Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data
(USC Thesis Other)
Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF THE HIGH POINT CURRICULUM IN THE
COASTLINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT USING CST, CAHSEE, AND CELDT
DATA
by
Aaron A. Peralta
___________________________________________________________________________
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 2012
Copyright 2012 Aaron A. Peralta
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my wife, Julie, and my two children Graham and
Lauren, who have supported me in this accomplishment. Also, I thank my parents,
Edward and Trudy Peralta, for their unwavering support through the years in my pursuit
of education.
I thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Morgan Polikoff, Dr. Richard
Seder, and my chairperson, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, for the time and feedback. To my
thematic dissertation group members, Aime Black and Alissa Levy, I give my deep-felt
appreciation and unending gratitude for your inspiration, support, guidance and time
through this entire journey.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. vii
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM .............................................................................1
Overview of the Study .................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .........................................................................2
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................13
Importance of the Study.............................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................19
Challenges of English Language Learners in California ...........................21
Western-Style of Schooling ...........................................................22
Individualism and Collectivism .....................................................23
Pedagogy and Culture....................................................................24
Tracking .........................................................................................25
Measurement Accuracy .................................................................27
Research to Guide English Language Development (ELD)......................29
Guidelines for ELD Instruction .....................................................30
Instructional Best Practices to Support ELLs ............................................38
Promising Practices for ELL Success........................................................44
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................46
Design Summary........................................................................................47
Participants and Setting..............................................................................50
Intervention................................................................................................54
Data Source................................................................................................58
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................60
California Standards Test (CST)-ELA...........................................60
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).............................62
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) ..........63
Procedure ...................................................................................................66
Threats to Validity .....................................................................................67
Internal Validity.............................................................................67
External Validity............................................................................68
iv
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ......................................................................................69
Findings .....................................................................................................70
Answer to Research Question 1.....................................................70
Answer to Research Question 2.....................................................75
Answer to Research Question 3.....................................................79
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION................................................................................84
Summary....................................................................................................84
Implications................................................................................................87
Research Question 1 ......................................................................87
Research Question 2 ......................................................................92
Research Question 3 ......................................................................94
Discussion..................................................................................................98
Limitations ...................................................................................100
Conclusions..................................................................................102
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................106
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Statewide ELA Achievement Gap for 2009-2010…………………………….10
Table 2. Statewide ELA Achievement Gap for 2008-20……………………………….10
Table 3. Orange County ELA Achievement Gap for 2009-2010……………………....11
Table 4. Orange County ELA Achievement Gap for 2008-2009……………………....11
Table 5. CUSD ELA Achievement Gap for 2009-2010………………………………..12
Table 6. CUSD ELA Achievement Gap for 2008-2009………………………………..12
Table 7. High Point Frequency………………………………………………………....48
Table 8. Coastline Unified School District Demographic
Information 2007-2011…………………………….…………………………...…....52
Table 9. Nautica High School Demographic Information 2007-2010……………....….53
Table 10. High Point Scope and Sequence…………………………………...….....…..55
Table 11. Specialized Language Development Strategies in High Point…......…..…....57
Table 12. Lowest Obtainable (LOSS) and Highest Obtainable (HOSS) CELDT Scale
Score Values…...……………………………………………..………..…..………..65
Table 13. CST ELA Mean Scale Score by Year and School……………...…..………..73
Table 14. Multivariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 1...….…….…74
Table 15. Between Subjects Effects Summary for Research Question 1….....………....75
Table 16. 2007 CST ELA Mean Scale Score by School.………………………….……77
Table 17. 2011 CAHSEE ELA Mean Scale Score by School.………...…….….……....77
Table 18. Multivariate Model Summary for Research Question 2……………..............77
Table 19. Covariate CAHSEE Mean Scale Scor.…………………………..…………..78
Table 20. Overall CELDT Mean Scale Score by Year and School….…………………81
vi
Table 21. Multivariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 3…….………82
Table 22. Univariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 3.…….………..83
Table 23. High Point Scope and Sequence…………..…………………………………89
Table 24. High Point Frequency.…………………….…………………………………91
Table 25. Parental Education Levels by Percentage..…………………………………..98
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Gradual Release of Responsibility Mode……………………………………42
Figure 2. Quasi Experimental, Pre-Post Experimental Research Design...……………49
Figure 3. Estimated Marginal Means of CST E.……………………………………….74
Figure 4. Estimated Marginal Means of CAHSEE ELA...…………………………….78
Figure 5. Estimated Marginal Means for CELDT Across the Four Years
by School………………………………………………………………..…………..82
viii
ABSTRACT
The academic achievement gap between ethno-linguistic minority students and
other students, as represented by test scores, dropout rates, and college admissions and
completion rates, is the most persistent and pressing challenge facing public schools
nationwide. The existing achievement gap indicates that many of our students are not
receiving the minimum education needed to become literate and join the labor market.
The resulting opportunity cost of lost income from unemployment and low paying jobs
has important ramifications for our society. The compilation of research suggests that
English language learners must acquire English to a level of proficiency that maximizes
their capacity to successfully engage in content area instruction delivered in English.
This task not only requires English Language Learners (ELLs) to acquire English, but use
their new language in increasingly sophisticated ways. The identification and
implementation of research-based curriculum and instruction towards this end enables the
public education system to be the greatest equalizer in our society.
This study employed a quasi-experimental, quantitative model using the
California Standards Test, the California High School Exit Exam, and the California
English Language Development Test (CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT) to evaluate the
efficacy of the High Point Curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District (CUSD).
High Point is a research-based intervention program designed to accelerate growth in
language and literacy for ELL students.
Compared to two schools over four years on the CST ELA and the CAHSEE, the
results of the analysis indicate that the ELLs in CUSD’s High Point intervention school
ix
may have benefited from exposure to the High Point curriculum. All three schools
demonstrated substantial gains on the CELDT; however, the gains in the High Point
intervention school were less than those of the comparison schools.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ushered in a new era of accountability that made
transparency of performance data a key determinant in measuring the health of our
education system. The current accountability system highlights certain groups of
students failing to perform at satisfactory levels thus leaving schools with a daunting task
to mitigate this complex issue. Research-based curriculum designed to close knowledge
deficiencies is one strategy to close learning gaps. To this end, the High Point
curriculum is one such example of research-based curriculum designed to close reading
and writing gaps in the English Language Learner (ELL) population. The purpose of this
study evaluates the efficacy of the High Point program, authored by Dr. Josefina Villamil
Tinajero, Dr. Alfredo Schifini, and Dr. Deborah Short, published by Hampton-Brown, in
the Coastline Unified School District (CUSD) by those students who received English
Language Development (ELD) in Grades 7-10.
Overview of the Study
National, state, and school site data sets indicate the underachievement of ELLs
when compared to their English-speaking counterparts. The federal accountability
mandate, known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, placed major
accountability changes on the states. Specifically, NCLB Title III requires states to
clearly define and establish English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards aligned to
state academic content standards, yet suitable for ELL students learning English as a
second language measures (Linquanti & George, in press). In California, the California
2
English Language Development Test (CELDT) administration is a standards-based
English language proficiency assessment used to identify ELLs and required of all
students whose home language is not English. The CELDT has test forms for each of
four grade spans: K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. The test derives an overall composite score
from three separate domain scores, and weighted as follows: listening and speaking
(50%), reading (25%), and writing (25%) (California Department of Education [CDE],
2011c). Based on these assessment outcomes, the student falls in one of five overall
proficiency levels: Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and
Advanced. In CUSD, those students who score in the beginning, early intermediate, and
intermediate levels receive direct, explicit English instruction in the ELD program.
This study examines High Point’s efficacy in preparing ELLs for mainstream
content readiness and its correlation with widely used indicators of learning in California,
such as the California Standards Test (CST) in English Language Arts (ELA) and the
ELA portion of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). In relation to the
current achievement gap in education among ELL compared to their English speaking
counterparts, success in rigorous content classes, as indicated on test outcomes, represent
the minimum education needed to become literate and join the labor market as productive
citizens (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Background of the Problem
The United States has always been a country of immigrants, but the demographics
of these immigrants have shifted dramatically in recent years. Between 1990-2000, the
number of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students increased 76% in U.S public
3
schools, and the overall achievement level of this group of students is significantly lower
than that of the general school population (Thompson, 2004). To further complicate this
issue, the continual shift, combined with an increase of students with limited or
interrupted formal education, presents further constraints on our educational system
(DeCapua & Marshall, 2011). Today, educational policy makers and researchers work to
bring theory and policy together to provide an equitable education for all students. A
brief historical overview of the accountability dilemma provides the context of discussion
for this paper.
For the first time in American history, the Civil Rights Era provided the impetus
for legislative policy to redefine the term ‘equitable education’. Prior to this era, separate
but equal was the law of the land in the United States. The Supreme Court adjudicated on
the issue of segregation in American education in its watershed case Brown v. Board of
Education (1954). The court concluded that the doctrine of separate but equal had no
place in education, and separate educational facilities determined inherently unequal.
The Brown case set the stage for today’s debate regarding equal educational opportunity
for all students.
Further movement in the direction of equity occurred in 1965 as President
Johnson embarked on the war against poverty with the passage of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The genesis of ESEA, grounded in the Civil Rights
Movement, highlighted the educational disparity among different groups of students.
Failing to reach its intended outcomes, Congress reauthorized ESEA Congress in 2001,
and has since been referred to as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). As written, NCLB now
4
holds schools accountable for helping all children master challenging state academic and
content standards. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) requires all students to show
proficiency in the areas of math and English by the year 2014 with punitive sanctions for
those schools who do not meet NCLB goals. Examining state’s summative testing data,
and comparing this to the guidelines set forth in NCLB for accountability purposes,
indicates a large number of students not learning at high levels. In fact, recent data
ascertained from the California Department of Education (CDE) website indicates an
alarming achievement gap among students whose first language is not English compared
to their English speaking counterparts ( CDE Dataquest, 2010a).
This achievement gap indicates many students fail to receive the minimum
education needed for literacy and to join a labor market that demands higher levels of
education from all citizens. Approximately 70% of U.S. jobs require specialized skill and
training beyond high school, yet approximately 69% of high school students graduated
with a standard diploma (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Failure to close the achievement
gap will have profound effects for our society, disenfranchising many of our citizens and
derailing our economy.
From an economic perspective, the achievement gap represents an
underutilization of human capital, which has profound implications for our economy,
individual well-being, and society. McKinsey and Company (2009) contend that the
achievement gap is imposing an invisible, yet reoccurring economic loss resulting in the
equivalent of a permanent, deep recession in terms of the gap between actual and
potential output in the economy. To put this into perspective, McKinsey and Company
5
(2009) state that in the current economic downturn, the U.S. economy will fall roughly $1
trillion short of its output potential. The achievement gap also influences individual
outcomes as statistics indicated a correlation between early performance in school and
subsequent rates of high school and college graduation and lifetime earning potential.
Collectively as a society, we bear the costs of underutilized human capital with higher
rates of incarceration and higher costs in healthcare provisions associated with lower
education levels (McKinsey & Company, 2009). Mitigating these disparaging economic
trends require the will and perseverance to provide educational support for English
Language Learners (ELL), one of the fastest growing subgroups.
Traditional economic theory of the 19
th
century focused on the role of land,
capital and hours of labor as the ingredients of economic growth. With the economic
boom of the post-World War II era, economists studied the relationship between human
capital and economic productivity to generate a revised theory with the premise of skills
and knowledge as a form of capital vital to the input process--knowledge increases
human productivity and justifies the costs incurred in acquiring them (Salamon, 1991).
Salamon contends that the changing nature of the labor market, one from manufacturing
to a technology, service market, has created a demand for increased human capital.
Salamon cites the U.S. education system as an institution involved in the task of
improving the capacity and quality of human capital.
One of the goals of the U.S. education system includes the provision of creative,
problem solving workers to the 21
st
century labor market and economy. An increasing
percentage of minorities and immigrants whose abilities to meet the labor market
6
demands are in question as a product of past disadvantages and inexperience. This
demographic change of our workforce proves to be problematic for the U.S. economy.
The current achievement gap will exacerbate this trend if the problem is not mitigated.
The U.S. education system is one institution with the ability to contribute a solution to
this problem if we can abate the achievement gap, thus increasing the capacity of human
capital for our labor pool. Karoly and Ponis (2004) posit by focusing on educational
outcomes, particularly in the area of science and mathematics, policy makers and
educators can ameliorate the present scarcity of qualified workers. A closer look at
educational economics can lead decision makers towards a more cost efficient allocation
of scarce educational resources to close this achievement gap and provide our economy
with the necessary labor force.
School improvement has evolved directly from recognition of the importance of
human capital formation to both the individual and society. Generally speaking,
industrialized countries around the world have allocated copious amounts of resources to
improve the quality of schools and increase the level of learning. However, little evidence
exists to indicate that any significant changes in student outcomes have accompanied this
outlay of input resources, such as teacher salary and class size reduction. Hanushek
(2003) uses California’s class size reduction (CSR) decision to illustrate the failure of
input policies. California appropriated over $1.5 billion per year to increase student
achievement with little evidence to suggest any success. Educational research on teacher
efficacy have concluded that high quality teachers can make up for the achievement gap
seen in young, disadvantaged children entering the educational system. Instead,
7
Hanushek argues the decision makers in California should have proceeded by way of a
leveled economic approach that accurately weighs the benefits of CSR against all other
viable options, thus producing the same outcome (opportunity cost) before committing
billions in expenditures. It is within the framework of this leveled economic approach
that the study examines the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in CUSD to determine
if the curriculum meets the needs of the district’s ELL students and prepares them for
mainstream readiness and graduation.
The current achievement gap among ELLs exemplifies the inadequate educational
outcomes, which if it continues, will have profound implications for our economy and
democracy. Educational decision makers must practice prudent fiscal appropriations
based on student outcome data, and allocate resources to that end in order to mitigate the
current achievement gap. Analysis of the High Point curriculum, adapted by the district
in this study, will determine its efficacy in the mitigation of the current achievement gap,
thus answering the question of whether this adaption is the best use of scarce educational
resources. Achieving high levels of learning for all students will provide society with the
human capital needed to sustain a strong democracy and provide a qualified labor pool
and enable our economy to thrive in today’s global competition.
Statement of the Problem
A benefit of California’s cultural and ethnic diversity is the opportunity for
personal growth and learning. This diversity is well represented in the state public
education system with over 56 different languages spoken in schools. Spanish speakers
account for roughly 85%, or over 1.25 million of ELLs in California, and the focus of
8
research given the large Latino population in Southern California (CDE Dataquest,
2010b). However, this diversity also poses certain challenges, including high school
completion, the minimum level of skills and knowledge to become literate and join the
labor force.
One of the major educational challenges of industrialized nations is ensuring that
all students graduate from high school. Research indicates a strong correlation between
the level of education and the lifetime earning potential. In fact, returns on education are,
on average, 10%, typically ranging from 6 to 15% (Gunderson & Oreopoulos, 2010).
Education levels correlated to increases in unemployment rates, poor health and mortality
rates, and engagement in criminal behavior. They also signified an increased opportunity
cost of lost income potential and fewer tax dollars, while increasing the need for public
assistance (Rumberger, 2010). For example, the U.S. Census survey data indicated 3.5
million status dropouts, or 9.3% of the population (U.S. Census abstract, 2011). These
statistics signified a grave concern as it demonstrated that outside of the family, schools
exert powerful influence on student achievement, including the dropout rate. More
specifically, teacher quality, school resources, and school policy and practices (i.e.
students taking advanced courses), and student perception of school policy predict
dropout rates even after controlling for the background characteristics of students
(Rumberger, 2010). The disproportionate number of second language dropouts coupled
with data that indicates an alarming achievement gap among this subgroup has profound
implications for our society.
9
The definition of the achievement gap in public education varies widely. For the
context of this study, the definition of the achievement gap is the difference in scores
between Group A (ELLs) and Group B (English speaking students) needs to decline and
arriving at the point when the score between the groups are equivalent as the goal. The
data set, or scores, used is the ELA subtests of the CST and CAHSEE. Failure to close
the achievement gap will have inexorable consequences for our society, as it
disenfranchises many of our citizens and derails our economy and democracy. While the
achievement gap in the state of California exists for many students whose first language
is not English (see Tables 1 and 2), the focus of the inquiry is to examine the compelling
evidence that the achievement gap amongst our ELLs is a significant challenge that must
be met in our state in order to provide an equitable education.
Analyzing STAR-testing results on CDEs database indicated an achievement gap
exists within ELL population (see Tables 1 and 2). When compared to that of English
speaking students state/county/district wide, the percentage of ELLs who scored
proficient or above are concerning in the area of English Language Arts (ELA). For
example, in 2009-2010, 12% of Grade 7 and 11% of Grade 8 ELLs scored proficient or
above in ELA compared to 64% of Grade 7 and 62% of Grade 8 English speaking
counterparts statewide. The respective 52- and 51-point achievement gap indicated a
serious equity issue on many levels. Furthermore, this achievement gap grew three
points among Grade 8 students when compared to the 2008-2009 school year. While the
Grade 7 ELLs faired better in comparison to those in Grade 8, the gap here grew by one
point indicating a similar trend of a widening achievement gap.
10
Table 1
Statewide ELA Achievement Gap for 2009-2010
% of Students Proficient and Advanced
Grade ELL EO ELA Gap
7 12 64 52 pt
8 11 62 51 pt
Source: California Department of Education (2010)
Table 2
Statewide ELA Achievement Gap for 2008-2009
% of Students Proficient and Advanced
Grade ELL EO ELA Gap
7 13 64 51 pt
8 8 56 48 pt
Source: California Department of Education (2009)
In Orange County, California, ELLs also scored significantly lower on the same
academic benchmark tests compared to their English-speaking counterparts. For
example, in 2009-2010, ELA test results indicate 18% of Grade 7 ELLs and 14% of
Grade 8 ELLs scored proficient or above compared to 76% of English speaking Grade 7
students and 75% of English speaking Grade 8 students countywide (see Tables 3 and 4).
In 2009-2010, there was not a significant change in data when compared to the previous
year that would indicate a closure of this achievement gap. In fact, the numbers indicate
a widening of the gap by one point and four points, respectively, for Grades 7 and 8.
11
Table 3
Orange County ELA Achievement Gap for 2009 - 2010
% of Students Proficient and Advanced
Grade ELL EO ELA Gap
7 18 76 58 pt
8 14 75 61 pt
Source: California Department of Education (2010)
Table 4
Orange County ELA Achievement Gap for 2008 - 2009
% of Students Proficient and Advanced
Grade ELL EO ELA Gap
7 20 77 57 pt
8 11 68 57 pt
Source: California Department of Education (2009)
In CUSD, this achievement gap mirrors the state and county data. For example,
in 2009-2010, ELA test results indicate 12% of Grade 7 ELLs and 11% of Grade 8 ELLs
scored proficient or above compared to 79% of English speaking Grade and 75% of
English speaking Grade 8 students district-wide (see Tables 5 and 6). In 2009-2010,
there was not a significant change in data when compared to the previous year that would
indicate a closure of this achievement gap. Again, the numbers indicate a widening of
the gap by six points and one point, respectively, for Grades 7 and 8.
12
Table 5
Coastline Unified School District ELA Achievement Gap 2009 - 2010
% of Students Proficient and Advanced
Grade ELL EO ELA Gap
7 12 79 67 pt
8 11 75 64 pt
Source: California Department of Education (2010)
Table 6
Coastline Unified School District ELA Achievement Gap 2008 - 2009
% of Students Proficient and Advanced
Grade ELL EO ELA Gap
7 15 76 61 pt
8 9 72 63 pt
Source: California Department of Education (2010)
On all levels, the learning disparity among ELLs is significant and alarming in the
ELA areas. Similar sets of data seen throughout the U.S. have created a sense of urgency
around this issue, with increased levels of research to facilitate the efforts of practitioners.
Over the last decade, researchers have identified important principles requiring
adaptations to increase the levels of learning among our ELLs. Murphy (2009) contends
that one such point is to specifically target ELLs and disproportionately advantage
students based on their needs, such as focusing on in-school variables that include more
rigorous curriculum, high quality instruction, and attention to specific skill deficiencies
(i.e. reading and language skills).
13
Purpose of Study
The changing nature of the labor market has shifted from an unskilled labor force
to one that requires minimum levels of education as a service and technology labor force.
Throughout the 1970s, nearly a third of the 91 million workers were high-school
dropouts, while another 40% did not progress beyond a high school degree. Thus, 72%
of the U.S. labor force was comprised of workers with a high school education or less
(Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2011). In a manufacturing economy, it was
possible for these workers to earn a middle-class wage as the economy was able to absorb
these workers. In effect, a high school diploma was the only prerequisite to fulfill the
American Dream for millions of Americans.
By 2007, the manufacturing economy that drove the U.S. market changed forever.
The workforce, since the 1970s, exploded nearly 70% to a total of 154 million workers,
and workers with less than a high school education shrank to less than 41% of the
workforce (Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2011). To quantify this statistic, the
total number of jobs in the U.S. has grown by 63 million, yet the number of jobs held by
people with minimum levels of education, such as a high school diploma, has fallen by
approximately 2 million. As a result, those with only a high school diploma have fallen
out of the middle class, and, according to The Center on Education and the Workforce at
Georgetown University, projects that these workers will fill a mere 36% of job openings
(Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2011). This research study indicated education
will play a key role to the 21
st
century American Dream, and must mitigate the current
level of learning among our growing ELLs.
14
A sense of urgency around the underperformance of student subgroups,
particularly ELLs, has emerged over the last several years. With the recent economic
data, implementation of state standards, and a push for performance-based accountability
imposed by NCLB in 2001, researchers have studied, in the theoretical sense, the closure
of the achievement gap and increased levels of learning for ELLs. In addition to this
extensive research, they have studied school quality and instructional practices due to
their importance in shaping students’ experiences, the lasting consequences, and
unintended effects it may have on society.
However, the research also suggests the complex nature of this problem, as it is a
combination of several components including educational psychology, instructional
practices, and systemic organizational structure (Callahan, 2005, DeCapua & Marshall,
2011, Hallinan, 2008, Harklau, 1994, Reeves, 2004). Very few studies have examined a
design that incorporates these various components of the achievement gap dilemma. For
example, CUSD adopted the High Point curriculum to service the needs of ELLs in the
areas of language development and reading, leaving one to question whether a
comprehensive curriculum, such as High Point, can develop language and cognitive
acquisition skills, which is so often missing from English Language Development (ELD)
programs. Moreover, CUSD needs to identify what is known in the area of acquiring
English Language Arts (ELA) skills that will lead to mainstream instructional success,
and will identify any gaps present in the High Point curriculum to evaluate the programs
efficacy.
15
The High Point curriculum, by Hampton-Brown, is a research-based intervention
program designed for struggling readers and English learners in Grades 4-12 to accelerate
growth in language and literacy. This is a spiraling curriculum beginning at a basic level,
and focuses on basic language skills, including a complete scope of language functions
and structures while providing context for vocabulary and grammar skills that are bound
in thematic units. Subsequent levels A, B, and C build power in reading, writing, and
language using thematic units based on relevant, age-appropriate themes that provide the
context for language and literacy development.
This study uses three widely used assessments in the state of California to
evaluate the efficacy of the High Point curriculum. Schools administer the CELDT
annually to all students whose primary language is not English and measures levels of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in English. The California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the California Standards Test (CST) are criterion-referenced
tests used as a summative evaluation of student’s mastery level of standards-based
education. Collectively, these three tests indicate a student’s readiness for mainstream
content instruction and the level of proficiency deemed necessary to graduate and join the
labor force.
To support this study, evaluation of the High Point curriculum used the following
research questions:
• From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CST ELA scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school
compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?
16
• Does High Point curriculum in Grades 7-9 affect mainstream ELA readiness as
indicated by CAHSEE scores in the intervention school compared to the two
comparison schools?
• From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CELDT scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school
compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?
Importance of Study
ELLs represent the fastest growing subgroup of students among the public school
population, with their numbers increasing by approximately 10% each year (LeClair,
Doll, Osborn, & Jones, 2009). Additionally, many of these students are not succeeding in
U.S. classrooms, despite receiving additional support services. For example, recent
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores indicate that only 2% of
Grade 12 ELL students scored proficient or above in reading compared to 44% of their
English-speaking counterparts. Furthermore, this 2% of ELL proficiency represents a 6-
point decline from 8% in 1998, a statistically significant difference at the .05 level
(Nation’s Report Card, 2009). The preceding data suggested the majority of ELLs
leaving secondary public education do not possess the minimal level of reading skills to
enter the labor market or post-secondary education successfully, a concerning factor
given the impact of reading on poverty, incarceration, and wage earnings (LeClair et al.,
2009). Hence, the success of ELLs is a comprehensive problem that affects many more
citizens on societal and individual levels.
17
In order to succeed in the current economy, adolescent ELLs need to obtain much
higher levels of education and develop solid literacy skills in English. Prior to 1998,
ELLs typically were enrolled in special programs such as bilingual, dual immersion
programs and English as a Second Language classes to meet the needs of these students
(Rubinstein-Avila, 2003). In June 1998, the California electorate ushered in a new era of
public education with the passage of Proposition 227, commonly known as the English-
only initiative. It effectively ended bilingual education programs in the state, and
replaced them with the Structured English Immersion model (SIOP). SIOP is an English-
only model, delivering lessons that allow ELLs to acquire academic knowledge as they
develop English language proficiency skills (Bali, 2001). Regardless of the debate on
which program best meets the needs of ELLs, bilingual or English immersion programs,
the policy climate in California has defined the parameters within public educators must
work to increase the achievement of our ELLs. The evaluation of the High Point
curriculum is within this English-only context and its ability to close the achievement
gap.
At the school level, site and district level administrators can use the information
of this study to determine the overall effectiveness of the High Point ELD curriculum. In
this manner, administrators can determine a leveled economic approach, which weighs
the High Point curriculum against other viable options to produce the same desired
outcomes. In addition to maximizing scarce fiscal resources in this process, we may also
maximize professional educators’ most valuable resource in relation to achieving high
levels of student learning—time. Hence, it is crucial that accurate measures are used to
18
better understand the achievement gap’s cause, and create opportunities that will
positively affect student achievement for ELLs and begin to ameliorate the current
achievement gap in CUSD.
19
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
America is a nation of immigrants, but the demographics of these immigrants
have shifted dramatically in recent years. Data from the 2000 census provided a vivid
picture of this change. Between 1990-2000, the number of Limited English Proficient
(LEP) students increased 76% nationwide in public schools, and the overall achievement
level of this group of students is significantly lower than that of the English speaking
population (Thompson, 2004). In 2000, 18% of the total population ages 5 and older, or
47.0 million people, reported they spoke a language other than English at home. These
figures were up from 14% (31.8 million) in 1990 and 11% (23.1 million) in 1980. While
the population ages 5 and over grew by one-fourth from 1980 to 2000, the number of
students speaking a native language other than English at home more than doubled (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000).
Looking at the statistics more closely, the growth rate of children of immigrants in
secondary schools increased at a significantly higher rate than in elementary schools—
72% in secondary compared to 39% in elementary (Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007).
This acceleration in immigration rates translates to an increased number of students
learning English as a second language, but not inclusive of illegal immigrants enrolled in
the public education system. The increase of ELLs resulting from accelerated
immigration rates is of particular concern at the secondary level as the command of the
English language rises significantly to meet middle and high school standards (Fisher,
Rothenberg, &Frey, 2007). Looking more closely in California, the impact of these
20
demographic shifts are more profound in comparison to other parts of the country, as
more than 40% of all California K-12 students speak a language other than English at
home, and 26% are ELLs (Callahan, 2005).
The student learning outcome data for this growing subgroup suggests that many
of these students failed to acquire the minimum level of education needed to provide
society with a positive externality or social return on educational investment. For
example, in 2009, the dropout rate for Latino/a youth, the majority ethnic group of
English language learners, was 17.6%. Moreover, in recent National Assessment of the
Educational Progress (NAEP) results, a large majority of ELLs scored below the basic
level in almost all achievement categories, including reading, writing, history, science,
and mathematics, and across all grades tested—Grades 4, 8 and 12 (Janzen, 2008).
Looking at this from an economic standpoint, these achievement scores
represented a loss of wages for these individuals, an increase in crime and healthcare, and
a decrease in the number of educated citizens necessary for a functioning democracy
(Eide & Showalter, 2010). Given these implications for our society, federal and state
governments have garnered the support for various accountability provisions.
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001,
more commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), now holds schools
accountable for helping “Limited English Proficient children meet the same challenging
state academic and content and student academic achievement standards as all students
are expected to meet” (NCLB, Part A, Subpart 1). The law requires all students to
demonstrate proficiency in these areas of expected standard by the year 2014 with
21
punitive sanctions for those schools who do not meet NCLB goals. In effect, NCLB,
combined with the rapidly shifting demographics of our students, has created a sense of
urgency in our public schools; consequently leading educational researchers,
administrators, and teachers in a search for strategies to close this achievement gap and
ensure high quality learning for all students.
The purpose of this review is to (a) examine the challenges of ELLs in California,
(b) synthesize the existing research that provides direction for English language
development instruction, and (c) analyze research-based instructional strategies to
support the academic needs of these students. The final section summarizes key features
from the literature, which show promise in helping ELLs master academic content and
develop academic literacy skills leading to school success.
Challenges of English Language Learners in California
Historically, the United States immigration pattern originated from European
nations, allowing one to assimilate into a familiar, Western-style culture. Today’s
immigrants and ELLs entering U.S. schools from non-Western and non-industrialized
cultures have had limited or interrupted formal education, thus creating additional
challenges, especially at the secondary level due to the decreased time to master
academic content, develop literacy skills, and build English proficiency (DeCapua &
Marshall, 2011; CDE, 2010).
As a result, the landmark case of Lau v. Nichols (1974) and the Equal Educational
Opportunity Act (EEOA) addressed the educational inequities as a result of these
demographic shifts. These adjudications communicated an expectation for the
22
equalization of educational opportunity for students of Limited English Proficiency. The
majority in the Lau case state, “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing
students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do
not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (Lau
v. Nichols, 1974). Despite the judicial and legislative decrees, the U.S. educational
system has changed only slowly to meet the needs of these diverse learners. A review of
ELL challenges will illustrate that this problem derives from pedagogical and school
system structure culturally influenced by the dominant cultural values (DeCapua &
Marshall, 2011).
Western-Style Schooling
DeCapua and Marshall (2011) posit that formal problem solving and scientific
reasoning pedagogy centered on formally trained teachers and print marks the Western-
style model of education. Students participating in this type of system develop
“scientific” or “academic” ways of understanding the world. However, this scientific and
academic approach is not universal in many parts of the world. Many of the ELLs who
lack, or have a limited, a formal education, a subpopulation known as students with
limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE), are at a distinct disadvantage, as they do
not posses the academic ways of comprehending the world around them (Fisher,
Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007). For example, they may know algebraic principles, yet seeing
an algebraic expression is a strange, or unfamiliar, concept.
23
Individualism and Collectivism. Adaptation to the individualist orientation
inherent to the U.S. education system is another challenge for ELLs. A fundamental
difference between SLIFE and mainstream U.S. culture is the collectivistic versus
individualistic orientation. Collectivist cultures focus on the accomplishments of the
family, or clan, with the individual’s well-being and self-identity centered on sharing and
fulfilling collective commitments and obligations of the group. In contrast,
individualistic cultures focus on the person’s attributes, traits, and achievements, and his
sense of well-being centered on self-actualization and personal accomplishment
(Oyserman & Lee, 2008).
According to social psychologist, Triandis, approximately 70% of world cultures
are collectivistic. Consequently, 25% and 53% of the U.S. foreign-born population comes
from Asia and Latin America, respectively; both regions with many collectivistic cultures
(as cited in DeCapua & Marshall, 2011). While these numbers do not explicitly state the
percentage of ELLs or SLIFE, we can reasonably infer from these numbers that a large
number of ELLs in California’s public schools are members of collectivist cultures.
As a result of these cultural differences, they manifest in classrooms across the
state daily. The traditional classroom practice of whole-group instruction includes the
belief that each student competes and excels as an individual. Additionally, it includes the
belief that a student wants and needs individual responsibility and accountability for his
performance. Conversely, recent literature reviews indicate that large groups tend to
intimidate language minority students, inhibit teacher interaction, and the opportunity to
24
learn (Abedi & Herman, 2010; Aguila, as cited in CDE, 2010; Robinson, 2008). From an
ELL student’s perspective, working together for the benefit of the group is primary; each
individual’s role is not as important as the group’s completion of the task.
Pedagogy and Culture. Dominant pedagogical practices found in our education
system derive from the assumptions embedded in U.S. mainstream culture—primarily
reflective of an individualistic orientation. In fact, teachers are often unaware of the
extent to which these assumptions pervade their classroom practices. For example,
scaffolding is one of the most effective practices used today to provide ELLs temporary
support for gaining access to the core curriculum. In time, as academic and language
skills progress, educators gradually remove these academic supports until the student can
learn unassisted. While scaffolding is critical to gain access to the curriculum for ELLs,
its ultimate goal reflects an individualistic orientation, which is at odds with the students’
collectivistic orientation (DeCapua & Marshall, 2011).
One important goal of K-12 education prepares students for life after school.
Academic knowledge, such as higher level thinking skills and subject knowledge,
purports to prepare students for their college or career of choice. Generally speaking, this
knowledge has little relevance current to life outside school, or, in some other manner,
immediately applicable to these students’ lives. Bailey, Hughes, and Moore (2004) found
that pragmatic knowledge, such as vocational training, focused on developing advanced
proficiency in specific or applied skills as having direct relevance for learners when they
immediately applied their knowledge. Because ELLs generally originate from
collectivist cultures, the students demonstrate influence of group interdependence and
25
pragmatic learning styles; a wealth of knowledge generally not valued in formal
education. Consequently, cultural dissonance, created by this contradiction of values
between home and school, often results in the students’ feelings of isolation, confusion,
disengagement, and inadequacy when they encounter the formal education system in the
U.S. (DeCapua & Marshall, 2011).
Tracking
Tracking, defined as the assignment of students to differentiated and varied levels
of coursework and academic content, has been a staple of K-12 education since the turn
of the century to bifurcate students into college tracks and manufacturing, or labor,
tracks. However, as student demographics have shifted to SLIFE, research has shown
that track placement is a better predictor of ELLs academic performance than proficiency
in English, thus highlighting a disconnect in the education system (Callahan, 2005).
Thomas and Collier (2002) cite relevant data on the current linguistic achievement gap
that illustrates the recent debate on whether this poor academic performance is a result of
inadequate academic preparation, lack of linguistic skills, or a combination of the two.
For example, ELLs scored an average 1.2 standard deviations below non-ELLs in NAEP
eighth-grade reading tests.
In theory, tracking ELLs and providing them with direct explicit English
instruction and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) in content
classes will provide them with the support to raise low-performing ELLs to par with their
English speaking peers. However, in practice, research has indicated low-track
placement, based on language proficiency, frequently results in exposure to less rigorous
26
content, fewer learning opportunities, and a significant negative influence on
performance beyond that of poverty than those students placed in higher tracks (Abedi &
Herman, 2010; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Kim & Herman, 2008; Lucas, 1999).
Specifically, Callahan (2005) conducted a study of 355 ELLs in a northern California
high school to analyze the effects of track placement and English proficiency on
secondary English learners’ academic achievement. The results of the study suggested
English acquisition, while important for long-term academic success, is not the primary
determinant of academic success for ELLs. Furthermore, Callahan found most ELLs
enrolled in low-track curricula with limited exposure to classes with higher order thinking
skills and rich academic dialogue grounded in content knowledge. In other words, the
systematic tracking of ELLs resulted in a lack of access to high-quality content area
instruction, which in turn has linguistic, academic, and programmatic ramifications.
Patton (2002) contends qualitative studies, such as ethnographies, capture and
convey another person’s experience to better understand an issue. In Harklau’s (1994)
ethnography, “Jumping Tracks,” she asserts, “When tracking is viewed across classroom
contexts, one finds consistent and patterned inequities, with students on the lower rungs
of the system receiving less instruction in societally valued skills, resulting in differential
access to future educational and occupational opportunities after high school” (p. 347).
In her 3 ½- year ethnography, Harklau explored linguistic-minority students’ perspectives
in a California high school and concluded tracking is a systematic cultural practice in
which one’s linguistic acquisition level estimates the individual intellectual ability of
students. This practice resulted in the placement of virtually all newcomer students in
27
low-track classes on the assumption these classes provided the least difficulty
linguistically. Harklau also observed these teachers tended to be ineffectual and “burnt-
out” with low workloads and low expectations; training the students in cognitively
undemanding memorization and mechanical repetitious pedagogy skills.
The studies of Callahan (2005), Harklau (1994), and Reeves (2004) indicated
tracking plays a much larger role than previously believed in ELL academic achievement
predictions, and low levels of language proficiency is not a valid excuse for low levels of
academic performance. One can infer from the current state and national achievement
gap between ELLs and their English speaking counterparts, the low levels of academic
rigor and non-college track courses voids ELLs the opportunity to access content area
curriculum necessary for academic success. In fact, continued tracking in such low-level
courses can create further anxiety and self-efficacy issues among ELLs and will
perpetuate this problem (Pappamihiel, 2002). Any solutions to these complex problems
will hinge upon determination of academic knowledge ELLs possess, which, then, can
lead to research and dialogue on how to effectively target support and remediation for
these learning gaps.
Measurement Accuracy
The current condition of federal and state accountability mandates requires all
students, including ELLs, reach high levels of learning as indicated by measureable goals
on high stakes tests. As a result, accountability rests on the schools to help these students
make continuous progress towards this goal. Through these mandates, NCLB seeks to
reduce the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. The goals
28
are meritorious, and require high-quality practices to improve student learning. The
challenges of ELLs are particularly demanding, and require the use of data for summative
and formative purposes. Researchers in the area of accountability contend the current
assessments used for ELLs do not accurately measure the knowledge and ability levels of
students (Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004).
In assessing the accuracy of high stakes tests, researchers and policy makers
debate the role of linguistics, particularly for ELLs. These debates have prompted the
question: How valid are the inferences about students’ knowledge based on a test
administered in a language possibly unfamiliar to the student? In review of test
accommodation strategies for ELLs, Abedi et al. (2004) posit students who lack
proficiency in the language of the test consistently perform at lower levels, and changes
in the test language can result in changes in student scores. Test validity is a major
concern if accountability mandates place sanctions on schools that do not meet growth
targets. Abedi et al. state, “the linguistic complexity of test items may threaten the
validity and reliability of tests of content area achievement, particularly for English
learners” (p. 6). Further research shows reducing the impact of language factors have
resulted in a decrease in the performance gap between ELLs and their English-speaking
counterparts (Abedi & Dietel). Identification of several accommodations that remove
sources of the test taker’s cognitive overload, and, thereby “levels the playing field” for
ELLs, without providing an advantage over students not receiving accommodated
assessments.
29
Test accommodations include:
• Testing in native language
• Linguistic modification of test items
• Extra time
• Published dictionary
• Glossary and customized dictionary
• Oral administration of exam
The National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST) conducted a controlled study measuring the effects of linguistically modified
exams, and repeatedly improved ELL performance by approximately 10% to 20% (Adebi
& Dietel, 2004). These findings suggest the low language ability of ELLs depress their
performance on most tests, thus influence the validity and accuracy of the test. In other
words, these particular high stakes tests become a measure of two skills for ELLs: subject
and language.
Research to Guide English Language Development (ELD)
Today’s ELLs face perhaps the biggest challenge of their lives—mastering
demanding grade-level subject matter while negotiating and learning the formidable
language-learning task. ELLs must decode every word and sentence pattern in a highly
condensed time frame, often only during school hours; tasks native speakers have
acquired over thousands of hours of early childhood schooling. Additionally, ELLs must
learn the specialized language unique to individual subject areas, and require mastery of
the conceptual and concrete language of the current year and recall of the foundational
30
vocabulary taught in previous years. Consequently, the gaps in English language and
literacy of ELLs equate to “twice the amount of work” compared to native English-
speaking students (Dutro & Levy, 2008). A number of studies and research synthesis
have helped to identify guidelines for effective ELD instruction, that is, instruction
delivered in a portion of the school day separate from the core content areas (e.g. math,
science, history), and focuses specifically on the development of English language skills
to access the curriculum.
Saunders and Claude (2010) base their guidelines for ELD instruction on six
syntheses and/or meta-analyses: Ellis, 2005; Genesee et al., 2006; Keck et al., 2006;
Lyster, 2007; Norris and Ortega, 2000; Russell and Spada, 2006. Based on this research,
Saunders and Claude have developed eight guidelines for effective ELD instruction.
Guidelines for ELD Instruction
ELD instruction provisions yields results over lack of provisions. Ample
evidence suggested the provision ELD instruction is more beneficial than not providing
it. In their meta-analysis, Norris and Ortega (2000) researched the overall effectiveness
of second-language instruction in comparison to the exposure and communication with
speakers of a second language. In their results, Norris and Ortega found focused second-
language instruction designed to teach specific aspects of the second language more
effective than conditions that do not provide focused second-language instruction. In the
reviewed studies, Norris and Ortega found students who received focused second-
language instruction made more than five times the gains than students who did not
receive focused second-language instruction.
31
Expanding on Norris and Ortega’s research, a recent study by Tong, Lara-Alecio,
Irby, Mathes, and Kwon (2008) found providing kindergarten and first grade students
with an English oral intervention resulted in ELD acceleration, as measured by
vocabulary tests and listening comprehension, compared to students in control groups
who received typical ESL instruction. In this study, some of the schools with both
English immersion and bilingual education programs randomly assigned to the
experimental group also received, apart from the control group, an ELD intervention. The
ELD intervention included (a) daily tutorials with a published ELD program; (b)
storytelling and retelling with authentic, culturally relevant literature and leveled
questions from easy to difficult; and (c) an academic oral language activity using
“Question of the Day”. The finding revealed students receiving the ELD treatment in
both groups developed at a faster rate than those receiving typical instruction (p < .05,
effect sizes > 0.46). This study demonstrated the possibility of ELD acceleration through
intensive, organized instruction.
ELD instruction should include interactive activities, but carefully planned
and implemented. In the synthesis of studies focused on oral English language
outcomes, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian (2006) found merely
creating oral English language opportunities resulting in proficiency gains involves more
than simply pairing ELLs with native speakers of English or more proficient English
learners. Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, and Wa-Mbaleka (2006) and Lyster (2004a)
conclude that treatments with interactive tasks produced a significant and substantial
effect on language-learning outcomes if they adhere to the following findings: (a)
32
Interactive tasks need to be designed so that learners must use specified language forms
in order to communicate successfully, and (b) Students’ ability to make use of a task to
improve their language depends on their level of language skill with the target of
instruction. The findings of Genesee, Keck, and Lyster indicate that treatments with
carefully planned and executed interactive tasks yield positive language-learning
outcomes.
ELD instruction should include a separate block of time on a daily basis. Two
studies highlight the advantages of providing ELD with its own instructional block of
time, as typical with reading, math, science, and history. A study conducted by Saunders,
Foorman, and Carlson (2006) included 1,200 students from 85 classrooms and 35 schools
in Southern California and Texas. This study involved both bilingual and English
immersion programs, with ELD instruction administered in both programs. The ELD
instruction in the study’s focus classrooms included those classes with a separate block of
ELD instructional time and those with ELD instruction integrated with the Language Arts
block. Based on year-end assessments of oral English proficiency and word
identification, the ELLs enrolled in bilingual and English immersion with a separate ELD
instructional block outperformed the ELLs in programs with integrated ELD instructional
time.
In addition to the previous study, O’Brien (as cited in CDE, 2010) conducted a
similar study focused on three ELD instructional conditions among nine, Spanish-
speaking ELLs classrooms in Grade 1. One set of classes consisted of a separate ELD
block taught by teachers delivering the evaluated ELD program. The second set of
33
classes, also with a separate ELD block, included ELD methods derived and delivered
from various teacher-chosen components from published sources. The third set included
teachers who integrated ELD instruction during their language arts time and used a
published reading program.
Following this study further, researchers evaluated the conditions using the
CELDT listening and speaking scores. Students in all three conditions made significant
gains over the year, but the gains were not equivalent. Students in the second condition
group scored, on average, higher than students in the third class. However, students in the
first condition group scored significantly higher than did students in condition groups two
and three. The first set of classes was unique because lessons involved explicit
instruction in grammar, function, and vocabulary with 52% of instructional time in
teacher-led interactive tasks focused on the aforementioned skills (CDE, 2010).
As a result of the two studies conducted by Saunders et al. and O’Brien, the
research suggested more attention to explicit language teaching will make ELD
instruction more productive. Additionally, the longer ELD block, combined with explicit
ELD instruction, will accelerate children’s English skills.
ELD instruction should emphasize listening and speaking. A comprehensive
program for English learners should include literacy instruction, sheltered content
instruction, and, where possible, primary language support and explicit ELD instruction.
Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) posit students benefit the most from instruction
emphasized on speaking and listening during ELD instruction while other researchers
contend the textual demands of literacy and content area instruction need priority during
34
those blocked instruction times. The evidence to support dedicated instructional time to
oral language proficiency is well established in research literature.
For example, with increased oral-English proficiency, ELLs more likely used
English in more sophisticated and academic ways, specifically higher-level question
forms associated with academic language skills. Additionally, ELLs increased their
interaction and established relationships with native English-speaking peers, which led to
more opportunities to use English (CDE, 2010). Finally, several studies documented a
positive relationship between oral-English proficiency and English reading achievement
(Carlisle et al., 1999; Fisher Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; Garcia-Vazquez et al., 1997;
Goldstein, Harris, & Klein; Royer & Carlo; Saville-Troike, 1993; Snow et al., 1991; and
Ulibarri, Spencer, & Rivas, 1981, cited in CDE, 2010). Evidence of this positive
relationship continued across Grades 1 through 9, and based on various measures of oral
proficiency and standardized measures of reading achievement.
Therefore, Saunders and Goldberg’s synthesis of research indicated more
effective ELD approaches focused on oral language more than half of the time, with
literacy activities between one-third to less than half of ELD instruction.
ELD instruction should explicitly teach elements of English (vocabulary,
syntax, grammar, functions, and conventions). Exposure to a second language in a
formal educational setting can lead to the development of comprehension skills, oral
fluency, and communicative abilities in the targeted second language. However,
refinement of the targeted language, in details such as pronunciation, morphological, and
syntactic features, is most successful through explicit instructional attention to those
35
features (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010). In their 79-study sample meta-analysis, Norris
and Ortega (2000) found explicit instruction consistently produced stronger results than
implicit instruction in the development of the aforementioned features of second
language acquisition. In fact, Norris and Ortega found, on average, explicit instructional
approaches (i.e. instructor presents or explains a specific language element with examples
and opportunity for students to practice element) were more than twice as effective as
implicit approaches; that is, the teachers do not draw students’ attention to targeted
language features.
ELD instruction should provide students with corrective feedback on
language form. Studies conducted by Ellis, Lowen, and Erlam (2006), Lyster (2004b),
and Ammar and Spada (2006) tested the effects of implicit and explicit forms of
corrective feedback. In the context of these studies, implicit feedback took the form of
recasts. A teacher’s recast rearticulates the student’s utterance with corrections of one or
more evident errors in oral language. Conversely, explicit feedback took the form of
prompts, and drew the student’s attention to an error, and required student- to repair
incorrect utterances.
In a study comparison, all three studies included two treatment groups regarding
feedback---one received prompts, one received recasts. A third group, the comparison
group received no feedback. Also, in all studies, treatment groups received form-focused
instruction. The results indicated feedback on form, both implicit and explicit,
outperformed the comparison group. Both Lyster (2004b) and Ammar and Spada (2006)
found a differential effect of prompts, providing a stronger effect compared to that of
36
recasts. In addition, Ammar and Spada found lower-proficiency learners seemed to
benefit more from prompts than recasts.
Therefore, both forms of feedback suggest a meta-cognitive language approach in
which students reflect on and register corrective feedback. Overall, the evidence suggests
ELD teachers should not avoid the provision of corrective feedback, but rather, practice
an effective delivery so students positively respond and benefit from it.
ELD instruction should emphasize academic language, as well as
conversational language. According to Cummins (1984), academic language is oral or
written, such as sentence patterns with complex grammatical constructions, technical
vocabulary, explicit reference to what is being discussed, and specific background
knowledge. Successful performance in demanding standards-based content requires
proficiency in academic language. In fact, educators recognize this learned skill is a
challenge for both ELLs and English-only students. Teaching the academic language
skills all students need to master the curriculum’s diverse subjects should be a major
objective of education for both language-minority and -majority students.
Since Cummins first proposed the concept of academic language in his distinction
between “basic interpersonal communication skills” (BISC) and “cognitive academic
language proficiency” (CALPS), several writers have proposed definitions of academic
language (1984). Today, it is acceptable to refer to the “specialized vocabulary,
grammar, discourse/textual, and functional skills associated with academic instruction
and mastery of academic materials and tasks” (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010, pp. 49-
50).
37
Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) contend studies consistently find ELLs required
five to seven years to achieve native-like proficiency in oral language and literacy. From
their research, Saunders and Goldenberg contemplate the acceleration of language
acquisition rates. More specifically, language proficiency through upper grade levels
hinges upon academic language acquisition. Saunders and Goldenberg assert a focus on
academic language may help students attain advanced language proficiency more
quickly.
Finally, numerous English-learner education scholars call for attention to
academic language proficiency and concur teaching academic language help promote
English learners’ language development (August, D. & Shanahan, T., 2010; Fisher,
Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010; and Schmoker, 2011).
ELD instruction, minimally, should continue until students reach early
advanced, level 4, and possible advanced, level 5, levels. This final guideline,
consistent with California statute and federal law, requires ELLs to receive ELD
instruction until re-designated as fully English proficient. From a research perspective,
this guideline emerges from evidence regarding the rate at which students acquire
advanced levels of language proficiency. For example, the research literature indicates
students’ English proficiency, both oral proficiency and literacy, develops over time,
often up to seven years. Furthermore, evidence shows the rapid progress from beginning
to middle levels of proficiency, but progress from middle to upper levels of proficiency
slows considerably (CDE, 2010; Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007). In other words,
there is a plateau effect, where many ELLs reach the middle level of English proficiency
38
and make little progress thereafter. The research of Genesee et al. (2006) suggest if ELLs
continue to receive explicit ELD instruction once they reach and through the middle
levels of English proficiency to the early advance and advanced levels, they attain native-
like levels of oral proficiency and avoid the plateau many experience before becoming
advanced speakers of English (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010).
To summarize the literature on ELD guidelines, schools must expose ELLs to the
informed and systematic instruction of the English language through a comprehensive
ELD program. Instructed ELD is a school’s one dedicated opportunity to provide ELLs
with the vocabulary, sentence structure, and grammar not learned outside school and not
be taught in any other content area (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010). Academic achievement in
rigorous standards-based curriculum will accelerate only when students demonstrated
true English proficiency.
Instructional Best Practices to Support ELLs
Policymakers, researchers, and educators have chosen to focus on school
activities with the most direct impact on student achievement, such as instructional
practices within the classroom (Wenglinsky, 2004). While variables outside of school,
such as socio-economic status (SES) and families access to social capital, add to the
underperformance of ELLs in areas, the achievement gap is also a function of the policies
and practices of individual schools; particularly the interaction between students and
teachers in the classroom. Prior to the NCLB era of accountability, studies of effective
schools tended to look at school-level factors only; that is, student learning resulted from
the school’s unitary impact as a system of collective practices. However, as
39
accountability measures began to increase the pressure on individual teachers and
subgroups of students, researchers asked the following question: What is the influence of
an individual teacher apart from actions of the school?
Marzano (2003) contends the impact of decisions made by individual teachers is
far greater than the impact of decisions made at the school level. For example, analysis
of students who spent an academic year with a highly effective teacher, as opposed to a
less effective teacher, produced achievement gains of 53 percentage points, whereas the
least effective teachers produced achievement gains of 14 percentage points over the
same year. To further illustrate the potential of teacher impact on student learning,
students typically gain about 34 percentile points in achievement during one academic
year. For example, a student at the 50
th
percentile in mathematics in September scored at
the 84
th
percentile on the same test in May. To further quantify teacher effects, Marzano
states:
These findings are even more startling when we consider that some researchers
have estimated that students gain about 6 percentage points simply from growing
a year older and gleaning new knowledge and information through everyday life.
From this perspective, we might say the least effective teachers add little to
students’ knowledge over what would be expected from one year of maturation.
(p. 73)
Theoretically, the effect of a student assigned to a less effective teacher will have gained
a cumulative net achievement of 29 percentile points compared to the 83 percentile points
of a student with an effective teacher over the same time span. Hence, in the most
40
economically and culturally diverse inner-city schools, students may experience multiple
years without an effective teacher, further contributing to the achievement gap.
Previous large-scale research has identified instructional strategies beneficial for
students in general, but not successful at identifying practices that disproportionately
benefit students of color and language minority. Wenglinsky (2002) found a series of
classroom practices, including an emphasis on higher-order thinking skills and hands-on
learning, positively related to student mathematics performance. Also, Wenglinsky
(2003), using the 2000 NAEP in reading, found a link between teaching metacognitive
skills and student reading performance (Thompson, 2004). Through the use of
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM), Wenglinsky’s study identified a series of
instructional strategies, when used in concert, can reduce the achievement gap within
schools with high enrollment of students of color and language minorities.
Further qualitative studies by Thompson (2004) and Avila (2003) identified numerous
instructional strategies, when used in concert, effectively gives ELLs access to the core
curriculum:
• Learning builds on previous experiences (e.g. the importance of using ELL
students’ prior knowledge, culture, interests, and experiences in new learning)
• Learning can have positive influence by cooperative learning (the social nature of
learning)
• Knowledge taught in a variety of contexts supports flexible transfer (e.g. the
integration of ELL strategies across content areas)
41
• Connected, organized and relevant information not only supports recall, but
expands beyond to the ability to make inferences and conclusions (e.g.,
contextualized instruction, teaching higher-order skills, use of certain strategies
such as graphic organizers)
• Feedback and active evaluation of learning furthers student understanding and skill
development
• Transfer of learning is an active process (e.g. active engagement of students with
the content to be learned).
Following this further, qualitative research results of Beecher and Sweeney (2008)
and Callahan (2005) illustrated the upward mobility, from the remedial band, of a large
percentage of students from all ethnic and socio-economic groups, thereby indicating
improved achievement. Beecher and Sweeney’s 8-year longitudinal, qualitative study of
an elementary school provided further that building upon students’ strengths, using a
differentiated approach to instruction and enriched learning experiences, can help close
the achievement gap between different SES and ethnic groups.
In light of this study, deeper analysis of the literature pointed to specific
instructional interventions, procedures, strategies, and systems teachers can use to ensure
student success. The Gradual Release of Responsibility model provides an instructional
framework in explicit ELD instruction that takes students’ interaction with new language
elements and moves these elements from teacher modeling to scaffolded practice with
peers to independent practice. In other words, the teacher gradually moves the
responsibility of performing the task from the teacher to the student. Figure 1, from
42
Fisher and Frey (2008), represents the mentoring relationship, and two-way interaction
between teacher and student in explicit scaffolded language development.
As depicted in Figure 1, Fisher and Frey (2008) have identified four broad
categories of instruction: Focus Lesson, Guided Instruction, Collaborative Learning, and
Independent practice. The goal of this includes, over time, information, strategies, skills,
content, and language transfer from the teacher to the student.
Figure 1. Gradual Release of Responsible Model Source: Fisher and Frey (2008)
First, in the focus lesson phase of instruction, the teacher models applicable
thinking or information to the whole class. This phase, known as the “I do it” phase,
places entire learning responsibility on the teacher. In general, the focus lesson clearly
establishes the purpose for the day, week, or theme, and often takes the form of a shared
43
reading and think-aloud in which the teacher models his or her thinking about a piece of
text. Through a focus on literacy, the teacher incorporates the tenets of English language
development, such as content and academic vocabulary development, understanding in
fluent reading, fluent punctuation and intonation, standard grammar use, and targeted
language structures (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010; Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; Fisher &
Frey, 2008; and Schmoker, 2011).
Second, the guided instruction phrase of instruction, known as the “we do it” phase,
provides shared learning responsibility of the learning objective for both teacher and
students. While this phase includes whole, or large group instruction, teachers often
incorporate smaller, need-based grouping with specific instruction designed to address
areas of weakness. ELLs, in particular, benefit from small group instruction, as it
provides the students an opportunity to practice language skills in a less intimidating
setting. Fisher, Rothenberg, and Frey (2007) contend guided instruction allows teachers
to target instruction on areas of student need.
Third, in collaborative learning, or “you do it together” phase of instruction,
students work together in purposeful ways to practice, together, the skills directly linked
to the focus lesson. This phase also provides students with opportunities to discuss and
engage with one another in small groups, giving ELLs a more comfortable learning
environment for conversational trial-and-error, a component vital to language
development. Peer response groups, partner reading, book clubs, literature circles, and
editing conferences are a few examples of collaborative activities of this instructional
phase (Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; Schmoker, 2011).
44
Finally, the independent practice, or “you do it alone” phase, students engage in
higher levels of cognition as they think about the content. In this phase, students practice
independently and apply the learned skills from the other phases of instruction. Due to
the complexity of this phase, Fisher, Rothenberg, and Frey (2007) caution that ELLs may
need more time in the first three phases of instruction before they can access and
construct grade-level text on their own for extended periods of time. However, given the
extra time for ELLs, they state “with instruction linked to student performance data and
purposeful lessons, students acquire knowledge and language at amazing speeds” (p. 37).
In summary, the research on effective instructional practices for ELLs indicates the
consistent implementation of differentiated instruction grounded in Krashen’s (1985)
theory behind his comprehensible input model. Second-language learners must have
access to comprehensible input just beyond their current level of competence in a rich
context-embedded environment, an opportunity to interact with other students for
conversational and academic English development, and opportunities to produce output
for meaningful purposes (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008).
Promising Practices for ELL Success
This literature review for this study also includes promising practices emerged from
the in-depth review of research conducted in 2006 by The National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Children and Youth, on literacy development in English Language
Learners (August &Shanahan, 2010). As a result of this information, Schmoker (2011),
Fisher, Rothenberg, and Frey (2007), Dutro and Kinsella (2010), and August and
45
Shanahan (2010) have examined and written extensively on the current practices of
language and literacy development in ELLs. These studies have resulted in a reflection
of the current practices employed by many practitioners at the school site. The results of
the literacy panel on successful practices are summarized below.
• Instruction in the key components of reading—phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.
• Instruction in the key components is not sufficient to develop proficiency in reading
and writing. Oral proficiency in English is critical, as well.
• Oral proficiency and literacy in the first language can facilitate literacy
development in English.
• Individual differences contribute significantly to English literacy development.
• Home language experiences can have a positive impact on literacy.
In summary, these instructional practices delineate effective practice that is
standards-based and assessment-driven, immerses students in language, recognizes the
diversity of proficiency and background, considers the primary language, teaches
metacognitive strategies side-by-side with reading and writing skills, all while
integrating reading, writing, listening, and speaking with content learning.
46
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study evaluates the efficacy of the High Point curriculum
program in the Coastline Unified School District (CUSD) and students who received
English Language Development (ELD) in Grades 7-10. National, state, and school site
data sets indicate an underachievement of our English Language Learners (ELL) when
compared to their English-speaking counterparts. These inequitable learning outcomes
have important economic consequences for the nation and individuals. In particular, this
study examines High Point’s efficacy in preparing ELLs for mainstream content
readiness and its correlation with widely used learning indicators in California.
The research questions used to evaluate the High Point curriculum include:
• From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CST ELA scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school
compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?
• Does High Point curriculum in Grades 7-9 affect mainstream ELA readiness as
indicated by CAHSEE scores in the intervention school compared to the two
comparison schools?
• From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CELDT scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school
compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?
At the beginning of this study, the hypothesis includes observations of larger
gains from the students at Nautica High School (NHS), receiving 50 more instructional
47
minutes per day of the intervention compared to students at LaMar High School (LHS)
and Oceana High School (OHS). To complete this study, it used a quantitative approach.
To examine the effectiveness of the High Point curriculum, a quasi-experimental research
analyses tabulated the students’ results from the study. The analysis of variance
(ANOVA) determined the statistical significance of the findings between the students
receiving the intervention in CUSD, by year, across all three schools. An analysis of
covariance test (ANCOVA) determined the statistical significance of the gains in CST,
ELA, and CELDT scores between schools. To measure the magnitude of the treatment,
known as the effect size, the use of Cohen’s d and eta squared provided the relative
position between pre- and post-test groups.
Design Summary
This quantitative study employed a quasi-experimental, between-subjects research
design method using a matching participant assignment procedure. The criterion for
matching included a student’s classification as an ELL receiving English language
development (ELD) services. To ensure test validity, control factors in the study
involved the use of covariates in the form of CST pre-test scores of the control group, and
the selection of homogenous students by language ability (Spanish speaking) and cultural
background (Hispanic).
While all schools in CUSD received the High Point intervention, by Hampton
Brown, the independent variable is the varied length of exposure to the intervention
applied to the experimental group in CUSD, as exposure varied from school to school.
Table 7 illustrates the variety of exposure times, and it shows the students at NHS
48
received a minimum of an additional class period, approximately 50 minutes, of High
Point reading intervention daily in comparison to the other two schools. Therefore, if
NHS students receive additional exposure to the High Point curriculum intervention, then
NHS students will demonstrate the greatest gains in comparison to students at LHS and
OHS.
The dependent variable used in this study is the student outcome data of the three
measurement instruments: CST, CAHSEE, and the CELDT. Figure 2 depicts a diagram
to illustrate the experimental design.
Table 7
High Point Frequency
Number of Students Enrolled in ELD Course and Reading Course by School
School ELD 1 ELD 2 ELD 3 ELD 4
NHS **2 **9 11 0
LHS **6 **16 37 9
OHS 7 8 21 0
TOTAL 15 33 69 0
** These students received 2 blocks/instructional periods of High Point instruction
* Every ELD student received 1 period of reading intervention instruction
Source: Coastline Unified School District (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
49
Experimental
Group Group A O____________________X___________________O
Control Group Group B O________________________________________O
Figure 2. Quasi Experimental Pre-Post Experimental Research Design. In Figure 2, ‘O’ represents an
observation, or measurement, recorded on an instrument. Adapted from Creswell (2009)
In the context of this study, this measurement was the CST, CAHSEE, and
CELDT outcome data. ‘X’ represents the experimental variable, or the increased
exposure of High Point curriculum (50 minutes per day), administered to the NHS
students receiving ELD services. The study recorded CST and CELDT outcome data
over four years from the same cohort of students at the three high schools, whereas the
study recorded CAHSEE outcome only in the cohort’s Grade 10 year, the exam’s first
year of administration. X’s and O’s in a given row are applied to the same specific
persons, and X’s and O’s in the same column, or placed vertically relative to each other,
are simultaneous. Finally, the separation of parallel rows by the horizontal line indicates
comparison groups are not equated by random sampling (Creswell, 2009).
To further qualify, to serve as a pre-test baseline, the study will ascertain the
recorded outcome data for the 2006-2007 school year for the intervention groups at all
three high schools in CUSD. The CELDT data was unavailable for analysis. Beginning
in the 2007-2008 school year, the three high schools began the intervention, as designed
by the High Point curriculum. Next, the study will pull CST and CELDT data for the
2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 school years for each of the three schools to create a
50
longitudinal analysis of the impact of the High Point curriculum intervention. However,
the study will pull CAHSEE data in 2010-2011.
To summarize, the study will analyze each school’s outcome data of the three
tests, CST, CELDT, and CAHSEE, each school year and will determine the efficacy of
High Point as indicated by a statistically significant gain in mean scaled scores at all three
schools. The outcome data of the ANCOVA, and effect of size tests will indicate any
statistically significant findings between schools suggesting a correlation between
additional length of exposure to High Point at NHS (Group A) compared to OHS and
LHS, who received less of the intervention (Group B).
To contrast the demographics of Group B to Group A, 30% of OHS students are
Hispanic, and 30% from socio economically disadvantaged background. English
language learners make up 11% of the population, of which 95% are Spanish speaking.
The demographics of students at LHS are 70% Hispanic, 73% socio economically
disadvantaged, and 29% English language learners, of which 96% are Spanish speaking.
Participants and Setting
The participants in this study were inclusive of all middle and high school ELL
students in CUSD who received English Language Development instruction over four
academic years: 2007-08 (N = 131), 2008-09 (N = 114), 2009-10 (N = 107), and 2010-11
(N = 93). Students of the intervention cohort, the experimental group, received four
years of the intervention.
Information ascertained from the CDE indicates a diverse student body. Hispanics
make up nearly 42% of the CUSD student body, with slightly more than one-quarter of
51
this population classified as ELLs. The overall racial composite in CUSD is 42.1%
Hispanic or Latino, 49.8% White, 4.5% Asian, and 1.4 % African American. As seen in
Table 8, 93.5% of the ELL population is Spanish speaking.
Table 9 shows the demographics for the student population at NHS. Nautica High
School has a higher percentage of Hispanics and students receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
compared to the rest of the school district, approximately 60% and 69%, respectively.
The overall racial composite at NHS is 60.3% Hispanic, 24.7% White, 7.4% Asian, and
2.4 % African American. Among the ELL population, 90.0% are Spanish-speaking.
52
2010-2011
3,187 (7 - 8)
7,042 (9 - 12)
Total = 10,229
Hispanic - 42.1
White - 49.8
Asian - 4.5
African American - 1.4
24.7
Hispanic - 86.8
White - 13.0
Asian - 26.2
African American - 51.6
Overall District - 45.9
93.5
2009-2010
3, 027 (7 - 8)
6,809 (9 - 12)
Total = 9,836
Hispanic - 41.7
White - 50.3
Asian - 4.5
African American - 1.5
27.1
Hispanic - 41.7
White - 12.4
Asian - 24.5
African American - 52.8
Overall District - 45.7
93.8
2008-2009
3,073 (7 - 8)
6,754 (9 - 12)
Total = 9,827
Hispanic - 41.9
White - 50.2
Asian - 4.4
African American - 1.4
26.5
Hispanic - 89.3
White - 50.2
Asian - 26.0
African American - 47.3
Overall District - 46.5
93.6
2007-2008
2,148 (7 - 8)
6,684 (9 - 12)
Total = 9,826
Hispanic - 41.2
White - 51.0
Asian - 4.5
African American - 1.3
26.3
Hispanic - 85.3
White - 9.9
Asian - 21.9
African-American - 42.3
Overall District - 42.5
92.7
Table 8:
Coastline Unified School District Demographic Information 2007-2010
Category
Student
Enrollment
Racial
Background
Percentage
English
Learner
Percentage
Free/Reduced
Lunch
Percentage
Spanish/ELL
Source: California Department of Education (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
53
2010-2011
565 (7 - 8)
1,166 (9 - 12)
Total = 1,731
Hispanic -60.31
White - 24.73
Asian - 7.39
African American - 2.43
25.5
Hispanic - 87.16
White - 36.21
Asian - 50.00
African American - 61.90
Overall School - 69.2
90.0
2009-2010
561 (7 - 8)
1,102 (9 - 12)
Total = 1,663
Hispanic - 62.42
White - 26.22
Asian - 8.48
African American - 3.13
31.8
Hispanic - 88.92
White - 31.65
Asian - 18.32
African American - 63.46
Overall School - 69.0
88.3
2008-2009
625 (7 - 8)
1,141 (9 - 12)
Total = 1,766
Hispanic - 59.46
White - 29.95
Asian - 7.76
African American - 2.60
27.0
Hispanic - 88.29
White -31.38
Asian - 15.26
African American - 71.74
Overall School - 66.6
88.0
2007-2008
647 (7 - 8)
1,172 (9 - 12)
Total = 1,1819
Hispanic - 57.06
White - 31.61
Asian - 8.14
African American - 2.20
27.2
Hispanic - 84.59
White - 24.00
Asian - 67.50
African-American - 67.50
Overall School - 60.1
90.0
Table 9:
Nautica High School Demographic Information 2007-2010
Category
Student
Enrollment
Racial
Background
Percentage
English
Learner
Percentage
Free/Reduced
Lunch
Percentage
Spanish/ELL
Source: California Department of Education (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
54
Intervention
The intervention applied to the ELL students in CUSD is the High Point
curriculum by publisher Hampton-Brown. High Point is a research-based intervention
program designed for struggling readers and English learners in Grades 4-12 to accelerate
growth in language and literacy. This is a spiraling curriculum beginning with a basic
level, and focuses on basic language skills. These basic language skills include a
complete scope of language functions and structures while providing context for
vocabulary and grammar skills bound in thematic units. Subsequent levels, A, B, and C
build power in reading, writing, and language using relevant and age-appropriate
thematic units and provide the context for language and literacy development. Table 10
lists the full scope and sequence through the High Point levels.
For English language learners, the linguistic complexities of the English language
necessitate High Point’s systematic and explicit instruction for the basic and most
common sound and spelling correspondences of high frequency words. This is the
introductory and foundational level of the High Point curriculum. First, students begin
with letter names, their most common sounds, and formation. Then, students progress
through multisyllabic words in a systematic, explicit reading and language development
series.
55
Table 10:
High Point Scope and Sequence
Scope and Sequence The Basics Level A Level B Level C
Language Development and
Communication
Language Functions
Language Patterns and
Structures
Concepts and Vocabulary
Reading
Learning to Read: Print,
Phonemic Awareness,
Phonics, Decoding,
Word Recognition
Reading Strategies
Comprehension
Literary Analysis and Appreciation
Cognitive Academic Skills
Learning Strategies
Critical Thinking
Research Skills
Writing
Handwriting
Writing Modes and Forms
Writing Process
Writer's Craft
Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics, Spelling
Technology/Media
Cultural Perspectives
Source: Hampton-Brown (2001)
56
The developers of High Point have aligned the five essential reading components
with those of the National Reading Panel (NRP) for effective, research-based reading
instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. A
complete language development strand, aligned with the Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL) standards, augments reading instruction for ELLs. The
basis of these standards is from the most current research on language learning in an
academic setting.
Additionally, Table 11 demonstrates English language learners’ exposure and
participation in specialized language development strategies that incorporate both
SIOP/SDAIE strategies and Krashen’s (1985) theory of comprehensible input and social
learning aspects.
The goal of High Point levels A, B, and C aims to build reading, writing, and
language power, and will enable academic success in a mainstream setting. At this level,
reading advances through increased length of selections and text density with decreasing
picture/text correspondence and increased complexity in vocabulary, concepts, sentence
structures, and verb tenses. Specifically, the readings selected focus on content
knowledge, particularly science and social, with an emphasis on expository text. This
reading organization not only develops language skills, but it exposes students to core
academic disciplines. The systematic instructional path of each reading selection f
provides struggling readers with scaffolded instruction to provide the necessary support
for reading success. Levels A-C address vocabulary with fidelity, teaching critical
vocabulary prior to reading to increase academic engagement in student learning. The
57
vocabulary instruction incorporates sheltered instruction where teachers strategically
select and teach words critical for understanding the text, and provide students with
multiple ways to learn, remember, and use the words.
Table 11
Specialized Language Development Strategies in High Point
Language Modeling A song, poem, or chant on CD or tape models targeted language and the related
vocabulary or structure. Students engage in echo langauge, recit or create words
after teacher has used scripted model language.
Guided Oral Practice All language development lessons in program include a section where students
produce oral language, often in a partner activity.
Writing Application Capitalizing on the mutual reinforcement of oral and written production to the
acquisition of L2, each lesson ends with a writing activity, often involving partner
work or role-plays to spark the writing
Visual Support Vocabulary lessons provie visual support for the new words, often in the form of
photos with labels.
Direct Grammar
Instruction
Grammar lessons teach language structures, beginning with a skill box that
directly states the concept and presents multiple examples with visual support.
Abundant Practice
with Partners
Formats in the books and in the Language Practice Book provide extensive
repetition and practice that allow students to internalize the new skills. Partner
work is a special emphasis with student-to-student discussions to maximize
language use.
Source: Hampton-Brown (2001)
Another High Point curriculum component, writing instruction, targets reading,
writing, and language power at each level (Levels A-C) of the curriculum to enable
academic success in a mainstream setting. Levels A-C address all modes and forms of
58
writing in the language arts and meet ESL standards. Additionally, explicit instruction is
given in the writing process, including pre-writing, peer editing revisions, research, and
technology skills. High Point adheres to the following five modes of writing: Narrative,
Expressive, Descriptive, Expository, and Persuasive. In each step of the writing process,
teachers model the process before students undertake these steps on their own. In this
manner, students begin the meta-cognitive process of reflecting on one’s own and another
author’s writing. The results of this metacognitive process leads to continued cognitive
and academic growth through language acquisition.
Finally, High Point uses a comprehensive array of assessment tools to inform
placement and proper levels of instruction to meet the needs of ELLs and struggling
readers. These assessments serve to properly diagnose a student’s placement in High
Point, monitor student progress, and provide a summative evaluation of a student’s level
of growth at year’s end. The assessment tools and the spiraling curriculum design work
together to ensure students receive instruction for progress and mastery of language and
literacy.
Data Source
The study used four sets of English Language Arts (ELA) data from CUSD. The
first set of data included each individual student’s ELA California Standards Test (CST)
scores from sixth grade during the 2006-2007 school year, a year prior to the intervention
exposure (n = 131). The next set of data included each individual student’s ELA CST
scores from Grade 7 during the 2007-2008 school year (n = 131). This data collection
process repeated itself for the next 3 consecutive academic years for this cohort of
59
students: 2008-09 (n = 114), 2009-10 (n = 107), and 2010-11 (n = 93). The study
gathered the data from all CUSD students who took English Language Development
(ELD); and the scores grouped by individual teacher. The third data set included each
student’s ELA California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores from their final year
in the cohort, and subsequently, the first year the school district administered CAHSEE to
high school students, the 2010-2011 school year (n = 93). Finally, the fourth data set
included each grade levels aggregate score on the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) from seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth grade students
enrolled in classes during the 2007-08 (n = 131), 2008-09 (n=114), 2009-10 (n = 107)
and 2010-11(n = 93) school years. The data collection process for this fourth set use the
same process as the ELA CST scores above and gathered from all CUSD students who
took English Language Development (ELD).
Looking closely at the CUSD students in this study, it includes 445 7
th
-10
th
grade
students, of which, 58.0% are male and 42.0% are female. All 445 students are
designated as ELLs with 100% from Hispanic backgrounds. All students in this study
participate in English Language Development classes, and receive a minimum of one
hour of direct explicit English instruction each day of the intervention, the High Point
curriculum. The remainder of the school curriculum for these students includes classes in
mainstreamed math, physical education, and a visual or performing arts elective.
Teachers of the mainstream courses deliver instruction through Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) to meet the needs of ELLs.
60
Instrumentation
This study used several instrument systems. The first measure constitutes the
ELA CST data for grades seven and eight. All Grades 7 and 8 ELL students enrolled in
California Public Schools for at least one school year take the ELA CST in their L2
language, English. The second measure includes the students’ Grade 10 ELA scores of
the CAHSEE. All students, including ELLs, test using the CAHSEE, and have multiple
opportunities, if necessary, for re-testing until they achieve passing scores. The third
measure is the CELDT for Grades 7 through 10. The CELDT is an annual assessment
proctored to all students classified as an ELL to monitor progress towards reclassification
as Fully English Proficient (RFEP). The state of California’s accountability system gives
each district the flexibility to set the criteria for reclassification. In the Coastline Unified
School District, ELLs must score basic on the ELA and mathematics portion of the CST,
earn grades of ‘C’ or better in their core academic classes (math, English, science, and
history), and score early advanced or advanced on the four domains assessed on the
CELDT—reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
California Standards Test—English Language Arts (ELA CST)
The ELA CST is a criterion reference test designed to measure how well students
achieve California’s ELA content standards. These content standards include the
benchmarks for student knowledge and task completion at each grade level. The Grades
7 and 8 versions are multiple-choice tests, with a writing portion on the Grade 7 test not
used in this study to maintain internal consistency. The multiple-choice test consists of
81 questions, and only 75 of those questions scored. Next, the raw score converts to a
61
scaled score from 150-600, then sorts into five specific bandwidths—advanced,
proficient, basic, below basic (BB), and far below basic (FBB). Each bandwidth equals
an assigned a point total, with the important number being 350, which defines proficiency
(CDE, 2011a).
The CSTs are constructed to meet professional standards for validity and
reliability. Creswell (2009) defines content validity as the extent to which an existing
instrument item measures the content they were intended to measure; in this instance, the
construct to measure is the State Board of Education (SBE) adapted ELA standards. To
minimize construct-irrelevent score variance, test creators write blueprints and
specifications to control as many aspects of the measurement as possible. This ensures
testing conditions remain the same over test administrations and test validity.
In addition, psychometric testing procedures involve logical analyses of test
content, in which experts judge the intended domain of content (CDE, 2011a). The CDE
and ETS use Assessment Review Panels (ARPs), comprised of testing and content area
experts, to analyze the following areas to ensure the validity of the CSTs: item
development process, item review process, form construction process, alignment studies,
and correlation studies between scores on CSTs and scores on the California
Achievement Test (CAT)/6 Survey, a known valid test.
Finally, Creswell (2009) posits that reliability is a prerequisite for validity, and
internal consistency, test-retest correlations, and consistency in test administration and
scoring must adhere to current statistical benchmarks. The CDE and Educational Testing
Services (ETS) conducted several statistical analyses procedures, such as item response
62
theory analyses, differential item functioning analyses, model-fit assessment analyses,
and evaluation of scaling analyses to ensure test reliability. Overall, the reliability
analyses on each of the 38 operational CSTs indicate high reliabilities for all grade-level
tests for ELA, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
The CAHSEE is a criterion-referenced test, aligned with the California content
standards for ELA and mathematics, to assess student achievement in public high
schools. In addition, the assessment ensures students who graduate from public high
schools can demonstrate competency in reading, writing, and mathematics. The ELA
portion of the exam measures the State Board of Education ELA standards through grade
ten. The reading portion covers vocabulary and informational and literary reading. The
writing portion covers writing strategies, applications and conventions. In addition, the
ELA examination consists of 80 multiple-choice questions, 73 of which are operational
items, seven field-test items, and one constructed-response, writing, item. The raw score,
1 point per correct multiple-choice answer and a 4 point rubric multiplied by the scoring
weight of 4.5, converts to a scaled score range from 275-450; and the minimum passing
score set at 350 (CDE, 2011b).
The ETS began with the test design, and included content specifications, item
development, and psychometric quality to support the validity of the test. Next, the ETS
constructed all forms of the CAHSEE to measure student performance relative to the
content standards adapted by the SBE. To create valid test questions, they analyzed field-
test items from test administrations and placed the calibrated items in a test-item bank for
63
future tests. Additionally, the CDE and ETS use independent evaluations to examine the
relationship between CST ELA performances from the 2003 STAR CST administration
to predict success in passing the 2008 CAHSEE. This correlation study revealed a strong
relationship between CST achievement and passage of CAHSEE, thus indicating accurate
measurement of ELA standards (CDE, 2011b).
Afterwards, to maintain reliability of the CAHSEE, ETS conducted reliability
analyses for total test, strands, and subgroups. Specifically, ETS used standard error of
measurement (SEM) tests to determine true variance (real difference in the knowledge or
skill being tested) and error variance (difference due to random errors in the measurement
process). The reliability coefficients ranged from 0 to 1, and revealed a higher score
predicted an individual’s ability to obtain similar scores if they took another form of the
test. Also, the SEMS Cronbach’s Alpha for the internal consistency reliability, with
results across the seven administrations ranging from .87 to .94; the higher of the two
numbers indicated a high degree, or reliability. Other SEMs conducted include test
reliabilities, strand intercorrelations, and subgroup reliabilities. The overall reliability of
the CAHSEE scores exhibited high reliability, as evidenced by the mean internal
consistency values for the population of students, which ranged from .94 for ELA and .95
for mathematics (CDE, 2011b).
California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
The CELDT assesses the English language development of students whose
primary language is not English. Specifically, the test identifies students who are limited-
English-proficient (LEP), determine their level of English proficiency, and assess the
64
progress in acquiring the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English
(CDE, 2011c). School districts administered the exams to four separate grade-level
spans, Kindergarten through Grade 2(K-2), Grade 3 through Grade 5 (3-5), Grade 6
through Grade 8 (6-8), and Grade 9 through Grade 12 (9-12). Unlike the CSTs, which
are performance driven tests, the CELDT’s construct remained consistent across all grade
spans and demonstrated the focus on language knowledge, not content.
In the end, the school district hand scored each of the assessed domains for
placement and data monitoring use, and then, forwarded to the state for official scoring.
The CELDT uses a pre-equated scaling design; one that can establish an equivalent or
common scale across the various grade level versions. As seen in Table 12, the common
scale distributes scores for a given domain and grade span with a lowest obtainable scale
score (LOSS) and the highest obtainable scale score (HOSS) (CDE, 2011c).
Therefore, performance levels on the test scale, as delineated by cut scores, define
each student’s performance on the CELDT. The five performance levels described in the
California ELD standards are Beginning, Early Intermediate, Early Advanced, and
Advanced (CDE, 2011c).
65
Table 12:
Lowest Obtainable (LOSS) and Highest Obtainable (HOSS) CELDT Scale Score Values
Grades K - 2 LOSS 140 280 220 180 (K - 1)
HOSS 630 650 690 215 (Gr. 2)
600 (K - 1)
635 (Gr. 2)
Grades 3 - 5 LOSS 200 280 220 230
HOSS 720 700 740 700
Grades 6 - 8 LOSS 225 320 220 248
HOSS 720 750 780 741
Grades 9 - 12 LOSS 235 320 220 251
HOSS 740 770 810 761
Source: California Department of Education (2011c)
To ensure test validity and reliability, the CELDT Technical Advisory Group
oversees the original test blueprint creation, test alignments, and technical evaluation,
including ongoing revisions. Members of the advisory group include experts in test
development, English language acquisition, applied linguistics, psychometrics, and data
analysis and represent numerous research institutions and school districts.
Correspondence between test and instructional content supports content validity for the
CELDT. To this end, developers conducted a comprehensive curriculum review and met
with educational experts to determine common educational goals for the knowledge and
skills emphasized in curricula across the country. Further efforts to warrant content
validity through domain correlations and test score interpretation minimized construct-
irrelevant variance and construct underrepresentation (CDE, 2011c).
66
The CELDT maintains its reliability by equating each new test form to a previous
form. By doing so, it produces comparable outcomes of performance levels across years.
Each grade span and domain, using Cronbach’s index of internal consistency, evaluates
the total test reliabilities of CELDT. In the 2008-2009 CELDT edition, the reliability
coefficients fell between .73 and .92 across all grades and domains. Additionally,
reliability of the speaking, reading, and writing domains at every grade level was over
.84, and as high as .92; the test’s listening domain’s 20-item per grade span coefficient
fell between .73 and .85 (CDE, 2011c).
Lastly, the Standard Error of Measurement associated with a student’s score
further quantifies and ensures test reliability. The range of standard errors for the latest
CELDT administration is between 1.48 and 2.70 points across all grades and subject
areas in raw score units (CDE, 2011c). In other words, this equates to an error band of
about two raw score points for most students. For example, if a student received a raw
score of 28 with a standard error of 2.00 points, on retesting the student would be
expected to obtain a score between 26 and 30.
Procedure
This study acquired student data for this study through the use of the CDEs
DataQuest, Riverside Publishing Company’s Data Director software application, and
Eagle Software’s Aeries student information system provided by Coastline Unified
School District. To minimize threats to internal validity of the study, ELD teachers, who
applied the High Point curriculum, analyzed CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT student data.
67
The data analyzed included: CST, CELDT and CAHSEE status scores, CST and CELDT
proficiency scaled scores.
Threats to Validity
Factors that may potentially undermine aspects of the causal inference process in
a specific research setting is known as plausible threats to validity (West & Thoemmes,
2010). An examination of the internal and external validity of causal inference helped
evaluate the validity of this study.
Internal validity
West and Thoemmes (2010) posit threats to internal validity identify specific
reasons why causal inferences are partially or completely wrong. The comparison of test
and control groups, and the recorded baseline and outcome measures from both groups,
limited the internal validity in this study. Furthermore, all participants experienced
identical experimental procedures, except for the treatment condition to rule out other
possible threats to internal validity, such as history and maturation. Field scholars have
considered this design extensively and provide a clear basis for comparison.
In contrast, for a threat to be a problem, it must operate differently in the test and
control groups. The central concern in this study was the threat of selection, the
possibility that participants in the test and control groups showed dramatic differences at
the beginning of the study. The selection of test and control groups in this study was not
randomly assigned, thus a strong foundation for causal inference cannot be established as
in the case when randomization of participants is conducted.
68
External Validity
External validity reflects the extent to which the inference, drawn from any
particular study, can generalize to or across times, setting, and persons (Creswell, 2009).
The participants in this study derived from an experimentally accessible population
(students of the CUSD). Therefore, generalizing the results of this study to ELL students
in other settings may breach acceptable statistical norms and call into question the
validity of any results.
.
69
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
From the beginning of the study there remained a need to determine the possible
emergence of certain trends due to the use of a growth model used to analyze the efficacy
of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District. As a result, the
study used three different sets of test scores: the CST ELA scores, CELDT scores for data
sets spanning each school year from 2007 to 2011, and ELA CAHSEE from 2011. Also,
the study used several correlational analyses to determine if a relationship existed
between year and school. This quantitative study employed a quasi-experimental,
between-subjects research design method using a matching participant assignment
procedure. Finally, the study compared the mean scaled scores and effect sizes of
commonly used assessments in the state of California (CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT)
between the intervention school, Nautica High School (NHS), and comparison schools,
Oceana High School and LaMar High School (OHS and LHS).
Each of the three research questions used repeated measures ANOVA tests to
determine if there was an interaction across the four years, depending on the high school.
The repeated measures ANOVA test used the CST ELA and CELDT data sets to
determine any main effect differences between schools and test years. Cohen’s d and Eta
squared coefficients determined the effect size to evaluate the magnitude of the mean
differences. Any positive relationships by year might suggest a level of efficacy of the
curriculum in each school.
70
The ANCOVA tests used for the CAHSEE ELA data determined any differences
between schools, holding CST 2007 ELA scores constant. Any significant mean
differences between schools may support the level of fidelity implementation of the
intervention found between schools might correlate to the mean difference between
schools, giving plausibility for further study of High Point.
Findings
Answer to Research Question 1
From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CST ELA scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school compare
to the changes in the two comparison schools?
For the first research question, the hypothesis stated exposure to the High Point
intervention in Grades 7 and 8 might manifest itself into a substantial increase in CST
ELA scores in Grades 9 and 10 in NHS (intervention school), and indicated students’
readiness for rigorous grade level standards. A repeated measures ANOVA analyzed the
first research question. Table 13 shows the CST ELA mean scaled scores, standard
deviation, and number of scores for each of the three high schools for the 2007–2011 test
years. Scores for 2008 and 2009 represented the middle school scores (7
th
and 8
th
grade)
and 2010 and 2011 represented the high school scores (9
th
and 10
th
grade).
In an initial survey of the data, the 2007 results are scores prior to exposure of the
High Point intervention and served as a baseline measurement. As expected, the test
results for the subsequent four years showed a general trend as mean scores increased for
each school. The intervention school, Nautica High School, showed mean scaled score
71
gains of 265, 279, 288, and 300 for the four years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011,
respectively. LaMar High School (LHS) showed mean scaled score gains of 285, 302,
314, and 311, respectively, for the same said four test years as NHS. Oceana High
School (OHS) showed mean scaled score gains of 293, 297, 315, and 307, respectively,
for the same said four test years. Figure 3 shows a graphical representation of this CST
ELA data.
In a second examination of Figure 3, the data revealed an unexpected occurrence
at Nautica High School, the intervention school. The students at NHS experienced an
initial decrease in the CST ELA scaled scores when compared to their baseline, 6
th
grade
scores. NHS was the only school in the study to experience this initial decline in
outcome data.
To investigate this score anomaly, the study turned to educational researchers who
have studied the transition years between elementary and secondary education since the
1960s. The groundbreaking report, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the
21
st
Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) pointed to the
difficulty of this transition. Early adolescence is an important adjustment period for
youth to rapidly growing physical and cognitive abilities, as well as vast socio-emotional
issues not present in the elementary years. For the first time, educators and researchers
suggested mismatches between adolescents’ developmental needs and the middle school
environment might contribute to declines in self-esteem, motivation, and academic
achievement (Meece, 2003). Moreover, Meece (2003) posits the shift from mastery
learning goals found in elementary schools to performance learning goals of secondary
72
schools can lead to a shift towards more competition and outperformance between class
peers. This sudden shift in learning goals can lead to negative changes in academic and
emotional well-being during middle school years and beyond.
As the only Grades 7-12 school in the study, it is plausible the study magnified
the effects of performance goal orientation of the Grade 7 students at NHS in comparison
to the students at the other schools in the study, traditional Grades 7-8 middle schools.
This difficult transition for NHS students may have occurred at a time when their socio-
emotional maturity was least able to cope with these circumstances.
A third examination of the data found two statistically significant findings. The
Wilks’ Lambda coefficient indicated a statistically significant mean difference in test
scores, by year, across all three schools (Wilks’ Lambda=. 402, F (4,65) = 24.175, p =
.001; see Table 14). The test between subject effects indicated there was a statistically
significant interaction over the test years by school (F (8, 130) = 1.962, p =. 056; see
Table 14).
In a final consideration, it is important to consider effect size when working with
a smaller sample. Salkind (2005) contends that, in addition to determining a statistical
significance between two groups, one needs to consider the magnitude of the difference.
In other words, effect size measures the magnitude of the treatment without taking
sample size into account. The Cohen’s d coefficient quantifies the magnitude of effect
size with the following magnitudes: a small effect size ranges from 0.0 to .20; a medium
effect size ranges from .20 to .50; and a large effect size ranges from .50 and above
(Salkind, 2005; Cohen, 1988). In research question one, the study took the mean CST
73
ELA difference for each high school from year one to year four to measure the magnitude
of effect size for each high school cohort. The results indicated a large effect size,
suggesting that the growth from year one to year four for each of the schools was
meaningful (Cohen’s d = 1.34, 1.00, and .515 respectively for NHS, LHS, and OHS).
Related to research question one, it is notable the greatest amount of growth occurred at
NHS, the High Point intervention school.
Table 13
CST ELA Score by Year and School
Year School
CST ELA
Mean
Standard
Deviation N
2007 NHS 270.9286 24.3862 14
CST ELA SS LHS 280.3333 25.94258 39
OHS 294.0000 23.23537 18
2008 NHS 265.7122 25.713 14
CST ELA SS LHS 285.4900 26.128 39
OHS 293.7800 27.063 18
2009 NHS 279.5712 30.881 14
CST ELA SS LHS 302.7234 32.056 39
OHS 297.1744 27.889 18
2010 NHS 288.7143 28.89618 14
CST ELA SS LHS 314.6667 30.35521 39
OHS 315.7222 31.39090 18
2011 NHS 300.4286 31.60261 14
CST ELA SS LHS 311.4615 29.81155 39
OHS 307.1111 33.45917 19
Source: California Department of Education (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
74
Figure 3. Estimated Marginal Means of CST.
Table 14
Multivariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 1
Effect Value F
Hypothesis
df
Error
df p
Time Pilai's Trace .598 24.175
a
4.000 65.000 0.000
Wilks' Lambda .402 24.175
a
4.000 65.000 0.000
Hotelling's Trace 1.488 24.175
a
4.000 65.000 0.000
Roy's Largest 1.488 24.175
a
4.000 65.000 0.000
Time * Pilai's Trace .215 1.984 8.000 132.000 0.053
High Wilks' Lambda .796 1.962
a
8.000 130.000 0.056
School Hotelling's Trace .242 1.94 8.000 128.000 0.059
Roy's Largest .155 2.553
b
4.000 66.000 0.047
75
Table 15
Between Subjects Effects Summary for Research Question 1
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
Error
df Mean Square F p
Intercept 25459387.9 1 25459387.9 9495.822 0.000
High
School 20053.948 2 10026.974 3.740 0.000
Error 182315.798 68 2681.115
Answer to Research Question 2
Does High Point curriculum in Grades 7-9 relate to mainstream ELA readiness as
indicated by CAHSEE scores in the intervention school compared to the two comparison
schools?
For the second research question, the hypothesis stated student exposure to the
High Point intervention in Grades 7, 8, and 9 would yield significant test score
differences between the intervention school, NHS, and the two comparison schools, OHS
and LHS. This score difference would represent greater student readiness to access and
master grade-level standards. Students must pass both the ELA and mathematics portion
of the CAHSEE, which the state of California deems as one of the minimum levels of
proficiency to attain a high school diploma.
The study analyzed the second research question using an analysis of covariance
test to determine if a significant mean difference existed for CAHSEE scores after
controlling for 2007 CST ELA scores. Since there is no administration of the CAHSEE
prior to the Grade 10, the selection of the ELA CST was the best fit. In particular, the
76
2007 ELA CST was chosen because it served as a performance benchmark prior to the
intervention. Both ELA sections of the CAHSEE and CST are criterion referenced to the
California ELA standards, and both convert raw scores to a scaled score. Table 16 shows
the 2007 CST ELA mean scaled scores, standard deviation, and number of scores for
each of the three high schools, and Table 17 shows the unadjusted ELA CAHSEE mean
scaled scores, standard deviation, and number of scores for each of the three high schools
for the 2011 test year. Finally, Figure 4 shows a graphical representation of this 2011
ELA CAHSEE data.
The analysis of covariance test (ANCOVA) indicated some statistically
significant findings. First, the relationship between the 2007 CST ELA and the 2011
CAHSEE ELA scores was statistically significant (F (1,71) = 18.449, p =. 001, partial eta
squared = .206; see Table 18). The partial eta squared (partial eta = .206) suggested the
2007 CST ELA scores explained approximately 21% of the variance in CAHSEE scores.
According to Cohen (1988), the eta squared was large.
The statistical evidence also suggested the main effect of school was not
significant (F (2,71) = 1.275, p =. 286, partial eta squared =. 035; see Table 18 and Figure
4). In other words, there was not a significant mean difference in CAHSEE scores after
controlling for the 2007 CST ELA scores depending high schools (mean = 352.019,
342.950, 339.207, respectively, for NHS, LHS, and OHS; see Table 19). Related to
research question two, it is notable the greatest amount of growth occurred in NHS, the
High Point intervention school (Cohen’s d LHS =. 348 and OHS = .491).
77
Table 16
2007 CST ELA Mean Scale Score by School
School CST ELA Mean
Standard
Deviation N
NHS 270.3403 25.2990 23
LHS 280.1639 26.3970 61
OHS 289.5714 26.2896 28
Table 17
2007 CAHSEE ELA Mean Scale Score by School
School
CAHSEE
Mean
Standard
Deviation N
NHS 346.00 24.050 16
LHS 342.70 24.660 37
OHS 344.00 30.575 22
Total 343.79 26.077 75
Table 18
Multivariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 2
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df
Mean
Square F p
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected 10476.624 3 3492.208 6.223 0.208
Model 0.001
Intercept 28469.014 1 28469.014 50.728 0.000 0.417
2007 CST
ELA 10353.767 1 10353.767 0.000 0.206
SS 18.449
High School 1431.072 2 715.536 1.275 0.286 0.035
Error 39845.962 71 561.211
Total 8914518.000 75
Corrected
Total 50322.587 74
78
Table 19
Covariates CAHSEE Mean Scale Score
High School Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
CMHS 352.019 6.086 339.884 364.154
Estancia 342.950 3.895 335.184 350.717
NHHS 339.207 5.173 328.893 349.520
Figure 4. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: 2007 CST ELA SS =
277.7733
79
Answer to Research Question 3
From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CELDT scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school compare
to the changes in the two comparison schools?
For the final research question, the hypothesis stated exposure to the High Point
intervention in Grades 7 and 8 might result in statistically significant increases in scaled
scores, as measured by the overall CELDT scores in CUSD middle schools. These
CELDT score increases might indicate a growing number of students eligible for
reclassification as fully English proficient (RFEP). In CUSD, CELDT scores are but one
criterion used to reclassify a student as fully English proficient; with the other criteria
includes a proficiency band score of basic on the math and ELA CST and a grade of “C”
or better in students’ ELA and math class. The study did not use the exact number of
classified students as a measurement indicator because of the reliability issues inherent
with teacher grading practices. For example, two students who possess the same
knowledge and skill set in a particular content area may have different grade outcomes
due to each teachers’ grade-weighting of tests, homework, projects, or extra credit. This
criterion could affect the number of students actually reclassified.
During the analysis process, a profile analysis studied the third research question
to test whether there was a significant mean difference in CELDT test scores across the
four years (2008–2011), depending on high school (NHS, LHS, OHS). Table 20 shows
the CELDT mean scaled scores, standard deviation, and number of scores for each of the
three high schools for the test years 2008–2011. The subsequent four-year test results
80
indicated a general trend of mean scale score increased for each school site. The 2008
and 2009 scores represented the middle school scores (Grades 7 and 8) and 2010 and
2011 scores represented the high school scores (Grades 9 and 10). NHS demonstrated
mean scaled score gains of 494, 531, 543, and 563 for the four years 2008, 2009, 2010,
and 2011 respectively. LHS demonstrated mean scaled score gains of 481, 538, 539, and
563 for same said four years, respectively, and OHS shows mean scaled score gains of
479, 533, 554, and 590 for same said four years, respectively. Figure 5 shows a graphical
representation of this CELDT data.
As a result, three statistically significant findings have surfaced from this analysis.
First, the multivariate main effect of year was significant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.484, F
(3,86) = 30.551, p = 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.516; see Table 21 below).
Approximately 52% of the variance in CELDT test scores was explained by year (partial
eta squared = 0.516). Second, the main effect of high school was not significant (F
(2,88) = 1.298, p = 0.278, partial eta squared = 0.029; see Table 22 below). And, third,
there was not a significant mean difference in CELDT test scores depending on high
school (estimated marginal means = 529.638, 531.271, and 551.000 for NHS, LaMar, and
OHS, respectively). The interaction of year and high school was also not significant
(Wilks’ Lambda = 0.932, F (6,172) = 1.024, p = 0.411, partial eta squared = 0.034; see
Table 4.8).
81
Table 20
Overall CELDT Mean Scale Score By year and Score
Year School CELDT
Mean
Standard
Deviation
N
2008 NHS 494.95 72.430 20
CELDT LHS 481.23 83.000 48
Overall SS OHS 479.04 116.639 23
Total 483.69 89.820 91
2009 NHS 531.55 47.456 20
CELDT LHS 538.58 59.677 48
Overall SS OHS 533.74 76.378 23
Total 535.81 61.404 91
2010 NHS 543.60 44.702 20
CELDT LHS 539.38 44.235 48
Overall SS OHS 554.30 52.041 23
Total 544.08 46.307 91
2011 NHS 563.90 41.627 20
CELDT LHS 563.92 48.387 48
Overall SS OHS 590.70 49.580 23
Total 570.68 48.233 91
Source: California Department of Education (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
82
Figure 5. Estimated marginal means for CELDT across the four years by school.
Table 21
Multivariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 3
Effect Value F
Hypothesis
df Error df p
Partial Eta
Square
Time Pilai's Trace 0.516 30.551
a
3 86 0.000 0.516
Wilks' Lambda 0.484 30.551
a
3 86 0.000 0.516
Hotelling's Trace 1.066 30.551
a
3 86 0.000 0.516
Roy’s Largest Root 1.066 30.551
a
3 86 0.000 0.516
Pilai's Trace 0.068 1.018 6 174 0.415 0.034
Time*
High
School Wilks' Lambda 0.932 1.024
a
6 172 0.411 0.034
Hotelling's Trace 0.073 1.030 6 170 0.408 0.035
Roy's Largest Root 0.072 2.095
b
3 87 0.107 0.067
83
Table 22
Univariate Model Summary Results for Research Question 3
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F p
Partial Eta
Squared
Intercept 90918108.288 1 90918108.288 8364.209 0.000 0.990
High School 28228.835 2 14114.417 1.298 0.278 0.029
Error 956551.154 88 10869.899
As identified earlier, the smaller sample sizes in this study suggested the need to
analyze effect size. In research question three, the study took the mean CELDT score
difference for each high school from year one to year four to measure the magnitude of
effect size for each high school cohort. The results indicated a large effect size for all
schools, and suggested the growth from year one to year four for each of the schools was
meaningful (Cohen’s d = .767, .920, and 1.24 respectively for NHS, LHS, and OHS).
Related to research question three, it is notable and unexpected that the intervention
school, NHS, observed the smallest gains of the three schools.
In summary, the results suggested some interesting findings. First, there are
statistically significant correlations between years across all three data sets (CST ELA,
CAHSEE, and CELDT). Second, the findings of the Cohen’s d and Eta squared
coefficients indicated a large effect size across all three same said data sets. And, third,
the test between subjects effects indicated there was a statistically significant difference
over the test years by school when analyzing the CST ELA data set.
84
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Summary
The academic achievement gap between ethno-linguistic minority students and
other students, as represented by test scores, dropout rates, and college admissions and
completion rates, is the most persistent and pressing challenge facing public schools
nationwide. California has a more pronounced achievement gap in California than the
rest of the nation, as the population of these “minority” students now has become the new
majority numerically. In fact, California’s proportion of students not fully proficient in
English is approximately 34% of the national total, or one of every three students
(Aguila, 2010).
The existing achievement gap indicates many of our students do not receive the
minimum education needed to become literate and join the labor market (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). The resulting opportunity cost of lost income from unemployment or
low paying jobs has significant ramifications for our society. The correlation between
one’s level of education and lifetime earning potential impacts our society in the form of
increased unemployment rates, crime rates, health and mortality rates, and an opportunity
cost of lost personal income potential and fewer tax dollars while increasing the need for
public assistance (Gunderson & Oreopoulos, 2010; Rumberger, 2010).
Outside of the family unit, the U.S. education system serves as society’s greatest
equalizer. More specifically, the levels of teacher quality, school resources, and school
policy and practices have the potential to close our existing achievement gap. The
85
compilation of research suggests ELLs must acquire English to a proficient level that
maximizes their capacity to successfully engage in content area instruction delivered in
English (Beecher & Sweeney, 2008; CDE, 2010; Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; and
Rubenstein-Avila, 2003). This task not only will require ELLs to acquire English, but to
use their new language in increasingly sophisticated ways. This complex undertaking
must adhere to the English-only policy climate in California ushered in with the passage
of Proposition 227 in 1998. This electorate mandate effectively codifies the use of the
Structured English Immersion model (SIOP) to deliver instruction. The SIOP model is
an English-only model, delivering lessons that allow ELLs to acquire academic
knowledge as they develop English language proficiency skills (Bali, 2001).
This study’s design evaluates the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in CUSD.
High Point is a research-based intervention program designed to accelerate growth in
language and literacy for ELLs. This spiraling curriculum begins with the development
of basic language skills, which include language functions and structure for
communication while providing context for vocabulary and grammar skills bound in
cultural thematic units. Subsequent levels build reading, writing, and language skills, and
provide the context for language and literacy development. As a result of the curriculum
structure, it enabled students to apply English in sophisticated and increasingly complex
ways necessary for accessing mainstream content subject matter.
To evaluate the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the state of California,
the study used three widely used assessments. The California Standards Test (CST) and
the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) are criterion-referenced tests used as a
86
summative evaluation of students’ mastery of standards-based education. The California
English Language Development Test (CELDT) measures levels of language proficiency
in the areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in English. Collectively,
these three tests indicate the level of readiness for mainstream content instruction
delivered in English. The study used the following research questions to evaluate the
High Point curriculum:
• From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CST ELA scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school
compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?
• Does High Point curriculum in Grades 7-9 affect mainstream ELA readiness as
indicated by CAHSEE scores in the intervention school compared to the two
comparison schools?
• From Grades 7-10, are there increases in CELDT scores in the High Point
intervention school? How does the change in the High Point intervention school
compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?
The study obtained the student data sets used for this study through the school
district’s Riverside Publishing Company’s Data Director account, Eagle Software’s
Aeries Student Information System, and the CDEs DataQuest. Specifically, these
information systems provided student CST, CAHSEE data for ELA and CELDT data for
2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 for the study. The sample included scores from 445 students
in Grades 7-10 who are designated as ELLs. All students in this study participate in ELD
87
classes, receiving a minimum of one hour of direct explicit English instruction for each
day of the intervention, High Point.
Longitudinal data consisted of each student’s CST and CELDT scaled scores for
each student’s Grade 7 (2008), Grade 8 (2009), Grade 9 (2010), Grade 10 (2011), and
their Grade 6 (2007) CST score used as a baseline before exposure to the intervention.
Also, the study collected CAHSEE scaled scores for each student in their Grade 10 year,
the first administration year of the CAHSEE. Of the 131 ELLs in grade seven, only 96
students continued on to have test data in the tenth grade. This indicated these 96 students
received four years of the intervention as indicated by the three data sets of scores for all
four consecutive school years. Using this longitudinal data, calculated mean scaled
scores determined any trends that would indicate efficacy of the High Point intervention.
Finally, the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) conducted data analyses for
this study.
Implications
Research Question #1
Data analyses for the first research question (from Grades 7-10, are there
increases in CST ELA scores in the High Point intervention school? How does the
change in the High Point intervention school compare to the changes in the two
comparison schools?) revealed a significant mean difference in CST test scores by year
across all three schools. The mean scaled score gain from the baseline year, 2007 (281),
to Grade 9, 2010 (309), indicated a 28-point gain. These gains suggested a level of
efficacy in the High Point treatment. These results are noteworthy, particularly when
88
ELL field experts such as Fisher, Rothenberg, and Frey (2007) contend that rigorous
content-based assessments, such as the ELA CST, pose a particular challenge for ELLs in
that these students must possess multifaceted knowledge of the English language to
demonstrate proficiency.
Upon close inspection of the intervention, several relationships emerged that
lends explanation to the gain in CST scores. First, the literature to guide ELD instruction
implies that an emphasis in listening and speaking, explicit instruction in the elements of
English (grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and conventions), and interactive activities to
increase language output is the systematic instruction needed to develop the vocabulary,
sentence structure, and grammar ELLs did not learn outside of school (Dutro & Kinsella,
2010). Adherence to these beginning tenets of ELD will give these students the language
proficiency needed for academic achievement in rigorous standards-based curriculum.
These guidelines to ELD instruction are evident throughout all levels of High Point (see
Table 23).
As students gain some mastery of English, High Point incorporates more
academic language into its curriculum. Saunders and Goldberg (2010) contend that
exposure to academic language, such as specialized vocabulary, grammar, and functional
skills associated with academic instruction, can help students attain advanced language
proficiency at a faster rate. As Table 23 indicates, the curriculum infuses these language
skills throughout the different High Point levels.
89
Table 23
High Point Scope and Sequence
Scope and Sequence The Basics Level A Level B Level C
Language Development and
Communication
Language Functions
Language Patterns and
Structures
Concepts and Vocabulary
Reading
Learning to Read: Print,
Phonemic Awareness,
Phonics, Decoding,
Word Recognition
Reading Strategies
Comprehension
Literary Analysis and Appreciation
Cognitive Academic Skills
Learning Strategies
Critical Thinking
Research Skills
Writing
Handwriting
Writing Modes and Forms
Writing Process
Writer's Craft
Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics, Spelling
Technology/Media
Cultural Perspectives
Source: Hampton-Brown (2001)
90
Another salient practice found in High Point is a focus on literacy, more
specifically reading, writing, and academic dialogue, which the developers of High Point
have aligned with the National Reading Panel recommendations for effective, research-
based reading instruction. Experts in the field of literacy, such as Dutro, Fisher, Frey,
Kinsella, Rothenberg, and Schmoker contend that instruction in the key components of
reading, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension,
combined with multiple opportunities for students to read, write, and discuss will
dramatically improve levels of learning for ELLs.
The goal of High Point levels A-C aims to build reading, writing, and language
power that will enable academic success in a mainstream setting. As students progress
through the spiraling levels of High Point, they encounter increasing levels of complexity
in vocabulary, concepts, sentence structures, and verb tenses. Specifically, the selected
readings focus on content, particularly science and social studies, with an emphasis on
expository text to expose students to these academic disciplines.
In addition to the development of reading skills, writing instruction in High Point
levels A-C address all modes and forms of writing in the language arts and ESL
standards. Additionally, the writing process, including pre-writing, peer editing
revisions, research, and technology, receive explicit instruction in the curriculum. High
Point adheres to the following five modes of writing: Narrative, Expressive, Descriptive,
Expository, and Persuasive. In each step of the writing process, teachers model the
process before students undertake these steps on their own. In other words, High Point
instruction incorporates the Gradual Release of Responsibility framework (Fisher, &
91
Frey, 2008) to provide the necessary scaffolding until students have mastered the given
skill. In this manner, students begin the meta-cognitive process of reflecting on one’s
own writing and another author’s writing, which leads to the continuation of cognitive
and academic growth through language acquisition.
Also, data analyses for the first research question revealed there was a
meaningful difference in mean scaled CST ELA scores over the years, by school, as
indicated by effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.34, 1.00, and .515, respectively, for NHS, LHS,
and OHS). This indicates some schools incurred more meaningful gains than others.
Upon analysis of individual student course enrollment by school, it determined that NHS
students received more of the High Point intervention, suggesting more of the
intervention could have resulted in higher gains in CST results (see Table 24).
Table 24
Number of Students Enrolled in High Point Frequency
School ELD 1 ELD 2 ELD 3 ELD 4
NHS **2 **9 11 0
LHS **6 **16 37 9
OHS 7 8 21 0
Total 15 33 69 0
** These students received 2 blocks/instructional periods of High Point intervention
* Every student received 1 period of reading intervention instruction
Source: Coastline Unified School District (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
Following this further, NHS and LHS students in the beginner ELD levels 1 and 2
received two instructional blocks of ELD instruction, whereas students at OHS enrolled
in the same courses received only one period of ELD instruction. Furthermore, students
92
at NHS were the only students who received a reading intervention course, the High
Point curriculum, outside of their ELD instruction. This evidence suggests the additional
exposure to the High Point curriculum may attribute to the larger effect size at NHS.
Continued study to further establish this relationship is necessary to determine the
amount of the High Point intervention needed. However, based on the evidence of this
study and the review of the literature, it is recommended all ELL students would benefit
from concurrent enrollment of a reading intervention class.
Research Question #2
Upon examination of the second research question (Does High Point curriculum
in Grades 7-9 affect mainstream ELA readiness as indicated by CAHSEE scores in the
intervention school compared to the two comparison schools?), the data indicated a
significant relationship between the 2011 CAHSEE mean when controlled for by 2007
ELA CST mean. In the absence of a prior administration of the CAHSEE, first
administered in a student’s tenth grade year, the study chose the 2007 ELA CST as a
performance benchmark prior to the intervention. Both ELA sections of the CAHSEE
and CST are criterion-referenced to the California ELA standards, and both converted
raw scores to a scaled score. Further examination of the data indicated a large effect size
(partial eta squared = .206) that would translate into a very meaningful difference in
mean variance (Cohen, 1988). These data sets suggest that exposure to the High Point
intervention affects mainstream ELA readiness. In other words, this means continued
exposure to High Point develops the students’ mastery of the English language and, at the
same time, exposes students to academic English with multiple opportunities to use
93
English in more sophisticated and complex ways. The respective mean scaled scores for
each school (NHS = 346.00, LHS = 342.70, and OHS = 344.00) and the respective
Cohen’s d coefficient (LHS = .348 and OHS = .491), in comparison to NHS gains,
indicated the students scored near the 350 proficiency benchmark; the minimum level the
state of California set to demonstrate mastery of content standards. Given the extra time
and support, coupled with instructional differentiation in the mainstream classroom, these
students possess the necessary English skills to succeed in a mainstream environment
(August & Shanahan, 2010; Avila, 2010; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006; Dutro &;
Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; and Kinsella, 2010).
Similar to research question one, exploring any nexus between the literature and
best practices in ELD and the curriculum in High Point may account for these findings.
The best practices (CDE, 2010) for ELLs, grounded in strong supporting evidence or in
ELL research, found in High Point are as follows:
• ELD instruction should include interactive activities, such as cooperative learning
opportunities, that provide meaningful English language output.
• ELD instruction should emphasize listening and speaking.
• ELD instruction should explicitly teach the elements of English, such as
vocabulary, syntax, grammar, functions, and conventions.
• ELD instruction should emphasize academic language, as well as conversational
language.
• ELD instruction should include delivery using the Gradual Release of
Responsibility framework.
94
• ELD Instruction should include the key components of reading, such as phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.
In a closer look at the data analysis, the study unveiled an unanticipated piece of
data which included the absence of effect between schools. The hypothesis stated that an
increased exposure to the High Point intervention at NHS would yield significant gains
compared to the comparison schools in the study. While evidence supported this
hypothesis for research question one, the need for possible explanation arises to explain
why similar support was not present for question two. One possible explanation for this
absence might include the varying levels of extra time and support by schools in
preparation for the CAHSEE examination. The CAHSEE accounts for 9% of high
schools’ aggregate Academic Performance Index (API) score, and many schools provide
extra time and support to students in preparation for this high stakes test (CDE, 2012).
For example, schools might provide a disproportionate amount of resources to subgroups,
such as ELLs, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and special education students, in the
form of high-intensity pull-out services before, during, or after the school day. These
extra services provide possible explanations for the absence of effect, by school, in this
study; however, the study warrants further research to examine what and how much extra
time and support of such provisions.
Research question #3
In examination of research question three (From Grades 7-10, are there increases
in CELDT scores in the High Point intervention school? How does the change in the
High Point intervention school compare to the changes in the two comparison schools?),
95
the data indicated a statistically significant increase in mean CELDT score by year. The
data also indicated a large effect size for the increase across all schools (Cohen’s d =
.767, .920, and 1.24, respectively, for NHS, LHS, and OHS), suggesting that the growth
from year one to year four for each school was meaningful. More specifically, the
longitudinal test results indicated a general trend of mean score increases for each school
site, with middle school scores (Grades 7 and 8) represented by the 2008 and 2009 data,
and high school scores (Grades 9 and 10) represented by 2010 and 2011 data. NHS
demonstrated mean scaled score gains of 494, 531, 543, and 563 for the four years 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2011 respectively. LHS demonstrated mean scaled score gains of 481,
538, 539, and 563, respectively, for same said four years, and OHS shows mean scaled
score gains of 479, 533, 554, and 590, respectively, for same said four years. These
meaningful score gains on the CELDT suggested a positive effect of the High Point
curriculum on student learning, as it specifically increased the pool of students eligible
for state reclassification. Related to research question three, the additional exposure of
High Point did not result in any significant gains in the intervention school, NHS,
compared to the comparison schools, LHS and OHS.
Furthermore, the examination of any correlations between the literature and best
practices for developing ELD with the High Point curriculum may suggest some practical
implications for future use in CUSD. The High Point curriculum embedded the
following best practices (CDE, 2010):
96
• ELD instruction should include interactive activities, such as cooperative learning
opportunities) that provide meaningful English language output.
• ELD instruction should emphasize listening and speaking.
• ELD instruction should explicitly teach the elements of English, such as
vocabulary, syntax, grammar, functions, and conventions.
• ELD Instruction should include delivery using in the Gradual Release of
Responsibility framework.
• ELD Instruction should include the key components of reading, such as phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.
The results of the CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data in this study suggested
several practical implications for CUSD. The statistically significant gains across all
learning indicators and schools suggested the continuation of strict adherence to the
following research best practices: (a) a program providing ELD instruction is more
beneficial than a program without and (b) ELD instruction should devote a separate block
of time daily to ELD. Without the informed and systematic instruction English language
components (e.g. vocabulary, word usage, grammatical features, and syntactical
structures), older school-age learners are less likely to develop a confident command of
English for complex social and academic purposes. Dutro and Kinsella (2010) state,
“Academic achievement across the secondary school curricula will be accelerated only
when students are truly proficient in English” (p. 163). The research literature is clear—
proficiency in English requires systematic and explicit instruction in a dedicated course
of study within the school day.
97
The large effect size experienced by NHS in the CST outcome data is of particular
significance in the study. As Table 24 illustrates, ELL students at NHS concurrently
enrolled in a class sections of ELD and a reading intervention. These larger gains in CST
scaled scores are more impressive when one considers the outside confluence of parent
education level as seen in Table 25. Despite having the highest percentage of parents
without high school degrees and college education, 57.69% and 0%, respectively, ELLs
at NHS have gained the largest effect size of the three schools in the study. Dutro and
Kinsella (2010) contend once students have mastered the foundational components of
phonemic awareness and phonics, found in High Point’s ‘basic level’, reading
intervention courses should include advanced decoding of multisyllabic words, reading
fluency, and text comprehension strategies, found in High Point levels A, B, and C.
Consequently, without the additional reading intervention section provided by
NHS, advanced and intermediate students would not receive specific support to develop
literacy skills in core academic classes that results in successful grade appropriate
academic interactions, reading comprehension, and writing tasks. A dedicated literacy
section will enable ELLs to practice and apply increasingly complex language structures
and sophisticated vocabulary not received, otherwise. The ELLs in CUSD would benefit
with continued ELD instruction with a concurrent reading intervention class until
students reach early advance and advance levels.
98
Table 25
Parental Education Levels by %
School
Not H.S.
Graduate H.S. Graduate Some College
College
Graduate
Declined to
State
NHS 57.69 23.07 0 0 19.23
LHS 52.94 17.64 10.29 1.47 17.64
OHS 38.88 16.66 13.88 2.77 27.77
Source: Coastline Unified School District (2011)
Discussion
To determine the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in CUSD, a longitudinal
cohort study used the mean variance of CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT learning and
language indicators. This longitudinal cohort study provides a fair model for informed
evaluation for two reasons. First, Hocevar (cited in Van Cameron, 2010) contends the
importance to evaluate educational judgments on students enrolled in the same school at
least two or more years. In this study, the same students’ scores were used to calculate
scaled score means over four years to determine any longitudinal change. Also, the study
controlled transiency as it used only students with four years of data to calculate the mean
scaled scores. With this longitudinal data in hand, analyses can make fair evaluations of
curriculum.
The second reason this longitudinal cohort study provides a fair model for
evaluation includes the control for poverty and other outside factors that can influence the
outcome data. Of the 131 students in the study, 127 qualified for free/reduced lunch, the
99
most widely used identifier of poverty in California’s Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program. Further controls for the study included language selection,
as all students in the study spoke Spanish as their first language, and ethnicity as all
students come from Hispanic descent.
One shortcoming of this study includes failure to account for teacher perception,
interaction, and expectations. A growing research base on the social and psychological
factors suggest these teacher attributes impact students’ learning, particularly ELLs.
Strong instruction and positive relationships between students and teachers demonstrates
positive influence through high student achievement. The direct effect of this
relationship on student achievement is difficult to quantify, however, a series of negative
relationships significantly diminish a student’s academic self-concept (Callahan, 2005;
Hallinan, 2008).
In addition, further research indicated systemic educational environments
perpetuate low expectations, thus posing an additional learning barrier for ELLs.
Exposing these students to less challenging curricula reside in educators’ beliefs about
linguistic, as well as academic abilities (Harklau, 1994; Jencks & Phillips, 1998). In
California, the de jure placement of ELLs in ELD classes without rich, academic core
content instruction often results in less than optimal learning environments, low-level
academic content, poor student-teacher relationships, and low expectations. Thus, it is
imperative to emphasize academic language and a rich array of literacy throughout all
ELD levels (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010; Fisher, Rothenberg, & Frey, 2007; Saunders &
100
Goldenberg, 2010; and Schmoker, 2011). And, as a result, recent studies have identified
these practices increase the self-efficacy and academic resiliency among ELLs.
The studies of Hallinan (2008) and Huang, Eslami, and Hu (2010) indicated
positive teacher perceptions of their students have a positive effect on student
achievement. Teachers with high expectations implemented several practices to reduce
anxiety among their students, including the establishment of reasonable, as well as
achievable, expectations of language learning, use of games and humor to create a
relaxed and engaging environment, and use of partner and small groups and activities to
make students more comfortable. Teachers employing these strategies were perceived as
supportive and encouraging. Finally, the results suggested if language learners felt
academically and emotionally supported by their teachers, they were less likely to
experience the fear of negative class evaluation and class failure. In other words,
students focused more on learning and not on failure. Further study to quantify the
relationship between teacher perception and student learning would prove beneficial in
the development of the best possible evaluation of school program and curriculum.
Limitations
In this study, three limitations may have affected the final results. The first
limitation of this study included research design. To determine the specific outcome of
the independent variable (High Point) upon the dependent variables (CST, CAHSEE, and
CELDT scaled scores) would require randomly assigned groups—an experimental group
to receive the intervention High Point and a comparison group withheld from the
101
treatment. From the present findings, causal inferences could be made and possibly
generalized to larger educational settings, but only a randomized trial constituted proof.
A second limitation included one of power. Of the 131 students in the study’s
first year (2008), only 95 sat for the STAR tests in 2011. The study lost many of the
original students transiency (20), while others (16) reclassified as fully English proficient
(RFEP). These missing RFEP students’ results had the potential to change the outcome
of the study, particularly given the small sample sizes involved in the school-to-school
comparisons. In fact, when experts debate the achievement gap issue, they contend the
subgroups’ dwindling size, due to a population reclassification to RFEP, will always
result in a lower-performing group of students. Abedi and Dietel (2004) argue this
continually will result in a pool of underperforming students. A similar argument could
be made for the students lost to transiency. The absence of these students in the data
have the potential to inflate the mean scaled scores, as this transient group of students,
traditionally, has not demonstrated high performance.
Moreover, experts in the area of accountability contend the current assessments
used for ELLs do not accurately assess knowledge or ability levels (Abedi, Hofstetter, &
Lord, 2004). These experts debate the accuracy and validity of high stakes tests, as they
do not consider the role of linguistics in the results. This factor is of particular concern
for those schools where sanctions are levied for not meeting goals set forth in NCLB. As
discussed in Chapter 2 of this study, the research of Abedi and Dietel (2004)
demonstrates that reducing the impact of language factors have resulted in a decrease in
the performance gap by approximately 10% to 20% between ELLs and their English-
102
speaking counterparts. By these measures, educators are unlikely to quantify the current
achievement gap accurately, and thus, remain unlikely to make the best decisions in the
efforts to close this gap.
A final limitation include the time and level of assistance on high stake
assessments, as students may have received extra time and support given the nature of
these assessments. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many schools provide extra time
and support in the form of pullout programs to maximize scores on these test. As a
result, any variation in score means can attribute to this supplemental instruction, and not
as a result of the High Point curriculum.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study aimed to determine the efficacy of the High Point
curriculum in the CUSD. The High Point curriculum, by Hampton-Brown, is a research-
based intervention program designed for struggling readers and English language learners
in Grades 9-12 to accelerate growth in language and literacy. This is a spiraling
curriculum, and begins with a basic level, which focuses on basic language skills. This
basic level includes a complete scope of language functions and structures within the
context of vocabulary and grammar skills bound in thematic units. Subsequent levels A,
B, and C build power in reading, writing, and language, also based on relevant, age-
appropriate thematic units to provide the context for language and literacy development.
The methodology for this study consisted of a longitudinal cohort comparison of
mean scaled scores of summary assessment data. The group consisted of secondary
students in grades 7-10 across three sets of middle and high schools. Each of the students
103
enrolled in ELD classes received the High Point curriculum in varying levels of
consistency. This study used three widely administered assessments in the state of
California to evaluate the efficacy of the High Point curriculum. The California English
Language Development Test (CELDT), administered annually to all students whose
primary language is not English, measures levels of listening, speaking, reading, and
writing skills in English. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the
California Standards Test (CST) are criterion-referenced tests used as a summative
evaluation of student’s mastery level of standards-based education. Collectively, these
three tests indicate a student’s readiness to use English in complex ways, and required to
master mainstream content instruction.
A conclusion drawn from the analysis of research question one suggested the
High Point curriculum accounted for gains in the mean scaled score across the four years,
as measured by the ELA portion of the CST. Further analysis indicated a difference in
effect size among the schools, meaning the some of the schools had a more meaningful
gain than others (Cohen’s d = 1.34, 1.00, and .515, respectively, for NHS, LHS, and
OHS). Specifically, the data suggested the additional exposure to the High Point
curriculum at NHS in the form of an extra ELD block and a reading intervention section
for each ELD student had a positive effect on this populations.
Analysis of research question two indicated a mean scaled score gain in CAHSEE
scores when compared to the 2007 CST ELA scores, which served a pre-test benchmark
before exposure to the High Point intervention. The effect size for these results indicated
a large and meaningful difference in the CAHSEE score, therefore suggesting that High
104
Point had a positive impact among all three schools. Further analysis of effect size
indicated the greatest amount of growth occurred at NHS, the High Point intervention
school (Cohen’s d LHS =. 348 and OHS = .491), thus suggesting these students benefited
from the additional exposure to High Point. In addition, the respective mean scaled
scores for each school (NHS = 346.00, LHS = 342.70, and OHS = 344.00) indicated
students scored relatively close to the 350 proficiency benchmark, which the state of
California deems as the minimum level set to demonstrate mastery of content standards.
The current research of DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) and Schmoker (2011) suggest
these students might benefit greatly from additional time and support in the form of an
ELD section through their early advanced and advanced English proficiency levels. This
enables additional time focused on purposeful reading, writing, and discussion.
A conclusion derived from the analysis, in association with the third research
question, revealed High Point has demonstrated a positive effect in the English language
development of students who received this treatment. The data indicated a statistically
significant increase in mean CELDT score, by year, across all three schools with large
effect sizes, therefore indicating these gains are meaningful from a statistical standpoint.
This evidence further suggested the High Point curriculum had a positive affect at NHS,
and specifically increased the pool of students eligible for state reclassification due to the
rise in their CELDT scores.
In the future, district personnel should give consideration to the fidelity and
amount of the High Point intervention to those students receiving ELD services. This
study has highlighted the varying degrees of this treatment, and one can speculate on any
105
returned results if all ELD students received the extended block of ELD instruction
coupled with a rich literacy reading intervention section. Adherence to these
recommendations of the study may accelerate the closure of the achievement gap in
CUSD.
106
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English-
Language learners. The Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 782 - 785.
Abedi, J. & Herman, J. (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn
mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 723 - 746.
Abedi, J., Huie, C., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English
language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1), 1 - 28.
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543 - 574.
Anguila, V. (2010). Schooling English learners: Contexts and challenges. In Improving
education for English learners: Research-based approaches, ed. Faye Ong (ISBN
978-0-8011-1702-2),1-18. Sacremento, CA: California Department of Education
(CDE) Press.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (2010). Effective English literacy instruction for English
learners. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based
approaches, ed. Faye Ong (ISBN 978-0-8011-1702-2), 209 - 249. Sacremento,
CA: California Department of Education (CDE) Press.
Bailey, T., Hughes, K., & Moore, D. (2004). Working knowledge: Work-based learning
and educational reform. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Bali, V. A. (2001). Sink or swim: What happened to California’s bilingual students after
Proposition 227? State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1(3), 295 - 317.
Beecher, M. & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum
enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 19, 502 - 530.
Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school
reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73,
125 - 230.
Brown Et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka Et al., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
107
California Department of Education (2009a). California Standards Test technical report.
Retrieved April 29, 2011 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cst
techrpt2010.pdf.
California Department of Education (2010). Improving education for English learners:
Research-based approaches, ed. Faye Ong (ISBN 978-0-8011-1702-2).
Sacremento, CA: California Department of Education (CDE) Press.
California Department of Education (2011b). California High School Exit Exam
technical report. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/
documents/cahsee0910atr.pdf.
California Department of Education (2011c). California English Language Development
Test technical report. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/
Documents/techrpt0809.pdf.
California Department of Education (2012). Academic Performance Index reports.
Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/
nfoguide09.pdf#search=api%20calculation&view=FitH&pagemode=none.
California Department of Education Dataquest (2010a). 2010 STAR test results: English
learner-California standards test scores. Retrieved April 6, 2011 from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2010&lstT
estType=C&lstCounty=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=16
0.
California Department of Education Dataquest (2010b). Statewide English learners by
language and grade. Retrieved April 25, 2011 from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang1.asp?cChoice=LepbyLang1&cYear=2
009-10&cLevel=State&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit.
Callahan, R.M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners. American Educational
Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Preparing
American youth for the 21
st
century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
ed).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.
108
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36, 318-334.
DeCapua, A. & Marshall, H. W. (2011). Reaching English language learners at risk:
Instruction for students with limited or interrupted formal education. Preventing
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55, 35-41.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2006). Professional learning communities at work:
New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dutro, S. & Kinsella, K. (2010). English language development: Issues and
implementation at grades six through twelve. Improving education for English
learners: Research-based approaches, ed. Faye Ong (ISBN 978-0-8011-1702-2),
151-207. Sacremento, CA: California Department of Education (CDE) Press.
Dutro, S. & Levy, E. (2008). A focused approach to constructing meaning: Explicit
language for secondary content instruction. San Marcos, CA: E. L. Achieve.
Eide, E.R., & Showalter, M.H. in Brewer, D.J. & McEwan, P.J. Economics of Education,
27-31.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001. [No Child Left Behind Act]. Public
Law, 107-110. U.S. statutes at large.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and
the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-
368. Fisher, D., Rothenberg, C., & Frey, N. (2007). Language learners in the
English classroom. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework
for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating
English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hallinan, M. (2008). Teacher influence on students’ attachment to school. Sociology of
Education, 81(3), 271-283.
Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade
classroom make a difference for children at-risk for school failure? Child
Development, 76, 949-967.
109
Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic
Journal, 113, 64-98.
Harklau, L. (1994). “Jumping Track” How language-minority students negotiate
evaluations of ability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(3), 347-363.
Harvard Graduate School of Education (2011). Pathways to prosperity project: Meeting
the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21
st
century.
Huang, S., Eslami, Z., Hu, S. (2010). The relationship between teacher and peer support
and English-Language learners’ anxiety. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 32-40.
Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Karoly, L. A. & Ponis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21
st
Century at work: Forces shaping the
future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, Ca: Rand
Corporation. Summary, p. xiii-xxxiv.
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating
the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-
analysis. In Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, ed. John
M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega, 91-131. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kim, J. & Herman, J. (2008). Investigating English language learner assessment and
accommodation practices using state data. Los Angeles, Ca: National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
LeClair, C. Doll, B., Osborn, A. & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-
English language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology
in the Schools, 46(6), 568-577.
Levine, T. & Marcus, A. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher
collaboration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 116-138.
110
Linquanti, R. & George, C. (in press). Establishing and utilizing an NCLB Title III
accountability system: California’s approach and findings to date. In J. Abedi
(Ed.), English language proficiency assessment in the United States: Current
status and future practices. Los Angeles and Davis: University of California,
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST).
Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive
teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361-373.
Lyster, R. (2004a). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms:
Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14,
321-341.
Lyster, R. (2004b). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works from
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McKinsey and Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s schools, 1-23.
Meece, J. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education.
Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 109-116.
Murphy, J. (2009). Closing achievement gaps: Lessons from the last 15 years. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(3), 8-12.
The Nation’s Report Card (2009). Grade 12 national results. Retrieved from
http://nations reportcard.gov/reading_2009/gr12_.asp
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). United States Department of Education.
Retrieved June 28, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
index.html.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
111
Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects
of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311-342.
Pappamihiel, E.N. (2002). English as a second language student and English language
anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching of English,
36(3), 327-355.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
Ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pierce, L. (2002). Performance-based assessment: Promoting achievement for English
language learners. Center for Applied Linguistics, 26, 1-6.
Reeves, J. (2004). “Like Everybody Else”. Equalizing educational opportunity for
English language learners. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL) Quarterly, 38(1), 43-66.
Reeves, J. (2009). Teacher investment in learner identity. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 34-41.
Robinson, J. P. (2008). Evidence of a differentiated effect of ability grouping on the
reading achievement growth of language-minority Hispanics. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 141-180. Doi:10.3102/01623373708317742.
Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2003). Facing reality: English language learners in middle school.
English Education, 35, 122-134.
Salamon, L. M. (1991). Overview: Why human capital? Why now? In David Hornbeck
and Lester M. Salamon (Eds.). Human Capital and America’s Future. Baltimore,
MD: John’s Hopkins University Press, 1-28.
Salkind, N. J. (2005). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (2
nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Saunders, W., Foorman, B., & Carlson, C. (2006). Is a separate block of time for oral
English language development in programs of English learners needed?
Elementary School Journal, 107, 181-198.
Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language development
instruction. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based
approaches, ed. Faye Ong (ISBN 978-0-8011-1702-2), 21-81. Sacremento, CA:
California Department of Education (CDE) Press.
112
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Scribner, J. Cockrell, D. & Valentine, J. (1999). Creating professional communities in
schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement
process. Education Administration Quarterly, 35, 130-160.
Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Thompson, L. (2004). Literacy development for English language learners: Classroom
challenges in the NCLB age. A Title I communiqué special report, 1-10.
Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. (2008). Accelerating early
academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured
English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4),
1011-1044. doi: 10.3102/002831208320790.
U.S. Census Bureau 2011 Statistical Abstract. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
com/endia/statab/2011/tables/11a0266.pdf.
Von Cameron, G (2010). The usability of teacher-growth scores versus CST/API/AYP
math status scores in sixth and seventh grade mathematic classes (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California). Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/.
Waxman, H. C., Tellez, K. & Walberg, H. J. (2006). Future directions for improving
teacher quality for English language learners. In K. Tellez & H. C. Waxman
(Eds.) Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research
policies and practices (pp. 189-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(12). ISSN 1068-2341.
Wenglinsky, H. (2003). Using large-scale research to gauge the impact of instructional
practices on student reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(19). ISSN 1068-2341.
113
Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Closing the achievement gap: The role of reforming instructional
practices. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 64-97.
West, S. G., & Thoemmes, F. (2010). Campbell’s and Rubin’s perspectives on causal
inference. Psychological Methods, 15, 18-37.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The academic achievement gap between ethno-linguistic minority students and other students, as represented by test scores, dropout rates, and college admissions and completion rates, is the most persistent and pressing challenge facing public schools nationwide. The existing achievement gap indicates that many of our students are not receiving the minimum education needed to become literate and join the labor market. The resulting opportunity cost of lost income from unemployment and low paying jobs has important ramifications for our society. The compilation of research suggests that English language learners must acquire English to a level of proficiency that maximizes their capacity to successfully engage in content area instruction delivered in English. This task not only requires English Language Learners (ELLs) to acquire English, but use their new language in increasingly sophisticated ways. The identification and implementation of research-based curriculum and instruction towards this end enables the public education system to be the greatest equalizer in our society. ❧ This study employed a quasi-experimental, quantitative model using the California Standards Test, the California High School Exit Exam, and the California English Language Development Test (CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT) to evaluate the efficacy of the High Point Curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District (CUSD). High Point is a research-based intervention program designed to accelerate growth in language and literacy for ELL students. ❧ Compared to two schools over four years on the CST ELA and the CAHSEE, the results of the analysis indicate that the ELLs in CUSD’s High Point intervention school may have benefited from exposure to the High Point curriculum. All three schools demonstrated substantial gains on the CELDT
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...
PDF
Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction
PDF
A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012
PDF
The effect of a language arts 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
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The implementation of studio intervention at a medical magnet high school
PDF
Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting
PDF
Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
PDF
Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment
PDF
Academic achievement among Hmong students in California: a quantitative and comparative analysis
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
Asset Metadata
Creator
Peralta, Aaron A.
(author)
Core Title
Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/26/2012
Defense Date
01/30/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,ELD,ELD curriculum,ELL,English Language Development,English language learners,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Polikoff, Morgan S. (
committee member
), Seder, Richard (
committee member
)
Creator Email
aaperalt@usc.edu,aperalta@nmusd.us
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-10564
Unique identifier
UC11289376
Identifier
usctheses-c3-10564 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-PeraltaAar-643.pdf
Dmrecord
10564
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Peralta, Aaron A.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
achievement gap
ELD
ELD curriculum
ELL
English Language Development
English language learners