nowadays, it is common to
find a finished product wherein the components, labor, and marketing came from
different sources around the world. One example is a car that might have parts
imported from Japan, assembled in Europe, and sold in America. If our students
are to compete in the global market, it is imperative that American schools ensure
our students who graduate from our schools have the capability of succeeding in
their academic mastery and performance skills.
On a local perspective, there was a great urgency to ensure that all students
had equal access to content. If all students had access to rigorous, standards-based
education, they might be able to compete globally. Currently, at the school site
level, the ELLs’ scores were as follows: 9
th
grade = 4% Proficient, 10
th
grade = 2%
Proficient, and 11
th
grade = 1% Proficient in the CST-ELA for school year 2010-
2011. In contrast, the RFEP students’ scores were as follows: 9
th
grade = 49%,

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 19

10
th
grade = 34% and 11
th
grade = 32%. There was such a disparity in academic
achievement where it was clear that the needs of the ELLs had to be addressed.
At the school site and District level, administrators might be able to use the
information in this study to determine the overall effectiveness of the pilot
programs of “Open Enrollment,” “Curriculum alignment,” and “Data- Driven
instruction.” At the very minimum, this case study documented how the process of
“Reflection Sessions” was institutionalized for the English department. This could
be a great resource moving forward as the District expands the curriculum
alignment process to other content areas.

Definition of Terms
Unit Assessments — These assessments were teacher-created tests based on CST
released questions. All the English and math teachers within the District were
provided a week’s training in order to:
1. Establish the standards to concentrate on and for what particular unit;
2. write common unit assessments; and
3. share lessons plans.
All the English and Math teachers for each grade level agreed to teach five
standards for each unit. Each particular standard had five questions. The use of
five questions per standard was strategically chosen in order to determine whether
or not the students actually mastered a specific standard. If there were only one

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 20

question per standard and the student did not comprehend get it, it would not be an
accurate indication of whether or not that student understood that standard. A
student might have guessed based on a 50% probability of being correct. However,
if a student were asked five different questions based on the same standard, it
would provide educators with a more accurate idea of whether or not a student had
mastered a specific concept.
If there were not enough CST-released questions, the teachers created
additional questions based on the reading materials available in the CST-released
questions. However, the teachers simulated the “stem” of the prompt in order to
maintain the rigor of the CST-released questions. The stem is the part of the
question that provides the instruction or leads to the prompt for the test-taker
(Martinez, 1991, 132). For example, instead of writing “What is the theme?” and
providing four possible answers in the multiple choice section, the teachers wrote
the question in this manner, “Based on the poem, which one best describes the
theme?” Depending on how many correct answers a student received, he or she is
placed in a band.
Bands — The students were placed in four different bands based on their mastery
of a specific standard. The bands were divided as follows: Intensive, Strategic,
Benchmark, and Challenge.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 21

Table 8: Performance Bands for Reflection Sessions
Intensive 0 to 1 The student received 4 to 5 questions correct in one or
no standard.

Strategic 2 The student received 4 to 5 questions correct in 2
standards.

Benchmark 3 The student received 4 to 5 questions correct in 3
standards.

Challenge 4 to 5 The student received 4 to 5 questions correct 4 to 5.

Reflection Session — Teachers were provided substitute teachers for a few hours
so that same grade level teachers could analyze their students’ data and generate
ideas and/or suggestions for next steps, etc. This was typically done a few days
after the students took the test to allow the teachers to re-teach or address mistakes
with the students while the questions were still fresh in the students’ minds.
Debrief Sessions — All Instructional Leads from each school attended Debrief
sessions at the District offices to report the evaluation during the Reflection
sessions from each school.
Research and Evaluation — This is the time when all the answer documents were
scanned at the District and uploaded into the On-line Assessment Reporting System
(OARS) for teachers to be able to access their students’ scores.
On-line Assessment Reporting System (OARS) — This is a privately-owned
company contracted by the District to provide data gathering, and storing software.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 22

Instructional Leads — Previously called Teachers of Special Assignments
(TOSA), these are teachers who provide administrative support.
Treatment — This refers to strategies agreed upon by each grade level teacher
geared for a specific unit’s utilization to assist students with concerns such as
checking for understanding, exit tickets, and hour glass.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 23

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This section highlights the topics and concepts that the school personnel had
to tackle during the implementation of the pilot program such as: assessments, open
enrollment, tracking/de-tracking, English Language Learners’ (ELLs) background
and challenges, standards movement, and data-driven instruction. The last portion
of this chapter purposely highlights the studies that are related to teachers and to
teacher reflection since, in the long run, the teachers have the biggest role in the
implementation of the pilot program. The District may offer professional
development for teachers and create processes to facilitate students’ success. The
administration may also provide support for teachers. However, within their
classrooms, teachers have the autonomy to implement the pilot program or choose
to provide other opportunities for learning for the students.

Assessments
According to Jones (1998), “There are many misuses of assessments,
misunderstandings of what assessments are, different types of assessments to
choose from, and concerns regarding what to do with the results from assessments.
Curriculum- Based Assessment (CBA) is one of the newer types of assessment
designed to minimize those concerns (3).” CBA is defined as a criterion-referenced

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 24

test that is teacher-constructed and designed to reflect curriculum content (Jones,
1998, 7).
At Shangri-la Unified, the District hired state-approved consultants to assist
teachers in creating unit assessments after conducting a curriculum alignment
session or their own version of curriculum-based assessments. In the past, the
District provided the school sites with assessments that were created by private
contractors without any input from the staff regarding scope and sequence.
The rationale for aligning the curriculum was to ensure that all students had
equal access to content because teachers would deliver similar instruction based on
uniform standards. It would not be possible for watered-down curriculum to be
provided to students who might be perceived as low-performing students like
ELLs. All students would be better prepared for rigorous content because the
assessments were based on the California Standardized Tests (CST)-released test
questions. Moreover, the stakeholders were better informed regarding the content
of the assessments which resulted in a better buy-in from the teachers to follow the
standards that were agreed upon during the curriculum alignment phase of the pilot
project.
There were studies, however, that suggest that this practice is detrimental to
ELLs because teachers are forced to teach to the test. According to Menkin (2008),
“When exams were linked to high-stakes consequences, they greatly impacted
students’ educational experiences and future opportunities because the instruction
was focused on test content and skills rather than meaningful learning experiences

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 25

(118).” Theoretically, in a carefully scheduled pacing guide geared towards the
standards, it would not be possible for re-teaching or veering off to topics that have
been of more interest to students or may have fostered students’ creativity.
Because of the constrictions of the timelines, if a subject were to present itself
because of what the students discovered, there would be no time to delve into the
topic exhaustively because all teachers needed to follow strict timelines.

Open Enrollment (Tracking/De-Tracking)
At Shangri-la Unified School District, the current policy of “Open
enrollment” signifies that students who request to enroll in college-prep courses are
now allowed to do so. In the past, there were certain prerequisites that were
required of students wanting to be placed in Advanced Placement (AP) level
classes, such as CST scores, language proficiency and previous GPA.
Unfortunately, with the previous policy, students who were unable to score highly
enough on the CST’s due to language issues rather than content knowledge would
have been relegated to lower level classes.
Due to the pilot project, classes are now placed heterogeneously — students
in a classroom have mixed-ability levels. The homogenously placed classes are
reserved for the support classes that have typically lower enrollment, so that
support teachers could provide additional assistance to students either through
review or preview of lessons. This also allows teachers to have more chances in

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 26

providing one-on-one support, since they have fewer students per class. For
example, an ELL student might have two classes of English in one semester. One
class could be the regular English class wherein he or she is placed with higher
performing students and the other English placement could be a homogenously
grouped class with another English teacher for support.
This policy called “Open Enrollment” was implemented after the teachers
received their training regarding curriculum alignment. Framing the policy as
“Open enrollment” might have been fortuitous because using the terms “tracking”
and “de-tracking” have been highly controversial over the years.
Tracking was a response that legislators utilized at the turn of the century to
address the perceived diversity in linguistic and curricular needs of students. Ever
since the publication of Oakes’ “Keeping Track,” many school districts sought to
address the harmful effects of tracking. According to Rubin (2003), “Upon
recognizing that tracking was a potential barrier to educational equity, a number of
schools attempted to de-track to reverse its inequity” (31).
Some educators have proposed using data as a way of reassessing
educators’ beliefs regarding tracking. Burris & Garrity (2008, 21) in a study
entitled De-tracking for Excellence and Equity, the authors stated that doubters
against de-tracking might have concerns due to their own personal beliefs, own
experiences, and maybe even prejudices. However, if educators used data as a
focal point for pedagogical discussions, the deleterious effects of tracking could be
more easily recognized.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 27

Burris and Garrity’s (2008) study provided a specific set of steps in order to
eliminate tracking in school districts. For example, the authors suggested
eliminating the lowest track first by having the teachers get to know their students
better. If students felt respected and cared for by teachers who made the effort to
reach them by developing careful, differentiated lesson plans, the students would
feel more invested in the lesson and there would be a decrease in behavioral
problems. If teachers started to use differentiated lessons, students who might have
been considered less intelligent in the past simply because they learned in non-
traditional ways could possibly become invaluable contributors to the
heterogeneous classrooms. In addition, struggling students who were part of
heterogeneous groups and classrooms would have access to observe and learn the
techniques of less-inhibited learners (24-31).
This concept is reflected in how the students were placed after the
intervention. As part of the intervention, English Language Learners (ELLs) were
placed in heterogeneous classrooms so that they could observe the performance of
high-performing students. In addition, the ELLs were also placed in a second
English class called “Shadow classes” which had fewer students so that the teacher
could provide carefully developed differentiated lesson plans to fit each students’
ability level.
There were detractors of de-tracking, however, because de-tracking as such
without any other measures could be equally disadvantageous. According to
Loveless (1999), “Opponents argued that high-achieving students would be ill-

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 28

served in heterogeneously grouped classrooms, and, in California especially,
groups supporting gifted education lobbied strenuously against the reform (151).”
Furthermore, Loveless pointed out that de-tracking consumes vast amounts of time,
energy political capital and expertise. It places extraordinary demands on schools’
organizational structures, leadership, faculty morale, and parental support. (The
Tracking Wars, 153)
Moreover, even when schools de-tracked, challenges still existed. A study
conducted by Rubin (2003, 31) entitled “On different tracks: Students living de-
tracking reform at a diverse urban high school,” followed the experience of three
students in an urban high school. Rubin stated that just because bodies had been
moved around, it did not solve the problem. Rubin suggested that the success of
de-tracking was dependent on making cultural and structural changes in the larger
school setting. It was not enough to change the placement of the students. It was
also necessary for the adults in the school community to foster a change in their
relationship and attitudes with students from different racial and social
backgrounds. Rubin further emphasized that most high schools took a hands-off
attitude towards students’ social worlds but this facet of the students’ lives had a
deep connection with their academic performance.
As of this writing, teachers at Shangri-la High School had voiced anecdotal
examples regarding the unexpected consequences of the “Open Enrollment” policy
which reflected some of the arguments in the studies mentioned. For instance, a
statistics teacher stated that she received students who were placed in her class

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 29

without having the skills to either multiply or divide. Understandably, the teacher’s
concern was valid from the perspective of someone who wanted to deliver
instruction that developed students’ skills. The initial implication was that the
lower performing students were slowing the pace of the higher performing students
because the teachers had to address the deficiency in the lower performing
students’ skills of due to the mixed-ability grouping.
Despite the detractors, Rubin (2003) stated that students could possibly
benefit from a culturally relevant approach and connect more deeply with the
curriculum and instruction in the de-tracked core. In practice, this led to another
concern in the field of practice regarding the need to train teachers on how to
deliver a culturally relevant curriculum.
English Language Learners
There are various suggestions on how to address the needs of English
Language Learners (ELLs). According to a study entitled Variations in Language
and Implications for Literacy (Brock et al., 2003), “It was suggested that for
students of color, educators take advantage of the “funds of knowledge” of
students, which were the sum total of their lives and experiences as children and
also that of their families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (450).”
In order to successfully achieve this, educators had to take the time to get to know
their students, understand their backgrounds and adjust accordingly to what best fit
their learning experience.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 30

An example of this would be to consider the academic ramifications of
activities that students perform in their daily lives that may not necessarily have a
direct connection to the standards-based curriculum or criterion-referenced tests but
require higher-order thinking nonetheless. In the past, one activity that was
typically overlooked was the children’s ability to paraphrase situations and
transactions everyday in their immigrant lifestyles.
Orellana (2003) drew a comparison between the daily life family literacy
practices that typical middle class families might conduct such as bedtime
storybook reading, which was integral in a child’s literacy development. On the
other hand, children from lower socio-economic backgrounds might not have had
this type of experience but they might have had other experiences that shaped their
literacy skills. Some of these practices may include reading street signs to navigate
their environment, paraphrasing and translating day-to-day experiences for their
families. These experiences might have more significance because the children
were exposed to a wider range of genres, domains and forms of written texts than
just storybooks. Paraphrasing also engage children actively in interpretation of text
for real purposes rather than positioning them as passive recipients of reading”
(31).
Another way to address ELLs is to reframe educators’ viewpoints from a
deficit model to a multi-culturally relevant model. The deficit-driven approach
comes from the misconception that “children from low SES backgrounds are not
prepared for school” (Brock, 449). The study entitled “Variations of Language and

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 31

the Use of Language Across Contexts: Implications for Literacy Learning” stated
that another misconception about children from low SES was that they needed to
focus on isolated language and literacy skills before they engaged in critical and
creative aspects of literacy learning (Brock, 449). However, the conclusion of the
study stated that children in a more holistic context fared better in terms of viewing
themselves as readers and writers.
One research on writing conducted by Sperling and Freedman (2001)
suggested ways of assisting ELLs. One such strategy was by utilizing multiple
voices or multiple ways of voicing ideas which could be done by incorporating
various literary and non-literary discourses from western and non-western cultures
(376). This study also stated that explicit teaching of rhetorical structures benefited
English as a Second Language (ESL) writing development, so long as students also
learned about the broader context of writing audiences and purposes (379). Finally,
teacher-student conferences were also valuable, especially when students were
trying to explore and develop their ideas (380).
Kathryn Au, a professor of education from University of Hawaii, published
several studies regarding students of color. Several of her studies suggested that
culturally-responsive instruction could bring students of diverse backgrounds to
high levels of literacy by promoting engagement through activities that reflected
the values, knowledge, and structures of interaction that students brought from
home. In order to do this, teachers needed to build upon the strengths that students
brought from their home cultures. One poignant experience that she described was

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 32

the “story telling” strategy that worked well with Hawaiian students. If teachers
incorporated this activity into the lesson for this group of students, the students
were better able to participate in the learning process. Au suggested that teachers
take advantage of the cultural wealth of the students.

Standards Movement
According to Friedman (2005), “Common standards create a flatter, more
level playing field. To put it in another way, the fall of the Berlin wall enhanced
the free movement of best practices. When an economic or technological standard
emerged and proved itself on the world stage, it was much more quickly adopted
after the wall was out of the way (53).”
While the word “standards” in this context does not refer to the academic
standards set by a state governing body (California Department of Education) or an
academic organization (e.g., NCATE), it does highlight a need for a process or a
basis of comparison with others in a field. Given the rapidly changing economic
and global landscape, it has become a necessity for educators to establish a standard
which could make current students competitive with the rest of the world.
This sentiment mirrors the information published in 1983 called A Nation at
Risk wherein the National Commission on Excellence in Education announced that
at the end of the Cold War and the beginning of truly global economic competition,
America was perceived as losing its competitive edge. This report described

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 33

American students as being unable to compete in an economic war with other
industrialized nations. As a result, state learning standards were established to
provide new and experienced teachers with common direction as to what to teach,
no longer leaving it up to the school districts to decide what should be taught and
when it should be taught (Vogel, 2010, 3-7).
Various states pushed for educational institutions to abide by blueprint
standards or specific benchmarks that students had to learn per grade level to
ensure that all students were receiving the same quality instruction no matter where
they were enrolled. This push towards having specific standards per grade level
also created the need for standardized testing to ensure an accountability system,
and that all school institutions were complying with the requirements. According
to Reardon et al. (2010), “One manifestation of the current movement in the U.S.
public system towards more explicit standards of instruction and accountability
system was the increasing use of state-mandated public high school exit exams.
These exit exams were geared towards determining whether each student could be
eligible to receive a high school diploma” (Effects of Failing a High School Exit
Exam, 498).
This trend also permeated the national landscape. For example, over the
last 20 years, the American exit exams changed from having an emphasis on
minimum competency to being more difficult standards-based assessments. While
the intention of the policymakers was to ensure that all students were receiving

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 34

rigorous, quality education country-wide, the exit exams that were standards- based
were associated with higher dropout rates (Shuster, 2012).
At Shangri-la Unified, the pilot program was the first time that a concerted
effort was undertaken district-wide to provide an articulation of standards across
grade levels. The teachers in the English and Math departments were directed to
arrive at a consensus regarding specific standards to teach for a particular unit for
all the grade levels. The intent was to ensure that students at “High School A”
were receiving the same rigorous instruction at “High School B” thereby fostering
equity and fairness in education. The delivery of instruction might have differed
from teacher-to-teacher but the standards were similar per grade level.

Data-Driven Instruction
According to Reutzel (2006, 313-343), “In order for educators to reach all
of the children, teachers had to be willing to provide instruction that was responsive
to the needs of each child based upon assessment results (315).” Teachers could
meet the needs of all children in becoming readers and writers, including: (1)
Providing the essential of literacy instruction; (2) using assessment data to inform
literacy instruction; (3) using an array of effective literacy instructional practices;
(4) properly grouping participants for differentiated literacy instruction; and
(5) scheduling time effectively to support differentiated literacy instruction.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 35

Reutzel posited that educators needed to develop the skill to analyze data so that
they could adjust their pedagogy to address specific needs of all students.
According to Lachat (2005) in an article entitled Practices That Support
Data Use in Urban High Schools, “Changing a school’s culture and building
teacher capacity to use data often require a change in staff attitudes toward the
diverse student populations in a school, as well as the skills to apply appropriate
interventions for students based on data.” This was the purpose for training
teachers at Shangri-la High School. To a certain degree, the teachers at Shangri-la
High School started to develop the skill of gathering data through On-line
Assessment Reporting System (OARS) database and analyzing the data. The
Reflection Sessions were geared towards addressing which standards the students
mastered, what steps to take moving forward, and adjusting their instruction for the
upcoming units. This particular process mirrored the suggestions by Schmoker
(2011) wherein he stated that “there are three elements that we should approach
with simplicity and diligence until they are satisfactorily understood and
implemented in every subject area, as follows:
1. What we teach — This means a decent, coherent curriculum with topics and
standards collectively selected by a team of teachers from the school or
district –that teachers deliver to students.
2. How we teach —Think of this as ordinary, structured sound lessons that
employ the basic formulas that educators have known for decades but few

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 36

implement consistently to ensure that all students are learning each segment
of the lesson before moving to the next one.
3. Authentic literacy — This means purposeful and usually argumentative –
reading, writing and talking. Literacy is still the unrivalled but grossly under-
implemented key to learning both content and thinking skills” (10-11).
On the other hand, Tobin (2005) posited that the current trend towards
accountability and testing promoted homogeneity and compliance in instructional
approaches. In the study entitled “Responding to Diversity: Differentiating in the
Language Arts Classroom,” he stated that the emphasis on accountability had
lessened the teachers’ reliance on their own professional skills. Differentiation
called for more flexibility, divergence, and confidence in one’s professional ability
to see differences in a learner and to respond appropriately (21). If teachers had to
comply within the parameters of a strictly structured pacing guide and timelines, it
left very little room for adjustment and creativity of ideas.

Reflection and/or Teacher Reflection
In the past, the District purchased scripted programs and many teachers felt
compelled to follow the district’s curriculum. According to MacGilligvray, et al.’s
(2004, 136) study entitled Colonized Teachers: Examining the Implementation of a
Scripted Reading Program, “Teachers sometimes felt as if they were caught
between the need to exert their professional knowledge and the need to be team

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 37

players by carrying out the district’s mandate to the letter because of peer,
supervisor, and/or parent pressure.” This tended to have one-size-fits all affect.
In contrast, the District’s pilot program offered more of a process to think
through how to address the needs of the students. A protocol was established in
order to guide the teachers during the Reflection Sessions wherein the overarching
goal was to identify the students’ performance level per unit assessment, and to
identify which group of students belonged in what category.
During the summer of 2012, the teachers were provided training in the “I
do, We do and You do” model.

Figure 2: Gradual Release of Responsibility Model
However, one concept that had not entered the conversation was the idea of
using a culturally responsive pedagogy. Au (1998) defined students with diverse

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 38

backgrounds as usually coming from low-income families of African Americans,
Asian Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans and speakers of a home
language other than standard American English. In a study entitled Social
Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of Students of Diverse
Backgrounds, Au stated that “the literacy achievement of students of diverse
backgrounds can be strengthened by moving from a mainstream orientation to an
orientation towards diversity, giving greater consideration to issues of ethnicity,
primary language, and/or social classes (1998, 298). Au posited that students “need
to engage in authentic literacy activities, not activities contrived for practice” (300).
Au conducted several studies about diverse cultures and published several
studies regarding Hawaiian students. She offered an explanation regarding the
achievement gap from a social constructivist perspective as listed in the figure
below.

Source: Au (1998) Social Constructivism: 301-307
Figure 3: Explanations for the Literacy Gap

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 39

Linguistic Differences — A student’s poor academic achievement generally was
not due to their limited English proficiency. Rather, it was due to the exclusion or
limited use of instruction in the home language or the low status accorded to the
home language.
Cultural differences — Students of diverse backgrounds were not encouraged to
use their existing language skills as the basis for developing literacy in school,
because these skills often were ignored or denigrated.
Discrimination — A disproportionate number of students of diverse backgrounds
were labeled as poor readers and placed in the lowest reading groups. The
instruction of these students received was qualitatively different from that of
students placed in higher groups and tended to further hinder their learning to read.
Inferior education — Schools with a high proportion of low income students
tended to devote less time to reading instruction and to rely on testing practices that
limited students opportunity to learn.
Rationales for schooling — Structural rationales involved children’s understanding
of the significance of school performance to settings beyond the school such as
their relationship to employment and other life opportunities. However, structural
rationales were usually not available to students of diverse backgrounds whose
family histories did not show these same connections.
Au suggested a framework based on Cummin’s idea of improving literacy
achievement of students of diverse backgrounds that required empowering students

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 40

of diverse backgrounds. This also required that educators consider the cultural
capital of the students as described in the figure below.

STUDENTS OF DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS
Societal Context

Dominant Group

Subordinate Group

School Context
Educator Role Definitions
Mainstream constructivist orientation Diverse constructivist orientation
Goal of instruction Literacy processes and attitudes Literacy processes and attitudes,
with an emphasis on ownership

Role of the home language Additive approach; home language as
vehicle for English literacy

Additive approach; biliteracy
Instructional materials Literature plus other authentic materials Emphasis on multicultural
literature plus other authentic
materials

Classroom management and
interaction with students
Teacher organizes peer work groups as
well as teacher-led lessons
Teacher conducts lessons and
organizes peer work groups in
culturally responsive manner

Relationship to the community Classroom as a community; some parental
involvement; projects such as family
histories
Attention to community
surrounding the school; greater
parental involvement; instruction
relates to community issues and
funds of knowledge

Instructional methods Authentic literacy activities; skills taught
in context; amount of explicit skill
instruction may be minimal
Authentic literacy activities; skills
taught in context; amount of
explicit skill instruction may be
considerable

Assessment Formal and informal assessments,
consistent with constructivist views of
literacy
Formal and informal assessments,
consistent with constructivist views
of literacy, with attention to sources
of bias

Students with moderate ownership and
literacy achievement

Students with higher ownership and
literacy achievement
Proposed Conceptual Framework

Figure 4: Mainstream versus Diverse

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 41

Aside from empowerment, educators also needed to consider providing
assessments that eliminated or reduced sources of bias (such as prior knowledge,
language, and question type) and more accurately reflected students’ literacy
achievement (Au, 313).
Other experts such as Duffy and Hoffman (1999) agreed that children are
hurt because mandating ‘one perfect’ method prevents teachers from using different
methods with kids who need them. In a study entitled “In Pursuit of an illusion:
The Flawed Search for a Perfect Method,” the authors suggested that the answer is
not in the method; it is in the teacher. It has been repeatedly established that the
best instruction results when combinations of methods are orchestrated by a teacher
who decides what to do in light of children’s needs (11). The authors further stated
that effective teachers root their eclecticism in assessing students and analyzing
situations before deciding what method or material to use, in ongoing evaluation,
and in thoughtfully adapting to the students and situations (12).
In fact, even in the atmosphere of high-stakes accountability based on
Standards, teachers could still make adjustments. According to Stillman (2009),
“There were two central means wherein teachers could modify standards in order to
meet their ELLs’ needs prioritizing ‘essential standards’ and making standards
‘culturally relevant’ (146).”
However, in order for teachers to make adjustments effectively, they needed
to be able to reflect on what was happening in their classrooms, much like an
ethnographer conducts observations for research. Souto-Manning (2011) suggested

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 42

that teachers conduct a systematic, intentional inquiry about their own school and
classroom work. Although their findings were not meant to be generalizable, they
did offer possibilities of shedding light into various learning contexts (54).
Another conversation that has not occurred is the establishment of the
purpose of the pedagogy. What is the purpose of teaching the students? Is it to
master a list of discrete standards? Or, is it to help students become literate so that
they are prepared for college or the workforce? If so, then a discussion needs to
occur regarding the definition of literacy. The National Council of Teachers of
English Executive Committee agreed in 2008 to define literacy as a collection of
cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups.
As society and technology change, so does literacy. This definition was listed in an
article entitled “Recognizing Different Kinds of ‘Head Starts’” (Orellana et al.,
2011, 295-298). This study stated that from a socio-cultural perspective,
performance on isolated skills (including reading comprehension) did not add up to
the ability to use reading and writing in a meaningful way in the social world and
that the whole was more than the sum of its parts. Experts suggested that educators
incorporate a deep understanding of culture into assessments of learning and that
changing demographics should not be perceived as a problem to be solved but as a
generative resource for theorizing about learning (297). This meant that rather than
ranking children separately on their English and home language scores, we might
categorize children according to their language flexibility and then identify ways to
build greater versatility and deeper expertise in each language forms (298).

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 43

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact 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 (RFEPs) at Shangri-la High School. The de-facto policy of tracking
students based on language ability has had negative implications regarding access
to content for students who had not been re-designated due to language issues but
by their cognitive abilities.
The following research questions were used to evaluate the efficacy of the
treatment:
1. Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention
score higher on the California Standardized Test - English section compared
to the students in the retrospective control group?
2. Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention
score higher on the California High School Exit Exam – English section
compared to the students in the retrospective control group?
3. Does the effect of the 2012 intervention depend on ELL or RFEP language
classification?

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 44

A quantitative approach was used to complete this study. Research
questions number one and two were used to analyze the main effects of the
intervention. Research question number three was used to determine the
interaction of treatment and language classification.

Design Summary
The research design for this study was a quantitative approach. A 3 x 2
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for Research Question No. 1. The “3”
stands for the language categories and the“2” stands for the factors referring to the
year and the pre- and post-intervention scores. The language categories were coded
as follows: 1) Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) students and the English
Only (EO) students were combined and coded as “1” in the output; 2) the Re-
designated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students were coded as “2”; and
3) English Language Learners (ELLs) were coded as “3” in the output. The scale
scores of the 9
th
, 10
th
and 11
th
grade CST scores in the English Section for school
year 2011-2012 were used to compare the scores after the treatment. The
retrospective control group served as a basis for comparison. The hypothesis was
that due to the curriculum alignment (emphasis on teaching the standards) and open
enrollment, the students’ overall proficiency increased.
A 4 x 2 ANOVA was used for Research Question No. 2. The “4” stands for
the language categories which were listed as English Only (EO), Initially Fluent

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 45

English Proficient (IFEP), English Language Learner (ELL), and Re-designated
English Proficient(RFEP) in the output. The “2” stands for the factors referring to
the year and the pre- and post-intervention scores. The CAHSEE English scores of
the 10
th
grade cohort from school year 2010-2011 were compared to the CAHSEE
English scores of the 10
th
grade cohort from school year 2011-2012. The
hypothesis was that the cohort of 10
th
graders after the treatment should receive
higher proficiency scores due the treatment.
The third research question compared the difference in the scores of the
ELLs versus the RFEP students before and after treatment using a 2 x 2 factorial
analysis. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2008), “A factorial design focused
on the program or treatment and enabled a researcher to determine whether the
program had an effect or whether the different subcomponents were effective
(191).” In other words, did the intervention have an effect on the test performance
of the different language groupings?
In the case study, the independent variables were open-enrollment, data-
driven instruction and language classification, while the dependent variables were
the test results in CAHSEE English and CST English.
Table 9: Diagram of Before and After Treatment
Before Treatment
Open Enrollment
Data Driven
Instruction
After Treatment
English Learner
Average
English Learner
Average
RFEP Average RFEP Average

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 46

Participants and Setting
Participants in this study consisted of the student population enrolled in an
English class from grades 9
th
to 11
th
at Shangri-la High School with total student
enrollment of 2,445 in school year 2011-2012, of which 697 were English
Language Learners (ELLs). This case study included data from the period of
September 2011 to July 2012. The intervention consisted of several components
such as open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction.
The data analyzed in this case study was collected during the intervention
period from the fall of 2011 to the 2
nd
semester of 2012. The measurement tools
utilized to determine the efficacy of the intervention (open enrollment, curriculum
alignment and data-driven instruction) were the test performances of the students in
the English Language Arts (ELA) portion of the California Standardized Tests
(CST). The second measurement tool utilized was the test performance of the 10
th

grade English students who took the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
for the first time in March 2011 versus the 10
th
grade students who took the test in
March 2012. This case study also documented the intervention that consisted of
open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction during the
period of Fall of 2011 until the second semester 2012.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 47

Intervention
The intervention, as described in Chapter One, consisted of open
enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction. Open enrollment, as
implemented at Shangri-la Unified, meant enrolling students in heterogeneous
classes instead of in homogeneous classes (grouping by ability) as had been done
previously. Moreover, students who requested to enroll in higher level classes
were allowed to do so without having to comply with pre-requisites as was
previously required. The previous requirements varied from CST scores, GPA’s
and/or teacher recommendations.
The curriculum alignment portion consisted of several steps. The first step
was to train all English and math teachers the year before implementation in order
to select key standards for each grade level and creating unit assessments for each
unit of study. The second step which occurred during the implementation year
(school year 2011-2012) was that the teachers completed “Reflection Sessions.” In
these sessions, teachers analyzed students’ performances for each unit assessment
and brainstormed regarding specific treatments to address the needs of the students.
The data gathered during these Reflection Sessions were used to discuss strategies
or next steps to address future units of study.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 48

Instrumentation and Procedures
There were two measurements used in this study. The first measurement
was the California Standardized (CST) test scores in the English Language Arts
(ELA) portion of 9
th
, 10
th
and 11
th
grade students in school year 2011 compared to
the scores in school year 2012. Particular attention was given to analyzing the
scores of the ELLs and RFEP students.
The second measurement was the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE- scores in English for the 10
th
grade students. The scores of the students
from school year 2011 were compared to the scores of the students in 2012 after the
intervention. Particular attention was utilized to analyze the scores of the ELLs and
RFEP students.
California Standardized Test (CST)
According to the California Department of Education, California Standards
Tests (CST) are criterion-referenced tests that assess the California content
standards in ELA, mathematics, science, and history-social science. The State
Board of Education (SBE) approved five performance levels for Standard Test and
Reporting (STAR) results: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below
basic. Performance levels described pupil achievement utilizing the California
content standards. Individual pupil and group results were reported using scaled
scores and performance levels. Figure 5, taken from the California Department of
Education website, illustrates the range of scores that fell within each category.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 49

The CST items were developed to measure the California content standards
and designed to conform to the item writing defined by the Educational Testing
Service (ETS) (ETS, 2002). According to the California Department of Education,
questions selected for the CST undergo an extensive item review process to ensure
that the CST provides the best standards-based test possible.

Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/csttechrpt2011.pdf
Figure 5: California Standardized Test — English Language Arts Score Range

(Source: cde.ca.gov)
Figure 6: California Standardized Test — Reliability of Standards and
Error of Measurement

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 50

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
The CAHSEE is a criterion-referenced test aligned with the California
content standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. According to the
California Department of Education, California created the test to improve student
achievement in high schools. The test helps to ensure that students graduate from
high school with grade level skills in Reading, Writing, and Math. Furthermore,
the English Language Arts (ELA) part of the CAHSEE is aligned with the
California ELA academic content standards through grade ten. The ELA part of
the CAHSEE consists of multiple-choice questions and a writing task. The reading
portion includes vocabulary, reading comprehension, analysis of information and
literary texts. The writing portion covers writing strategies, applications, and
conventions. The writing task calls for students to provide a written response to
literature, to an informational passage, or writing prompt. The passing score for the
ELA part of the CAHSEE is approximately 60 percent of items correct or a scale
score of 350 while a proficient score is 380 and above.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 51

Administration Levels Mathematics ELA
Cut % Cut %
September 2004 Pass
Proficient
Advanced

44
59
72
36%
6%
1%
54
69
77
32%
7%
3%
November 2004 Pass
Proficient
Advanced

43
59
73
39%
8%
1%
53
68
76
38%
10
4%
February 2005 Pass
Proficient
Advanced

43
58
72
67%
38%
11%
53
67
75
72%
43%
22%
March 2005 Pass
Proficient
Advanced

42
58
72
70%
42%
14%
54
68
75
72%
44%
25%
May 2005 Pass
Proficient
Advanced
44
59
73
32%
10%
2%
56
70
77
37%
13%
5%
Source: CAHSEE Technical Report Prepared by Educational Testing Service, 31

Figure 7: Summary of Cut Scores and Passing Rates Based on
Equating Samples

Limitations of the Study
Some of the limitations of the case study were:
1. Threats to internal validity:

a. CAHSEE analyses might have had some limitations due to the
comparative analysis of nonequivalent control group.
b. The cohort of 10
th
graders who took the test in 2011 was different from
the cohort of 10
th
graders who took the test in 2012 (after the treatment).

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 52

2. Threats to external validity:

a. Sampling — There was limited generalizability due to purposeful
sampling as opposed to random sampling.
b. Setting — The case study was conducted only in one location as
opposed to several randomly selected locations.
c. Measurements — The CAHSEE and CST results were only
analyzed for one year each (before and after the treatment).

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

The District set out to implement a system-wide policy that had several
phases. Phase I was the curriculum alignment and open enrollment for the English
and math department. Phase II was the data reflection sessions for the English and
math department. At the time of this case study, the District had already embarked
on Phase III which was curriculum alignment and data reflection for the History
and Science departments. This was a huge undertaking which covered several
years. The District’s overall goal was to ensure that all students had equal access to
the same rigorous standards-based standards. As a result, all students were
expected to be prepared for college. In particular, it was the District’s goal to
provide access to English Language Learners (ELLs) so that they were able to
succeed in our society.
With such lofty goals, there was a need to determine the overall efficacy of
the Pilot program. As the District moved forward to expand the program to other
disciplines in the hopes of having all the disciplines have common assessments in
the future, there was a need to determine whether or not the pilot program was able
to help the test performances of the ELLs. In order to analyze the efficacy of the
program, this case study used two sets of test scores — California Standardized
Test-English Language Arts (CST ELA) scores and the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores. The scores in 2011 reflected the scores before

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 54

intervention while the scores in 2012 reflected the scores after intervention. This
quantitative case study used a retrospective control group design. According to
Hess (2004), “A retrospective study uses existing data that has been recorded for
reasons other than research.” Following this definition, this case study compared
the mean-scaled scores of the commonly used assessments in California — CST
and CAHSEE.

Findings
Research Question No. 1
The first research question was: “Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la
High School 2012 intervention score higher on the California Standardized Test -
English section compared to the students in the retrospective control group?”
The hypothesis was that due to the following: open enrollment, curriculum
alignment which emphasized teaching the standards, and data-driven instruction;
the students’ overall proficiency would increase. A 3 x 2 Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) analysis was utilized for the first research question. The “3” stood for
the language categories and “2” stood for the factors with regards to the year (pre-
and post-intervention scores). The language categories were coded as follows:
1. Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) students and the English Only (EO)
students were combined in the output.
2. The Re-designated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 55

3. English Language Learners (ELLs).
The scale scores of the 9
th
, 10
th
and 11
th
grade CST scores in the English
Section for school year 2011-2012 were utilized to compare the scores after the
treatment. The retrospective control group served as a basis for comparison.
Table 10 shows the CST ELA mean-scaled scores, standard deviation, and number
of scores for each language fluency category for the pre- and post-intervention
years.
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics — California Standardized Test Scores

Dependent Variable: Scaled Score
langflur_cst Year Mean Std. Deviation N
English Only
and IFEP
2011 328.96 53.18 472
2012 334.60 53.44 445
Total

331.70

53.35

917

Re-designated
English
Proficient
2011 338.20 40.86 832
2012 344.86 41.82 759
Total

341.38

41.44

1591

English
Language
Learners
2011 274.10 32.88 480
2012 286.02 40.36 436
Total

279.77

37.09

916

Total

2011 318.51 50.56 1784
2012 326.43 51.23 1640

Total 322.3034 51.02 3424

As expected, the mean-scaled score of the RFEP students were higher than
the ELLs; in 2011, it was 338.20 while in 2012 (intervention year), it was 344.86.
This reflected a difference of 6.66 in the mean-scaled score compared to the
retrospective control group. This difference was statistically significant.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 56

In comparison, the ELLs’ mean-scaled score in 2011 was 274.10 while in
2012 (Intervention year), it was 286.01. This reflected a difference of 11.92 in the
mean-scaled score compared to retrospective control group. However, the
difference in the mean-scaled score of the ELLs before-and-after treatment (11.92)
was higher compared to the difference of the mean-scaled score of the RFEP
students’ before-and-after treatment (6.67).
The language fluency of the students had an effect of the test performance
of the students. The RFEP students outperformed the combined mean-scaled
scores of the IFEPs and the EO students. The lowest performing group was the
ELLs.
According to Fields (2005), “The standard deviation is a measure of how
well the mean represents the data. Small standard deviations, relative to the value
of the mean itself, indicate the data points are close to the mean. A large standard
deviation relative to the mean indicates that the data points are distant to the mean
— not an accurate representation of the data (6).” The standard deviations for each
fluency category in Table 10 were small compared to the mean; therefore, the data
points were an accurate representation of the data.
In another comparison of the CST scores, Table 11 showed the significant
(sig) factor for language fluency year is .000, which is less than .05. According to
Fields (2005), “If the probability of obtaining the value of our test statistic by
chance is less than .05, then we generally accept the experimental hypothesis as
true; there is an effect in the population (27).”

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 57

Table 11: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects — California Standardized Test
Scores

Dependent Variable: Scaled Score
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2374285.77 5 474857.15 248.21 .000
Intercept 322817595.27 1 322817595.27 168735.88 .000
Langflur_CST 2300239.34 2 1150119.67 601.16 .000
Year 52096.73 1 52096.73 27.23 .000
Langflur_CST *
Year
5461.67 2 2730.84 1.43 .240
6539157.95 3418 1913.15

Total 364596891.000 3424

Corrected Total 8913443.72 3423

In conclusion, based on these statistical analyses, the intervention of open
enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction had a significant
positive effect on the CST ELA scores of the ELLs versus the RFEP students. In
addition, the RFEP and the IFEP group outscored the ELLs group.

Research Question No. 2
The second research question was: “Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the
Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention score higher on the California High
School Exit Exam – English section compared to the students in the retrospective
control group?” The hypothesis was that due to the following: open enrollment,
curriculum alignment with emphasis on teaching the standards, and data-driven
instruction; the students’ overall proficiency on the CAHSEE would increase.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 58

The 4 x 2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for the second research
question. The “4” stood for the language categories which were listed as English
Only (EO), Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP), English Language Learner
ELL), and Re-designated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) in the output. The “2”
signified factors with regards to the year (pre- and post-intervention scores). The
CAHSEE (English) scores of the 10
th
grade cohort from school year 2010-2011
was compared to the CAHSEE (English) scores of the 10
th
grade cohort from
school year 2011-2012.
Table 12 shows the CAHSEE ELA mean-scaled score, standard deviation,
and number of scores for each language fluency category for two years. According
to the California Department of Education website, for the March administration of
the CAHSEE, the ELA pass rate was 69% in 2011 while the ELA pass rate in 2012
was 61% which shows an 8% drop in percentage points. (Source: Dataquest)
Table 12 delineates the drop in scores based on language fluency. For
instance, the ELLs mean-scaled score for SY 2011 is 332.97, while for school year
of 2012, the mean-scaled score was 333.05, which showed a difference of 0.0747.
On the other hand, the mean-scaled score for the RFEP students for SY 2011 is
385.62 while the mean-scaled score for SY 2012 (Intervention year) was 379.68.
The decrease in the mean-scaled score was 5.9468. As expected, the mean-scaled
score of the RFEP students were higher than the mean-scaled score of EL students.
However, there was a bigger drop in the mean-scaled score from the year before the

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 59

intervention versus the intervention year compared to the ELLs. Moreover, the
overall mean-scaled score dropped from 369.30 in 2011 to 364.70 in 2012.

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics — California High School Exit Exam Scores

Dependent Variable: Scale Score
Language Fluency Year Mean Std. Deviation N
English Only
2011 367.602 36.68 88
201 366.48 38.03 97
Total

367.01

37.30

185

Initially Fluent English
Proficient
2011 393.83 26.38 42
2012 387.98 30.94 62
Total
l
390.35

29.19

104

English Learner
2011 332.97 24.86 156
2012 333.05 27.09 163
Total
l
333.01

25.98

319

Re-designated English
Proficient
2011 385.62 25.06 293
2012 379.68 25.23 239
Total 382.95 25.28 532

Total
2011 369.30 35.63911 579
2012 364.70 35.82071 562
Total 367.03 35.78690 1141

Table 13: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects — California High School
Exit Exam Scores
Dependent Variable: Scale Score
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 529089.07
a
5 105817.81 129.13 .000
Intercept 139559187.56 1 139559187.56 170298.91 .000
Langflur_CAHSEE 517818.24 2 258909.12 315.93 .000
Year 1469.38 1 1469.38 1.80 .181
Langflur_CAHSEE
* Year
2125.23 2 1062.61 1.30 .274
929307.86 1134 819.50

Total 155059646.00 1140

Corrected Total 1458396.93 1139

a. R Squared = .363 (Adjusted R Squared = .360)

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 60

Initially, the case study was designed to compare the scores of the 10
th

graders who took the test for the first time in March 2011 (pre-treatment) versus the
scores of the 10
th
graders who took the test for the first time in March 2012 (post-
treatment). The hypothesis was that the cohort of 10
th
grade English Language
Learners after the treatment would receive higher proficiency scores due the
treatment. However, as indicated in Table 13, the observed probability for the year
was .181. According to Fields (2005), “If the probability is greater than.05, you
reject your experimental hypothesis (28).” In conclusion, based on these statistical
analyses, the intervention (i.e. open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-
driven instruction) had no significant effect on the CAHSEE ELA scores of the
ELLs versus the RFEP students. Moreover, the language fluency of the students
had an effect on the overall performance on the CAHSEE. For instance, the EOs’
overall mean-scaled score was 367.01 while the IFEPs’ was 390.35. Both these
groups outperformed the RFEPs (382.96) and the ELLs (382.95).

Research Question No. 3
The third research question was: “Does the effect of the 2012 intervention
depend on ELL or RFEP language classification?”
Figure 6 describes the increase in scaled scores per year. The ELLs’,
RFEPs’ and EOs’ scores went up. The scaled scores of the IFEPs remained
unchanged. According to Jaccard (1998), “A perfectly flat (horizontal) line means
that the focal independent variable has no effect on the mean values of the

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 61

dependent variables at the given level of the moderator variable. A non-horizontal
line implies the presence of a simple main effect (except for sampling error) (23).”
The mean-scaled scores for Figure 8 are shown in Table 14.

Figure 8: California Standardized Test — Mean Scores

Using another analysis, the confidence interval was used to “construct a
range of values within which we think the population value falls” (Fields, 2005,
17). Table 14 reflects the range of the scores for each language category. For
example, the ELLs’ scores were between 281.98 to 290.05 in 2012 and the RFEPs’
scores were between 341.80 and 347.93 in 2012.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 62

Table 14: California Standardized Test — Language Fluency and Year
Dependent Variable: SS
Language fluency Year Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
English only
2011 315.57 2.51 310.64 320.506
2012 323.82 2.61 318.71 328.94
Initially fluent English
proficient
2011 350.88 3.21 344.59 357.19
2012 351.54 3.27 345.13 357.95
English learner
2011 274.10 1.97 270.25 277.95
2012 286.02 2.06 281.98 290.05
Re-designated English
Proficient
2011 338.20 1.49 335.27 341.12
2012 344.86 1.56 341.80 347.93

Based on Table 14, the mean-scaled scores for ELLs in 2011 were 274 and
286 in 2012. Therefore, if the scores were juxtaposed with the performance bands
per the California Department matrix, one might see that while there was an
increase in the mean-scaled score, the ELLs’ score still placed them in the Below
Basic range. The mean-scaled score for the RFEP in 2011 were 338 and 344 in
2012, meaning the RFEPs’ score still placed them in the Basic range for the CST
score range.
To better understand the ELLs’ scores, Table 15 illustrates the different
bands — Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Advanced and Proficient — per the
California Department of Education matrix. The cut scores varied slightly
depending on the grade level. These bands were important because the students
needed to score within a certain band range in order to be eligible for
reclassification. Per the District’s English Learner Handbook, any student who had
been enrolled in an American school for three years or more should already have

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 63

had the proficiency to reclassify. However, due to the students’ scores, some
remain as ELLs despite being enrolled in American schools since kindergarten.

Table 15: California Standardized Test — English Language Arts Score Range
FBB BB B Advanced Proficient
9
th
grade 150-264 264-299 300-349 350-396 397-600
10
th grade
150-262 262-299 300-349 350-391 392-600
11
th
grade 150-258 258-299 300-349 350-395 396-600

Figure 9 shows a graphical analysis that the ELLs' scores remained
unchanged while the RFEP’s scores dropped. The mean-scaled scores are shown in
Table 16.

Figure 9: California High School Exit Exam Mean Scale Scores —
Estimated Marginal Means

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 64

Means of Scale Scores
Table 16: California High School Exit Exam Scores — Language
Fluency and Year

Dependent Variable: Scale Score
Language Fluency Year Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
English Only
2011 367.602 2.993 361.730 373.474
2012 366.485 2.851 360.891 372.078
Initially Fluent English
Proficient
2011 393.833 4.332 385.333 402.333
2012 387.984 3.566 380.988 394.980
English Learner
2011 332.974 2.248 328.564 337.385
2012 333.049 2.199 328.734 337.364
Re-designated English
Proficient
2011 385.625 1.640 382.406 388.843
2012 379.678 1.816 376.115 383.241

According to the California Department of Education, the CAHSEE
required a scale score of 350 in order to pass while scale scores between 380 to 450
meant that the student was proficient. Table 16 shows that the mean-scaled scores
for ELLs were 332 in 2011 and 333.05 in 2012. The mean-scaled scores were
below the pass rate for both years. The mean-scaled score for RFEP learners in
2011 was 385.63 while the mean-scaled score in 2012 was 379.68. The RFEPs’
mean-scaled score was above the pass rate.
The analysis used was a 4 x 2 factorial design which accounts for Language
classification and treatment. The hypothesis was that before the treatment, there
was a huge disparity between the proficiency rate of the ELLs and RFEP students.
After the treatment, the disparity might be smaller because the ELLs would have
had access to more rigorous content. Therefore, the ELLs would have had more

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 65

opportunities to interact and practice their verbal abilities with higher-performing
students. However, based on the statistical analyses above, the placement of the
ELLs in heterogeneous grouping had no statistically significant effect on the test
performances in both the CST English and CAHSEE English.
In conclusion, there are two statistically significant findings based on the
analyses. First, the intervention of open enrollment and curriculum alignment had
a significant positive effect on the CST ELA scores. Second, there was no
statistically significant effect on the CAHSEE English scores. There was no
interaction between language placement and the intervention for either the CST or
the CAHSEE.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 66

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Summary
The problem of educating a diverse population in American public schools
has been a challenge since the turn of the century. The plight of the English
Language Learners (ELLs) is still a nationwide problem. As a result of the influx
of immigrants into the United States, more and more ELLs are enrolling in K-12
schools. In the United States, students who are ELLs consist of 10% of the
population and 79% of these ELLs speak Spanish. The second biggest ELLs
population speaks Vietnamese but they only account for 2% of the ELLs
population (Gandara, 2003, 3).
In California, this is even more pronounced because 25% of California’s
public school population is ELLs and 83% speak Spanish (Gandara, 2003, p.3).
This poses a major problem because there is a large disparity in student
achievement based on language ability. According to the California Department of
Education’s over the last ten years, ELLs consistently underperform the RFEP
students. For example for the graduating class of 2014, 44.5% of the ELLs passed
the CAHSEE while 93.9% of the RFEPs passed the CAHSEE. (Source:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr12/ yr12rel77.asp#tab4)
This is detrimental to this population of students because passing the
CAHSEE is a requirement for receiving a high school diploma. A high school

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 67

diploma not only symbolizes a culmination of a students’ educational growth but is
also an entrée into the workforce. Without this, students have a difficulty in finding
good-paying jobs that help them contribute to society in general.
This particular demographic challenge is mirrored by the student population
at the high school that participated in this case study. This case study was a
quantitative study used to analyze the test performances of the ELLs versus those
of the RFEP students before and after the treatment. The design was a
retrospective control group design, wherein the assessment records of prior year
students were collated to determine the efficacy of the treatment.
Listed below are some of the steps initiated by the District in order to
alleviate the institutional barriers that exist for ELLs.
1. Open enrollment — Previous practice placed ELLs in less rigorous classes
which were perceived to be appropriate for the ELLs’ language ability. The
unintended consequence was that they were not able to access college-prep
classes or more rigorous classes that would have exposed them to material
deemed necessary in passing standardized tests. With the new policy of open
enrollment, students may request to enroll in more rigorous classes regardless
of their language fluency or previous CST scores.
2. Curriculum alignment — The District tried to ensure that each teacher was
aware of the standards that needed to be taught per unit to ensure uniformity
in the content offered to all students.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 68

3. Data Reflection— Institutionalized Reflection Sessions provided
opportunities for teachers to identify specific students who were having
difficulties in specific units so the teachers could mitigate their problems.

To study the efficacy of the treatment, two widely used assessments were
used in this case study, namely the California Standardized Tests (CST) and the
California High School exit Exam (CAHSEE). Both of these were criterion-
referenced tests used as a summative evaluation of students’ mastery of standards-
based education. The assessment scores reflected the effect of the treatment on the
test performance of the participants.
The following research questions were used in order to evaluate the treatment:
1. Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention
score higher on the California Standardized Test - English section compared
to the students in the retrospective control group?
2. Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention
score higher on the California High School Exit Exam - English section
compared to the students in the retrospective control group?
3. Does the effect of the 2012 intervention depend on ELL or RFEP language
classification?
The students’ data were obtained for this study through the school district’s
Eagle Software’s AERIES student information system, Online Assessment
Reporting System (OARS), and the California Department of Education’s

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 69

Dataquest. This included scores from 1,784 students in 2011 and 1,640 students in
2012 enrolled in grades 9
th
to 11
th.
Among these students, 832 were listed as
RFEPs in 2011 and 759 were listed as RFEPs in 2012. There were 480 ELLs in
2011 and 436 ELLs in 2012. All students between 9
th
to 11
th
grades in this study
participated in the treatment because they were all enrolled in an English class.
However, the 12
th
grade data were not included because seniors do not take the
CST. Moreover, if they took a CAHSEE test, it would not be their first time.
The case study consisted of the CST scaled scores for the 9
th
, 10
th
and 11
th

grades in 2011, and the 9
th
, 10
th
, and 11
th
grades in 2012. The grades in 2011 were
used as a baseline score before the exposure to the treatment. The case study also
included the CAHSEE scaled scores of the 10
th
grade students’ - English section for
2011 and 10
th
grade CAHSEE scores in 2012. This was significant because for
each cohort, 10
th
grade was the first time they took the CAHSEE. There were 579
students who took the CAHSEE in 2011 and 562 in 2012. Of these, 156 were
ELLs in 2011 and 163 in 2012 while 293 were RFEPs in 2011 and 239 in 2012.
Using the retrospective control group design, the mean-scaled scores were analyzed
to determine the efficacy of the treatment. Finally, the Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS) was utilized to analyze the data for this study.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 70

Results and Discussions
Research Question No. 1
“Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention score
higher on the California Standardized Test –English section compared to the
students in the retrospective control group?”
There was a statistically significant positive impact on the test performance
of ELLs from 2011 to 2012. The scores for both language designations increased.
The mean-scaled score for the RFEP students in 2011 was 338.20 while in 2012
(intervention year), it was 344.86. This reflected a difference of 6.6684 in the
mean-scaled score compared to the prior year.
In comparison, the ELLs’ mean-scaled score in 2011 was 274.10 while in
2012 (Intervention year), it was 286.01. This reflected a difference of 11.92 in the
mean-scaled score compared to the prior year. However, the difference in the
mean-scaled score of the ELLs before-and-after treatment (11.92) was higher
compared to the difference of the mean-scaled score of the RFEP students’ before-
and-after treatment (6.6684). This gain suggested the positive effect of the
treatment.
These results were noteworthy because one of the arguments for the push
for curriculum alignment was that if the students were exposed to the standards,
they might have a better chance of understanding those standards. The treatment
had a direct impact on the CST scores because the units of study were based on the

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 71

highly-tested standards on the CST’s. One could infer that since the students were
exposed to these standards, they were better equipped to succeed in the CST. This
was particularly prominent in the mean-scaled score of the ELLs because the
difference of the mean-scaled score was higher compared to those of the RFEP
students.
However, there was no indication that student placement had any statistical
significance on the test performances of the students. The ELLs could have stayed
in their homogeneously placed classrooms and still fared much the same. A
previous hypothesis was that since the ELLs were placed in heterogeneous
groupings instead of the traditional Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) classes, the
open enrollment might have had a positive impact on their test performances. At
this point in the implementation, there were no specific strategies implemented that
were geared specifically for the ELLs in the heterogeneously placed classes.
Detractors might state that students’ scores were bound to increase because
the teachers were teaching to the test. Specific units of study and pacing guides
were organized based on the standards on the CSTs. The highly structured pacing
guides left very little room for teachers to provide other content for a specific
discipline which might help develop creativity, inquiry and flexibility.
However, the proponents of the standards-based movement might respond
that providing a specific course of study and establishing uniform expectations for
the performance of all students, standards can equalize the content and instruction.
As a result, this might narrow the achievement gap for schools serving students

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 72

from minority and low-income backgrounds (Ogawa, et al., 2003, 148). The
structured units of study would eliminate the use of instructional time for whatever
fit the fancy of each teacher. It would also eliminate the “watering down” of
content based on a teacher’s perception of students’ abilities.

Research Question No. 2
Do the ELLs and RFEPs in the Shangri-la High School 2012 intervention score
higher on the California High School Exit Exam – English section compared to the
students in the retrospective control group?
Based on the data analyses, there was no statistically significant impact of
the treatment on the test performance of ELLs and RFEP students on the CAHSEE.
For instance, the ELLs mean-scaled score for SY 2011 was 332.9744 while for SY
2012, the mean-scaled score was 333.0491, which showed a difference of 0.0747.
On the other hand, the mean-scaled score for the RFEP students for SY 2011 was
385.6246 while the mean-scaled score for SY 2012 (Intervention year) was
379.6778. The decrease in the mean-scaled score was 5.9468. As expected, the
mean-scaled score of the RFEP students were higher than the mean-scaled score of
ELL students. However, there was a bigger drop in the mean-scaled score from the
year before the intervention, versus the intervention year in the RFEP group
compared to the ELLs. The ELLs had the lowest percentage of mean-scaled score.
During the curriculum alignment process, the English teachers for 10
th

grade students chose the standards to be included per unit of study by comparing

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 73

the standards that were frequently tested in the California Standardized Tests
(CSTs) and the California High School Exit Exams (CAHSEE). The standards that
were in both blueprints were included in units 1 to 3. These standards were listed
in the pacing guides as the target standards to be mastered by the students per unit.
The rationale was that the students would be better prepared to take both tests
(CSTs and CAHSEE).
However, based on the data, there was no statistical significance in the
overall performance of the students as the result of the treatment; in fact, the mean-
scaled scores decreased. One might argue that the cohort of 10
th
grade students last
year was different from the cohort of 10
th
grade students this year. Hence, it would
not be a valid comparison of the efficacy of the treatment because they were not the
same students.
On the other hand, both the ELLs and the RFEP groups of students’ mean-
scaled scores increased for the CSTs, which might be because there was a
difference between the CST and the CAHSEE. It might be that the students needed
more information in order to succeed in the CAHSEE aside from simply learning
the skill of choosing the answers that most resembled the correct choice (as in the
case of the CST.) CAHSEE had a writing component which was not present in the
CST. The essay-writing component required that students have some knowledge
about the structure of an essay, writing conventions and inferential thinking in
order to address the prompts coherently and cohesively. It is quite possible that due

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 74

to the demands of the pacing guide, the 10
th
grade teachers were not able to address
the writing component of the test.
Moreover, experts suggested that teachers should not take a cafeteria
approach — teach a little bit of this and a little bit of that. According to Neuman
(2010), in an article entitled Lessons From My Mother: Reflections on the National
Early Literacy Panel Report, “This is not the best method because teachers are
simply exposing children to a narrow set of skills and training. As a result, teachers
will simply teach the students to react but not to think. A better way to teach is to
expose children to language-rich and content-rich settings that can help them
acquire the broad array of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that build a
foundation for literacy and content learning (304).” It would be better for teachers
to start with the end in mind and plan backwards. If teachers prepared lessons in
this manner, the lessons would be more cohesive and purposeful rather than
isolated sets of ideas which could not possibly be retained by the students because
they hold no meaning.
Moreover, according to Saifer et al. (2011), “Students need critical thinking
skills to make sense of what they are studying, solve problems, reason, create and
explore. With critical thinking, students can generalize specific concepts and apply
general concepts to specific situations.”
The following is a list of some types of critical thinking along with sample

questions that illustrate each type:

1. Clarity — “Could you elaborate on that point?”

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 75

2. Accuracy — “Is that really true?” “How could we check that to find out if it
is true?”
3. Precision — “Could you give me more details or be more specific?”
4. Relevance — “How is that connected to the question?” “How does that bear
on the issue?”
5. Depth — “How does your answer address the complexities of the situation?”
6. Breadth — “Do you need to consider another point of view?” “Is there
another way to look at it?”
7. Logic — “Does this really make sense?” “Does that follow from what you
said?”
8. Significance — “Is this the most important problem to consider?”
9. Fairness — “Do I have any vested interest in this issue?”
The authors further explained that teachers needed to understand that
students of the same age do not learn at the same time. Teachers needed to use
standards as a continuum in facilitating learning at a higher level (Saifer et al.,
2011). However, teachers do need to understand the needs of individual students in
order to help them access the standards.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 76

Research Question No. 3
Does the effect of the 2012 intervention depend on ELL or RFEP language
classification?
Based on the statistical analyses above, the placement of the English
Language Learners (ELLs) in heterogeneous grouping had no statistically
significant effect on the test performance in the CAHSEE English. The effect of
the 2012 intervention did not depend on language classifications. The treatment
did not have a statistically different effect based on the language grouping. While
it was true that part of the treatment was to identify the ELLs and analyze their test
scores during the Reflection Sessions, the teachers really did not have an
opportunity to re-teach a specific standard. The ELL’s had shadow classes which
were meant to address re-teaching or previewing of lessons. However, during the
treatment year, there was no specific course of action or curriculum for the ELLs in
the shadow classes. The shadow classes would have been the optimum time to
provide individualized intervention to the ELLs tailored to their cognitive and
linguistic levels. According to Reutzel (2006), “In order to reach all of the
children, teachers must be willing to provide instruction that is responsive to the
needs of each child based upon assessment results.” Unfortunately, on many
occasions, the core English teacher was not necessarily the shadow teacher, so he
or she may not necessarily have had access to the students’ assessment results.
Moreover, it takes training and time in order for teachers to be able to
provide this particular service. For example, Delpit (2006) suggested that teachers

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 77

needed to recognize the fluency of students in their home language. In her book
Other People’s Children, she wrote that “if minority people are to effect the change
which will allow them to truly progress, we must insist on ‘skills’ within the
context of critical and creative thinking (19).” For example, teachers needed to
understand the nuance of what students were trying to express instead of negating
all the students’ ideas. Teachers do not need to rely on simply utilizing the “drill
and kill” methods of reinforcing skills and standards.
It is important to note that the District had already initiated several steps in
order to mitigate this situation. For example, some teachers were provided with
California English Language Development Trainings (CELDT) so that teachers
were aware of the ELLs in their rosters and what was entailed by the CELDT tests.
The school site had already initiated having the teachers conduct the CELDT
testing as well, instead of using testing assistants in order to provide emphasis to
the process of reclassifying ELLs.
As previously described, Phase I of the intervention was the curriculum
alignment and open enrollment for the English and math department. Phase II was
the data reflection sessions for the English and math department. At the time of
this case study, the District had already embarked on Phase III which was
curriculum alignment and data reflection for the History and Science departments.
The consultants, a company called ‘Principals Exchange’, started to train the
teachers in using what they called ‘The Golden Ticket”’ process that was based on
the concept of gradual release of responsibility. Teachers’ instructional practice

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 78

was now monitored more systematically. To ensure this, an institutional change at
the school site was implementation of ‘Peer Coaching’. The school site hired
instructional coaches for all four core disciplines: English, Math, Science and
History. The teachers and instructional coaches were provided trainings regarding
the protocol of teachers visiting other teachers. This not only fostered the idea of
collegiality and professionalism, but also the notion of fidelity of implementation.
There were other institutional changes that were implemented to support the
interventions. For example, the counselors were also provided training which was
similar to the training that teachers received regarding curriculum alignment. The
goal was to ensure that each counselor at all school sites, specifically at the high
school level, had similar criteria about student’s placement.

Limitations of This Case Study
This case study had five limitations that could have affected the final
results. One threat to the internal validity was the comparative analysis of a
nonequivalent group. In order to determine the outcome of the independent
variables (treatment, open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data driven
instruction) upon the dependent variables (CST and CAHSEE), it would have been
optimum to compare randomly assigned groups. However, the data in this case
study was collated from the cohort of 10
th
grade students who took the CAHSEE in

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 79

2011 versus the 10
th
graders who took the CAHSEE for the first time in 2012
(treatment year).
Several threats to external validity had to do with the sampling, setting and
measurements. There would be limited generalizability due to the purposeful
sampling in one high school versus random-sampling multiple high schools. Also,
the case study was conducted in one location as opposed to several randomly
selected locations. The measurements (CST and CAHSEE) results were only
analyzed for one year each (before and after the treatment).
Finally, the treatment could not be replicated since there was no codified,
formal protocol for the treatment. The participants adjusted their process
depending on what course of action was needed. From a policy implementation
perspective, this was very effective because as soon as problems were identified,
solutions were implemented. However, from a researcher’s perspective, this posed
as a limitation because it prevented uniformity of implementation that could be
duplicated for future studies.
Moreover, future studies might also include the CELDT results of the
students since measurement pertains to the English development of the ELLs
annually. The CELDT results were not included in this case study because there
were no specific interventions designed to impact the CELDT results introduced
during the case study period. However, as of the time of this writing, the District
had already initiated steps to address this issue. For instance, teachers have

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 80

received training. The District had also mandated that teachers administer the
CELDT tests instead of using testing assistants.

Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to analyze the efficacy of the treatment on the
test performances of ELLs compared to the RFEP students at Shangri-la High
School. The treatment had several components such as: open enrollment,
curriculum alignment and data-driven instruction at Shangri-la High School.
The methodology for this case study consisted of comparing the
retrospective control groups’ mean-scaled scores to the scores obtained after the
intervention. This case study used two widely administered assessments in the
state of California — CST and CAHSEE. The groups in this case study consisted
of the 9
th
, 10
th
and 11
th
grade students for the English CSTs. The 10
th
graders who
took the CAHSEE for the first time consisted of the other group.
Research question one suggested that the treatment had a statistically
significant positive effect on the test performance of the students on the CST. The
statistical analyses showed that the ELLs’ mean-scaled score in 2011 was 274.10
while in 2012 (Intervention year), it was 286.01. This reflected a difference of
11.92 in the mean-scaled score compared to the prior year. Moreover, the
difference in the mean-scaled score of the ELLs before- and-after treatment (11.92)
was higher compared to the difference of the mean-scaled score of the RFEP

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 81

students before-and-after treatment (6.67). These results supported the efficacy of
the district’s treatment.
The results for research question 2 suggested that there was no statistically
significant effect on the test performance of ELLs or RFEPS on the CAHSEE
scores. In fact, the ELLs mean-scaled score for SY 2011 was 332.97 while for SY
2012, the mean-scaled score was 333.05, which showed a small difference of 0.07.
On the other hand, the mean-scaled score for the RFEP students for SY 2011 was
385.6246 while the mean-scaled score for SY 2012 (Intervention year) was
379.6778. The decrease in the mean-scaled score was 5.9468. There was a bigger
drop in the mean-scaled score of the RFEPs from the year before the intervention
versus the intervention year compared to the ELLs. These results are in direct
conflict of the CST results.
The results of research question 3 revealed that there was no statistically
significant moderating effect based on language placement. The effect of the 2012
intervention did not depend on language classifications. The treatment did not have
a statistically significant differential effect based on the language grouping.
The findings of this case study might illuminate areas for potential
improvement for future implementation. However, since this study was based on a
quantitative design, there was very little information to indicate the trends and
patterns in the behavior and motivational changes that occurred with the staff
during the implementation of the pilot project. This was a shortcoming of this
study because teachers’ perceptions and expectations have been known to have an

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 82

effect on students’ performances. As previously discussed in Chapter Two,
teachers with a deficit model perspective were more likely to have lower
expectations of students and to attribute students’ performances due to their lack of
prior knowledge. Future studies might include mixed-methods or qualitative
studies to capture the information from the teachers’ perspectives and/or from the
school’s community to reflect the improvements at the school site.
In the future, the District might need to emphasize analyzing individual
students’ scores versus aggregate scores per grade level in order to address each
individual’s linguistic and cognitive needs. Moreover, the District might need to
provide emphasis on culturally relevant pedagogy in order to address the needs of
ELLs. This particular concept requires a whole range of discussions that require
reframing of the minds of the adults at the school setting.
There are many concepts addressed in the literature review which could
help towards this. For instance, the idea of reframing the view from a deficit
perspective to a culturally responsive pedagogy would greatly help with the
teachers’ attitudes towards children of color. This would require that teachers
analyze the talents and skills that the students already have and incorporate these
strengths into the students’ learning experiences.
This would signify a departure from the constrictions of standard-based
education because it would require flexibility and creativity on the part of the
teachers and students. Instead of stand-alone standards, teachers would need to
provide ELLs with a more holistic view of educational experience. To reiterate

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 83

Stillman’s (2010) idea, there are two central means that teachers could use to
modify standards to meet the ELLs’ needs, which are to prioritize the “essential
standards” and to make them more culturally relevant. These would also bring
forth how educators rationalize the purpose of their curriculum — should it be to
make the students master a specific set of standards or to help them become literate
and ready for college or the workforce?

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 84

References
Au, K. (1998). Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of
Students of Diverse Backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research (3)2, 297-
319.

------ (2001). Culturally responsive Instruction as a dimension of new literacies.
Reading Online (5)1.

------ (2003). Balanced literacy instruction: Implications for students of diverse
background. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Jensen (Eds.) Handbook of Research
on Teaching English Language Arts (pp. 955-966). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Becker, D.E., Wise, L., & Watters, C. (2009). Independent evaluation of the
California High School Exit Exams (CAHSEE): 2009 Evaluation Report.
Human Resources Research Organization (1).
Brock, C., Boyd, F., & Moore, J. (2003). Variation in language and the use of
language across contexts: Implications for literacy learning. In J. Flood, D.
Lapp, J. Squire, J. Jenses (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching the
English Language Arts (pp. 446-458).
Brock, C.H., Moore, D.K., & Parks, L. (2007). Exploring pre-service teacher’s
literacy practices with children from diverse backgrounds. Implications for
teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education (23)6, 198-215.
Burris, C. & Garrity, D. (2008). De-tracking for excellence and equity. Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (21).

California Department of Education. (2006) APR glossary-demographic
characteristics. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
glossary07g.asp.

California Department of Education. (2013) Open Enrollment. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/op/

Delpit, L. (2006). Other People’s Children – Cultural Conflict in the Classroom.
(p. 19). New Press: NY.

Duffy, G. & Hoffman, J. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The flawed search for a
perfect method. The Reading Teacher (53)1, 10-16.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 85

Duncan-Andrade, J. & Morrell, E. (2005). Turn up that radio teacher: Popular
cultural pedagogy in new century urban schools. Journal of School
Leadership, 15, 284-308.
Educational Testing Center. (2006). California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) –Technical Report September 2004 to May 2005
Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/techreport2004.pdf#search=cahs
ee%20reliability&view=FitH&pagemode=none
Fields, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS 2
nd
ed. (p. 28). London:
Sage Publication.
Friedman, T. (2005). The World is Flat – A Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century (p. 53). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J. & Callahan, R. (2003). English
learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes.
Education Policy Analysis Archives (11)36.
Hammer, D. & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research.
Cognition and Instruction (19)4, 441-478.
Hess, D. (2004). Retrospective studies and chart reviews. Respiratory Care
(49)10, 1171.
Jaccard, J. (1998). Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance – Series
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (pp. 23-24). Thousand
Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Jones, C. (1998). Curriculum-Based Assessment – The Easy Way (pp. 3-7).
Illinois: Charles. Thomas Publisher.
Lachat, M. & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data practices that support
data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk 10(3), 333–349. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1207/ s15327671espr1003_7.
Loveless, T. (1999). The Tracking Wars: State Reforms Meets School Policy (pp.
151-153). Virginia: Brookings Institute.
Martinez, M. (1991). A comparison of multiple-choice and constructed figural
response items. Journal of Educational Measurement (28)2, 131-145
(Summer, 1991). Published by: National Council on Measurement in

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 86

Education Stable. Retrieved from URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/
1434795.
Menken, S. (2008). English Learners Left Behind – Standardized Testing as
Language Policy (3), 118-119. New York: UTP.
MacGillivray, L., Ardell, Amy, Curwen, S. & Palma, J. (2004). Colonized
teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program
Teaching Education (15)2, 136.
Neuman, S. (2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the National Early
Literacy Panel Report. Educational Research (39)4, 301-304.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track (pp. 20-21). Yale.
Ogawa, R., Sandholtz. (2003). The substantive and symbolic consequences of a
district's standards-based curriculum. American Educational Research
Journal (40)1, 147-176 (Spring, 2003). Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699428

Orellana, F. & D’warte, J. (2011). Recognizing different kinds of ‘Head Starts.’
Educational Researcher (39)295, 295- 298.
Orellana, M.F., Reynolds, J. Dorner, L., & Meza, N. (2003). In other words:
Translating or para-phrasing as a family literacy practice in immigrant
households. Reading Research Quarterly 38(1), 12-34.
Public Law 107–110, 107th Congress. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
Reardon, S., Arshan, N., Atteberry, A., & Kurlaender, M. (2010). Effects of
failing a high school exit exam on course taking, achievement, persistence,
and graduation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (32)498.
Retrieved from DOI: 10.3102/0162373710382655.
Rodger, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of
reflection. Harvard Educational Review (72)2.

Rubin, B. & Silva, E. (2003). Critical Voices in School Reform – Students Living
Through Change. Chapter Two – On Different Tracks – Students living de-
tracking reformat a diverse urban high school (p. 31). London: Routledge
Falmer.

EFFECTS OF OPEN ENROLLMENT 87

Reutzel, D.R. (2006). Organizing effective literacy instruction: Differentiating
instruction to meet the needs of all children. In L.B. Gambrell, L.M.
Morrow & Pressley (2006), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, 3
rd
Ed.
Chapter 14 (pp. 313-343). New York: The Guildford Press.. .
Saifer, S., Edwards, K., Ellis, D., Ko, L. & Stuczynski, A. (2011).
CulturallyResponsive Standards-Based Teaching – Classroom to
Community and Back, 2
nd
Ed.

Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus – Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve
Student Learning. Virginia: ASCD. (pp. 10-11).
Shuster, K. (2012.) Re-examining exit exams: New findings from the education
longitudinal study of 2002. Education Policy Analysis Archives (20)3.
Retrieved Dec. 2012, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/797.
Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally relevant pedagogy through
multicultural children’s literature: Towards critical democratic literacy
practices in a first grade classroom. Journal of early Childhood Literacy
9(1), 50-74.
Sperling, M. & Warshauer Freedman, S. (2001). Research on Writing. American
Educational Research Association (pp. 370-381).
Stillman, J. (2011). Taking back standards: Equity minded teacher’s responses to
accountability-related instructional constraints. The New Educator 5(2),
135-160.
Tobin, R. (2005). Responding to diversity: Differentiating the Language Arts
curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.langandlit.ualberta.ca/
Fall2005/Tobin.pdf.
Trochim, W. & Donnelly, J. (2008). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 3
rd
Ed. (pp. 192- 196). Australia: Language Learning.
U.S. Census Bureau News. Retrieved July 2012 http://www.census.gov/
newsroom/releases/pdf/cb10ff-14_school.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau, Shangri-la City, California. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644574.html
Vogel, L. (2010). Leading Standards-Based Education Reform: An
Implementation of Standards to Increase Student Achievement (pp. 3-7).
Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the impact 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 (RFEPs) at Shangri-la High School. Participants of this study consisted of the student population enrolled in English classes from grades 9 to 11 in an urban high school with total student enrollment of 2,445 in school year 2011-2012, of which 697 were ELLs. A retrospective control group design was used to analyze the data collected before and after the intervention period. The measurement tools utilized were the test performance of the students in the English Language Arts portion of the California Standardized tests (CST) and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The findings from this study indicate that the intervention had a significant positive effect on the CST ELA scores of the ELLs versus the RFEP students. However, the intervention did not have a significant effect on the CAHSEE ELA scores of the ELLs versus the RFEP students. Moreover, there was no interaction between the language placement and the intervention for either the CST or CAHSEE.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school

PDF

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Algebra for all and its relationship to English learner's opportunity-to-learn and algebra I success rates

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School

PDF

The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts

PDF

English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary

PDF

The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School

PDF

A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012

PDF

CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13

PDF

The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

An analysis of the impact of the total educational support system direct-instruction model on the California standards test performance of English language learners at experimental elementary school

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Miles, Eva M. (author)

Core Title 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 ...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/29/2013

Defense Date 02/14/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag curriculum alignment,data-driven instruction,English language learners,intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,open enrollment

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Owoaje, Francisca (committee member)

Creator Email emariemiles@yahoo.com,evamiles@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-246949

Unique identifier UC11288059

Identifier etd-MilesEvaM-1618.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-246949 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MilesEvaM-1618.pdf

Dmrecord 246949

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Miles, Eva M.

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