University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 1
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS IN CALIFORNIA FROM 2003-2012

by

Chandra Wati Payton

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, 2014

Copyright 2014 Chandra Wati Payton
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 2
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the Great+ Spirit within me. This
accomplishment has only been possible with Its Grace. Many times it felt like I was on this
journey “on a wing and a prayer”.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge some special souls who have made their transitions but
are still very influential in my life. The most important ones are my Mom and Dad who, in spirit,
guide me every step of the way on a regular basis. It is with the values and principles that they
have instilled in me that I am what/who I am. Next is my son, GJ (George) who, in line of duty,
left this planet way too soon but has inspired me to keep moving forward. He taught me some
very important lessons in life. I am thankful for his love always. Semper Fi!
I acknowledge my other three sons: Geoffrey, who has been through the thick and thin
with me and who kept pushing me to be true to my own self, especially when life threw me
curveballs; AlSuresh, who through his own growing pains, has shown me to never give up; and
Anand, who in his soft, gentle way, has been of great comfort to me in times of need. I sincerely
thank my sons for putting up with me through all these years of my working and studying. It has
been rough but it has also been wonderful and loving. We went through some tough times, but
we made it! I am very thankful and feel blessed to be called their Mom.
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Dennis Hocevar, my dissertation chair. It is with his
professional and patient guidance that I have accomplished this goal. Additionally, I
acknowledge my dissertation committee, Dr. Jullietta Shakbagova and Dr. Reynaldo Baca, for
their patience, understanding, and professional wisdom. Lastly, I give sincere thanks to Dr. Ilda
Jimenez y West and Dr. Gokce Gokalp (Doctoral Support Center), my family, friends, and
colleagues. Thank you all! I couldn’t have done it without you!
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: The Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Importance of the Study 15
Definition of Terms 16
Outline of Study 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 19
Documentation 19
No Child Left Behind 20
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 21
A Nation at Risk 22
Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) 24
No Child Left Behind Act 25
Four Pillars of NCLB 26
Evaluation of NCLB 28
Latino ELLs/Diverse Students 34
Challenges of ELLs 37
Standards and Assessments 38
Academic Achievement Gap 48
Summary 54
Chapter Three: Methodology 55
Participants 56
Setting 58
Instrumentation 59
Procedure 64
Limitations 64
Threats to Internal Validity 65
Threats to External Validity 65
Findings 68
Answer to Research Question 1 68
Answer to Research Question 2 69
Answer to Research Question 3 69
Answer to Research Question 4 70
Chapter Five: Discussion 78
Summary 78
Conclusions 80
Academic Achievement 81
Differences in Academic Achievement for Student Groups 84
Academic Achievement Gap 84
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 4
Limitations 86
Recommendations for Future Research 86
References 88
Appendix A: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 2 96
Appendix B: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 3 97
Appendix C: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 4 98
Appendix D: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 5 99
Appendix E: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 6 100
Appendix F: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 7 101
Appendix G: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 8 102
Appendix H: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 9 103
Appendix I: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 10 104
Appendix J: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 11 105

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 5
List of Tables
Table 1: LAUSD Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2011-2012 58

Table 2: LAUSD Enrollment by Language Classification, Spring, 2011 58

Table 3: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 2-5 72

Table 4: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 6-8 73

Table 5: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 9-11 73

Table 6: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 2-5 75

Table 7: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 6-8 75

Table 8: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 9-11 76

Table 9: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Rates for ELLs, Grades 2-11 83

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 2-5 73

Figure 2: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 6-8 74

Figure 3: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 9-12 74

Figure 4: 2003-2012 CST EA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 2-5 76

Figure 5: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 6-8 76

Figure 6: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 9-11 77

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 7
Abstract
Despite NCLB, the common public opinion is that the achievement gap has widened,
especially for English Language Learners (ELLS). As such, it is important to raise awareness of
NCLB and its reauthorization at all levels. The purpose of this study was to examine the
longitudinal changes in achievement for ELLs in English Language Arts (ELA) from K-12
schools within Los Angeles Unified School (LAUSD) from 2003 to 2012. The four research
questions focused on the academic achievement in ELA in LAUSD for ELL, White, and African
American students and compared the academic achievement of English Language Learners
(ELLs) to White and African American students in ELA. The literature review examined the
history and evolution of the NCLB, the evaluation of NCLB, the challenges of English Language
Learners (ELLs), specifically Latinos, from grades 2-11, and the achievement gap in urban
public schools. This quantitative study was designed to assess the longitudinal changes in school
performances and ELLs’ academic progress and achievement in ELA as compared to that of
African American and White students. The participants for this study are ELL, White, and
African American students from 2
nd
grade to 11
th
grade from LAUSD in Southern California.
Despite the steady increases in the averaged scores in CST ELA for all three ethnicities, the
academic achievement gap is far from being closed. The results from this study demonstrate that
the gap has been closing at the elementary and middle school levels in ELA. A recommendation
for future research would be to do a comparative study between U.S. schools and European or
international schools that have similar issues regarding achievement gap between ethnicities.
Another recommendation would be to research if the cause of the increase or decrease in the
achievement gap is due to instruction, curriculum, or assessments.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 8
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
In the opinion of many, California has fallen short on the commitment of giving access to
high-quality educational experiences for all students. The perception is that a majority of
schools in urban areas are experiencing underachievement in content areas, specifically, in
Mathematics and English Language Arts, and in meeting the needs of subgroups like English
Language Learners (ELLs) (California Department of Education, 2008). Teachers are under
scrutiny and are held accountable as the stakes are being raised higher each year for the state
standardized testing, in accordance to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001). Recent
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results demonstrate that only 11 percent
of Latino eighth-graders scored at or above proficient in math as compared to 36 percent of
White eighth-graders. And only 14 percent of Latino eighth-graders scored at or above
proficient in English Language Arts (ELA), compared to 39 percent of white eighth-graders
(National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2003). It is of utmost importance that teachers
of ELLs are highly qualified and prepared to teach diverse learners or the achievement gap will
continue to widen, specifically, for the ELL population.
Latino students, the major subgroup of ELLs in the United States, have 20% high school
dropout rate as compared to their White (8%) and African American (12%) peers (Fry, 2003).
One of the factors that point to this high dropout rate is related to best practices. Best practices
include strategies or methods that can be used to teach a curriculum or lesson objectives from
any content area, such as cooperative learning, nonlinguistic representations, and cues, questions,
and advanced organizers (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Teachers’ instructional
practice has consistently showed positive relationships to student engagement and achievement
(Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Klein, Robyn, & Bugliari, 2003). Instruction that is built upon
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 9
prior knowledge, that is coherent, consistent, and uses various strategies allows for mastery
(Newmann, Bryk, & Nagaoka, 2001). However, instructional practices vary from classroom to
classroom and strategies that address the needs of ELLs might not be employed by all teachers in
the same manner. For Latino ELLs, who are in the high-risk category for school dropout, these
classroom conditions may not be conducive to their success. Specifically, there is some evidence
that ELL students receive less effective instruction (CDE, 2008).
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) only two-thirds of the Latino
population completed high school in contrast to nine out of ten of White or Asian students. Only
15% of the Latino population had graduated college. The chances of being employed (for ELLs)
at any educational level are very low as compared to that of White or Asian populations. These
statistics demonstrate the dire need of education that addresses the needs of Latino ELLs.
Statement of the Problem
The future citizenship of Latino ELLs is adversely affected by the rising percentage of
high school dropouts. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) reported that the majority of the
Latino population is employed in some sort of service occupation (percentages in each field):
44% grounds and maintenance workers, 40% maids and housekeeping cleaners, 28% janitors and
building cleaners, and 36% dishwashers. On the other hand, the number of Latino population in
professional occupation (such as doctors and engineers) is very small: 5.8% in education and
health services and 2.5% are employed as public administrators.
The statistics from the workforce and higher education force the examination of what
factors may be contributing to these numbers. The majority of ELLs in United States is from
Latino and Spanish-speaking background and is one of the fastest-growing school-age
populations in the nation (Hernandez, 1999). Latino students make the largest ethnic subgroup
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 10
in California elementary schools (CDE, 2006). Most of these children (93%) are citizens living
in mixed-status families who have low income; low education levels; limited English
proficiency; and low interaction with parents (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel,
2004). At home, most of these children lack exposure to books and experiences that build prior
knowledge and background knowledge which are linked to learning at school (Capps et al.).
Once these children enter kindergarten, all these factors impede school readiness and contribute
to low performance in school (Capps et al.). Consequently, when the needs of the children are
not met (exposure to literature, language, and social experiences), the achievement gap widens
further as the children continue to be promoted from grade to grade without performing at grade
level standards.
To address the achievement gap, federal and state mandates have structured guidelines
that schools must follow. NCLB affects education from kindergarten through high school. It is
based on four pillars or principles, which are: stronger accountability for results, more choices
for parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, greater local control and flexibility for
states and school districts in the use of federal funds, and an emphasis on research-based
teaching methods that have been proven to work (ED.gov, 2004). The goal is the improvement
in achievement for all public school students, especially for students who come from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds, students who are from major ethnic and racial groups, students with
disabilities, and for students who are ELLs. It has established grants to improve instruction in
reading and English language acquisition. It also requires states to ensure that all students are
taught research-based curriculum, which are taught by highly qualified teachers.
In a review in Education Week by Smith III, Turner, and Lattanzio (2012), found that the
perception Americans have of public education has been slowly deteriorating over the last forty
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 11
years. According to Gallup’s Confidence in Institutions survey (2012), which includes public
schools, there has been a significant drop of 29 percent in the confidence in K-12 public
education as compared to 58 percent in 1973. A recent analysis of performance data from
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and high school dropout rates was
compared to the public confidence in education. Math and Reading scores for 4
th
and 8
th
grades
have had an upward trend since the 1970s (NAEP). The dropout rates have also been declining,
with 15.0% in 1970 to 7.4 % in 2010 (NCES, 2010).
According to Implementing Standards-Based Accountability (ISBA) study by RAND in
2002, the opinions and attitudes of the principals and teachers and their beliefs about the subject
matter, students, and the accountability system was an important factor in the implementation of
the NCLB accountability system (Hamilton, Stecher, Marsh, McCombs, Robyn, Russel, Naftel,
& Barney, 2007). The barriers (or supports) for implementation and the capacity (learning
opportunities) at school and district levels was another important factor that mediated the effects
of the NCLB accountability system. These two factors may have influenced how parents and
communities viewed the accountability system if their children’s schools and districts had
negative attitudes and opinions, implemented the accountability system ineffectively, or had
negative student achievement. Thus, despite the fact that performance data demonstrates
improvement, the public confidence is still declining.
On the international level, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) data shows a slight rise in mathematics for U.S. 8
th
graders (from 500 to 508) from
1995 through 2007. United States ranked 19
th
out of 38 nations in 1999 but in 2007, the US
ranked 9
th
among 48 nations. However, the reading trend for 4
th
graders is not as positive. The
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study found the scores dropping from 542 in 2001 to
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 12
540 in 2006 (from national ranking of 9
th
place to 12
th
). Even though there has been positive
growth in both math and reading on a national level, the American public perceptions may be
influenced by the international rankings of the United States in reading and math (Smith III, et al,
2012).
With the advent of NCLB Act in 2001, public education has undergone huge changes in
accountability, belief systems, and expectations. Accountability includes standards-based
instruction and assessments, local control, funding through Title I, and parental involvement.
The standards-based instruction and assessments movement has another accountability system
known as standards-based accountability, which has three basic ideas intended to improve
student achievement: academic standards, standardized assessments, and accountability for
student outcomes (Hamilton et al, 2007). Goals are established for the education system through
content and performance standards, which the districts and schools are expected to use to guide
their curriculums, professional development, and other related activities. These standards are
also used as teaching goals and, more importantly, as a guide to the development of student
assessments (Hamilton, et al). Each state had the freedom of implementing its own curriculum
standards and assessments. However, one of the key findings in the ISBA study by RAND in
2002, was the need for improving alignment among standards, tests, and curriculum (Hamilton et
al). Since 2011, Common Core State Standards has been adopted nationally by 46 states and are
being judiciously implemented in schools.
The belief system that only certain groups of students are entitled to learn has been
slowly changing to that of all students can learn if given equal access to rigorous curriculum and
the necessary resources. Educators need to take that belief system to heart and understand that
they impact individual lives and are instrumental in making positive changes in the society as a
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 13
whole. However, the belief system that public education is failing needs to change. The
negative news reports and messages on teacher evaluations and labeling and school failures need
to be lessened so that the beginning successes that are evident can take root. Many countries still
are sending their students to get educated in the United States (Smith III et al). NCLB expired
on September 30
th
, 2007 but the law has been automatically extended until a new bill is passed
(Public Education Network, 2012).
The Congress will be reauthorizing NCLB, a law that was not permanent and has expired,
under the second term of President Obama. It basically means renewal of the old law with
changes added on as amendments. There have been many debates in the Congress regarding the
reauthorization. President Obama had released a blueprint of the reauthorization in 2010 but the
Congress failed to pass the revised bill within the specified time. However, waivers were
introduced as a way of avoiding the NCLB annual targets, which called for 100% scores in ELA
and Math by 2014. Thirty-nine states have submitted the waiver plans to the Obama
administration. Waivers are also not permanent but seem to be favored more by the education
officials than the reauthorization of the bill that has provisions that these officials do not support.
In the meantime, there have been committees that have been selected by the House of
Representatives and the Congress to come up with proposed changes to the law in the form of
amendments. In January, 2012, John Kline, Chair to the U.S. House of Representatives
education committee, introduced a draft of the legislation that would reauthorize and reform
NCLB from the House (Scott, 2012). It is divided into two sections: Student Success Act, which
addresses testing and accountability; and Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers, which
focuses on issues such as teacher evaluations and school choice. It gives the states more
responsibility and diminishes the role of the federal government. In July, 2013, the House
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 14
Republicans passed a bill (Student Success Act) to replace NCLB, but the House bill is strongly
opposed by the Democrats and the Obama Administration. This bill would eliminate more than
70 existing elementary and secondary education programs and reduce federal involvement.
One of the major concerns about the reauthorization of NCLB has been the control of
education by the federal government. With national standards that have already been adopted
and in the beginning stages of being implemented and national assessments not too far behind,
citizens feel that the federal government is taking over the public education, creating a widening
gap between the citizens and the public schools (Hickok & Ladner, 2007). Additional
suggestions for the reauthorization of NCLB have been: improved teacher education
(Raudenbush, 2009), smaller class sizes, more school time especially for children who come
from lower socioeconomic status families, mandates that include summer school, before- and
after-school activities, exposure to school as early as possible, and funding to making all the
mandates a reality.
However, the core issues may not be fully addressed, given the background of urban,
high poverty elementary schools, and its diverse student populations. Latino ELLs are more
likely to perform below grade level on standardized tests as evidenced by studies (NCES, 2004;
CDE, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the longitudinal changes in achievement for
ELLs in English Language Arts (ELA) from K-12 schools within Los Angeles Unified School
from 2003 to 2012.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 15
Research Questions
The guiding research questions of this study are:
1. What are the longitudinal changes in ELL students’ academic achievement in
English Language Arts in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
2. What are the longitudinal changes in White students’ academic achievement in
English Language Arts in LAUSD?
3. What are the longitudinal changes in African American students’ academic
achievement in English Language Arts in LAUSD?
4. How do ELLs compare to White and African American students in academic
achievement in English Language Arts from 2003 to 2012? In other words, has
the gap between the ELL, White, and African American student populations
increased, decreased, or remained the same in LAUSD?
Importance of the Study
ELL students are one of the fastest growing subgroups of students in the public schools at
the rate of approximately 10% each year (LeClair, Doll, Osborn, & Jones, 2009). Statistics have
shown that the majority of the ELL students entering the labor force leave public education with
only a minimal level of reading skills affecting poverty levels, incarceration, and wage earnings
(Bureau of Labor, 2007). This is an ongoing societal issue that needs to be addressed.
The information gathered will provide parents, teachers, educational communities, policy
makers, and other stakeholders with insights on the importance of NCLB in English Language
Arts that may account for the academic achievement for ELL students from diverse backgrounds,
as well as for White students. This knowledge will further assist in the understanding of
instructional practices that are conducive to student achievement.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 16
If there is indeed an increase in the academic achievement for ELLs in English Language
Arts in grades 2-11, then the facts and information garnered from this study could be used to help
improve instructional practices and, ultimately, the academic achievement of ELLs in urban
schools. Professional development, workshops, seminars with researchers/authors of best
instructional practices for Latino ELLs, collaboration with peers on lesson planning, and support
from school administration would be some ways to help improve instructional practices at school
sites. The yearly increments in the NCLB requirements for proficient levels will get closer to
being met, thus, narrowing the ever-widening achievement gap for Latino ELLs.
With the public’s opinions waning at the education in the public schools, it is important
to raise awareness of the NCLB and its reauthorization at all levels. From the policymakers in
the Obama administration to the school administrators and parents at the school site level,
committees should be formed and meetings held consistently to inform the stakeholders and to
help make decisions that would benefit students. Therefore, this study provides information
leading to a better understanding of the closing of the achievement gap between the ELL,
African American, and White students locally, statewide, and nationally.
Definition of Terms
Academic Achievement: the result of education or the achievement of educational goals.
Diverse Students: Students from backgrounds other than White Anglo-Saxon and Protestant
(WASP). Includes (but not limited to) ELLs, learners with special needs, gifted learners, and
may come from high or low socio-economic background.
ELL: English Language Learner. A learner whose first language is other than English and who
is in the process of acquiring English as a second language. In this study, ELL includes students
who are Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEPs).
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 17
Engagement: The interest, attention, and effort students spend in learning (Marks, 2000).
EO: English only – students who are native English speakers.
High Poverty Schools: Schools where more than forty percent of the students qualify for free
and reduced-price meals program.
Highly Qualified Teacher: A requirement by the NCLB that may be different for each state. For
California, it means having a bachelor’s degree, teaching certification, and competency.
Instructional practices: Teaching methods or strategies that guide interaction in the classroom.
No Child Left Behind Act (2001) (NCLB): A standards-based education reform that set high
standards and has the belief that all students can achieve. It has measurable goals.
RFEP: Reclassified Fluent English Proficient students. Students are reclassified according to
scores from standardized tests and periodic assessments in English Language Arts. Once
reclassified, they are never put back into the English as a Second Language program. Their
academic progress is monitored for two years. If the student fails to progress, other interventions
may be implemented to meet their learning needs.
Title 1: Federal funding for schools identified as serving students that are at risk of school failure
or behind academically. Schools are usually identified by the number of students who qualify for
free and reduced lunch program.
Outline of Study
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction of the
research, which includes the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, importance of the
study, and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 provides comprehensive reviews of relevant literature
on NCLB, NCLB evaluation, ELL, and the challenges of ELLs. The gaps in literature are also
discussed. Chapter 3 is on the methodology that was used to conduct the research. It discusses
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 18
the participants, setting, instrumentation, procedure, data analysis, and limitations of the study.
Chapters 4 and 5 present the results of the study and discuss and analyze the results and the
implications of the study.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to examine literature on the history and evolution
of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001), the evaluation of NCLB, and the challenges of
English Language Learners (ELLs), specifically Latinos, from grades 2-11in urban public
schools. Common public opinion is that the achievement gap is still in existence and is getting
wider, despite NCLB (Rose & Gallup, 2002). The review, therefore, examines the achievement
gap and provides the background for the evaluation of NCLB. Additionally, the review provides
an understanding of the research questions for this study, theories, and significant studies on the
variables of this study (NCLB, English Language Learners, and achievement gap) that are
already in existence. The research questions for this study focuses on the effects of NCLB on
ELL students’ academic achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) and compared the
academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) to White and African American
students in ELA over a period of nine years.
Documentation
The studies that are included in the review were derived through an online database
search of PsycInfo, ERIC, Google Scholar, and JSTOR. The keywords used were Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Civil Rights Movement, Improving America’s Schools
Act (IASA), A Nation at Risk, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), English Language Learner (ELL),
and best practices. The searches are from peer-reviewed studies from 2000 to 2013. Research
prior to these years have been used as a foundation to situate the theoretical and research issues
related to the variables. Studies cited prior to 2000 focuses on the development of the
conceptual strands of NCLB (e.g. U.S. Department of Education, 1983). Most of the empirical
studies included in this review were conducted in the 2nd-12th grade setting since the focus of
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 20
this review was on urban public schools in California. Some examples are: information about
Latino high school graduation (Fry, 2010); dropouts (NCES, 2009), (Ginorio & Huston, 2001);
and Latino labor statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Most of the research was collected
from electronic sources and from the university library.
The literature review has been divided into three sections to present key findings that
relate to the research questions. The first section investigates literature on the history and
evolution of NCLB. The second section focuses on the challenges of ELL/diverse students
(specifically Latinos) who were the foundational population of this study. Each of these sections
included theories, definitions, research, instruments, and measurements relevant to the variables
examined in this review. The final section concludes with a review of the studies illustrating the
gaps that formed the base of what has and has not been explored or investigated, and how each
section of research is related to the changes in academic achievement for ELL /diverse students
under the influence of NCLB. Any existing gaps and any remaining unanswered questions
between each section of the reviewed literature have been identified.
No Child Left Behind
Up until middle 1800s, schooling and literacy in America was mostly established by
private or religious schools (Coulson, 1999). However, with the huge influx of immigrants from
various cultures and religious backgrounds, free elementary public schools became more
common. Over the years that followed, the gap between the children from poor and affluent
families became wider, especially in schools in urban areas. The disparity continued until the
1950s, when certain court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Civil
Rights Movement (1955), shed more light on the racial bias in education in America and laws
were enacted to provide equity for the blacks and minority in education. From 1960s to the
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 21
present, the American educational system has undergone major changes in bringing equity and
uniformity in standards, curriculum, and assessments nationally. It has come a long way from
1800s when public schools were locally controlled with no federal role and little state role.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
After the era of the Great Depression, as the people of America were recovering from
World War II and the economy, the “separate but equal” law set in Plessy v.Ferguson (1896),
still ruled the land. There was great inequality and segregation in the educational system
between the Whites and the Blacks. In 1954, US Supreme Court passed a law whereby separate
public schools for Black and
White students were declared unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). This and
the Civil Rights Movement set the precedent for equity and opportunity to learn for all students,
as is presented in the current NCLB Act.
ESEA was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. This was part of his
Great Society program where he waged a “war on poverty’ as part of his agenda. It had six
sections: Title I – Financial Assistance to Local Agencies for the Education of Children of Low-
Income Families; Title II – School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional
Materials; Title III – Supplementary Educational Centers and Services; Title IV – Educational
Research and Training; Title V – Grants to Strengthen State Departments of Education; Title VI
– General Provisions . Amendments were made to the Titles by adding Title VI as Aid to
Handicapped Children (and Title VI-General Provisions became Title VIII) (Public Law 89-750,
1966); and in 1967, Title VII was amended as Bilingual Education Programs (1966 Title VII
became Title VIII) (Public Law 90-247, 1967).
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 22
The original intention of ESEA was to offer specific services to the students who were
educationally and economically disadvantaged and enrolled in public, private, or religious
schools. The objective was to help these students reach the same level of education as their
white peers. In other words, the goal was to close the achievement gap between students,
regardless of background, by providing fair and equal opportunities to an exceptional education
for each child. Funds were authorized for professional development, instructional materials,
resources to support educational programs, and for parental involvement, as was mandated by
the Act.
The primary focus of the ESEA was to fund elementary and secondary education through
Title I and emphasize equal access to education and establish high standards and accountability
for all children. The funding of schools changed from the local level to national level. Schools
that were chronically underachieving were given extra support in the means of supplementary
tutoring services and public school choices. Through the six reauthorizations (latest being in
2002), the law has been expanded to include other objectives such as: challenging standards,
assessments that are aligned to these standards, accountability in core subjects, closing
achievement gaps through the use of research-based programs, and ensuring that educators are
“highly qualified”.
A Nation at Risk
In 1981, under President Ronald Reagan, the National Commission on Excellence in
Education was established to address the national crisis in education (U.S. Department of
Education, 1983). Its purpose was to find the flaws and the solutions to these flaws in the
educational system of America. The focus of the study was on specific areas: assessing teaching
and learning, comparing U.S. schools with those of other developed countries, the relationship
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 23
between college admission requirements and students’ achievement in high school, successful
college prep educational programs, how major social and educational changes since the 1950s
have affected student achievement and defining the problems that need to be remedied to regain
excellence in education.
Five sources were used to achieve the goals of the commission. Included among these
sources were: teachers, students, school administrative staff, representatives from professional
and public groups, business leaders, and public officials (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 1983). A report of
the findings, called A Nation at Risk, was presented by the commission in 1983. It revealed
specific risk indicators such as: 23 million Americans were functionally illiterate, which included
40 percent of minority youth and 13% of all seventeen year-olds and up. There was decline in
standardized test scores, specifically, in mathematics and English subjects, and math
achievement dropped low enough in public 4-year colleges that remedial mathematics classes
increased by 72% in (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 1983c).
The report’s findings and recommendations consisted of four major aspects of the
educational process: content, expectations, time, and teaching (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1983d). Content
refers to the curriculum that was taught in schools, especially in high schools. Curriculum taught
was found to be weak and without any focus. The recommendation was that high school
graduation requirements needed to be strengthened and focus more on the college- or vocation-
preparedness by offering foundational curriculum in English, mathematics, science, social
science, and computer science. The second finding and recommendation were on expectations.
It was defined as the level of knowledge, abilities, and skills students graduating high schools
should possess. It was found that the expectations, in regards to homework, number of required
courses such as mathematics and science, and the challenges in curriculum were declining. The
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 24
recommendation was that schools should adopt more rigorous and measurable standards, have
higher expectations, and use materials that are challenging in an environment that is supportive
of students’ learning and accomplishment. The third finding and recommendation was
concerning time. It was found that teachers and students used the time ineffectively regarding
homework and basic study skills. The recommendation was to devote more time in the learning
of a foundational curriculum during the existing school day. The fourth finding and
recommendation was on teaching. It was found that teaching field was not attracting qualified
candidates and that teacher preparation programs were in need of improvements.
Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA)
These recommendations from A Nation at Risk set a firm foundation for an evolution in
the reform of standards-based education and achievement testing for all students, regardless of
whether they are disadvantaged, gifted, or less able and whether they attend college, work on a
farm, or in an industry (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1983e, 1983x). In 1994, the standards-based education
and assessments were nationalized when the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994
was passed under President Clinton (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1996a). In conjunction to that, another law,
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was also passed. IASA’s focus was on content and
performance standards and testing. Students were tested on the standards once in grades three
through five, six through nine, and ten through twelve. An accountability system was set up for
schools that were not performing as expected on the assessments. States were given more
flexibility in controlling their own federally funded programs. The implementation of the
standards and testing at national level proved to be controversial, even though Goal 2000 was
publicly approved by teachers (Jorgensen & Hoffmann, 2003).
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 25
The refinement of the ESEA in 1994 set the stage for NCLB. The guiding themes for
ESEA at this time were: high standards for all children; a focus on teaching and learning;
partnerships among families, communities, and schools; flexibility, along with responsibility, for
student performance; and resources targeted to areas of greatest needs (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1996b).
It also gave the states and localities more flexibility in the planning, operating, and expenditure
of the federal funded programs (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1996a). ESEA was expected to work hand in
hand with Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
In between mid-1990s and 2000, there were many debates, discussions, issues, and
questions within the states as they tried to figure out the implications of the reauthorized ESEA
(Jorgensen & Hoffmann, 2003). Testing, scoring, and reporting of assessments began to be
streamlined to the content and performance standards. States demanded higher quality and error-
free assessments with competitive pricing from the testing publishers. By 2000, the majority of
the states had refined the standards-based testing and content and performance standards. This
set forth a very firm foundation for standards-based education reform.
No Child Left Behind Act
With testing being strongly established in a majority of the states and affecting the lives
of students, teachers, parents, and other investors in the educational system of America, the stage
was set for more clarity in the instruction of the students. In 2002, President George W. Bush
signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 into law. This monumental event marked the
reauthorization of ESEA. According to Jorgensen and Hoffmann (2003), the marked difference
between IASA and NCLB was that the reform cannot be driven just by regulations and funding
formulas but that there has to be a direct public accountability for individual student learning.
As such, the new regulations that were being developed were with the understanding that
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 26
schools, districts, and states work best when given more flexibility and control over the teaching
and learning of students and, at the same time, being held responsible. With NCLB, states
received clear outlines on the use, value, and importance of achievement testing for students
from grades K-12. Therefore, with funding, accountability through testing, local control, and
parental involvement, the expectations are that the students would learn and achieve. And if
achievement is falling short, schools are required to investigate the reasons for the failure. Low
performing schools are then given assistance and options to reach the benchmarks set by NCLB.
These expectations thus, are based on four pillars.
Four Pillars of NCLB
The four pillars that form the base of NCLB are stronger accountability for results, more
freedom for states and communities, proven education methods, and more choices for parents
(Ed.gov., 2004).
The first pillar of NCLB, stronger accountability for results, addresses the closing of the
achievement gap for all children, including (economically, socially, physically, and mentally)
disadvantaged students. The expectation is for all students to reach academic proficiency. States
are required to assess students from second- through twelfth-grades annually in reading,
mathematics, and science. These tests are aligned to state standards that are challenging.
Improvement in all subgroups of the school must demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Parents and communities are informed through the annual state, district, and school report cards.
If schools are failing to make adequate yearly progress, supplemental services, in the form of
free tutoring and/or after-school assistance, are given. If, after five years, the schools are still
failing to make adequate yearly progress, the state takes over the schools and makes dramatic
changes to the way the schools are being run. States are required to submit plans and goals that
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 27
are aligned to the achievement standards, assessments, reporting procedures, and accountability
systems.
The second pillar of NCLB, more freedom for states and communities, addresses the
flexibility in the usage of the federal funds given to the states and school districts. The funds do
not need to have separate approvals. Districts can use these funds for their own specific needs
such as funding for Title I program, or any other program like Safe and Drug-free Schools
program, teacher retention, increasing teacher pay, improving teacher training, and professional
development. Greater flexibility and control are also given in the allocation of funds for
programs for English Language Learners.
The third NCLB pillar, proven education methods, emphasizes effective and rigorous
research-based educational programs and practices that have proven to improve student learning
and achievement. These programs are funded federally. Reading First (for grades K-2) and
Early Reading First (preschool) programs are examples of such scientifically-researched
instructional programs.
The fourth NCLB pillar, more choices for parents, offers parents new and different
options. If a school is not demonstrating improvement for at least two consecutive years, the
parents have the option of transferring their children to a better performing public school, or a
public charter school, within their district. The district must provide transportation through Title
I funds. If students from low-income families fail to meet the state standards for three years,
they are eligible to receive supplemental educational services that include free tutoring, after-
school services, and summer schools. If students are attending schools that are persistently
violent and dangerous, or they have been victims of violent crimes, they have the option to attend
schools within their own district that are safe.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 28
Thus, these four pillars of NCLB focus on every child to achieve high standards in
education, regardless of ethnicity, income, or background (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2003a). They also
provide guidelines to improve schools and to safeguard that no child is left behind in the
pursuance of the American dream (Lachat, 2004). Relating to the first and third pillars of NCLB
is the evaluation of NCLB. The effectiveness of NCLB on school accountability systems has
been based on annual student assessments.
Evaluation of NCLB
School accountability is defined as the process of evaluating school performance based
on student performance measures (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). A majority of the research included in
this section have used results from National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) from
the mid-1990s to 2007.
NAEP is a federally designed assessment and is congressionally mandated in all 50
states. It is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) under the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which is a part of the U. S. Department of Education. The
NAEP data are reported as The Nation’s Report Card. Assessments are given in reading, math,
science, and writing. The assessments are well-designed and are representative of geographical,
racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of the schools and students in the United States
(NCES, 2013). The uniformity of test booklets and identical procedures across the nation makes
the results very conducive for comparisons across time and states. NAEP provides valid and
reliable data on student performance that makes it conducive for researchers, policymakers,
parents, teachers, and principals to assess student progress across the nation. The math and
reading assessments for 4
th
and 8
th
grade levels are conducted every four years. It is a low-stakes
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 29
test that is not associated to any state’s standards or assessments but instead, assesses a broad
range of skills and knowledge within each subject area (Dee & Jacob, 2011).
According to the Nation’s Report Card, which was released in July, 2005, NCLB is
working because of NCLB’s accountability provisions (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
And it is working because schools and parents are getting all the information, assistance, and
benefits that they need to focus attention and resources on children who need it most. Through
multiple studies, reports demonstrate that student achievement has been on the rise across
America. The long-term Nation’s Report Card results demonstrated that student achievement in
reading and math for elementary schools has been at an all-time high and the achievement gaps
(between White and African American and between White and Hispanic nine-year old students)
have been steadily closing. The state-by-state Nation’s Report Card results, which were
released in October, 2005, showed improved achievement in lower grades, which had been
NCLB’s focus. In the previous two years, the number of fourth-graders who learned their basic
math skills increased by 235,000. The Nation’s Report Card Trial Urban District Assessments
for Reading and Math, released in December, 2005, showed that students in select urban school
districts improved faster than the national average in the previous two years. Additionally,
according to the Nation’s Report Card Science 2005 Report, fourth graders also showed
significant academic gains, especially African American and Hispanic students, and thereby,
narrowing the achievement gap. Lastly, the Nation’s Report Card Trial Urban District
Assessment for Science, released in November, 2006, reported that the achievement gaps for
low-income students had been narrowed more than the entire student body in nearly all of the
participating school districts and the nation.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 30
An early evaluation of Standards-Based Education assessed three main components in
California schools: content standards or framework, an assessment system, and a response
system from the state to schools that showed marked improvement or were lagging far behind
(Betts & Dannenberg, 2001). The researchers concluded that the new content standards were
highly specific and comprehensive. The assessment system included norm-referenced tests,
criterion-referenced tests that were aligned with the content standards, and a high school exit
exam. The response system included rewards and punishments for schools. School staff that
made significant gains in their test scores was rewarded financially and students were awarded
scholarships. Schools that were performing poorly were also given financial incentives. In the
analysis of the trends in the level and distribution of test scores and school resources, Betts and
Dannenberg found that California showed the average student achievement had increased
dramatically over a three-year period. However, the trends in school resources were not as
encouraging. Since the accountability reforms began, teacher education, experience, and
credentials were found to have fallen over a three-year period.
Another evaluation of NCLB examined whether the factors of stronger external
accountability affect the improvement of student outcomes (Carnoy and Loeb, 2002). The
researchers did a cross-state analysis on the strength of accountability in the 50 states by
developing a zero to five index based on high-stakes testing that were used to sanction or reward
schools. They also analyzed whether the index was related to student achievement on the NAEP
mathematics tests in 1996-2000. Carnoy and Loeb state that the purpose of strong accountability
systems was to raise student achievement and improve the quality of schooling. Schools that
performed well on the high-stakes tests were rewarded and schools that did not were sent
negative signals. To measure the accountability strength, the researchers included population,
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 31
racial/ethnic composition, the percent of school revenues coming from the state, the levels of
revenue, and student test scores. The samples were from all 50 states. The researchers used a
variety of measures at state level for student performance that included NAEP math test scores,
9
th
grade retention rates, and high school survival rates. Their findings were:
1. The results indicated significant gains in NAEP tests on average math scores for 4
th

and 8
th
graders for the states with strong accountability.
2. The number of 9
th
graders that were retained increased for all ethnic groups,
particularly Hispanics and Blacks, in the states that implemented strong
accountability.
3. The high school graduation rates stopped declining once the high school exit exams
were put in place. By the end of 1990s, there was an increase in the graduation rate.
Retention rates had leveled. The progression rate of students from 9
th
grade (1997) to
12
th
grade (2001) indicated a growth of 85%.
4. There was an increase in the average math scores between 1996 and 2000 for White,
Black, and Hispanic students in states that had stronger accountability, such as New
York (8-10%), than in states, like Mississippi (1%), which had little or no
accountability.
Thus, it was evident that the students from the high-stakes states had greater gains on the
NAEP 8
th
grade math test than students from states that required little or did not have any state
measures for improvement in student achievement.
Hanushek and Raymond (2005) conducted research based on the question “Does school
accountability lead to improved student performance?” Like Carnoy and Loeb (2002), these
researchers used student achievement in math and reading as measured by NAEP tests in the
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 32
mid-1990s. Their focus was to examine the effects of school accountability on performance.
The researchers utilized four strategies: to eliminate fixed differences in circumstances and
policies of each state, the growth was examined in performance between 4
th
and 8
th
grade;
explicit measures for time varying inputs, such as parental education, school spending, and racial
exposure in the schools were included; growth models were estimated with state fixed effects to
clarify the up/down trends in student performance in each state; and state results were
disaggregated for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics to identify differences by race or ethnicity.
The most important finding was that accountability was very important for students in the
United States, especially since there had been evidence that it had positive impact on
achievement. But the impact was only valid for states that rewarded schools that performed well
and sanctioned those that did not perform well. Additionally, there was no finding on what the
best set of rewards or sanctions were and further investigation in that area was recommended.
Even though accountability increased student achievement, especially for Hispanic students, it
was not sufficient enough to close the achievement gap. In fact, results showed that the gap
actually widened between Blacks and Whites. Finally, even with the introduction of the
accountability systems, there were no marked differences in special education placement.
Dee and Jacob (2011) conducted research to evaluate the impact of NCLB on student
achievement by utilizing NAEP, similar to the research mentioned above. The difference in this
research is that this was a comparative interrupted time series analysis of test-score changes
across states that had school accountability policies already in place prior to NCLB and those
that did not have accountability policies in place. The researchers examined the average effects,
as well as effects by race, gender, and free-lunch eligibility. NAEP’s state-year data for student
achievement were used. They had consistent measures, were represented nationally, and were
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 33
over a period of time before and after the implementation of NCLB. The results from NAEP
were deemed valid and reliable as compared to the states’ high-stakes assessments data. The
results of this research were mixed. Overall, because of the NCLB accountability systems, there
was evidence of significant gains in math in fourth grade and less so, in eighth grade. On the
other hand, there were no significant or consistent evidence of gain in the reading achievement
for 4
th
graders. Even though there had been an increase in fourth grade math by 27% in the
NCLB accountability, more than 60% of fourth graders still failed to meet NAEP’s math
proficiency standards. Additionally, NCLB seemed to have made modest impacts on the
subgroups in math and only making minimal differences in closing the achievement gap. The
conclusion from this research was that NCLB had fallen short of its promise to reach 100%
proficiency goal by 2014.
Figlio and Loeb (2011) conducted a theoretical review of school-based accountability.
According to their findings, school accountability has become prevalent not only in the United
States but also around the world. Like the United States, the political institutions of other
countries have also, more or less, invested in the school accountability systems. English schools
began reporting their schools’ performance since 1988. Countries from Latin America (Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, and Mexico) report the scores publicly and are top-ranking in their
accountability systems in Latin America. Some other Latin American countries (Costa Rica,
Cuba, Guatemala, and Panama) also have accountability systems that report regularly and
internally but are not as high ranking in their capacity for assessments. Many other countries are
either in the process of developing accountability systems or have already implemented them in
some capacity.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 34
The focus of the Figlio and Loeb research was on school accountability systems based on
aggregate student performance in standardized tests and that had explicit or implicit rewards
and/or sanctions in place. Explicit reward and sanctions are defined by the researchers as
bonuses for educators in schools that are performing well or threats of reconstitution or closing
down for schools with low performance. Implicit rewards and sanctions are defined as a
decrease in direct action from central decision-makers and more pressure from the community
for the schools to improve. Parents and community members may be more influential in
educator behavior than the central governments. Therefore, accountability incentives can be
implemented directly through government action or through community stakeholders that
observe their schools’ performance through the public accountability ratings.
Similar to the findings of other research on NCLB evaluation, this study revealed that
there was an overall positive achievement growth in most of the schools that applied the
accountability pressure. However, the positive achievement effects of accountability were very
clear and more frequent in math than in reading. This was particularly true for tests from NAEP.
Latino ELLs/Diverse Students
The number of English Language Learners is growing on a continuous basis around the
nation. They migrate from many different parts of the world. The top ten immigrant countries in
the U.S. are Mexico, People’s Republic of China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador,
Cuba, Korea, Dominican Republic, and Guatemala (Center of Immigration Studies, 2012). The
contemporary immigrants predominantly settle in seven states: California, New York, Florida,
Texas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois, which add up to about 43% of the U.S.
population as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 35
The U.S. Census Bureau uses the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” interchangeably and
include people of Spanish and other Hispanic descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central
and South America, and Dominican Republic; they may be of any race (Kohler & Lazarin,
2007). The Latino population, which has more than doubled between 1980 and 2000, is the
nation’s largest minority group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Additionally, the numbers rose
from 12% of the total US population in 2000 to 14% in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). By
2010, the Hispanic population increased by 43%, which was four times more than the total
population growth at 10% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The total number of Hispanics is 50.5
million or 16% of the total population. The top five states with the highest concentration of
Hispanics are: California (17%), Florida (15%), Texas (13%), New York (11%), and New Jersey
(6%). Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in the West increased by 34%. Out of
the total Hispanic population in the United States, 27% reside in Los Angeles County, California;
the majority of whom (97%) are in East Los Angeles, California (U.S. Census Bureau). The
Latinos, therefore, are the second largest student population enrolled in US schools but the
educational outcomes have not kept up with the increasing numbers (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007).
In overall academic achievement, Latino ELLs are not doing as well as their non-ELL
peers. The future success for the Latino ELLs is greatly influenced by their parents, schools, and
communities. They face numerous challenges that hinder their advancement to different aspects
of society. Kohler and Lazarin (2007) delineate some of the academic challenges as low
attainment level where the Latino students’ achievement levels do not match those of non-
Latinos (Latino ELLs continue to score lower). Low participation level in early
childhood/preschool and center-based programs, in Head Start programs, and in high school
advanced math, science, and gifted programs is another challenge. Latinos are less likely to
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 36
complete high school (53%) than their non-Latino peers (75%), thus high dropout rate is an
ongoing challenge. Latino students, who have been retained at any grade level, are more likely
to drop out of high school than their peers who graduate high school as well. Latino students are
more likely than their White peers to receive financial aid but the amount of financial aid is
insufficient. Schools that have higher enrollment of Latino ELLs offer fewer rigorous courses
and educational resources. Latino immigrants (58% of the total population) are more likely to be
ELLs (75 %) than non-Latino immigrants (Asian students constitute 22% of the immigrant
students but only 13% are ELLs). And lastly, Latino students are less likely to graduate with
bachelor’s degrees (12%) than their White (30.5%) or Black (17.7%) peers.
Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, and Passel (2004) conducted research through the
Urban Institute on the health and well-being of young children of immigrant families. There
were three imperatives that the research responded to: (a) very little is known about the young
children of the immigrant families despite the fact that they are a large and rising number of the
nation’s young child population; (b) the younger children of immigrants differ from the younger
children of the natives; and (c) the early years of life are crucial for development for all children.
There were eight key findings:
• the children of immigrants make up for a large share of the nation’s young child
population;
• most of them are citizens living in mixed status families;
• over 25 % of these children have parents who do not have legal documents;
• more of these children live in a two-parent household than native children;
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 37
• many live in households with low incomes and have parents with low levels of
education and limited English proficiency (in addition, there is often less family
interaction);
• young children of immigrants experience higher levels of economic hardship and
even lesser number use the social welfare benefits than children of the natives;
• they are more likely to have poor to fair health and lack a source of health insurance;
• they are often in parental care and less often in center-based child care.
Given these challenges, the young children of immigrants do not have the exposure to
literature and experiences that build prior knowledge and background knowledge that are linked
to learning at school. These children, therefore, enter kindergarten, with factors that impede
school readiness and contribute to low performance in school. As a result, when the needs of the
children are not met at school level (exposure to literature, language, and social experiences), the
achievement gap continues to widen further as the children are promoted from grade to grade.
The immigrant students (including Latino students and ELLs), present one of the
nation’s most significant challenges, which must be addressed at the federal level (Kohler &
Lazarin, 2007). Latinos make up for approximately half (45%) of the ELL student population in
the US public schools thus, intrinsically tying the outcomes of the Latino students to the
achievement of ELLs (Lazarin, 2006). As the above data demonstrate, the academic
achievement gap between the ELLs and their White and Black peers seems to be ever-enduring.
Challenges of ELLs
In addition to the disadvantaged background, ELLs face many other challenges in
education. The following research on standards and assessments and best instructional practices
regarding ELLs will demonstrate that not only does access to the high order curriculum to learn
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 38
knowledge and skills necessary for ELLs to achieve, but that support in language development
skills also needs to be part of the instructional services. In addition, the following research will
also demonstrate the gap in academic achievement.
Standards and Assessments
The following review on standards and assessment and the challenges of ELLs is
according to Lachat (2004). American education, which served well during the industrial age, is
not meeting the demands of a twenty-first century workplace. Skills, technologies, and the
educational system have to change or else the American workers will not be able to keep up with
the rest of the world. With the federal accountability systems in place, standards for teaching
and learning have become the core of improving the quality of education across the nation. The
high standards and standards-based assessments are aimed at holding students, teachers, schools,
districts, and states accountable for student learning. To meet the challenges of an ever-
changing society, the expectation is that all students will become effective thinkers, problem
solvers, and communicators. Lachat describes the standards model as being comprised of two
types of standards: content and performance. She defines content standards as what the children
should know and be able to do in regards to the knowledge, skills, and understanding that are
necessary to be proficient in a particular content area. Benchmarks have been created that define
what the expected skills and learning are for each content area by the end of each grade level.
Performance standards are defined as identifying the levels of performance for the knowledge,
skills, and understanding as defined in content standards. These standards are very clear in the
expectations for the various levels of proficiency and provide explicit definitions and examples
in the students’ demonstration of the skills and understanding of the content standards to be
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 39
considered proficient. The various levels of proficiency in an assessed content area define
performance standards.
As per Lachat, the last two decades have shown a vast improvement in the commitment
to educate all students with all the skills necessary to be productive members of the global
society. In the past, the education system was a two-tier system where all students developed the
basic skills and, for those who were college-bound, access to higher order proficiencies was
made possible. The current standards system does not honor that system anymore. Instead, the
expectation for all schools is that all students can learn at high levels given the resources to do so
(time, tools, teaching, and encouragement). However, this shift is occurring at a time when the
classrooms across the nation are facing diversity in the student population like never before. The
challenges of equity in education rise for the students who are not proficient in English. Even
though the standards-driven education delivers the needed higher-order instruction, the focus
now has to shift to curriculum and instruction reform and to improve teachers’ efficacy to
respond to diversity in order for the high quality learning to become the norm for all students.
However, as Lachat points out, this reform is not enough to close the achievement gap for
students who have to attend schools in high-poverty areas, which limits equal access to the
achievement of the high standards of learning. Many factors, such as funding, instructional
materials, technology resources, and highly qualified teachers affect students’ exposure to the
new standards and assessments. The students’ opportunities to learn are also affected by
teachers’ beliefs, curriculum content, quality of instruction, time spent on academic tasks,
teacher-student interactions, and feedback and incentives provided to them (Neill, 1995).
Additionally, students are also influenced by family support, school safety, and school climate.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 40
As such, Lachat suggests that the nation must abolish the inequities in the way of
allocation of funds, equal access to resources, highly qualified teachers, high quality instruction,
and a safe and supported school environment. Equal access to these elements will ensure the
success of the standards based reform.
In addition to the high standards, standards-based assessments, which focused on
improving student learning, emerged. These created a new way of holding schools accountable.
Some important features of standards-based assessments are: focus on what is important to learn,
students are compared to a standard of proficiency and not to other students, related to the
curriculum and instruction, and establishes accountability and improvement. Traditionally,
testing was not geared towards the measurement of complex skills and performance abilities. In
the testing culture, students were ranked against test norms for comparison and placement
because it was believed that the students’ learning capacity and intelligence were fixed and
therefore, predictable. As such, students were sorted according to their abilities and tracked to
educational programs that were deemed appropriate for them. Students with cultural and
language backgrounds and who came from low income families suffered from these testing
policies. The high numbers of students who were failing were from low income families and
those who had English as a second language. These were the students who were denied access to
more rigorous education and were channeled into low level classes and were grouped according
to their abilities, thereby, widening the academic achievement gap.
However, the new assessment culture is based on standards and achievement is criterion-
referenced. Instead of students’ fixed abilities and limited learning capacity, intelligence is now
viewed as multifaceted and learning as developmental. The focus of these standards-based
assessments is on what the students can do (performance) and what they know. The assessment
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 41
results are used to improve teaching and learning. The assessments have been determined to
have reliability and validity. Assessment specialists have recommended that performance
assessments demonstrate fairness to students from various backgrounds and that they are
meaningful to students and teachers.
To find out the influence of standards on K-12 teaching and student learning, Lauer,
Snow, Martin-Glen, Van Buhler, Stoutemyer, and Snow-Renner (2005) conducted a synthesis
research through Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). They examined
studies that focused on the influence of standards-based curriculum, instructional guidelines, and
assessment on teacher instruction and student achievement in K-12 classrooms. The research
also included studies on the four core subjects: language arts, mathematics, science, and social
studies. Research studies that associated standards-based variables to teacher instruction and to
student achievement were examined in the synthesis.
Out of 697 study reports read, only 113 met the outlined criteria as mentioned in the
above paragraph. Altogether, there were 48 studies of standards-based curriculum, 36 studies of
standards-based instructional guidelines, and 29 studies of standards-based assessments. Out of
the 113 studies, 71 examined influences on teacher instruction, 56 measured influences on
student achievement, and the rest examined both.
Overall, the findings of the reviewed studies were that the standards-based curricula had
positive influences on student achievement. Even the at-risk students demonstrated
improvement. The findings on standards-based instructional guidelines did not have a strong
positive influence on student achievement. And the findings from studies that addressed
standards-based assessment and its influences on teacher instruction and student achievement
were inconsistent.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 42
In summary, the majority of the reviews on standards and assessments demonstrate
fairness and improvement in academic achievement for the ELL students in K-12 classrooms.
The continued success in student achievement depends on how well the standards-based policies,
curriculum, assessments, and instructional guidelines are implemented in schools.
Language Development
Another major challenge that ELLs encounter in the American education system is the
development of language skills. For the past decade, schools have been under pressure to ensure
that all students demonstrate adequate yearly progress under the NCLB Act. This is specifically
true for ELLs in California because schools receive federal and state funding based on the
academic progress of the ELLs. The three major program models for ELLs have been early-exit
bilingual education, late-exit bilingual education (also known as dual language or dual
immersion), and structured English immersion. Controversies surround bilingual education
programs. Even though most of the research done on this topic demonstrates the benefits of
bilingual education, more research is needed for more definite results because some of the
studies were inconclusive. Proponents of bilingual education believe that ELLs benefit more
when they receive their education in their native language. There is evidence that as the ELLs
learn to master the reading skills in their native languages; they are more apt to succeed in their
reading skills in English (Cummins, 1992; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramsey,
1991; and Collier & Thomas, 2004). Apart from the obvious social and economic benefits, ELLs
get an added benefit of gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation of their own culture and
heritage. Opponents of bilingual education believe that students’ development of English
language is delayed when instruction is given in languages other than English.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 43
Cummins (1992) highlighted three theories from the proponents of bilingual education
that are supported by empirical research. They are: (a) children benefit in their educational and
cognitive development as they continue to progress in both languages; (b) the literacy-related
skills are transferable from one language to another; and (c) children acquire conversational
abilities in the second language more rapidly than academic skills, which may take up to five
years to attain. Additionally, Cummins highlighted three theories from the opponents of
bilingual education that are empirically testable. They are: (a) the claim that a major factor for
acquiring English is that the children need to spend more “time on task” in learning English
(immersion in English); (b) the claim that children will acquire English within a short period of
time (usually within 1-2 years) without any special support; and (c) the claim that English
immersion should begin when the children are young since younger children can learn languages
better than when they get older. Cummins states that the current educational system for
language-minority students has a hidden curriculum that has negative impact in the development
of bilingual and biliteracy skills and thus, restricts the development of cognitive and linguistic
abilities of the ELLs. The student voice is stifled because the current educational practices for
the language-minority students encourage ELLs to be compliant learners instead of active
learners. The curriculum has been sanitized and the development of student identity and voice
has been stifled so as not to focus on the many historical social injustices that have occurred
between the dominant and subordinate groups in the society. Cummins strongly supports
biliteracy for ELLs and states that the challenge for educators of ELLs would be to create
learning conditions for students that would expand the students’ knowledge and academic
curiosity, strengthen identity formation, and highlight the historical and current events regarding
power and resources in the society.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 44
Slavin and Cheung (2005) reviewed experimental studies using a best-evidenced
synthesis that compared bilingual and English-only reading programs in elementary and
secondary grades for ELLs. It used a systematic literature search, inclusion standards, and
extensive discussions on studies that met the inclusion standards. The outcomes were quantified
as effect sizes. A total of 17 studies were chosen, 13 of which focused on elementary reading for
ELLs who spoke mostly Spanish. 9 studies showed strong support on bilingual education while
4 found no difference. The review’s conclusion was that even though there are only a small
number of high-quality studies in bilingual education, there is evidence that bilingual education
is the best program model to follow for the ELLs. The recommendation is that more research,
that is randomized and longitudinal, is needed to determine the best reading success for all ELLs.
One of the most comprehensive research in bilingual education is a report prepared for
the U.S. Department of Education on three program models for ELLs called the Ramirez Report.
This report is on a longitudinal study conducted by Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramsey (1991). It was
an eight-year project (1983-1991) that compared the effectiveness of three program models for
language minority students from elementary schools. The majority of the students were from
low income Spanish-speaking families. The three program models are: (a) English immersion,
which exclusively used English as its main instructional language; (b) early-exit bilingual, which
used Spanish for one-third of the time in kindergarten and first grade and rapidly phased out in
the following grades; (c) late-exit bilingual, which primarily used Spanish as its main
instructional language in kindergarten and increasing the percentage of instruction in English in
the progressive grades, ending to up to sixty percent in grades 5 and 6. Teacher qualifications
and parent involvement were two important factors that were emphasized in the study for the
success of ELLs and schools.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 45
The findings of the study are as follows:
• There was little growth in the academic progress between early-exit and immersion
programs in kindergarten, first, and second grades. Some growth was found by the
end of grade 3 in both programs, even though significant gap still existed between the
ELLs and the general population. The early-exit students performed at the same level
as the students in the immersion classrooms. As such, there were no significant
differences between the two programs, which disproved the long-held belief that
more instruction in English leads to more achievement in English.
• The students who were enrolled in the late-exit programs demonstrated rapid
academic progress and appeared to be gaining on the students of the general
population. Given continuity, the students from the late-exit programs will catch up
with the general population.
• Students who were abruptly transitioned from the late-exit programs to immersion
instruction lagged behind the general population between grades 3 and 6 in English
language, reading, and mathematics. This provided evidence that students who are
receiving instruction in their primary language should not be abruptly transitioned
into an all-English program.
• Parents were more aware and likely to help students with homework in the late-exit
program than in the other two programs. Additionally, the parents were able to
participate and assist more with their children’s learning because of the use of the
primary language.
• Teachers used passive language learning environment in all three programs. Thus,
there is a need for teacher training programs at university and district levels that
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 46
would enable teachers to use a more active learning environment for the development
of language and cognitive skills.
The Ramirez report concludes that the findings of this study and implementation of the
models should be disseminated and supported. The evidence demonstrates that students who
received consistent and substantial instruction and support in their primary language developed
the language and cognitive skills as fast or faster than the general population. Even though this
study may not have solved all the issues or controversies surrounding the academic challenges of
ELLs, there were two major outcomes: (a) that consistent and continuous instruction and support
in the students’ primary language leads to proficiency in academics and literacy in both
languages; (b) provided strong evidence that disproved the common belief that ELLs need to be
exposed to intensive English in order to excel in it.
Collier and Thomas (2004) conducted extensive longitudinal research in bilingual
education over a span of eighteen years. The research included 23 large and small school
districts from 15 states that represented all regions of the U.S. in urban and rural areas.
They summarized their research findings in one-way and two-way dual language enrichment
models in elementary schools in an article titled “The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual
Language Education for All.”
The basic principles for both one-way and two-way dual language education are the
same: six years of bilingual instruction (and when there are no English-speaking peers enrolled,
then eight years of bilingual instruction is preferred for full gap closure); the two languages of
instruction are separate; focus is on the core academic curriculum; grade-level lessons are of high
cognitive demand; and the academic content across the curriculum occurs in a collaborative,
engaging, and challenging learning environment.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 47
One-way dual language education is defined as programs enrolling only one language
group of students who are taught through their two languages, usually English and a native
language such as Spanish, French, or a Native American language. The spectrum of students’
proficiency in either language varies, that is, some students have lost their heritage language and
are proficient in English only and others are proficient in their native language and are just
beginning to learn English.
Two-way dual language education is defined as programs enrolling both native English-
speaking students with the bilingual and ELL students in an integrated bilingual classroom.
These programs include children from the wide spectrum of English or native language
proficiency. The classrooms balance the children enrolled as close to 50:50 ratio but up to 70:30
minimum balance is required for the second language acquisition process.
Within the one-way and two-way bilingual education, there are two dual language
programs: 90:10 and 50:50. The 90:10 dual language programs provide intensive instruction in
the minority language from pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade and gradually
increases the instructional time in English language arts to 50% in grade 5. The 50:50 dual
language programs provide equal instructional time in English and the minority language from
Grades K-12.
The researchers analyzed a variety of educational services provided for ELLs in U. S.
public schools. The resulting academic achievement was measured by all tests given by the
school districts to the ELLs in both L
1
(native language, when available) and in English (L
2
for
most students). The focus of the research was on gap closure instead of presenting pre- and post-
gains. The research aligned with NCLB in two major aspects: focus on the closing of the
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 48
academic achievement gap and collection of data that can be disaggregated into meaningful
student groups with adequate yearly progress goals for all groups.
In addition to the four variations of dual language from which the data were collected and
analyzed (one-way 90:10, one-way 50:50, two-way 90:10, and two-way 50:50), data was also
collected and analyzed from students who were placed in all-English instructional classes. The
outcomes were that the only programs that fully closed the academic achievement gap were one-
way and two-way bilingual programs and which also lead to grade-level and above grade-level
achievement in second language. The two-way 90:10 models closed the gap by Grade 5 by
95%-100%, with the annual effect size of 0.19-0.29 and 4-6 Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs).
On the other hand, one-way 50:50 models closed the gap by 70%, with the annual effect size of
0.14 and 3 NCEs. Both one-way 90:10 and two-way 50:50 models closed the gap by 70%-
100%, with the effect size of 0.14-0.24 and 3-5 NCEs.
In summary, Thomas and Collier found that ELLs placed in well-implemented dual
language programs outpace the native English speaking students. Dual language is the only
program that closes the academic achievement gap for ELLs. Apart from the positive student
outcomes, the effectiveness of the dual language program also positively influences the school
experiences for administrators, teachers, and parents, as well. The researchers view dual
language education as a school reform that even English-only advocates can embrace because it
is an all-inclusive model which benefits all students.
Academic Achievement Gap
The achievement gap in education is often defined as persistent disparity in academic
performance between groups of students. The groups of students can further be defined by
socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity, and gender. In the U.S., the gap has persistently
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 49
remained between affluent (Whites and Asians) and low-income (Hispanics and Blacks)
students.
Darling-Hammond (2010) examined the American education system and its problems
(including academic achievement gap), compared American education with the education
systems around the world, and recommended solutions. According to Darling-Hammond, the
large disparities that occur in the U.S. are specifically due to the growing inequality when
comparing: Whites and Asians to African Americans and Hispanics; students in low-poverty
schools to those in high-poverty schools; and the performance of high-income students to low-
income students. In addition to that, Darling-Hammond concludes that there are five factors that
contribute to the unequal and inadequate outcomes in the U.S.:
• high level of poverty and lack of social support for children’s health, welfare, and
early learning opportunities
• increasing re-segregation of schools through unequal distribution of resources
• failure to provide high-quality teachers and teaching to all children in all communities
• restriction of distribution of high-quality curriculum through tracking and inter-school
disparities
• dysfunctional learning environments and lack of support for quality teaching created
by factory model school designs
Darling-Hammond, therefore, attributes the root of inequity in educational outcomes in U.S. as
growing poverty levels and the re-segregation of schools.
According to Darling-Hammond, successful foreign countries, specifically Finland,
Singapore, and South Korea, are committed to the implementation of some common features of
educational systems that provide education for all students. They are:
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 50
• basic needs such as secure housing, food, and health care are met
• early learning environments are encouraged and supported
• funding of schools are equitable
• teachers and leaders are well-prepared, supported, and equipped
• focus on contemporary learning goals through standards, curriculum, and assessments
• provision of in-depth student and teacher learning through schools
Darling-Hammond acknowledges that, even though the U.S. education system has been
failing, most states have made enormous changes in the standards, curriculum, assessments, and
accountability required under the NCLB Act. Inequalities in performance and resources have
become more apparent because of NCLB. Thus, Darling-Hammond makes five key
recommendations for a paradigm shift in national and state policies to support meaningful
learning and equalizing access to educational opportunities for all children:
• meaningful learning goals
• accountability systems that are intelligent and reciprocal
• equitable and adequate resources
• strong professional standards and supports
• school organized for student and teacher learning
In summary, Darling-Hammond emphasizes genuine school reform in the U.S. to address
the closure of the academic achievement gap, which is affected by factors such as re-segregation,
limited early learning opportunities, poverty, unqualified teachers, poor curricula, and
dysfunctional academic environments. In examining the factors that makes some foreign
countries such as Finland, Singapore, and South Korea, effective in their education systems,
some recommendations for reform of U.S. educational system were made. The student-focused
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 51
reform will ensure that students will be creative, innovative, college-ready, and excel nationally
and internationally.
From the time NCLB was enacted in 2002, elementary and secondary education in all
states underwent major changes in policies and practices to accomplish one common goal: to
close the academic achievement gap. To find out the influence of NCLB on students’ academic
achievement, two questions were raised: (a) Since NCLB, has student achievement in reading
and math increased? (b) Have achievement gaps between different subgroups of students
narrowed since NCLB came into effect? To answer these two questions, an independent and
non-profit organization, Center on Education Policy (CEP), conducted a study on trends in state
test scores (CEP, 2007).
To analyze the test score trends in reading and math, data were collected from all 50
states, even though not all states had consistent data from before or after 2002. The study limited
analysis of data to test results that were consistent and comparable from year to year. Trends
from before and after 2002 were compared to find out if the pace of improvement had slowed
down or sped up. The analyses of the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient
level were supplemented with analyses of effect size. All data from each state were analyzed as
objectively as possible, which typically amounted to as many as 16,000 individual numbers. The
conclusions were as follows:
• More states showed gains in test scores since 2002 than those showing declines
• Moderate to large gains in both reading and math were made from elementary to high
schools in both percentage proficient and effect size measures
• High schools in most states showed declines in both reading and math, even though
the number of states with test score gains outweighed the number with declines.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 52
• In most states, the findings from the analyses of data from effect size were the same
as the percentage proficient measure
• States showed more positive results when using their own tests for percentage
proficient levels as compared to results from the percentage scoring at basic level on
NAEP. States that showed gains in NAEP were not necessarily the same as those that
showed gains in their own test results. Additionally, NAEP tests are not aligned to
the states’ standards and curriculum as the tests from the states.
The trends for test score gaps were analyzed for subgroups of racial/ethnic students, low-
income students, students with disabilities, and limited English Proficient (LEP) students from
all 50 states. The data collected were mostly from percentage proficient and effect size (where
available). The findings were as follows:
• Overall, from 2002, the gaps in percentages proficient in subgroups have narrowed in
far more states than in states where the gaps widened.
• The gaps in reading for low-income subgroups, such as African Americans and
Hispanics, narrowed in 14 out of 38 states that had the necessary data. There was no
evidence of the gaps widening at any grade span in any state.
• Similar to the results of percentages proficient, the states with the effect size data
showed evidence of the gaps narrowing in more states than in states where the gaps
widened. However, in states where both measures were used, there were some
evidence where the effect size results did not match with the percentages proficient
data, therefore, demonstrating a widening of the gaps instead.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 53
• The evidence in percentages proficient for the subgroups showed narrowing gaps of
twenty percentage points or more, thereby suggesting that it will take a lot of focused
and long-term effort to close them.
Therefore, according to CEP, there is evidence that the achievement gap in reading across
all grade spans (elementary, middle, and high schools) has been narrowing in most states.
However, the narrowing of gaps has been small. The states will have to take steps to further
improve the closing of the gaps.
According to a NAEP Statistical Analysis Report (NCES, 2011), achievement gaps for
Hispanic students have been substantially declining in reading since the early 1970s, even though
gaps with their White peers are still evident. The gaps narrowed for Hispanics because they
made greater average gains in the exams. However, White students still had higher scores on all
assessments, on average. Two factors affect the achievement gap: the growing rate of Hispanic
population and the percentage of Hispanic ELLs in fourth- and eighth grades. Thus, closing of
the achievement gap still remains a challenge.
In summary, ELLs face many challenges in their education. In order to close the
achievement gap, they need to have access to high quality instruction, curriculum, standards, and
assessments to learn the knowledge and skills necessary. Research demonstrates that low-
income students (mostly African Americans and Hispanics) do not have equal access to qualified
teachers, quality resources, and language support. Even though the above research shows that
the gaps have been narrowing ever since the NCLB has been in effect, changes need to be made
in the U.S. education system to further close the academic achievement gap.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 54
Summary
There are various research studies on NCLB and the many facets and challenges for
ELLs. The review emphasizes the advantages of NCLB, especially in regards to bringing access
to higher quality education and equity to all students. Research on NCLB evaluations has
demonstrated strong evidence of increase in student achievement since the introduction of strong
accountability systems across the nation. NCLB also focuses on the learning and achievement
for the disadvantaged students and the ELLs as had never been done before in the history of
American education. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for classrooms to emphasize the
instructional support services for ELLs. However, research on the influence of NCLB on closing
the achievement gap for the ELLs seems to be limited in that it is largely based on NAEP tests
that are not standards-based. Additionally, there is no way to discern if NCLB is the only factor
in the narrowing of the academic achievement gap.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research questions and design of this study, the description of
the participants and setting, data collection procedures, instruments used in this study, and the
data analysis procedures. The purpose of this study was to examine the longitudinal changes in
achievement for ELLs in English Language Arts (ELA) from K-12 schools within Los Angeles
Unified School since 2003. Specifically, the researcher examined the influence of NCLB on
ELLs’ academic achievement. The guiding research questions of this study are:
1. What are the longitudinal changes in ELL students’ academic achievement in English
Language Arts in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
2. What are the longitudinal changes in White students’ academic achievement in
English Language Arts in LAUSD?
3. What are the longitudinal changes in African American students’ academic
achievement in English Language Arts in LAUSD?
4. How do ELLs compare to White and African American students in academic
achievement in English Language Arts from 2003 to 2012? In other words, has the
gap between the ELL, White, and African American student populations increased,
decreased, or remains the same in LAUSD?
This quantitative study was designed to assess the longitudinal changes in school
performances and ELLs’ academic progress and achievement in ELA as compared to that of
African American and White students under the NCLB policies. The study is longitudinal and
the researcher used online data from California Department of Education (CDE) and LAUSD
covering a span of 10 years from 2003 to 2012. Student information such as language status and
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 56
performance is publicly available by the California Department of Education. Information on
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was obtained from CDE and the CCSS websites.
In a quasi-experiment, there are variables that are the presumed causes and presumed
effects. An independent variable (IV) is the variable that is controlled or manipulated by the
researcher and is the presumed cause whereas the dependent variable (DV) is not manipulated
but is observed or measured and is the presumed effect. Independent variables cannot always be
controlled or manipulated (such as ethnicity and gender) and is thus, technically, referred to as
status variable. The independent variables of this study are grade level and ELL students versus
White and African American students. The dependent variable is the resultant data from the
measures of school performance in English Language Arts: California Standardized Testing
(CST).
Participants
The participants for this study are English Language Learners and White and African
American students from 2
nd
grade in elementary schools to 11
th
grade in high schools from
LAUSD in Southern California, spanning over nine years (2003-2012, excluding 2011 due to
changes in testing policy for that year only). The ELL students’ home languages are as follows:
Armenian, Cantonese, Korean, Farsi, Pilipino, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese, and other. There
are fourteen major subgroups of the overall student population. The very diverse student
population includes: African Americans who are native English speakers and are of African
descent; American Indians/Alaskans who are mostly Native Americans and native English
speakers; Asians who consist of students whose ethnic backgrounds come from countries such as
China, India, Japan, and Korea and are ELLs; Filipinos whose ethnic background originated in
the Philippines and are ELLs; Latinos who are of Spanish descent and are from various South
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 57
American countries and are mostly Spanish speaking and therefore, ELLs; Pacific Islanders
whose background is from the Pacific Islands such as Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji and are ELLs;
Whites who are from Anglo-Saxon background and are native English speakers; Gifted and
Talented who are students that have been identified as performing above grade level through
specific testing for above average abilities, creativity, and task commitment; Students with
Disabilities that have been identified as having needs that have to be addressed through special
education and Individual Educational Plans (IEPs); English Learners are students who have
been identified as ELL students through tests such as California English Language Development
Test (CELDT); Reclassified Fluent English Proficient are ELL students who have gone through
a scaffolding program known as Master Plan where the ELLs attend English Language
Development (ELD) classes and pass all required ELD standards to be reclassified and
mainstreamed into regular English Language Arts curriculum (usually from 3
rd
to 5
th
grades) ;
English Proficient are ELL students who passed language tests such as (pre) Language
Assessment Scales (pre-LAS/LAS); Economically Disadvantaged are students from poor
backgrounds; and Students Entering or Leaving the school system for reasons such as migrant
families, immigrants, and dropouts.
Table 1 and Table 2 demonstrate the percentages of each subgroup that participated in
standardized testing (grades 2-12) from 2004-05 to 2011-12 school years.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 58
Table 1
LAUSD Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2011-2012
Category 2011-12 %
Total Enrollment 662,140
Blacks 63,714 10%
American Indians/Alaskans 3,072 0.5%
Asian 26,700 4.0%
Filipino 14,045 2.0%
Hispanic 478,943 72%
Pacific Islanders 2,506 0.4%
White 66,833 10%
Two or More Races 607 0.1%
Not Reported 5,720 0.9%
Source: CDE (2013)

Table 2
LAUSD Enrollment by Language Classification, Spring, 2011
Category 2011 %
Total Enrollment 664,233
EOs 208,393 31%
English Learners 229,411 34%
IFEPs 62,360 9%
Reclassified/Fluent 155,330 23%
Source: CDE (2011)
Setting
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is the second largest public school system
in the nation and the largest in California. It was founded in 1853. The school district includes
Los Angeles, portions of 31 smaller adjoining cities, and other sections of Southern California,
covering about 720 square miles (LAUSD). The district is divided into 5 Educational Support
Centers (ESC): North, West, East, South, and Superintendent’s Intensive Support and Innovation
Center (ISIC).
In 2011-12, there were a total of 441 elementary schools (K-5), 76 middle schools (6-8),
and 68 senior high schools (9-12). The total primary enrollment of students in 2011-12 was
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 59
1,578,215 (CDE). There were 1,085,494 students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
families. Thus, out of these 585 schools, there were a total of 564 Title I schools (qualifying
with more than 40% of students from low-income families receiving federal funds to assist at-
risk students). According to the 2011-2012 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR), the
district did not meet the federal accountability measure of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for the
percentage of students who are proficient in English Language Arts and Math. The district is in
year 3 of Program Improvement (PI) status. The overall Academic Performance Index (API)
score is 745.
LAUSD has five goals: 100% graduation rate; proficiency for all; 100% attendance;
parent and community engagement, and school safety. To reach these goals, LAUSD uses a
performance meter. It is a scoreboard that measures and guides the district’s performance. The
purpose of the performance meter is to move away from a culture of compliance to a culture of
performance in California standards.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation that will be used for this study will be ELA data from CST for
grades 2-11. The CSTs are administered each spring. They are a major part of Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program (CDE, 2013). These tests were specifically developed
for California by California educators and test developers. Additionally, they were developed to
measure students’ progress and achievement in English Language Arts (reading and writing),
Mathematics, Science, and History/Social Science through California’s state-adopted content
standards. The implementation of STAR program was to comply with the federal mandates,
which provides multiple measures for different student populations and grade level.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 60
There are four types of tests in the STAR Program: California Standards Tests (CST);
the California Modified Assessments (CMA), which are at grade level for students with
disabilities and who meet the state criteria; the California Alternate Performance Assessment
(CAPA), which are for students with significant disabilities and who cannot take the CSTs even
with accommodations or modifications; and the Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS), which
are for Spanish-speaking English learners that measures the state content standards in English
Language Arts and Mathematics in Spanish. Other California state tests include California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), which are for students from grades 10 through 11 and measures
the state content standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics (Algebra I); and
California English Language Development Test (CELDT), which is administered to students
whose primary language is not English and measures the students’ abilities to listen, speak, read,
and write in English (EdSource, 2005). The majority of the students are expected to take CST
and CAHSEE. Only some students take CMA, CAPA, and CELDT as qualified by needs or
home language. The STAR program utilizes the results from these tests to assess how well
schools and students are performing. Parents and teachers can also use these results to improve
student learning. The focus of this study will be CSTs.
The levels of performance on the CST, as determined by The California Board of
Education, are as follows: Advanced - students are demonstrating knowledge and skills at their
grades at a superior level; Proficient – students are demonstrating knowledge and skills at their
grades at a solid level; Basic – students are demonstrating knowledge and skills at their grades at
a limited level; and Below Basic/Far Below Basic – students are demonstrating a serious lack of
knowledge and skills at their grades. The student scores are divided into bands that vary by
content and grade levels. The lowest possible score is 150 and the highest is 600. The target
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 61
scores for CST ELA for all students range from 300 to 395 (within Basic and Proficient levels).
California’s goal is to have all students perform at the proficient or advanced level (CDE, 2009).
Content standards are what students need to learn and know (knowledge, concepts, and skills) per
grade level and are defined by the end-of-the-year expectations and cumulative progression
toward college and career readiness.
California first established academic content standards for English Language Arts in 1997,
heralding state-wide standards-based education system. The standards defined what the students
should learn and were a basis through which academic achievement was improved (CDE). In
2010, California was one of 45 states to adopt the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Science, Science, and Technical Subjects (CCSS
for ELA/Literacy). They still maintain the rigor, consistency, and precision from the previous
ELA standards. These new standards are designed to be relevant to the real world and
incorporate input from other educational resources such as state departments of education,
scholars, professional organizations, teachers and other educators, students, and parents. They are
research-based and evidence-based; aligned with college and work expectations; internationally
benchmarked; and address the needs of today while preparing the students for future success.
Anchor standards, which were not part of California’s original adoption of the CCSS for
ELA/Literacy, were added in 2013 to guide the progression toward College and Career Readiness
across grade levels. The anchor standards are outlined at the beginning of each set of standards in
CCSS for ELA/Literacy focusing on reading and writing.
The CCSS for ELA/Literacy has three main objectives: to build toward preparing
students to be college and career ready in literacy by the end of high school; to provide a vision
of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century; and to develop the skills in
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 62
reading, writing, speaking, and listening that are the basic building blocks for expression in
language that are creative and purposeful. The standards are designed to set requirements for
both English Language Arts (Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language) and Literacy
in History/Social Studies & Science and Technical Subjects (K-5 standards are embedded in
ELA and 6-12 standards are in separate sections).
There were several key design considerations in the creation of the standards: college
and career readiness (CCR) anchor standards (which are general and cross-disciplinary literacy
expectations for students in preparation for college and career); grade levels for K-8 (grade-level
specific), grade bands for 9-10 and 11-12 (two-year bands); a focus on results rather than means
(the how and what can be determined by the educators); an integrated model of literacy
(standards are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking & Listening, and Language – has clarity
yet interconnects); research and media skills integrated into the standards as a whole (standards
are embedded and not in separate sections); shared responsibilities for students’ literacy
development (the interdisciplinary expectation that literacy skills development for each student is
the shared responsibility of not only the ELA teachers but also with teachers who teach other
content areas); and focus and coherence in instruction and assessment (several standards can be
addressed in one well-thought out task instead of individual standards being addressed by
separate lessons).
States were allowed to add up to 15% to the CCSS for ELA/Literacy. The additions to
the standards for California were based on the following criteria: substantively enhance, address
a perceived gap, be defensible to classroom practitioners, keep the original standard intact, and
ensure the rigor of California’s existing standards is maintained. Since California’s standards
played a major role in the development of the CCSS for ELA/Literacy, the state only added
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 63
approximately 8%. These were: analysis of text features in informational text (Grades 6-12);
career and consumer documents included in Writing (Grade 8); “both in isolation and in text”
added to the application of phonics and word analysis skills (Grades K-3); penmanship added to
Language (Grades 2-4); formal presentations included in Speaking and Listening (Grades 1-12);
minor additions and insertions to enhance and clarify (e.g., archetypes, thesis).
The CCSS for ELA/Literacy are organized into three main sections: a comprehensive K-5
section with History/Social Studies & Science and Technical Subjects embedded in these
standards since there is only one teacher providing the instructions; two content-area specific
sections for grades 6-12 in English Language Arts and History/Social Studies & Science and
Technical Subjects. There are four strands in CCSS for ELA/Literacy and they are: Reading,
Writing, Speaking and Listening (K-12 ELA only), and Language (includes conventions and
vocabulary and is in K-12 ELA only). The latter two strands are not included in History/Social
Studies & Science and Technical Subjects section. Reading and Writing each has ten anchor
standards while Speaking & Listening and Language has six anchor standards each.
The strands are organized by the following subheadings: Reading Strand (includes three
standards – Reading Standards for Literature, Reading Standards for Informational Text, and
Reading Standards: Foundational Skills for K-5) - Key Ideas and Details, Craft and Structure,
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, Range and Level of Text Complexity, and (for
Foundational Skills) Print Concepts, Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Word Recognition,
and Fluency. The Writing Strand includes one set of standards and the subheadings are
consistent across grade levels: Text Types and Purposes, Production and Distribution of Writing,
Research to Build and Present Knowledge, and Range of Writing. Speaking and Listening also
has one set of standards which are consistent across the grade levels: Comprehension and
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 64
Collaboration and Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas. The Language Strand is one set of
standards as well and is also consistent across the grade levels: Conventions of Standard
English, Knowledge of Language, and Vocabulary Acquisition and Use.
An example of a standard demonstrates the anchor standard, consistency and progression
across the grade levels: Reading (Strand), Reading Standards for Informational Text (Standard);
CCR Anchor Standard 2 – Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their
development; summarize the key supporting details; Key Ideas and Details (Subheading) –
Kindergarteners: With prompting and support, identify the main topic and retell key details of a
text. For Grade 2 Students: Identify the main topic of a multi-paragraph text as well as the focus
of specific paragraphs within the text. For Grade 6 Students: Determine a central idea of a text
and how it is conveyed through particular details; provide a summary of the text distinct from
personal opinions or judgments. For Grades 11-12 Students: Determine two or more central
ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how they
interact and build on one another to provide a complex analysis; provide an objective summary
of the text.
Procedure
Student data will be acquired through online resources from CDE’s DataQuest and from
LAUSD’s website.
Limitations
The extent to which a test measurement measures what it is intended to measure is known
as validity. A study is designed to rule out any plausible alternative explanations that would
cause an effect other than from the actual manipulation or intervention. Any factor or condition,
other than the treatment, manipulation, exposure, or intervention, which could be responsible for
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 65
the observed outcomes, is known as a threat to validity. According to Marsh and Hocevar
(1988), there are three types of threats to validity in a quantitative study: statistical conclusion
validity, internal validity, and external validity.
Threats to Internal Validity
This validity is present when the researcher controls all the extraneous variables and the
only variable influencing the results of a study is the one being manipulated by the researcher. In
other words, the resulting effects are caused only by the treatment, manipulation, or exposure in
the study sample. The credibility of the causal inference is also a factor of internal validity. Per
Marsh and Hocevar (1988), all quasi-experimental designs demonstrate weak to moderate causal
inferences depending on the study design (post-test only, correlational, pre-post without a control
group, pre-post with a nonequivalent control group, pre-post with a nonequivalent control group
and statistical or non-statistical control, and true experiment with randomly assigned treatment
and control groups). A true experiment (randomized trial) is the only design that justifies a
strong causal inference. The threats to internal validity are many, including relating to the
passage of time, selection of participants, and testing and manipulations.
In this study, the statistical inferences about the causal effects are valid for the population
being studied. The CST ELA data were obtained from the California Department of Education
(CDE) website. CDE has conducted multiple analyses for CST and has gathered various kinds
of evidence to test for validity which can be found in its STAR/CST 2011 Technical Report
(CDE, 2011).
Threats to External Validity
This validity is based on the extent to which the findings of a study can be generalized
confidently beyond the samples, settings, measurements, and treatments used to that of a larger
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 66
group (Creswell, 2009). Threats of limited generalizability can occur in any of the four items
(sample, setting, measurement, and treatment) in any study. Limited generalization in sample
occurs when a particular research finding only works for a certain kind of people.
In this study, the statistical inferences may have limited generalizations from the
population and setting studied to other populations and settings. The population and the setting
of Southern California, and specifically, of Los Angeles Unified School District, are unique from
any other locations. Its uniqueness is contributed by various factors such as the percentages of
the ethnicities being tested at any given year, the policies of the school district, teacher
characteristics, curriculum, and assessments.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 67
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter describes the results of the research questions presented in chapter three and
the analysis of the results. The common public opinion is that the academic achievement gap has
widened under NCLB, specifically for English Language Learners (ELLs). As such, the purpose
of this study was to examine the longitudinal changes under NCLB for ELLs in English
Language Arts (ELA) from K-12 schools within Los Angeles Unified School District. This
quantitative study compared the proficiency and success averages of the ELLs to that of White
and African American students from California Standardized Test (CST) scores in ELA. The
averages were determined by using EXCEL. The test scores from 2011 were excluded from the
research because of changes in the testing policies for that year only. The guiding research
questions of this study are:
1. What are the longitudinal changes in ELL students’ academic achievement in English
Language Arts in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
2. What are the longitudinal changes in White students’ academic achievement in
English Language Arts in LAUSD?
3. What are the longitudinal changes in African American students’ academic
achievement in English Language Arts in LAUSD?
4. How do ELLs compare to White and African American students in academic
achievement in English Language Arts from 2003 to 2012? In other words, has the
gap between the ELL, White, and African American student populations increased,
decreased, or remains the same in LAUSD?

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 68
Findings
To calculate the growth and the achievement gap, success averages and proficiency
averages of the CST ELA scores for each year (from 2003 to 2012) were calculated using the
EXCEL program. Comparisons of the scores were conducted within each ethnicity (ELLs,
Whites, and African Americans) to determine the growth. Additionally, comparisons among the
three groups were conducted to calculate the achievement gap.
Answer to Research Question 1
What are the longitudinal changes in ELL students’ academic achievement in English
Language Arts in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
In this research, ELLs included all students whose primary language was other than
English. This included students who were reclassified. In 2003, the success average score for
ELLs from grades 2-5 was 0.56. In 2012, the score increased to 0.76, which shows a gain of
0.20. For grades 6-8, the success average score in 2003 was 0.45 and it increased to 0.72 in
2012, with a gain of 0.30. For grades 9-11, the score was 0.39 in 2003 and increased to 0.57 in
2012, with a gain of 0.18. This demonstrates that there was a steady increase in the averaged
scores from 2003 to 2012 for all three levels. The proficiency average score in 2003 for grades
2-5 was 0.19 and in 2012, it increased to 0.44, with a gain of 0.25. For grades 6-8, the
proficiency average score in 2003 was 0.12 and in 2012, it increased to 0.37, with a gain of 0.25.
For grades 9-11, the proficiency average score in 2003 was 0.15 and in 2012, it was 0.34, with a
gain of 0.19. Tables 6-8 and Figures 4-6 are graphical representations of these scores. Overall,
the ELLs, over a span of 10 years (2003-2012), demonstrated a steady increase in success
average- and proficiency-average scores in CST ELA from grades 2-11.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 69
Answer to Research Question 2
What are the longitudinal changes in White students’ academic achievement in English
Language Arts in LAUSD?
In 2003, the success average score for Whites from grades 2-5 was 0.85. In 2012, the
score increased to 0.94, which demonstrates a gain of 0.09. For grades 6-8, the success average
score in 2003 was 0.80 and it increased to 0.92 in 2012, with a gain of 0.12. For grades 9-11, the
success average score was 0.71 in 2003 and increased to 0.81 in 2012, with a gain of 0.10. The
proficiency average score for Whites in grades 2-5 in 2003 was 0.59 and in 2012, it was 0.80,
with a gain of 0.21. For grades 6-8, the proficiency average score was 0.50 in 2003 and 0.77 in
2012, with a gain of 0.27. For grades 9-11, the proficiency average score was 0.54 in 2003 and
0.64 in 2012, with a gain of 0.10. Tables 6-8 and Figures 4-6 are graphical representations of
these scores. All in all, there was a steady increase for White students in the success- and
proficiency average scores in CST ELA from 2003 to 2012.
Answer to Research Question 3
What are the longitudinal changes in African American students’ academic achievement
in English Language Arts in LAUSD?
In 2003, the success average score for African Americans from grades 2-5 was 0.57. In
2012, the score increased to 0.77, which shows a gain of .20. For grades 6-8, the success average
score in 2003 was 0.47 and it increased to 0.72 in 2012, with a gain of 0.25. For grades 9-11, the
success average score was 0.40 in 2003 and increased to 0.55 in 2012, with a gain of 0.15.
Tables 3-5 and Figures 1-3 are graphical representations of these scores. The proficiency
average score for African Americans in grades 2-5 in 2003 was 0.23 and it increased to 0.48 in
2012, with a gain of 0.25. For grades 6-8 the proficiency average score was 0.15 and, in 2012, it
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 70
increased to 0.43, demonstrating a gain of 0.28. For grades 9-11, the proficiency average score
was 0.20 in 2003 and 0.34 in 2012, with a gain of 0.14. Tables 6-8 and Figures 4-6 are graphical
representations of these scores. In summary, there was a steady increase for African American
students in the success- and proficiency average scores in CST ELA from 2003 to 2012.
Answer to Research Question 4
How do ELLs compare to African American (AA) and White (W) students in academic
achievement in English Language Arts over the last ten years? In other words, has the gap
between the ELLs and White and Black student populations increased, decreased, or remained
the same in LAUSD?
As evidenced by Tables 3-8 and Figures 1-6, every year, from 2003 to 2012, the success
average scores and the proficiency average scores for ELLs in CST ELA from grades 2-11 has
steadily increased. This has also been the case for Whites and African Americans. For grades
2-5, the success average scores in 2003 were: ELLs - 0.56; AA – 0.57; and W – 0.85. In 2012,
the scores demonstrated increases for each group: ELLs – 0.76; AA – 0.77; and W – 0.94. The
achievement gap in success average scores in CST ELA in 2003 between ELLs and Whites is
0.29 and it is 0.28 between African Americans and Whites. In 2012, the gap between ELLs and
Whites is 0.18 and 0.17 between African Americans and Whites. As such, the success average
scores among ELLs, African Americans, and Whites from 2003 to 2012 demonstrate a slight
narrowing of the gap. For grades 2-5, the proficiency average scores in 2003 were: ELLs - 0.19;
AA – 0.23; W – 0.59. The scores in 2012 resulted in a growth for all three groups: ELLs – 0.44;
AA – 0.48; and W – 0.80. The achievement gap in proficiency average scores in CST ELA in
2003 between ELLs and Whites is 0.40 and 0.36 between African Americans and Whites. The
achievement gap between ELLs and Whites in 2012 is 0.36 and 0.32 between African Americans
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 71
and Whites. The achievement gap for ELLs in the proficiency averaged scores at the elementary
school level has narrowed slightly more as compared to that of success averaged scores.
For grades 6-8, the success average scores in 2003 were: ELLs - 0.45; AA – 0.47; and W
– 0.80. In 2012, the scores demonstrated increases for each group: ELLs – 0.72; AA – 0.72; and
W – 0.92. The achievement gap in success average scores in CST ELA in 2003 between ELLs
and Whites is 0.35 and 0.33 between African Americans and Whites. In 2012, the gap between
ELLs and Whites is 0.20 and 0.20 between African Americans and Whites. Thus, at the middle
school level, the success average scores among ELLs, African Americans, and Whites also
demonstrate a slight narrowing of the gap. For grades 6-8, the proficiency average scores in
2003 were: ELLs - 0.12; AA – 0.15; W – 0.50. The scores in 2012 resulted in a growth for all
three groups: ELLs – 0.37; AA – 0.43; and W – 0.77. The achievement gap in proficiency
average scores in CST ELA in 2003 between ELLs and Whites is 0.38 and 0.35 between African
Americans and Whites. The achievement gap between ELLs and Whites in 2012 is 0.40 and
0.34 between African Americans and Whites. The achievement gap for ELLs in the proficiency
averaged scores at the middle school level has narrowed slightly more as compared to that of
success averaged scores.
For grades 9-11, the success average scores in 2003 were: ELLs - 0.19; AA – 0.40; and
W – 0.71. In 2012, the scores demonstrated increases for each group: ELLs – 0.57; AA – 0.55;
and W – 0.81. The achievement gap in success average scores in CST ELA in 2003 between
ELLs and Whites is 0.52 and 0.31 between African Americans and Whites. In 2012, the gap
between ELLs and Whites is 0.24 and the 0.26 between African Americans and Whites.
Therefore, at the high school level, the success average scores among ELLs, African Americans,
and Whites do not demonstrate any narrowing of the gap. The proficiency average scores for
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 72
grades 9-11 in 2003 were: ELLs - 0.15; AA – 0.20; W – 0.54. The scores in 2012 resulted in a
growth for all three groups: ELLs – 0.34; AA – 0.34; and W – 0.67. The achievement gap in
proficiency average scores in CST ELA in 2003 between ELLs and Whites are 0.39 and 0.34
between African Americans and Whites. The achievement gap between ELLs and Whites in
2012 and between African Americans and Whites is 0.33. The proficiency averaged scores for
ELLs does not demonstrate any narrowing of the gap as compared to that of success averaged
scores.
In summary, even though there has been positive growth in the academic achievement in
ELA for the ELLs over the span of ten years, the success- and proficiency-averaged scores are
still significantly lower than that of Whites and, in most cases, slightly lower with African
Americans. Despite the steady increases in the averaged scores in CST ELA for all three
ethnicities, the academic achievement gap is far from being closed.
Table 3
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 2-5
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.56 0.57 0.85
2004 0.53 0.55 0.84
2005 0.55 0.59 0.86
2006 0.59 0.62 0.88
2007 0.61 0.64 0.89
2008 0.65 0.69 0.90
2009 0.67 0.69 0.91
2010 0.70 0.73 0.92
2012 0.76 0.77 0.94

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 73
Table 4
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 6-8
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.45 0.47 0.80
2004 0.52 0.50 0.81
2005 0.54 0.52 0.83
2006 0.55 0.53 0.84
2007 0.55 0.53 0.84
2008 0.61 0.59 0.86
2009 0.62 0.59 0.88
2010 0.64 0.62 0.90
2012 0.72 0.72 0.92

Table 5
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 9-11
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.39 0.40 0.71
2004 0.39 0.37 0.69
2005 0.40 0.38 0.70
2006 0.38 0.37 0.70
2007 0.42 0.40 0.71
2008 0.44 0.45 0.72
2009 0.47 0.45 0.75
2010 0.52 0.50 0.77
2012 0.57 0.55 0.81

Figure 1: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 2-5
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
ELL Success Average
AA Success Average
W Success Average
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 74

Figure 2: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 6-8

Figure 3: 2003-2012 CST ELA Success Average Scores, Grades 9-12

0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
ELL Success Average
AA Success Average
W Success Average
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
ELL Success Average
AA Success Average
W Success Average
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 75
Table 6
2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 2-5

Table 7
2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 6-8

Year ELL AA W
2003 0.19 0.23 0.59
2004 0.18 0.23 0.59
2005 0.21 0.27 0.64
2006 0.24 0.31 0.67
2007 0.26 0.32 0.68
2008 0.28 0.39 0.69
2009 0.33 0.39 0.74
2010 0.36 0.42 0.75
2012 0.44 0.48 0.80
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.12 0.15 0.50
2004 0.15 0.17 0.52
2005 0.19 0.19 0.56
2006 0.20 0.21 0.59
2007 0.21 0.22 0.60
2008 0.26 0.29 0.65
2009 0.28 0.29 0.68
2010 0.29 0.32 0.71
2012 0.59 0.36 0.74
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 76
Table 8
2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 9-11
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.39 0.40 0.71
2004 0.39 0.37 0.69
2005 0.40 0.38 0.70
2006 0.38 0.37 0.70
2007 0.42 0.40 0.71
2008 0.44 0.45 0.72
2009 0.47 0.45 0.75
2010 0.52 0.50 0.77
2012 0.57 0.55 0.81

Figure 4: 2003-2012 CST EA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 2-5

Figure 5: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 6-8

0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
ELL Proficiency Average
AA Proficiency Average
W Proficiency Average
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
ELL Proficiency Average
AA Proficiency Average
W Proficiency Average
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 77

Figure 6: 2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Average Scores, Grades 9-11

0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
ELL Proficiency Average
AA Proficiency Average
W Proficiency Average
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 78
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Summary
This chapter summarizes the research and its results, discusses the conclusions,
limitations, and makes recommendations for future research. The purpose of this study was to
examine the longitudinal changes under NCLB for ELLs in English Language Arts (ELA) from
K-12 schools within Los Angeles Unified School District. This quantitative study compared the
proficiency and success averages of the ELLs to that of White and African American students
from gain insight on the common public opinion that the academic achievement gap has widened
under No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), specifically for English Language Learners (ELLs).
Nationwide, the challenge that has been facing the urban public schools is the ever-
enduring academic achievement gap between ELLs and Whites, as is evident in the test scores,
dropout rates, college graduates, and labor force. Latino ELLs are the second largest student
population in U.S. schools. The academic achievement for Latino ELLs, however, has not been
keeping up with the increasing population (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). Out of the total Hispanic
population in the U.S., 27% reside in Los Angeles County, California, 97% of who are in East
Los Angeles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The common public belief in California is that ELLs
are scoring low in ELA and Math in California Standards Tests (CST) as compared to that of
Whites and African Americans (CDE, 2008). According to recent National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) results, only 11 percent of Latino eighth-graders scored at or
above proficient in math as compared to that of 36 percent of White eighth-graders. The high
school dropout rate for Latino students is 20% as compared to that of Whites (8%) and African
Americans (12%) (Fry, 2003). Compared to White or Asian peers, the chances of being
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 79
employed at any educational level for a professional occupation (such as doctors and engineers)
are very small (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
To close the achievement gap, schools have to follow federal and state mandates that
have structured guidelines. Nationwide, NCLB took effect from kindergarten through high
school in 2002. The goal of NCLB was the improvement in achievement for all public school
students, including students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, students from major ethnic
and racial groups, students with disabilities, and ELLs. NCLB was based on four pillars: (a)
stronger accountability for results, (b) more choices for parents of children from disadvantaged
backgrounds, (c) greater local control and flexibility for states and school districts in the use of
federal funds, and (d) emphasis on research-based teaching methods that have been proven to
work (ED.gov, 2004). NCLB had established grants to improve instruction in reading and
English language acquisition and required states to ensure that all students were taught research-
based curriculum by highly qualified teachers.
This study’s research design was to examine the longitudinal performance of ELLs in
ELA from 2003 through 2012 in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The study used
the following research questions to measure the academic progress in ELA for ELLs as
compared to that of Whites and African Americans:
1. What are the longitudinal changes in ELL students’ academic achievement in English
Language Arts in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
2. What are the longitudinal changes in White students’ academic achievement in
English Language Arts in LAUSD?
3. What are the longitudinal changes in African American students’ academic
achievement in English Language Arts in LAUSD?
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 80
4. How do ELLs compare to White and Black students in academic achievement in
English Language Arts over the last ten years? In other words, has the gap between
the ELLs and White and Black student populations increased, decreased, or remained
the same in LAUSD?
The study obtained online data (DataQuest) from California Department of Education
(CDE) and LAUSD for ELA, covering a span of nine years from 2003 to 2012 (2011 was
excluded because of changes in the district’s testing policies for that year only). The scores
examined were from Grades 2-11 for ELLs, African Americans, and Whites. This longitudinal
data was averaged to calculate the average-success and average-proficient scores for grades 2-5,
6-8, and 9-11 for all three ethnicities for each year by using EXCEL. The data were used to
determine any trend, growth, and achievement gap for the three groups of students.
There were four major findings in this study: (a) the data reveal that the three groups of
students (ELLs, African Americans, and Whites) at all grade levels were making progress in
ELA over the span of nine years (2003-2012); (b) the percentage average for success and
proficient rates for ELLs and African Americans in ELA are still very low compared to that of
Whites; (c) the differences in academic achievement for ELLs and African Americans compared
to that of Whites are still significant; and (d) the academic achievement gap between ELLs and
African Americans against Whites showed a slight decrease at the elementary school level but
not at middle school or high school levels.
Conclusions
The research results of this study change the understanding of the common public
opinion that the academic achievement gap has widened under No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), specifically for English Language Learners (ELLs). The results from this study
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 81
demonstrate that the gap has been closing at the elementary school level in ELA. Even though
the other grade levels are not showing the gap closure, they also do not demonstrate a widening
of the gap either. The implications of these results in practice are that accountability and the
implementation of evidence-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment have gone a long way
to bring equity in education for all students. Continuing with this kind of practice may keep the
trend of increasing scores and hopefully, close the achievement gap. These results may be of
interest to policymakers, educational professionals, parents, and students. They should pay
attention to these results so that they can learn from any shortcomings NCLB policies may have
had and enhance the many positive aspects of NCLB.
Academic Achievement
The results for Research Questions #1 through #3 (What are the longitudinal changes in
ELL/White/African American students’ academic achievement in English Language Arts in
LAUSD?) indicate that ELLs, African Americans, and Whites are progressing at all grade levels
with uniform improvement in ELA from 2003 to 2012. ELLs, specifically, have demonstrated
gains CST ELA. The percentage growth in proficiency rates in CST ELA for ELLs has more
than doubled from 2003 to 2012, as is presented in Table 9.
The gains resulting from this study suggest that NCLB’s accountability provisions have
been successful. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data are reported as
the Nation’s Report Card. The assessments are given in reading, math, science, and writing to
4
th
and 8
th
graders. According to the Nation’s Report Card (2005), NCLB’s accountability
system was working because schools and parents received information, assistance, and benefits
to focus attention and resources to students who needed them most. It also reported that 4
th

grade Hispanics and African Americans made significant gains in Reading and Math, slightly
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 82
narrowing the achievement gap, as is evidenced in this study for ELA. The narrowing of
achievement gap for low-income students was also confirmed by the Nation’s Report Card Trial
Urban District Assessment for Science (2006). California, similar to LAUSD, showed that the
average student achievement has increased dramatically over the recent years because of
standards-based education and accountability (Betts & Dannenberg, 2001; Hanushek &
Raymond, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011).
The Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2009) conducted a study to answer two questions
similar to this study. One of the questions was: (a) since NCLB, has student achievement in
reading and math increased? Their findings were that there were large gains in both reading and
math from elementary school level to high school level in percentage proficient and effect size
measures.
Carnoy and Loeb (2002) found in their research based on NAEP data, of how stronger
NCLB accountability affected the improvement of student outcomes. They found that states that
had stronger accountability (a) made significant gains in NAEP math scores for 4
th
and 8
th
grade
math; (b) retained more 9
th
graders in all ethnic groups, particularly Hispanics and African
Americans; (c) increased the graduation rates for high schools especially when high school exit
exams were put in place. This research confirms the findings this study.
Overall, the positive achievement effects of accountability through NCLB are evident in
math and reading scores, as have been measured by research based on NAEP results.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 83
Table 9
2003-2012 CST ELA Proficiency Rates for ELLs, Grades 2-11
Grade 2003 2012 % Growth
2 0.21 0.46 1.19
3 0.16 0.31 0.94
4 0.20 0.53 1.65
5 0.18 0.44 1.44
6 0.12 0.35 1.83
7 0.14 0.38 1.71
8 0.11 0.37 2.36
9 0.14 0.33 1.36
10 0.15 0.33 1.20
11 0.16 0.35 1.19

Academic Achievement Scores
Data analyses of the CST ELA demonstrate that, even though there have been growth at
all grade levels for all three groups of students, the scores are still significantly low for ELLs.
With the exception of grades 4 and 5 (with success rate scores over 0.80. in 2012), the other
grade levels have scored below 0.80. The proficient rate scores for ELLs from grades 2-11 are
below 0.55. This presents a major cause of concern regarding the academic achievement of
ELLs. Despite all the NCLB provisions for accountability, evidence-based instruction and
curriculum, and assessments over a span of twelve years, ELLs are still not performing well in
ELA on standardized tests.
Some contributing factors for the low academic achievement scores for ELLs may be
access to high quality education, highly qualified teachers, funding, instructional materials, and
technology resources for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Lachat, 2004;
Darling-Hammond, 2010). Another major challenge for ELLs has been the development of
language skills in schools. The three models of bilingual education (early-exit and late-exit
bilingual education and structured English immersion) in public schools have been surrounded
by controversies. The majority of public schools are still basing their instruction on the
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 84
common belief that ELLs need to be exposed to intensive English in order to excel in it
(Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramsey, 1991). Since the language development support is minimal and
weak in most schools, the ELLs have a harder time transitioning into mainstream English and
thus, fail to achieve in ELA.
Differences in Academic Achievement for Student Groups
The difference in academic achievement for ELLs, Whites, and African Americans are
still huge. As can be seen in Figures 1-6, ELLs at all grade levels have demonstrated some
growth in ELA. However, the growth is not rapid enough to close the gap. Thus, the resulting
scores for ELLs are still parallel to that of Whites.
Academic Achievement Gap
The results from this study confirm that, even though there have been increases in
achievement in ELA at all levels and with all the ethnicities, there have not been significant
gains to close the achievement gap. The evidence presented in this study demonstrates that the
academic achievement gap for ELLs is closing for the success average scores in grades 2-5 only.
Even though the scores for both success average and proficiency average are showing gains at
other grade levels, the gap is still wide.
The findings from this study support the extant theoretical positions presented in this
study. Even though school accountability on performance increased student achievement,
especially for Hispanics, it was not sufficient enough to close the achievement gap (as measured
by NAEP) (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; CEP, 2009). NCLB has fallen short on its promise to
reach 100% proficiency goal by 2014 (Dee & Jacob, 2011). Even though LAUSD is adding
more dual language programs in its schools, the majority of the schools still implement
structured English immersion for ELLs. Research indicates that as ELLs master the reading
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 85
skills in their native languages, they succeed in their reading skills in English (Cummins, 1992;
Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramsey, 1991; and Collier & Thomas, 2004). There
has been evidence that the late-exit bilingual education model, specifically the two-way 90:10
model, has proven to be the only model where ELLs surpassed their native English peers and the
achievement gap was closed (Thomas & Collier, 2004).
In summary, additional reasons why this study showed uniform gains in the academic
achievement could be because of the best practices that have been fostered by LAUSD, including
implementing Marzano’s twelve key factors that have been shown by research data to have
positive impact on student achievement. These factors were outcomes of synthesized research
data (spanning over the past 35 years) that have been proven to increase student achievement.
The three categories of these factors are: school-level factors, teacher-level factors, and student-
level factors (Marzano, 2003). School-level factors are: A guaranteed and Viable Curriculum;
Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback; Parent and Community Involvement; Safe and
Orderly Environment; and Collegiality and Professionalism. Teacher-level factors include:
Instructional Strategies; Classroom Management; and Classroom Curriculum Design. Student-
level factors are: Home Environment; Learned Intelligence and Background Knowledge; and
Student Motivation. The final factor is Leadership, which Marzano considers to be critical in the
role of guiding a school community in the examination of the unique qualities, strengths, and
needs of its students, staff, and community.
LAUSD, in addition to the NCLB requirements, has actively implemented a majority of
Marzano’s twelve key factors. These include involving parents and community through
informational and decision-making meetings; ensuring school safety, implementing evidence-
based curriculum, instruction, and assessments; mandating professional developments that
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 86
increase the knowledge and practice of effective instructional strategies; classroom management;
classroom curriculum design; and taking in account the students’ home environment and
background.
Limitations
In this study, the statistical inferences may have limited generalizations from the
population and setting studied to other populations and settings. There is a uniqueness in the
population and the setting of Southern California from that of any other locations, particularly
Los Angeles Unified School District. Its uniqueness is contributed by various factors such as the
countries of origin of ELLs, percentages of the ethnicities being tested at any given year, the
policies of the school district, teacher characteristics, curriculum, and assessments.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on data from CST ELA from 2003-2012 when NCLB policies were in
force. Since then, the state of California has adopted the Common Core standards.
Accountability is still a great part of the educational system in California. The federal and state
funding has been reduced. However, the curriculum, standards, and assessments are still as
rigorous, if not more. Apart from the accountability, standards-based curriculum, instruction,
and assessments, there are some issues that glaringly stand out in the educating of ELLs; that is,
instruction and testing for ELLs are still prevalent in English, despite research on dual language
and best practices.
The recommendations stemming from this study would be to implement 90:10 models of
dual language in all public schools. It is a model that has been proven to be effective in closing
the achievement gap. This is an all-inclusive model where students from all ethnicities can
participate while learning two languages. Parents and teachers are actively involved to ensure
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 87
that the students have access to highly qualified teachers, resources such as technology,
textbooks, and other educational materials, and funding. Additionally, sustaining and enhancing
the accountability system already in place would ensure that the needs of all students are met.
A recommendation for future research would be to do a comparative study between U.S.
schools and European or international schools that have similar issues regarding achievement
gap between ethnicities. Another recommendation would be to research if the cause of the
increase or decrease in the achievement gap is due to instruction, curriculum, or assessments.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 88
References
Betts, J., & Dannenberg, A. (2001). School accountability in California: An early evaluation, in
Diane Ravitch (ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2002, Washington, D.C:
Brookings Institution, 2003, pp. 123-184.
Brown Et al. vs. Board of Education of Topeka Et al. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Current labor statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mir/2007/03/cls0703.pdf.
California Department of Education. (2007). Parent guide to California’s apr system.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/parentguide07.pdf.
California Department of Education. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2009). 2009 star post-test guide. Retrieved from
http://www.startest.org/archive.html#2009
California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English learners:
Research-based approaches, ed. Faye Ong. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education (CDE) Press.
California Department of Education. (2011). STAR/CST 2011 Technical Report – Testing (CA
Dept. of Education). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov
/TA/tg/sr/documents/csttechrpt2011.pdf#search=Validity%20of%
California Department of Education. (2013). About star: Program background – star test
results. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/star2013/aboutSTAR_program.aspx
Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost, M., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J., (2004). The health and well-
being of immigrants. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311139_ChildrenImmigrants.pdf
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 89
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-
state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
Center on Education Policy (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student
achievement increased since no child left behind? Retrieved February 22
nd
, 2014, from
http:// www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=CEP_Report...pdf
Center of Immigration Studies (2012). Immigrants in the United States, 2010: A profile of
america’s foreign-born population. Retrieved February 17
th
, 2014, from
http://www.cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
ed). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for
all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20. Retrieved February 22
nd
, 2014,
from http://www. njrp.tamu.edu/2004/PDFs/Collier.pdf
Conrad, Joan.1994. A Discussion of the Concept of Quality in Relation to Educational Planning
Coulson, A. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick:
TransactionPublishers.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches
(3
rd
ed). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramirez report in
theoretical perspective. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National
Association for Bilingual Education, 16(1), 91-104.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 90
Dee, T., & Jacob, B., (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001. (No Child Behind Act). Public Law, 107-
110. U.S. Statutes at large.
ED.gov. (2004). Four pillars of nclb. Retrieved September 26
th
, 2012, from http://www2.
ed.gov/print/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S., (2011). School accountability. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L.
Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education. [Vol. 3, pp. 383-
421].North-Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Fry, R. (2003, March). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the
challenge.Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Ginorio, A. & Huston, M. (2001). Si, se puede! Yes we can: Latinas in school. The American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation: Washington, DC. From:
www.aauw.org/2000/latina.html
Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., Robyn, A., & Bugliari, D. (2003). Studying
large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1-29.
Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., Marsh, J., McCombs, J., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Naftel, S., & Barney,
H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of
teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 91
Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student
performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24 (2), 297-327.
Hernandez, D. (1999). Children of immigrants: Health, adjustment and public assistance.
Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
Hickok, E. & Ladner, M. (2007). Reauthorization of no child left behind: Federal management
or citizen ownership of k-12 education? Backgrounder, 2047. Washington, D.C: The
Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/31/94.pdf.
H.R. 6--103
rd
Congress: Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. (1993). In
www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved September 13, 2013, from
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hrs6
Jorgenson, M. & Hoffmann, J. (2003). History of the no child behind act of 2001 (nclb).
Pearson Assessment Report. Retrieved from
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/D8E33AAE-BDF4
Kohler, A. & Lazarin, M. (2007). Hispanic education in the united states. Statistical Brief, 8, 1-
15. National Council of La Raza, Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from: http://www.
nclr.org/content/publications/download/43582
Lachat, M. (2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for English language learners.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lau et al. v. Nichols et al. 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Lauer, P., Snow, D., Martin-Glen, M., Van Buhler, R., Stoutemyer, K., & Snow-Renner, R.
(2005). The influence of standards on K-12 teaching and student learning: A research
synthesis. Regional Educational Laboratory.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 92
Lazarin, M. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for English language learners
inthe no child left behind act. Statistical Brief, 16, 1-28. National Council of La Raza,
Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from: http://www.research.policyarchive.org/20250.pdf
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.
Marsh, H. & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod
analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 107-117.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in the education of
hispanics. Retrieved June, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003008.pdf
Nationl Center for Educational Statistics (2004). The condition of education, 2004. Retrieved
June 16, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card: Trial urban district
assessment science 2005. Retrieved August, 22, 2012 from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2005/2007453.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Public school graduates and dropouts from the
common core of data: School year 2009-10. Retrieved September 10, 2013, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013309/index.asp
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 93
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White
students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national
assessment of educational progress. Statistical Analysis Report. Retrieved February
22
nd
, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The condition of education, 2013. Retrieved
September 10, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013037.pdf
Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized
Tests: Conflict or Coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law No. 107-110. 115 Stat.1425 (2002).
Plessy vs. Ferguson. 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Public Education Network. (2012). Making your voices heard: What does nclb reauthorization
mean? Retrieved from
http://www.publicedcation.org/nclb_main/Reauth_What_It_Means.asp.
Public Law 90-247, 1967
Ramirez, J., Yuen, S., & Ramsey, D. (1991). Final Report: Longitudinal study of structured
English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education
programs for language-minority children. (Executive Summary) (Prepared for U.S.
Department of Education). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.
Raudenbush, S. (2009). The brown legacy and the o’connor challenge: Transforming schools in
the images of children’s potential. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 169-180.
Rose, L. & Gallup, A. (2002). The 34
th
annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s
attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 41-56.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 94
Scott, D. (2012, January 6). New nclb reauthorization bills introduced in U.S. house. Governing
the states and localities. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/news/federal/gov-
house-passes-nclb-reauthorization.html
Slavin, R. & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A
best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research
on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
Smith III, M., Turner, J., and Lattanzio, S. (2012, November 8). Public schools: Glass half full
or half empty? Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/10/10/07smith_ep.h32.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Region and country of origin. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/sttab/cats/population/naative_and_foreign-born_pop
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). The Hispanic population in the united states: March 2002.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-545.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Hispanics in the united states. Retrieved from
http:www.census.gov/poplualtion/Hispanic/files/hispanic2006/Internet_Hispanic_in_US.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The Hispanics Population: 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/appenda.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1983c, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Open letter to the american people. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 95
U.S. Department of Education. (1983d, April). Findings. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (1983e, April). Recommendations. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatatRisk/recomm.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (1983x, September). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.gov/legislation/ESEA/Guidance/pt1.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (1996a, September). Background and brief history of the ESEA.
Retrieved from http://www.gov/legislation/ESEA/Guidance/pt1.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (1996b, September). Improving teaching and learning with
ESEA resources. From http://www.gov/legislation/ESEA/Guidance/pt2.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003a). No child left behind: A parents guide. Washington,
D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003b). Preliminary overview of programs and changes
included in the no child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved from:
http://www.ed/gov/nclb/overview/intro/progsim/sum_pg2.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Archived information: I. Using federal resources to
support reform. Retrieved from: http://www.gov/legislation/ESEA/Guidance/pt1.html.

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 96
Appendix A
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 2
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.56 0.59 0.86
2004 0.51 0.57 0.83
2005 0.54 0.60 0.87
2006 0.58 0.67 0.89
2007 0.60 0.66 0.89
2008 0.67 0.72 0.90
2009 0.71 0.72 0.92
2010 0.72 0.72 0.92
2012 0.75 0.74 0.91

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 97
Appendix B
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 3
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.47 0.49 0.82
2004 0..43 0.47 0.81
2005 0.44 0.52 0.81
2006 0.52 0.57 0.86
2007 0.51 0.59 0.86
2008 0.54 0.60 0.86
2009 0.55 0.60 0.87
2010 0.61 0.66 0.88
2012 0.66 0.70 0.92

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 98
Appendix C
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 4
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.62 0.61 0.86
2004 0.60 0.58 0.86
2005 0.63 0.64 0.90
2006 0.64 0.66 0.89
2007 0.69 0.68 0.92
2008 0.71 0.74 0.92
2009 0.74 0.74 0.93
2010 0.75 0.76 0.95
2012 0.85 0.83 0.97

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 99
Appendix D
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 5
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.58 0.59 0.86
2004 0.58 0.58 0.86
2005 0.62 0.60 0.86
2006 0.61 0.59 0.87
2007 0.64 0.63 0.88
2008 0.68 0.70 0.90
2009 0.68 0.70 0.91
2010 0.73 0.76 0.93
2012 0.80 0.80 0.96

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 100
Appendix E
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 6
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.46 0.50 0.81
2004 0.55 0.52 0.82
2005 0.52 0.50 0.83
2006 0.53 0.51 0.85
2007 0.52 0.51 0.83
2008 0.62 0.59 0.88
2009 0.64 0.59 0.90
2010 0.65 0.64 0.90
2012 0.72 0.73 0.93

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 101
Appendix F
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 7
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.47 0.47 0.80
2004 0.53 0.50 0.82
2005 0.57 0.55 0.84
2006 0.55 0.52 0.84
2007 0.57 0.54 0.85
2008 0.60 0.61 0.85
2009 0.65 0.61 0.85
2010 0.63 0.63 0.90
2012 0.71 0.73 0.92

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 102
Appendix G
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 8
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.43 0.44 0.79
2004 0.50 0.48 0.80
2005 0.52 0.51 0.83
2006 0.58 0.55 0.84
2007 0.55 0.53 0.84
2008 0.60 0.57 0.85
2009 0.58 0.57 0.86
2010 0.63 0.60 0.89
2012 0.71 0.70 0.92

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 103
Appendix H
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 9
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.15 0.20 0.53
2004 0.14 0.17 0.52
2005 0.20 0.21 0.57
2006 0.19 0.22 0.57
2007 0.26 0.26 0.60
2008 0.26 0.28 0.61
2009 0.28 0.28 0.65
2010 0.31 0.33 0.67
2012 0.33 0.34 0.70

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 104
Appendix I
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 10
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.50 0.49 0080
2004 0.51 0.49 0.80
2005 0.49 0.48 0.78
2006 0.47 0.48 0.77
2007 0.49 0.48 0.75
2008 0.55 0.57 0.80
2009 0.60 0.57 0.82
2010 0.64 0.59 0.84
2012 0.67 0.65 0.86

PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 105
Appendix J
2003-2012 CST ELA Success Rate, Grade 11
Year ELL AA W
2003 0.51 0.50 0.79
2004 0.51 0.45 0.76
2005 0.50 0.45 0.76
2006 0.46 0.42 0.75
2007 0.51 0.47 0.77
2008 0.51 0.51 0.76
2009 0.54 0.51 0.78
2010 0.60 0.57 0.80
2012 0.70 0.65 0.86

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite NCLB, the common public opinion is that the achievement gap has widened, especially for English Language Learners (ELLS). As such, it is important to raise awareness of NCLB and its reauthorization at all levels. The purpose of this study was to examine the longitudinal changes in achievement for ELLs in English Language Arts (ELA) from K-12 schools within Los Angeles Unified School (LAUSD) from 2003 to 2012. The four research questions focused on the academic achievement in ELA in LAUSD for ELL, White, and African American students and compared the academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) to White and African American students in ELA. The literature review examined the history and evolution of the NCLB, the evaluation of NCLB, the challenges of English Language Learners (ELLs), specifically Latinos, from grades 2-11, and the achievement gap in urban public schools. This quantitative study was designed to assess the longitudinal changes in school performances and ELLs’ academic progress and achievement in ELA as compared to that of African American and White students. The participants for this study are ELL, White, and African American students from 2nd grade to 11th grade from LAUSD in Southern California. Despite the steady increases in the averaged scores in CST ELA for all three ethnicities, the academic achievement gap is far from being closed. The results from this study demonstrate that the gap has been closing at the elementary and middle school levels in ELA. A recommendation for future research would be to do a comparative study between U.S. schools and European or international schools that have similar issues regarding achievement gap between ethnicities. Another recommendation would be to research if the cause of the increase or decrease in the achievement gap is due to instruction, curriculum, or assessments.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Academic achievement among Hmong students in California: a quantitative and comparative analysis

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers

PDF

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

PDF

The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...

PDF

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

PDF

Educational factors at urban public school that contribute to variation in academic achievement: comparison of high and average achieving Chinese Americans

PDF

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

PDF

Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Closing the achievement gap in a high performing elementary school

PDF

Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study

PDF

The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students

PDF

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

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

Asset Metadata

Creator Payton, Chandra Wati (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/15/2014

Defense Date 06/20/2014

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

Tag achievement gap,ELA,ELLs,NCLB,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Shakhbagova, Julietta (committee member)

Creator Email chndrpytn@aol.com,chndrpytn@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-441424

Unique identifier UC11287152

Identifier etd-PaytonChan-2694.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-441424 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PaytonChan-2694.pdf

Dmrecord 441424

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Payton, Chandra Wati

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